Monday, November 26, 2012

An Injury to One is An Injury to All:

A Conference in Defense of Civil Liberties and to End Indefinite Detention


Featuring:


Glen Greenwald - Author and Guardian Columnist


Sahar F. Aziz - Civil Rights Legal Scholar


Shahid Buttar - Executive Director, Bill of Rights Defense Committee


Steve Downs - Executive Director, National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms


Nancy Murray - Director of Education, ACLU of Massachusetts


Ruth Wilson Glimore - Scholar, Activist and Prison Abolitionist


John Woodruff - International Representative of United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE)


Muneer Awad—NYC Council on American Islamic Relations and the NYPD/CIA Spying Campaign


And many others!



Saturday December 8, 2012

Semesters Hall, Student Center

Central Connecticut State University

New Britain, CT



Dear Friends,


Our movements and our communities are under assault. Rarely a week goes by without the passage of a new repressive law, grand jury subpoena, raid, sentencing, or court ruling targeting our movements. No minute goes by without new deportations, arrests, illegal frisks, frame-ups and prison sentences that divide and repress immigrant, African American, Latino, Muslim, Arab, South Asian and other communities targeted by our government. The repressive apparatus is strengthened daily. "Secure Communities" or S-Comm, which connects local police forces to federal immigration authorities, has been implemented in nearly every state and will be universal by 2013. The right of the president to detain anyone (including U.S. citizens) without trial has been codified into law, and is now being defended in the courts. The NSA's right to spy on our e-mails and phone-calls without even suspicion of wrong-doing was just approved once again by the House.


Deportations have grown to roughly 400,000 a year - between 1.5 and 2 times the rate during 2001-2008. 1 out of every 8 people in prison on planet earth is African American. (about one in four is American) In the last four years double the number of whistle-blowers have been prosecuted under the WWI Espionage act than in all previous years combined.


The last few months alone are stunning:

In April, 2012 Tarek Mehanna began serving a 17 and one half year sentence for writings he placed online and a trip to Yemen.

Between August and October, 2012 federal courts jailed three young Pacific Northwest anarchists for refusing to testify in grand-jury fishing operations. All three have spent significant time in solitary confinement. One of them - Leah Plante - was told she would be in solitary for her entire sentence of 18 months.

On August 28, 2012 Dr. Shakir Hamoodi, an Iraqi-American engineer who spoke out against the invasion of Iraq, began serving a three year sentence for sending money to his family in Iraq which they needed for food and medicine during the U.S. sanctions regime.

On Monday, October 29, 2012 the Supreme Court declined to hear the case of the Holy Land Five - five leaders of what had been the largest Muslim charitable organization in the U.S. - who are serving sentences ranging between 15 and 65 years for giving charity to Palestinians.

But on December 8th residents and activists from Connecticut and the region will meet in New Britain to learn about each others struggles and make connections necessary to mount a serious response to this many-sided offensive. December 8th can be a critical step in building a movement capable of defending our brothers and sisters when they are targeted for their speech, their political activity, race, religion, or nation of origin; that can prevent deportations; that can expose and challenge racial profiling and the mass-incarceration of generations; that can defend workers organizing in their work-places; that can overturn reactionary laws that restrict our basic civil freedoms.


We are now two weeks from the conference. This is an ideal time to get the word out far and wide. Please contact us if you can contribute financially or in any other way.


To endorse, contribute, help out, or for more information contact Dan at860-985-4576 or daniel.adam.piper@gmail.com


Send advanced registration fee, lit table fees or contributions to:

C/O of Dan Piper

103 Elizabeth street

Hartford, CT 06105


Make checks payable to: "CT Coalition to Stop Indefinite Detention"


For more information see:




Endorsing organizations (in formation):

Bill of Rights Defense Committee; National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms; Project SALAM; New England United; Committee to Stop FBI Repression; Islamic Circle of North America-New London CT; United National Anti-war Coalition; Connecticut Green Party; American Friends Service Committee, Western MA; United Action; National Lawyers Guild--CT; American Civil Liberties Union—CT; Muslim Student Association of CCSU; Stop the Raids, Trinity College; We Refuse to Be Enemies; Unidad Latina en Accion; West Hartford Citizens for Peace and Justice; CT United for Peace; Hartford Catholic Workers; Latin American Students Organization of CCSU; Connecticut Coalition for Peace and Justice-Hartford; Middle East Crisis Committee; Central Connecticut Chapter of Veterans for Peace; Occupy Hartford; Manchester Peace Coalition; Greater Hartford Coalition on Cuba; Bethlehem Neighbors for Peace; Greater New Haven Peace Council; Boston United for Justice with Peace; Reclaiming the Prophetic Voice.


Initiated by the Connecticut Coalition to Stop Indefinite Detention





__._,_.___

Stop the Drones - Report-Back from Pakistan Peace Delegation - MONDAY

Report Back from the October CodePink
Anti-Drone Peace Delegation to Pakistan

When: Monday, November 26, 2012, 7:30 pm
Where: MIT Room 32-141 • 32 Vassar St • Cambridge
Stop the DronesOn October 7 (the anniversary of the US attack on Afghanistan), a delegation of 31 US antiwar activists marched with tens of thousands of Pakistanis sickened by the civilian death toll and growth of rightwing reaction brought on by the US drone war in Waziristan. Hear first-hand reports and view slides from delegation members who just met with the families of drone victims, with intellectuals, political activists, and others in Islamabad, Lahore, and the tribal areas. We will also hear from Pakistanis on the impact of the US “War on Terror” and drone attacks on Pakistan.
Learn about the growing use of drones for military attacks and for domestic surveillance. Discuss what we can do to stop the use and proliferation of these deadly weapons.
Panelists:
  • Joe Lombardo, Co-Coordinator, United National Antiwar Coalition; member of the Troy Area Labor Council (New York); tour member
  • Paki Wieland, Arrested Hancock AFB drone resister; Engages in peacekeeper & nonviolence training and education; tour member
  • Lois Mastrangelo, United for Justice with Peace; CodePink of Greater Boston; tour member
  • Osman Khan, Radical economist pursuing his doctorate; just returned from six months in Pakistan researching the impact of drone attacks and war on the tribal peoples of western Pakistan
  • Waqas Mirza, Recent Political Science graduate University of Massachusetts Amherst; Writes and speaks about impact of “War on Terror” on Pakistan
Endorsed by United National Antiwar Coalition, United for Justice with Peace, Code Pink Greater Boston, Alliance for a Democratic and Secular South Asia, Muslim Peace Coalition, Veterans For Peace, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Massachusetts Global Action
Suggested donation $5.00. Proceeds to support anti-drone protests

Thanksgiving Week of Supermarket Action rings in the holiday season in style!
Actions across the country call on Publix, Kroger, and Ahold to get with the Fair Food Program -- now!
Perhaps more than ever before in the 12-year history of the campaign, Thanksgiving this year was a celebration of Fair Food, as consumers and workers joined in actions across the state of Florida and across the nation demanding food justice from the supermarket industry.
First, the stunning video and accompanying change.org e-petition, "A Tale of Two Thanksgivings," caught the attention of food movement leaders -- including bestselling author Michael Pollan and New York Times food writer Mark Bittman -- and countless consumers, who let Publix CEO Ed Crenshaw know it is time that his company "be part of a proven model to address the root cause of farmworker poverty across Florida, and demonstrate that it values the hard work of farmworkers who make possible the food we share this holiday." If you haven't seen the video or signed the petition yourself yet, you can still do so here.
Meanwhile, Fair Food committees from Lakeland, Florida, to Albuquerque, New Mexico, were busy taking the fight to their local supermarkets, with some creative and exciting protests as part of the Thanksgiving Week of Supermarket Action, and we have the pictures, video, and media reports to prove it!
For a beautiful photo report and media round-up, visit the CIW website!

Labor's Call to Action: The Grand Bargain Betrayal
21 Nov 2012
The labor movement is in terminal crisis. After decades of declining membership, the union movement has been targeted for destruction: private sector union membership is near eradication, and now the corporations are on a public-sector mopping up mission, using the city, state, and federal budget deficits as an excuse to target public sector unions. Obama’s Race to the Top education policy specifically targets the nation’s most powerful union workers, the teachers.
If that wasn’t enough, enter the “grand bargain” that Democrats and Republicans are attempting to broker, at the expense of hundreds of millions of people — cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, education and other social programs are being planned, and will very likely include Social Security cuts.

These aren’t hypothetical cuts, they are being haggled over right now behind closed doors in Washington DC. The New York Times explains the “framework” that is being agreed upon to execute the Grand Bargain cuts:

“The framework would have separate goals for raising revenues and cutting the two types of federal spending: so-called discretionary financing that Congress sets annually for most programs, domestic and military; and entitlement spending, chiefly for Medicare and Medicaid… it would define a framework for negotiating a long-term “grand bargain” in 2013 to shave annual deficits by perhaps $4 trillion over the first decade.

This “framework” resembles a scaffold on which to execute the U.S. social safety net.

In fact, Obama attempted to make a similar “grand bargain” with Republicans last year. Leaked documents were obtained by journalist Bob Woodward which show that Obama made a “grand bargain final offer” to Republicans — that they rejected — which included massive cuts in the trillions to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, education, and other social programs.

Obama has been on an anti-worker “grand bargain” path for over a year. He is not labor’s “friend,” but foe. This is the reality of the situation that threatens the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people.

But how is the labor movement specifically affected?

Union members depend upon Medicare and Social Security in the same way that non-union members do. An attack on entitlement programs is thus an attack on organized labor. The interests of union and non-union workers are linked by a thousand threads, regardless of the corporations’ attempts to divide the two.

There is no coincidence that the war against unions is happening at the same time as the war against social programs. The connection is that both are main targets of the corporations, since they both take money from the wealthy and re-distribute it to working and unemployed people. This is why the decline in labor unions has been proved to be directly related to the rise in inequality in the United States.

Most importantly, the “grand bargain” represents a tremendous challenge to organized labor to act as an independent social force: politicians are testing the ability of unions to intervene in this conflict like labor intervened in Wisconsin and Chicago.

If unions fail this test by inaction or half-hearted opposition, they will prove their inability to fight back against these attacks, and this weakness will invite further aggression by corporations and their pet politicians: Predators do not show mercy when their prey displays weakness.

How has labor reacted so far to the “grand bargain” threat? With mixed messages:

On paper, organized labor has remained tough against devastating “grand bargain” cuts to social services.

For example, on November 9th 146 national labor and community groups sent President Obama a letter stating their insistence that he not cut social programs and instead fix any deficit issue by taxing the rich and corporations, while focusing also on job creation via investment in infrastructure and education spending.

The President of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, has made several public statements about labor’s willingness to fight against “grand bargain” cuts. He stated correctly that the “fiscal cliff” was a creation of the politicians to attack social programs.

But his powerful words haven’t been followed by equally powerful actions. Although small demonstrations have already taken place, they have been mostly symbolic, and many were mild lobbying operations, politely requesting that politicians stop attacking them. No national demonstrations have been announced.

More disturbing is that, after labor leaders met with President Obama regarding the “grand bargain,” unions left the meeting “encouraged.” Richard Trumka said that it was a “very, very positive meeting”[?!].

It’s fine if labor leaders want to meet with President Obama. However, it’s unacceptable for them to be fooled by him and announce their gullibility to the country. Union members and the community need to be told the truth about the bi-partisan “grand bargain.”

This is not a crisis that can be solved with backroom deals, letters or petitions to the President, or lobbying congressmen.

If the 146 organizations that sent the “no cuts” letter to Obama also begin planning huge nationally coordinated protests, the public debate would instantly change. If European-style mass protests happened in the streets here, working people would have begun leveraging power in their favor.

The struggles in Wisconsin and the teachers’ strike in Chicago proved that labor has an inherent power that, if released on a national level, has the ability to stop the “grand bargain.”

If labor and community groups fail to act powerfully against the “grand bargain,” the corporations will be inspired to increase their attacks on working people; they will not be satisfied with an anti-worker “grand bargain,” but will be inspired to finish off the unions along with the social safety net and then proceed to expand the privatization of the public sector.

The “grand bargain” threat is a call to action for organized labor. But will unions respond? Or play deaf? Pretending that a war against working people is not happening will guarantee a massive defeat. Preparing for the defense of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and public education will require massive mobilizations in the streets while demanding that the corporations and the wealthy pay for the crisis they created.

Enough is enough! No cuts!

For more articles visit us at http://workerscompass.org
Video/Photos-43rd Native American Day of Mourning-Plymouth, Mass.
24 Nov 2012
About 300 activists attended the Native American Day of Mourning in Plymouth, Mass. on Thanksgiving Day 2012.
1A-11-22-12--43rd day of mourning 008resized_.jpg
Vdeo/Photos-43rd Native American Day of Mourning-Plymouth, Mass.
Plymouth, Mass.-Nov. 22, 2012;Thanksgiving Day:
About 300 activists attended the 43rd annual Native American Day of Mourning in Plymouth, Mass.Since 1970,Native people have protested the genocide and injustice against them
perpetrated by the Pilgrims and the European colonizers.The true history of the Thanksgiving holiday was kept out of most US history books, instead describing a sugar-coated version.
Only Native speakers were allowed the microphone as this is their day to speak for themselves. The protest started by a telling of the true history of Thanksgiving from the Native point of view; then a Mayan from central America told the
truth about the upcoming Dec. 21, 2012 Mayan prophecy from the standpoint of the Mayan elders; then political prisoner Leonard Peltier wrote a statement from prison that was read
aloud.
This reporter has been attending the Day of Mourning for the past 25 years, and the voices for justice get even stronger every year.
Here is a video I took of some of the speakers including the entire Mayan statement and the entire Leonard Peltier message from
federal prison, and then the
march through Plymouth:
http://youtu.be/vTXPiRQWJo8

And here are some more photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/protestphotos1/sets/72157632078776314/detai/

For more info:
www.UAINE.org

www.whoisLeonardPeltier.info

from a supporter of indigenous peoples and for Boston Indymedia,
Michael Borkson
Boston,Mass.
1A-11-22-12--43rd day of mourning 009resized_.jpg
Vdeo/Photos-43rd Native American Day of Mourning-Plymouth, Mass.
1A-11-22-12--43rd day of mourning 012.jpg
Vdeo/Photos-43rd Native American Day of Mourning-Plymouth, Mass.
1A-11-22-12--43rd day of mourning 003.jpg
Vdeo/Photos-43rd Native American Day of Mourning-Plymouth, Mass.
1A-11-22-12--43rd day of mourning 015resized_.jpg
Vdeo/Photos-43rd Native American Day of Mourning-Plymouth, Mass.
1A-11-22-12--43rd day of mourning 016resized_.jpg
Vdeo/Photos-43rd Native American Day of Mourning-Plymouth, Mass.
1A-11-22-12--43rd day of mourning 001resized_.jpg
Vdeo/Photos-43rd Native American Day of Mourning-Plymouth, Mass.
1A-11-22-12--43rd day of mourning.jpg
PrintE-mail
Sometimes decades pass and not much happens. At other times more events take place in days than those that occurred in decades. After the collapse of the Soviet Union twenty years ago we were relentlessly told the great political and economic questions had all been settled and that liberal democracy and free-market capitalism had triumphed. Socialism had been consigned to the dustbin of history. The strategists of capital were exultant. The “end of history” was proclaimed by Francis Fukuyama. alan-woods-on-the-russian-revolution-2The events on a single day on 15th September 2008 were a watershed. The collapse of Lehman Brothers glaringly exposed a voracious model of capitalism forced down the throats of the world as the only way to run a modern economy, at the cost of grotesque inequality, exploitation, wars and colonial occupations; it has now come down crashing. The baleful twins of neo-conservatism and neoliberalism had been tried and tested to destruction. The Arab revolutions in 2011 not only engrossed one country after another in the Middle East but gave rise to more convulsive events around the globe than in the preceding two decades.
The intensity and ferocity of these events was such that it sent shivers down the spines of the ruling elites across the world. Innumerable comparisons were drawn of these revolutions with the revolutions of the 19th and 20th century yet the single greatest event of the 20th century, the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 was conspicuously missing from the analysis and reports of the media. And this is neither an accident nor a coincidence. It was by design which reflects the fears that even the name of this revolution instil in the hearts of the ruling classes the world over. And this is in spite of the relentless din of the voracious chorus that ‘socialism’, Marxism’, ‘communism’ are dead.
Of all the parodies of popular representation in which history is so rich, Pakistan’s political elite is perhaps the most absurd. On the one hand they reverberate the cliché that ‘socialism is dead’, while at the same time mostly the right wing politicians are frighteningly warning about a bloody revolution. Awkwardly some present the French revolution as a solution to the crisis without even knowing which one. From 1789 till 1968 there were five bourgeois revolutions and two proletarian revolutions in France. The victorious Paris Commune of 1871 was the first revolution in history in which the working classes took power and held it for more than seventy days while the May 1968 upheaval in France was even larger in comparison to the Russian revolution of 1917 but was defeated by the betrayals of the leaders of the traditional workers parties in France. But such is the deafening silence on the Bolshevik Revolution as if it never even happened. If one dares to mention it the abrupt reply of the political overlords and their intellectual geniuses of today is “Oh! That failed in Russia.” The relative weight of slander in a political struggle in society still awaits its sociologist.
The Russian revolution of October 1917 changed the course of history. The American journalist and socialist who witnessed the events of the revolution at first hand wrote in his epic book, Ten days that shook the world, “No matter what one thinks of Bolshevism, it is an undeniable fact that the Russian revolution is one of the greatest events in human history, and the rule of the Bolsheviki is a phenomenon of worldwide importance.” According to the Russian orthodox calendar, the revolutionary insurrection and the capture of power by the Bolsheviks took place on the night of October 26, which falls on November 7 in the modern Christian calendar.
This revolutionary victory appropriated rulership from one oppressor class in a tiny minority and transferred it to the vast majority of the working classes in society. The process of the overthrow of the bourgeois state and capture of power by the leading party of the proletariat had a massive conscious involvement and participation of the vast majority of toilers. It is the only revolution hitherto that took place on classical Marxist lines. Lenin explained what real change this revolution ought to bring. He wrote in December 1917, “One of the most important tasks of today, is to develop [the] independent initiative of the workers, and of all the working and the exploited people generally, develop it as widely as possible in creative organisational work. At all costs we must break the old, absurd, savage, despicable and distinguishing prejudice that only the so-called upper classes, only the rich, and those who have gone through the school of the rich, are capable of administering the state and directing the organisational development of socialist society.”
The most distinguishing feature of the Bolshevik party was that they subordinated the subjective goal, the guarding of the interests of the toiling people, to the dynamics of the revolution as an objectively hardened course. The party’s strategy was based on the scientific discovery of the laws that govern mass movements and upheavals. The muzhiks (poor peasants) had not read Lenin, but Lenin knew how to read the minds of the muzhiks. The oppressed and exploited masses are guided in their struggle not only by their demands, their desires, their needs but above all the experiences of their lives. The Bolsheviks were never under any snobbish prejudice or held any patrician derision for the independent experience of the people in struggle. Conversely they took it as their starting point and built upon it. Where the reformists and the pseudo-revolutionaries moaned and groaned about the hardships, obstacles and difficulties, the Bolsheviks took them head on. Trotsky defines them in his epic work, History of the Russian Revolution: “The Bolsheviks were revolutionaries of deed and not gesture, of the essence and not the form. Their policy was determined by the real grouping of forces, and not by sympathies and antipathies...Bolshevism created the type of authentic revolutionist who subordinates to historic goals irreconcilable with contemporary society the conditions of his personal existence, his ideas, and his moral judgements. The necessary distance from bourgeois ideology was kept up in the party by a vigilant irreconcilability, whose inspirer was Lenin. Lenin never tired of working with his lancet, cutting off those bonds which a petty bourgeois environment creates between the party and official social opinion. At the same time Lenin taught the party to create its own social opinion, resting upon the thoughts and feelings of the rising class. Thus by a process of selection and education and in continual struggle, the Bolshevik party created not only a political but a moral medium of its own, independent of bourgeois social opinion and implacably opposed to it. Only this permitted the Bolsheviks to overcome the waverings in their own ranks and reveal in action the courageous determination without which the October victory would have been impossible.”
After the victorious insurrection, Lenin spoke to the All Russia Congress of the Soviets: “We shall now proceed to build, on the space cleared by historical rubbish, the airy, towering edifice of socialist society.” The revolution ushered in a new era of socioeconomic transformation. Landed estates, heavy industry, corporate monopolies and the commanding heights of the economy were expropriated by the nascent workers state. The dictatorship of the financial oligarchy was broken; the state had a monopoly on all foreign trade and commerce. Ministerial perks and privileges were abolished and the leaders of the revolution lived in most modest conditions. Victor Serge in his, Memoirs of a Revolutionary wrote: “In the Kremlin Lenin still occupied a small apartment built for a palace servant. In the recent winter he, like everyone else, had no heating. When he went to the barber’s he took his turn, thinking it unseemly for anyone else to give way to him.” Initially the new government was a coalition of the Bolsheviks, Left Social Revolutionaries and the Menshevik Internationalists. Only the fascist Black Hundreds were banned and even the Kadets, the bourgeois liberal party, was allowed to operate after the revolution. The new government was based on the most democratic system ever seen in history, the soviets, i.e. workers, soldiers and peasants councils at grassroots level that were devised to manage and democratically control the economy, agriculture, industry, army and society. The main guiding principles of this soviet system of governance were the following:
  1. Free democratic elections to all positions in the soviet state;
  2. Right of recall of all officials;
  3. No official to receive a higher wage than a skilled worker, and
  4. Gradually, all tasks of running society and the state to be performed by everyone in turn.
What this revolution really meant for the oppressed and exploited working classes of Russia was portrayed in an inspiring anecdote by John Reed: “Across the horizon spread the glittering lights of the Capital, immeasurably more splendid by the night than by the day, like a dike of jewels heaped on a barren plain. The old workman who drove the wheelbarrow held in one hand, while with the other he swept the pavement, looked at the far gleaming capital and exclaimed in an exulted gesture, ‘Mine!’ he cried, his face all alight. ‘All mine now! My Petrograd!”
If the revolutionary victory has to be explained from a scientific analysis, the Marxists also have a historical responsibility to give a scientific explanation of the degeneration and collapse of the Soviet Union. But Marxism is a science of perspective and it is a mediocrity of knowledge to analyse events after they have taken place. The Marxists had predicted the fall of the Soviet Union far in advance, starting with the leader of the revolution Vladimir Lenin, who from a Marxist standpoint had never ever envisaged the accomplishment of socialism in a single country. On March 7, 1918, Lenin weighed upon the situation, “Regarded from a world-historical point of view, there would be no hope of the ultimate victory of our revolution if it were to remain alone, if there were no revolutionary victories in other countries... our salvation from all these difficulties is an all-European revolution. At all events, under all conceivable circumstances, if the German revolution does not come, we are doomed.” Leon Trotsky wrote an epoch making book, The Revolution Betrayed in 1936 in which he scientifically predicted more than fifty years before the events took place that why and how the Soviet Union will collapse if the revolution in the advanced countries is not victorious and a political revolution of workers democracy doesn’t take place in the USSR. Ted Grant in his outstanding 1943 work, Marxist theory of the state, further elaborated and analysed this process. His perspectives, albeit in a negative sense, were vindicated by the events around the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
The Russian revolution of 1917 was not an isolated national event but had immense international repercussions. It not only overthrew capitalism and landlordism in Russia but also smashed the shackles of the imperialist stranglehold. This triggered revolutionary upheavals far beyond the frontiers of the USSR, particularly in Europe. The imperialist masters were terrified by these mass revolts that threatened capitalism in its citadels. The British Prime Minister Lloyd George wrote in a confidential memorandum to Clemenceau, his French counterpart at the 1919 Versailles Peace Conference: “The whole of Europe is filled with the spirit of revolution. There is a deep sense not only of discontent but of anger and revolt amongst the workmen against the present conditions. The whole existing order in its political, social and economic aspects is questioned by the masses of the population from one end of Europe to the other.” To crush the epicentre of the rising tide of the revolutionary upheavals they launched a massive attack on the nascent Soviet state with twenty one imperialist armies. Although the revolution itself was a relatively peaceful affair as only nine people died during the actual insurrection, the imperialist attack supporting the reactionary white armies brought drastic carnage, bloodshed, mayhem, starvation and destruction to a backward country already devastated by the first world war.
On the basis of extreme deprivation and pulverisation of the masses aggravated by the civil war and the blockade, the “struggle for individual existence”, in the words of Karl Marx, did not disappear or soften, but assumed in the subsequent period a ferocious character. The defeats of the revolutions in Germany (1918-19 and 1923), China (1924-25), Britain (1926) and several other countries were a fatal blow for the Bolshevik Revolution. They intensified its isolation and induced nationalist degeneration. The imperialist aggression was defeated by the combination of the heroic fight by the Red Army and the support of the proletariat and the soldiers of the imperialist countries and armies. Trotsky raised a revolutionary Red Army of five million from a war-torn Russian army of three hundred thousand. Innumerable Bolshevik cadres perished in this imperialist civil war. This created a vacuum in which the opportunist and the careerist elements penetrated the Soviet government. The shortages and dearth of commodities, the collapse of industry and agriculture due to the war brought a generalised misery that played an important role in the bureaucratic degeneration of the revolution.
Lenin struggled against this degeneration before his early death in 1924. Lenin’s last testament which criticised and called for a struggle against this bureaucratic deformation was concealed in the iron vaults of the Kremlin, and finally exposed in 1956 at the 20th Congress of the CPSU. But the hostile objective conditions, the exhaustion of the proletarian vanguard due to war and revolution created a situation where a bureaucratic regime began to emerge around Stalin in the Soviet government and the state. Trotsky created a left opposition and put up a valiant resistance against this degeneration but that was crushed because of the ebbing of the revolutionary tide. This led to the consolidation of a bureaucratic totalitarian apparatus with huge perks and privileges. The maximum wage differentials of 1:4 were abolished. This political reaction against the October revolution was so repressive that by 1940 there was only one survivor, apart from Stalin of the central committee of the Bolshevik Party that had led the revolution in 1917. All others were either exterminated, died, committed suicide, were incarcerated or exiled.
In spite of this Stalinist degeneration of the revolution, the economy remained a planned one. The bureaucracy was not a class that owned the means of production but was a caste or a clique which controlled and usurped the surplus. Inspite of these severe setbacks the economy of the USSR grew at a pace that capitalism never achieved anywhere. Ted Grant wrote in his brilliant work, Russia — From Revolution to Counter Revolution, “In the fifty years from 1913 (the height of pre-war production) to 1963, despite two world wars, foreign intervention and civil war, and other calamities total industrial output rose more than 52 times. The corresponding figure for the USA was less than six times, while Britain struggled to double its output. In other words Soviet Union was transformed from a backward agricultural economy into the second most powerful nation on earth, with a mighty industrial base, a high cultural level and more scientists than the USA and Japan combined. Life expectancy more than doubled and child mortality fell by nine times. Such economic advance, in such a short a time, has no parallel anywhere in the world.” The equality and full involvement of women was ensured in all spheres of social, economic and political life — the provision of free school meals, milk for children, pregnancy consultation centres, maternity homes, crèches and other facilities free of cost were provided by the workers state. The superiority of the planned economy was proved to the world not in the language of dialectics but in the language of unprecedented social and material advances.
However as the economy expanded rapidly it became more sophisticated, complex and advanced. An economy producing one million commodities cannot be run by the same methods as those for an economy producing 1,500 items. Trotsky had once said that, “For a planned economy, workers democracy is as essential as oxygen is for the human body.” By the late 1960s the economic growth had begun to falter. By 1978 it plummeted to zero percent. The dead weight of mismanagement, waste, corruption and bureaucracy weighed down heavily on the economy, eventually dragging it to a standstill. The isolation of the revolution, nationalist caricature of socialism and the lack of workers democratic control and management of the economy and society were the real reasons for the degeneration of the Russian revolution, not the so-called ‘failure of socialism’. What actually existed in the Soviet Union at the time of its collapse was not socialism or communism but its caricature, Stalinism.
Today with the crisis of capitalism on a world scale there have been massive upheavals against this harrowing system that has plunged the vast majority of mankind into the pit of misery, poverty and disease. It is a historically doomed system and can only cause more pain, agony and grief to the human race. Marx and Engels understood from the beginning that the crisis of the capitalist system is the crisis of overproduction or overcapacity. Even the most far-sighted bourgeois economists acknowledge this crisis and how it has brought the capitalist system into extreme crisis at the present time. The Economist bemoans in its analysis of the world economy, “Modern politics needs to undergo a similar reinvention — to come up with ways of mitigating inequality. Some of those at the top of the pile will remain sceptical that inequality is a problem in itself. But even they have an interest in mitigating it, for if it continues to rise, momentum for change will build and may lead to a political outcome that serves nobody’s interests”.
The mass revolts of a renewed class struggle arising around the world in the present epoch that is dawning are clearly rejecting capitalism. The most daunting problem for these movements is the determination of an alternative system. Most of the ex-socialists and ex-communists are in the forefront of condemning revolutionary socialism as a scientific alternative to resolve the crisis. They have capitulated to the reactionary theories of ‘end of history, etc’, i.e. capitalism. But the greater damage being done by these intellectuals is trying to ‘modernise’ Marxism by venomous revisionism. However the only road to the salvation of mankind still today is revolutionary Marxism. Ninety five years later, the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 is the only way forward for the accomplishment of this historic task. In 1917 it took about two weeks for the news of the Russian revolution to reach the leftwing activists in the Indian subcontinent. Now the masses can watch revolutions live on television. In more than nine hundred cities of the five continents there were mass demonstrations in support of the ‘Occupy Wall Street movement’. This is the internationalism that Marxism anticipated and strived for by creating the First International. At this juncture in human history if there is another October it would not and could not be confined to any national frontiers. A socialist revolution in any major country today shall redeem Lenin’s pledge that the whole world will develop into a USSR with a mighty revolutionary storm transcending the planet. Thus the process of the conquest of universe by the human race shall commence.
This article was originally published in the Pakistan Daily Times in three parts November 4-6.
History & Theory » Historical Analysis » Russian Revolution
Articles by Karl Marx in Die Presse 1862

[The Election Results in the Northern States]




Source: MECW Volume 19, p. 263;
Written: on November 18, 1862;
First published: in Die Presse, November 23, 1862.



The elections have in fact been a defeat for the Washington government. The old leaders of the Democratic Party have skilfully exploited the dissatisfaction over the financial clumsiness and military ineptitude, and there is no doubt that the State of New York, officially in the hands of the Seymours, Woods and Bennetts, can become the centre of dangerous intrigues. At the same time, the practical importance of this reaction should not be exaggerated. The existing Republican House of Representatives continues, and its recently elected successors will not replace it until December 1863. For the time being, therefore, the elections are nothing more than a demonstration, so far as the Congress in Washington is concerned. No gubernatorial elections have been held except in New York. The Republican Party thus retains the leadership in the individual states. The electoral victories of the Republicans in Massachusetts, Iowa, Illinois and Michigan more or less balance the losses in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana.

A closer analysis of the “Democratic” gains leads to an entirely different result than the one trumpeted by the English papers. New York City, strongly corrupted by Irish rabble, actively engaged in the slave trade until recently, the seat of the American money market and full of holders of mortgages on Southern plantations, has always been decidedly “Democratic”, just as Liverpool is still Tory. The rural districts of New York State voted Republican this time, as they have since 1856, but not with the same fiery enthusiasm as in 1860. Moreover, a large part of their men entitled to vote is in the field. Reckoning the urban and rural districts together, the Democratic majority in New York State comes to only 8,000-10,000 votes.

In Pennsylvania, which has long wavered, first between Whigs... and Democrats, and later between Democrats and Republicans, the Democratic majority was only 3,500 votes. In Indiana it is still smaller, and in Ohio, where it numbers 8,000, the Democratic leaders known to sympathise with the South, such as the notorious Vallandigham, have lost their seats in Congress. The Irishman sees the Negro as a dangerous competitor. The efficient farmers in Indiana and Ohio hate the Negro almost as much as the slaveholder. He is a symbol, for them, of slavery and the humiliation of the working class, and the Democratic press threatens them daily with a flooding of their territories by “niggers.” In addition, the dissatisfaction with the miserable way the war in Virginia is being waged was strongest in those states which had provided the largest contingents of volunteers.

All this, however, is by no means the main thing. At the time Lincoln was elected (1860) there was no civil war, nor was the question of Negro emancipation on the order of the day. The Republican Party, then quite independent of the Abolitionist Party, aimed its 1860 electoral campaign solely at protesting against the extension of slavery into the Territories, but, at the same time, it proclaimed non-interference with the institution in the states where it already existed legally. If Lincoln had had Emancipation of the Slaves as his motto at that time, there can be no doubt that he would have been defeated. Any such slogan was vigorously rejected.

Matters were quite different in the latest election. The Republicans made common cause with the Abolitionists. They came out emphatically for immediate emancipation, whether for its own sake or as a means of ending the rebellion. If this circumstance is taken into account, the majority in favour of the government in Michigan, Illinois, Massachusetts, Iowa and Delaware, and the very significant minority vote it obtained in the states of New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania, are equally surprising. Before the war such a result would have been impossible, even in Massachusetts. All that is needed now is energy, on the part of the government and of the Congress that meets next month, for the Abolitionists, now identical with the Republicans, to have the tipper hand everywhere, both morally and numerically. Louis Bonaparte’s hankering to intervene strengthens the Abolitionists’ case “from abroad”. The only danger lies in the retention of such generals as McClellan, who are, apart from their incompetence, avowed pro-slavery men.”

From The Pen Of Leon Trotsky

Leon Trotsky

Political Profiles


Karl Liebknecht and
Rosa Luxemburg

(1919)

Rosa LuxemburgWE HAVE suffered two heavy losses at once which merge into one enormous bereavement. There have been struck down from our ranks two leaders whose names will be for ever entered in the great book of the proletarian revolution: Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg. They have perished. They have been killed. They are no longer with us!
Karl Liebknecht’s name, though already known, immediately gained world-wide significance from the first months of the ghastly European slaughter. It rang out like the name of revolutionary honour, like a pledge of the victory to come. In those first weeks when German militarism celebrated its first orgies and feted its first demonic triumphs; in those weeks when the German forces stormed through Belgium brushing aside the Belgian forts like cardboard houses; when the German 420mm cannon seemed to threaten to enslave and bend all Europe to Wilhelm; in those days and weeks when official German social-democracy headed by its Scheidemann and its Ebert bent its patriotic knee before German militarism to which everything, at least it seemed, would submit—both the outside world (trampled Belgium and France with its northern part seized by the Germans) and the domestic world (not only the German junkerdom, not only the German bourgeoisie, not only the chauvinist middle-class but last and not least the officially recognized party of the German working class); in those black, terrible and foul days there broke out in Germany a rebellious voice of protest, Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburgof anger and imprecation; this was the voice of Karl Liebknecht. And it resounded throughout the whole world!
In France where the mood of the broad masses then found itself under the heel of the German onslaught; where the ruling party of French social-patriots declared to the proletariat the necessity to fight not for life but until death (and how else when the ‘whole people’ of Germany is craving to seize Paris!); even in France Liebknecht’s voice rang out warning and sobering, exploding the barricades of lies, slander and panic. It could be sensed that Liebknecht alone reflected the stifled masses.
In fact however even then he was not alone as there came forward hand in hand with him from the first day of the war the courageous, unswerving and heroic Rosa Luxemburg. The lawlessness of German bourgeois parliamentarism did not give her the possibility of launching her protest from the tribune of parliament as Liebknecht did and thus she was less heard. But her part in the awakening of the best elements of the German working class was in no way less than that of her comrade in struggle and in death, Karl Liebknecht. These two fighters so different in nature and yet so close, complemented each other, unbending marched towards a common goal, met death together and enter history side by side.
Karl Liebknecht represented the genuine and finished embodiment of an intransigent revolutionary. In the last days and months of his life there have been created around his name innumerable legends: senselessly vicious ones in the bourgeois Press, heroic ones on the lips of the working masses.
In his private life Karl Liebknecht was—alas!—already he merely was the epitomy of goodness, simplicity and brotherhood. I first met him more than 15 years ago. He was a charming man, attentive and sympathetic. It could be said that an almost feminine tenderness, in the best sense of this word, was typical of his character. And side by side with this feminine tenderness he was distinguished by the exceptional heart of a revolutionary will able to fight to the last drop of blood in the name of what he considered to be right and true. His spiritual independence appeared already in his youth when he ventured more than once to defend his opinion against the incontestable authority of Bebel. His work amongst the youth and his struggle against the Hohenzollern military machine was marked by great courage. Finally he discovered his full measure when he raised his voice against the serried warmongering bourgeoisie and the treacherous social-democracy in the German Reichstag where the whole atmosphere was saturated with miasmas of chauvinism. He discovered the full measure of his personality when as a soldier he raised the banner of open insurrection against the bourgeoisie and its militarism on Berlin’s Potsdam Square. Liebknecht was arrested. Prison and hard labour did not break his spirit. He waited in his cell and predicted with certainty. Freed by the revolution in November last year, Liebknecht at once stood at the head of the best and most determined elements of the German working class. Spartacus found himself in the ranks of the Spartacists and perished with their banner in his hands.
Rosa Luxemburg’s name is less well-known in other countries than it is to us in Russia. But one can say with all certainty that she was in no way a lesser figure than Karl Liebknecht. Short in height, frail, sick, with a streak of nobility in her face, beautiful eyes and a radiant mind she struck one with the bravery of her thought. She had mastered the Marxist method like the organs of her body. One could say that Marxism ran in her blood stream.
I have said that these two leaders, so different in nature, complemented each other. I would like to emphasize and explain this. If the intransigent revolutionary Liebknecht was characterized by a feminine tenderness in his personal ways then this frail woman was characterized by a masculine strength of thought. Ferdinand Lassalle once spoke of the physical strength of thought, of the commanding power of its tension when it seemingly overcomes material obstacles in its path. That is just the impression you received talking to Rosa, reading her articles or listening to her when she spoke from the tribune against her enemies. And she had many enemies! I remember how, at a congress at Jena I think, her high voice, taut like a wire, cut through the wild protestations of opportunists from Bavaria, Baden and elsewhere. How they hated her! And how she despised them! Small and fragilely built she mounted the platform of the congress as the personification of the proletarian revolution. By the force of her logic and the power of her sarcasm she silenced her most avowed opponents. Rosa knew how to hate the enemies of the proletariat and just because of this she knew how to arouse their hatred for her. She had been identified by them early on.
From the first day, or rather from the first hour of the war, Rosa Luxemburg launched a campaign against chauvinism, against patriotic lechery, against the wavering of Kautsky and Haase and against the centrists’ formlessness; for the revolutionary independence of the proletariat, for internationalism and for the proletarian revolution.
Yes, they complemented one another!
By the force of the strength of her theoretical thought and her ability to generalize Rosa Luxemburg was a whole head above not only her opponents but also her comrades. She was a woman of genius. Her style, tense, precise, brilliant and merciless, will remain for ever a true mirror of her thought.
Liebknecht was not a theoretician. He was a man of direct action. Impulsive and passionate by nature, he possessed an exceptional political intuition, a fine awareness of the masses and of the situation and finally an unrivalled courage of revolutionary initiative.
An analysis of the internal and international situation in which Germany found herself after November 9, 1918, as well as a revolutionary prognosis could and had to be expected first of all from Rosa Luxemburg. A summons to immediate action and, at a given moment, to armed uprising would most probably come from Liebknecht. They, these two fighters, could not have complemented each other better.
Scarcely had Luxemburg and Liebknecht left prison when they took each other hand in hand, this inexhaustible revolutionary man and this intransigent revolutionary woman and set out together at the head of the best elements of the German working class to meet the new battles and trials of the proletarian revolution. And on the first steps along this road a treacherous blow has on one day, struck both of them down.
To be sure reaction could not have chosen more illustrious victims. What a sure blow! And small wonder! Reaction and revolution knew each other well as in this case reaction was personified in the guise of the former leaders of the former party of the working class, Scheidemann and Ebert whose names will be for ever inscribed in the black book of history as the shameful names of the chief organizers of this treacherous murder.
It is true that we have received the official German report which depicts the murder of Liebknecht and Luxemburg as a street “misunderstanding” occasioned possibly by a watchman’s insufficient vigilance in the face of a frenzied crowd. A judicial investigation has been arranged to this end. But you and I know too well how reaction lays on this sort of spontaneous outrage against revolutionary leaders; we well remember the July days that we lived through here within the walls of Petrograd, we remember too well how the Black Hundred bands, summoned by Kerensky and Tsereteli to the fight against the Bolsheviks, systematically terrorized the workers, massacred their leaders and set upon individual workers in the streets. The name of the worker Voinov, killed in the course of a “misunderstanding” will be remembered by the majority of you. If we had saved Lenin at that time then it was only because he did not fall into the hands of frenzied Black Hundred bands. At that time there were well-meaning people amongst the Mensheviks and the Social Revolutionaries who were disturbed by the fact that Lenin and Zinoviev, who were accused of being German spies, did not appear in court to refute the slander. They were blamed for this especially. But at what court? At that court along the road to which Lenin would be forced to “flee”, as Liebknecht was, and if Lenin was shot or stabbed, the official report by Kerensky and Tsereteli would state that the leader of the Bolsheviks was killed by the guard while attempting to escape. No, after the terrible experience in Berlin we have ten times more reason to be satisfied that Lenin did not present himself to the phoney trial and yet more to violence without trial.
But Rosa and Karl did not go into hiding. The enemy’s hand grasped them firmly. And this hand choked them. What a blow! What grief! And what treachery! The best leaders of the German Communist Party are no more—our great comrades are no longer amongst the living. And their murderers stand under the banner of the Social-Democratic party having the brazenness to claim their birthright from no other than Karl Marx! “What a perversion! What a mockery!&#rdquo; Just think, comrades, that “Marxist” German Social-Democracy, mother of the working class from the first days of the war, which supported the unbridled German militarism in the days of the rout of Belgium and the seizure of the northern provinces of France; that party which betrayed the October Revolution to German militarism during the Brest peace; that is the party whose leaders, Scheidemann and Ebert, now organize black bands to murder the heroes of the International, Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg!
What a monstrous historical perversion! Glancing back through the ages you can find a certain parallel with the historical destiny of Christianity. The evangelical teaching of the slaves, fishermen, toilers, the oppressed and all those crushed to the ground by slave society, this poor people’s doctrine which had arisen historically was then seized upon by the monopolists of wealth, the kings, aristocrats, archbishops, usurers, patriarchs, bankers and the Pope of Rome, and it became a cover for their crimes. No, there is no doubt however, that between the teaching of primitive Christianity as it emerged from the consciousness of the plebeians and the official catholicism or orthodoxy, there still does not exist that gulf as there is between Marx’s teaching which is the nub of revolutionary thinking and revolutionary will and those contemptible left-overs of bourgeois ideas which the Scheidemanns and Eberts of all countries live by and peddle. Through the intermediary of the leaders of social-democracy the bourgeoisie has made an attempt to plunder the spiritual possessions of the proletariat and to cover up its banditry with the banner of Marxism. But it must be hoped, comrades, that this foul crime will be the last to be charged to the Scheidemanns and the Eberts. The proletariat of Germany has suffered a great deal at the hands of those who have been placed at its head; but this fact will not pass without trace. The blood of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg cries out. This blood will force the pavements of Berlin and the stones of that very Potsdam Square on which Liebknecht first raised the banner of insurrection against war and capital to speak up. And one day sooner or later barricades will be erected out of these stones on the streets of Berlin against the servile grovellers and running dogs of bourgeois society, against the Scheidemanns and the Eberts!
In Berlin the butchers have now crushed the Spartacists’ movement: the German communists. They have killed the two finest inspirers of this movement and today they are maybe celebrating a victory. But there is no real victory here because there has not been yet a straight, open and full fight; there has not yet been an uprising of the German proletariat in the name of the conquest of political power. There has been only a mighty reconnoitering, a deep intelligence mission into the camp of the enemy’s dispositions. The scouting precedes the conflict but it is still not the conflict. This thorough scouting has been necessary for the German proletariat as it was necessary for us in the July days.
The misfortune is that two of the best commanders have fallen in the scouting expedition. This is a cruel loss but it is not a defeat. The battle is still ahead.
The meaning of what is happening in Germany will be better understood if we look back at our own yesterday. You remember the course of events and their internal logic. At the end of February, the popular masses threw out the Tsarist throne. In the first weeks the feeling was as if the main task had been already accomplished. New men who came forward from the opposition parties and who had never held power here took advantage at first of the trust or half-trust of the popular masses. But this trust soon began to break to splinters. Petrograd found itself in the second stage of the resolution at its head as indeed it had to be. In July as in February it was the vanguard of the revolution which had gone out far in front. But this vanguard which had summoned the popular masses to open struggle against the bourgeoisie and the compromisers, paid a heavy price for the deep reconnaissance it carried out.
In the July Days the Petrograd vanguard broke from Kerensky’s government. This was not yet an insurrection as we carried through in October. This was a vanguard clash whose historical meaning the broad masses in the provinces still did not appreciate. In this collision the workers of Petrograd revealed before the popular masses not only of Russia but of all countries that behind Kerensky there was no independent army, and that those forces which stood behind him were the forces of the bourgeoisie, the white guard, the counter-revolution.
Then in July we suffered a defeat. Comrade Lenin had to go into hiding. Some of us landed in prison. Our papers were suppressed. The Petrograd Soviet was clamped down. The party and Soviet printshops were wrecked, everywhere the revelry of the Black Hundreds reigned. In other words there took place the same as what is taking place now in the streets of Berlin. Nevertheless none of the genuine revolutionaries had at that time any shadow of doubt that the July Days were merely the prelude to our triumph.
A similar situation has developed in recent days in Germany too. As Petrograd had with us, Berlin has gone out ahead of the rest of the masses; as with us, all the enemies of the German proletariat howled: “we cannot remain under the dictatorship of Berlin; Spartacist Berlin is isolated; we must call a constituent assembly and move it from red Berlin—depraved by the propaganda of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg—to a healthier provincial city in Germany.” Everything that our enemies did to us, all that malicious agitation and all that vile slander which we heard here, all this translated into German was fabricated and spread round Germany directed against the Berlin proletariat and its leaders, Liebknecht and Luxemburg. To be sure the Berlin proletariat’s intelligence mission developed more broadly and deeply than it did with us in July, and that the victims and the losses are more considerable there is true. But this can be explained by the fact that the Germans were making history which we had made once already; their bourgeoisie and military machine had absorbed our July and October experience. And most important, class relations over there are incomparably more defined than here; the possessing classes incomparably more solid, more clever, more active and that means more merciless too.
Comrades, here there passed four months between the February revolution and the July days; the Petrograd proletariat needed a quarter of a year in order to feel the irresistible necessity to come out on the street and attempt to shake the columns on which Kerensky’s and Tsereteli’s temple of state rested. After the defeat of the July days, four months again passed during which the heavy reserve forces from the provinces drew themselves up behind Petrograd and we were able, with the certainty of victory, to declare a direct offensive against the bastions of private property in October 1917.
In Germany, where the first revolution which toppled the monarchy was played out only at the beginning of November, our July Days are already taking place at the beginning of January. Does this not signify that the German proletariat is living in its revolution according to a shortened calendar? Where we needed four months it needs two. And let us hope that this schedule will be kept up. Perhaps from the German July Days to the German October not four months will pass as with us, but less—possibly two months will turn out sufficient or even less. But however event proceed, one thing alone is beyond doubt: those shots which were sent into Karl Liebknecht’s back have resounded with a mighty echo throughout Germany. And this echo has rung a funeral note in the ears of the Scheidemanns and the Eberts, both in Germany and elsewhere.
So here then we have sung a requiem to Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg. The leaders have perished. We shall never again see them alive. But, comrades, how many of you have at any time seen them alive? A tiny minority. And yet during these last months and years Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg have lived constantly among us. At meetings and at congresses you have elected Karl Liebknecht honorary president. He himself has not been here—he did not manage to get to Russia—and all the same he was present in your midst, he sat at your table like an honoured guest, like your own kith and kin—for his name had become more than the mere title of a particular man, it had become for us the designation of all that is best, courageous and noble in the working class. When any one of us has to imagine a man selflessly devoted to the oppressed, tempered from head to foot, a man who never lowered his banner before the enemy, we at once name Karl Liebknecht. He has entered the consciousness and memory of the peoples as the heroism of action. In our enemies’ frenzied camp when militarism triumphant had trampled down and crushed everything, when everyone whose duty it was to protest fell silent, when it seemed there was nowhere a breathing-space, he, Karl Liebknecht, raised his fighter’s voice. He said “You, ruling tyrants, military butchers, plunderers, you, toadying lackies, compromisers, you trample on Belgium, you terrorize France, you want to crush the whole world, and you think that you cannot be called to justice, but I declare to you: we, the few, are not afraid of you, we are declaring war on you and having aroused the masses we shall carry through this war to the end!” Here is that valour of determination, here is that heroism of action which makes the figure of Liebknecht unforgettable to the world proletariat.
And at his side stands Rosa, a warrior of the world proletariat equal to him in spirit. Their tragic death at their combat positions couples their names with a special, eternally unbreakable link. Henceforth they will be always named together: Karl and Rosa, Liebknecht and Luxemburg!
Do you know what the legends about saints and their eternal lives are based upon? On the need of the people to preserve the memory of those who stood at their head and who guided them in one way or another; on the striving to immortalize the personality of the leaders with the halo of sanctity. We, comrades, have no need of legends, nor do we need to transform our heroes into saints. The reality in which we are living now is sufficient for us, because this reality is in itself legendary. It is awakening miraculous forces in the spirit of the masses and their leaders, it is creating magnificent figures who tower over all humanity.
Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg are such eternal figures. We are aware of their presence amongst us with a striking, almost physical immediacy. At this tragic hour we are joined in spirit with the best workers of Germany and the whole world who have received this news with sorrow and mourning. Here we experience the sharpness and bitterness of the blow equally with our German brothers. We are internationalists in our sorrow and mourning just as much as we are in all our struggles.
For us Liebknecht was not just a German leader. For us Rosa Luxemburg was not just a Polish socialist who stood at the head of the German workers. No, they are both kindred of the world proletariat and we are all tied to them with an indissoluble spiritual link. Till their last breath they belonged not to a nation but to the International!
For the information of Russian working men and women it must be said that Liebknecht and Luxemburg stood especially close to the Russian revolutionary proletariat and in its most difficult times at that. Liebknecht’s flat was the headquarters of the Russian exiles in Berlin. When we had to raise the voice of protest in the German parliament or the German press against those services which the German rulers were affording Russian reaction we above all turned to Karl Liebknecht and he knocked at all the doors and on all the skulls, including the skulls of Scheidemann and Ebert to force them to protest against the crimes of the German government. And we constantly turned to Liebknecht when any of our comrades needed material support. Liebknecht was tireless as the Red Cross of the Russian revolution.
At the congress of German Social-Democrats at Jena which I have already referred to, where I was present as a visitor, I was invited by the presidium on Liebknecht’s intiative to speak on the resolution moved by the same Liebknecht condemning the violence and the brutality of the Tsarist government in Finland. With the greatest diligence Liebknecht prepared his own speech collecting facts and figures and questioning me in detail on the customs relations between Tsarist Russia and Finland. But before the matter reached the platform (I was to speak after Liebknecht) a telegram report on the assassination of Stolypin in Kiev had been received. This telegram produced a great impression at the congress. The first question which arose amongst the leadership was: would it be appropriate for a Russian revolutionary to address a German congress at the same time as some other Russian revolutionary had carried out the assassination of the Russian Prime Minister? This thought seized even Bebel: the old man who stood three heads above the other Central Committee members, did not like any “needless” complications. He at once sought me out and subjected me to questions: “What does the assassination signify? Which party could be responsible for it? Didn’t I think that in these conditions that by speaking I would attract the attention of the German police?” “Are you afraid that my speech will create certain difficulties?” I asked the old man cautiously. “Yes”, answered Bebel, “I admit I would prefer it if you did not speak.” “Of course,” I answered, “in that case there can be no question of my speaking.” And on that we parted.
A minute later, Liebknecht literally came running up to me. He was agitated beyond measure. “Is it true that they have proposed you do not speak?” he asked me. “Yes,” I replied, “I have just settled this matter with Bebel.” “And you agreed?” “How could I not agree,” I answered justifying myself, “seeing that I am not master here but a visitor.” “This is an outrageous act by our presidium, disgusting, an unheard-of scandal, miserable cowardice!” etc., etc. Liebknecht gave vent to his indignation in his speech where he mercilessly attacked the Tsarist government in defiance of backstage warnings by the presidium who had urged him not to create “needless” complications in the form of offending his Tsarist majesty.
From the years of her youth Rosa Luxemburg stood at the head of those Polish Social-Democrats who now together with the so-called “Lewica” i.e. the revolutionary Section of the Polish Socialist Party have joined to form the Communist Party. Rosa Luxemburg could speak Russian beautifully, knew Russian literature profoundly, followed Russian political life day by day, was joined by close ties to the Russian revolutionaries and painstakingly elucidated the revolutionary steps of the Russian proletariat in the German press. In her second homeland, Germany, Rosa Luxemburg with her characteristic talent, mastered to perfection not only the German language but also a total understanding of German political life and occupied one of the most prominent places in the old Bebelite Social-Democratic party. There she constantly remained on the extreme left wing.
In 1905 Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg in the most genuine sense of the word lived through the events of the Russian revolution. In 1905 Rosa Luxemburg left Berlin for Warsaw, not as a Pole but as a revolutionary. Released from the citadel of Warsaw on bail she arrived illegally in Petrograd in 1906, where, under an assumed name, she visited several of her friends in prison. Returning to Berlin she redoubled the struggle against opportunism opposing it with the path and methods of the Russian revolution.
Together with Rosa we have lived through the greatest misfortune which has broken on the working class. I am speaking of the shameful bankruptcy of the Second International in August 1914. Together with her we raised the banner of the Third International. And now, comrades, in the work which we are carrying out day in and day out we remain true to the behests of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg. If we build here in the still cold and hungry Petrograd the edifice of the socialist state, we are acting in the spirit of Liebknecht and Luxemburg; if our army advances on the front, it is defending with blood the behests of Liebknecht and Luxemburg. How bitter it is that it could not defend them too!
In Germany there is no Red Army as the power there is still in enemy hands. We now have an army and it is growing and becoming stronger. And in anticipation of when the army of the German proletariat will close its ranks under the banner of Karl and Rosa, each of us will consider it his duty to draw to the attention of our Red Army, who Liebknecht and Luxemburg were, what they died for and why their memory must remain sacred for every Red soldier and for every worker and peasant.
The blow inflicted on us is unbearably heavy. Yet we look ahead not only with hope but also with certainty. Despite the fact that in Germany today there flows a tide of reaction we do not for a minute lose our confidence that there, red October is nigh. The great fighters have not perished in vain. Their death will be avenged. Their shades will receive their due. In addressing their dear shades we can say: “Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, you are no longer in the circle of the living but you are present amongst us; we sense your mighty spirit; we will fight under your banner; our fighting ranks shall be covered by your moral grandeur! And each of us swears if the hour comes, and if the revolution demands, to perish without trembling under the same banner as under which you perished, friends and comrades-in-arms, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht!”
Archives, 1919

In The Spirit of Leonard Peltier Visions of US Prisoner #89637-132

Saturday, January 19, 2008

In The Spirit of Leonard Peltier Visions of US Prisoner #89637-132

IN THE SPIRIT OF LEONARD PELTIER VISIONS OF US PRISONER #89637-132

Date: Thursday January 31st, 7:00 pm
Location: El Museo Cultural de Santa Fe,
1615 B Paseo de Peralta,

Santa Fe, New Mexicophone: 505-992-0591
info@ElMuseoCultural.org

Directions and info for El Museo: http://elmuseocultural.org/


Date: Saturday February 2nd, 7:00 pm
Location:Railyard Performance Center
1611 B Paseo de Peralta,

Santa Fe, New Mexico
Phone: 505-982-8309

Author/Editor/Spoken-Word Performer Harvey Arden along with guest performers.

Mark Holtzman [ aka. Silent Bear ] will honor the gathering with his music on the Jan 31 venue only.

These and other dedicated and talented people will offer their personal thoughts of Leonard Peltier. Harvey Arden with the passion and spirit in the words of Leonard Peltier will make the event something not to be missed.

This passionate spoken word performance is based on the Leonard Peltier book-Prison Writings: My Life Is My Sun Dance.

Prison Writings was written in 1999 by the Native American political prisoner, Leonard Peltier, whose words were adapted into a powerful stage-play by his editor, Harvey Arden. Leonard's words are just as poignant today as when the book first appeared and deserves the attention of the entire nation.

Prison Writings is a collection of Peltier's essays and poems, reflecting his life and his work from within the prison walls. Defending his People and being Indian is his only crime. The cultural traditions of his people connect Leonard and each of us to the Great Mystery [ Wakan Tanka ]. This spirit connection and his personal sacrifice to the Creator keeps him strong and unbroken. His life is connected to each of us. Each day this innocent man suffers for his people; in fact ,now that you know his truth, he also suffers for you.

What will you do now?

During the horrific early 1970's Reign of Terror on the Lakota (Sioux)reservation at Pine Ridge South Dakota, an infamous time of violence and corruption existed. Complicit tribal officials hired local thugs known as ' GOONS --'Guardians of the Oglala Nation', who--with the blessing of the U.S. Government--carried out an unprovoked series of assaults on the traditional people on the Pine Ridge reservation. SD. Behind these attacks was Big Energy's desire for uranium under Sioux lands, then being secretly negotiated between the U.S. government and compliant Tribal officials.

Two FBI agents were killed on June 26, 1975 during a gun battle on The Jumping Bull Property. Leonard Peltier was falsely framed for the murder of the two FBI agents. The other defendants charged with the same crime had been acquitted by a jury. They were defending their people from an unprovoked attack. Self defense a basic right was denied Leonard Peltier and his legal team.

Following the discovery of new evidence obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Mr. Peltier demanded a new trial. The Eighth Circuit court ruled, "There is a possibility that the jury would have acquitted Leonard Peltier had the records and data improperly withheld from the defense been made available to him." Yet, the court denied Mr.Peltier a new trial. The jury sentenced Mr. Peltier to two consecutive life terms.

Judge Heaney, who authored the decision denying a new trial, has since voiced firm support for Mr. Peltier's release, stating that:

" The FBI used improper tactics to convict Mr. Peltier".

Judge Heaney also stated that:" The FBI was equally responsible for the shoot-out, and that Mr. Peltier's release would promote healing with Native Americans ".

So why is this story of Judicial Racism hidden from the public eye ?

The late Pope John Paul II, the Dalai Lama, Amnesty International,International Indian Treaty Council, the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Coretta Scott King, Mikhail Gorbachev, Gloria Steinem, Wilma Mankiller, Robert Redford, the European Parliament, and a host of other notables all have worked, petitioned,and pleaded for his release.

For the American Indian Nations as well as the world at large, the continued imprisonment of Leonard Peltier is Americas Judicial embarrassment.

The spirit of the Sun- dancer who is Leonard Peltier confronted with the treachery and ugliness of life has transcended and Has become the message, of hope, courage, and integrity for his People for his family and each of us.

Peltier has been behind prison bars for more than half of his life (he turned 63 this past September). He remains a model prisoner,establishing numerous humanitarian projects within the prison system as well as back on the Pine Ridge Reservation.


Petitions will be available at both performances appealing for Leonard's release in his upcoming parole hearing. If Mr. Peltier is denied release at this hearing -he will not receive another
opportunity for freedom until the 2017 parole hearing. His official release date is 2041.


Leonards voice from inside the cage asks you,
" What will you do now ."

Be the change, question everything, its your duty as a citizen.

Be one voice if in your heart you can stand in support.

Join your voice with our's and together we can create change.

For further information or to become part of the healing....


Please contact:
Leonard Peltier Defense Committee (LPDC)- http://www.leonardpeltier.net/


The Oglala Commemoration can be reached at http://www.oglalacommemoration.com/
holding events each June 26th and following Leonards requests to implement many projects on the Rez.

Information about Harvey Arden or to order his books-
http://www.haveyouthought.com/.


Locally, Prison Writings may be found at Hotel Santa Fe's Picuris Art Shop- 505-982-1200
(and will be available along with other titles by Mr. Arden at the above events).

http://www.mylifeismysundance.com/
to learn more about these and other upcoming Peltier events-including the screen play being produced in Santa Fe this Summer, " My Life is My Sun dance" or contact Keith Rabin at keith@mylifeismysundance.com


Respectfully,

Leonard Peltier Defense Committee

Note:
Some excerpts were furnished by: Stephanie M. Schwartz (SilvrDrach@Gmail.com) from the article,"Transcendent Magic," March 2007 issue of Namaste Magazine. Please read the entire article compiled by Stephanie M Schwartz. See the hand outs at the event.
We thank her greatly.
In Peace

Wednesday, August 08, 2012

New Book: How Revolutionary were the Bourgeois Revolutions?


HOW REVOLUTIONARY WERE THE BOURGEOIS REVOLUTIONS?
NEIL DAVIDSON
-----------------------------------
“I was frankly pole-axed by this magnificent book. Davidson resets the entire debate on the character of revolutions: bourgeois, democratic and socialist. He's sending me, at least, back to the library."
—Mike Davis, author, Planet of Slums
-----------------------------------
Once of central importance to left historians and activists alike, recently the concept of the “bourgeois revolution” has come in for sustained criticism from both marxists and conservatives. In this comprehensive rejoinder, Neil Davidson seeks to answer the question “how revolutionary were the bourgeois revolutions” by systematically examining the approach taken by a wide range of thinkers to explaining the causes, outcomes, and content of the French, English, Dutch, and other revolutions. Through far reaching research and comprehensive analysis, Davidson demonstrates that what's at stake is far from a stale issue for the history books – understanding these struggles of the past offer far reaching lessons for today's radicals.-----------------------------------

PRAISE FOR HOW REVOLUTIONARY WERE THE BOURGEOIS REVOLUTIONS?

“Neil Davidson wends his way through the jagged terrain of a wide range of Marxist writings and debates to distil their lessons in what is unquestionably the most thorough discussion of the subject to date. If the paradox at the heart of the bourgeois revolutions was that the emergence of the modern bourgeois state had little to do with the agency of the bourgeoisie, then Davidson’s study is by far the most nuanced and illuminating discussion of this complex fact. A brilliant and fascinating book, wide-ranging and lucidly written.”
—Jairus Banaji, author, Theory as History

“[This] is a monumental work. Neil Davidson has given us what is easily the most comprehensive account yet of the ‘life and times’ of the concept of ‘bourgeois revolution’ … This would have been enough. However, Davidson has also provided us with a refined set of theoretical tools for understanding the often complex interactions between political revolutions which overturn state institutions and social revolutions which involve a more thorough-going transformation of social relations.”
—Colin Mooers, author, The Making of Bourgeois Europe
-----------------------------------
NEIL DAVIDSON teaches at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow where he is the Vice-President of the local University and College Union branch. He is the author of The Origins of Scottish Nationhood (2000), Discovering the Scottish Revolution (2003), for which he was awarded the Deutscher Memorial Prize, and also co-edited Alasdair MacIntyre's Engagement With Marxism (2008) and Neoliberal Scotland (2010). Davidson is on the Editorial Board of International Socialism.
-----------------------------------
ISBN: 978-1-60846-067-0 / $32 / Paperback / 813 pages
-----------------------------------