AMERICAN LEFT HISTORY

This space is dedicated to the proposition that we need to know the history of the struggles on the left and of earlier progressive movements here and world-wide. If we can learn from the mistakes made in the past (as well as what went right) we can move forward in the future to create a more just and equitable society. We will be reviewing books, CDs, and movies we believe everyone needs to read, hear and look at as well as making commentary from time to time. Greg Green, site manager

Tuesday, March 05, 2013

From The American Left History Blog Archives (2006) - On American Political Discourse

Markin comment:

In the period 2006-2008 I, in vain, attempted to put some energy into analyzing the blossoming American presidential campaign since it was to be, as advertised at least, a watershed election, for women, blacks, old white anglos, latinos, youth, etc. In the event I had to abandon the efforts in about May of 2008 when it became obvious, in my face obvious, that the election would be a watershed only for those who really believed that it would be a watershed election. The four years of the Obama presidency, the 2012 American presidential election campaign, and world politics have only confirmed in my eyes that that abandonment was essentially the right decision at the right time. In short, let the well- paid bourgeois commentators go on and on with their twitter. I, we, had (have) better things to do like fighting against the permanent wars, the permanent war economies, the struggle for more and better jobs, and for a workers party that fights for a workers government . More than enough to do, right? Still a look back at some of the stuff I wrote then does not a bad feel to it. Read on.

************

ON CARD AND CONGRESSIONAL ACTIONS

COMMENTARY

RANDOM THOUGHTS ON THE CURRENT POLITICAL LANDSCAPE.

FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY

WHAT KIND OF MONSTER IS RUMSFELD ANYWAY?

On a couple of occasions over the past several months I have commented on the question of calls for Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation. The first time was when some retired generals were clamoring for his resignation in the spring. The second time was this summer when New York Senator Hillary Clinton, hands trembling, put in her bid for this year’s Profiles in Courage Award after hearings of the Senate Armed Forces Committee. At that time I noted, tongue in cheek I thought, that my mother a life-long Republican had called for that resignation a couple of years ago. Now comes news that other very influential Republicans had the same thought. According to Bob Woodward’s new book former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and apparently the President’s wife, First Lady Laura Bush also sought to get rid of the bastard. Card has since confirmed that information. That begs the questions of both how much real political courage it took for Congressional Democrats to call for Rumsfeld’s resignation and just how vile a character the man is if elements in the inner circle wanted his head on a platter. Yes, we are definitely dealing with some kind of monster here. I am republishing my blog from the time of the generals’ revolt in the spring to give a real solution to the Rumsfeld problem.

IN THE CASE OF ONE DONALD RUMSFELD- RESIGNATION IS NOT ENOUGH!

In the normal course of events leftists, including this writer, have no particular need to comment on much less advocate or support a call for the resignation of one of the ministers of a capitalist government. In this case, we are talking about the controversy over the possible resignation of one Mr. Donald Rumsfeld, Minister of War in the Bush Cabinet. Let the capitalist politicians sort it out among themselves is this writer’s usual stance on such matters. Let the beady-eyed “talking head” liberal and conservative media pundits spout forth on behalf of the best interests of “their” system. After all this is not exactly like the summer of 1917 in Russia where the Bolsheviks were Agitating for –“Down with the Ten Capitalist Ministers”- as a stopgap slogan against the Popular Front Provisional Government on the way to overthrowing that government. This controversy, however, has my interest.

The case of Mr. Rumsfeld is special. Every once in a while a politician comes along in American public life who leftists can use to personalize everything that is wrong with the capitalist system. And epitomize what the rest of the world has come to fear and loathe as the dark side of the American spirit. One Richard M. Nixon, once President of the United and now residing in one of Dante’s circles of hell, comes to mind from an earlier generation. In that sense we need our Donalds. Hell, I have enjoyed politically kicking Mr. Rumsfeld around when he was riding high. And, excuse my manners; I enjoy kicking him around when he is down. (To give credit where credit is due, the late two lines were inspired by the late Dr. Hunter Thompson.) Nevertheless this specimen must go as, unfortunately, there are many candidates to replace him.

Many liberals , and some not so liberal, in Congress looking to rehabilitate their sorry records on Iraq, including the key question of voting for the war budget, are having a cheap field day on this one. However, in any moderately effective European parliamentary system these guys would have been long gone. Although I should qualify that statement since the august members of the British Labor Party could not muster enough votes to vote no confidence in Mr. Rumsfeld’s fellow hawkish crony, Mr. Anthony Blair.

I must admit that I am a little uncomfortable when all manner of retired general are coming out of the woodwork aiming at Mr. Rumsfeld’s head. We are respectable people and THESE are certainly not our kind of people. Except under normal circumstances these types, despite an occasional candidate for the role of American Napoleon Bonaparte like General Douglas Macarthur, keep quiet and take their consultant fees. Things must be far, far worst than we suspect in Iraq if the chiefs are abandoning ship already. Moreover, the thrust of the former generals’ criticism is that Mr. Rumsfeld did not adequately provision them with enough troops to get the job done. This is a veiled, and maybe not so veiled, call for escalation. There are differences between the Iraq War and the Vietnam War which we need to appreciate but escalation would dramatically close the gap between those differences. We could go from the Big Muddy of Vietnam to the Big Sandy of Iraq. Watch out.

Finally, and to get back on the left on this issue, if there is any justice in this world Mr. Rumsfeld, despite his probable cabinet immunity defense, clearly should be tried as a war criminal. He exceeds by orders of magnitude the standards necessary for such an indictment. However, my vision is not to have him tried before some bogus Court of International Criminal Justice. My suggestion is that he be sent, alone (or with a few of his neo-con conspirators), to Baghdad, without armor. There he should be tried by a tribunal of the victims of his war crimes. Resignation is not enough- Indeed!!

ON THE WILES OF CONSERVATIVE POLITICANS

In a blog earlier this Summer I commented on the effect of the United States Supreme Court’s ruling on the question of the Executive branch’s authority to try detainees in military commissions under very much less than normal conditions of what passes for justice these days. At that time I noted that once the smoke cleared Congress would give the Bush Administration what it wanted. This week, the week of September 25^th, after much wrangling by fellow Republicans apparently solely for effect, the Senate gave the administration pretty much what it wanted, including the virtual suspension of habeas corpus in these cases. Two points. First, suspension of the writ of habeas corpus a hard fought for and important right going back centuries the denial here is definitely not a good sign for the rest of us. Some commentators have declared that the provisions will not pass constitutional muster. Grow up. I will take bets at 5 to 2 that the current court will defer to the Legislative intent and the Executive authority on this one. Believe me; I would rather lose this bet. Second, this legislation shreds the concepts that are embodied in the Geneva Conventions concerning the status of enemy combatants. Make no mistake, without having illusions in the effectiveness of these Conventions and noting the weaknesses of the protections in them, militant leftists fight to keep them in place as a legal avenue of redress. Otherwise someday we might be dependent on the goodwill of forces who wish us nothing but ill-will. Below I have republished my comments at the time of the Supreme Court decision.

SUPREME COURT OUTLAWS PRIVATE PRESIDENTIAL MILITARY COURTS-FOR NOW

PRESIDENT MUST BEG CONGRESS REAL HARD FOR MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

Just as I started feeling good about beating up on the United States Supreme Court justices this week, calling them black-robed closet Nazis and Neanderthals (see above commentaries) the justices vote by 5-4 (oops, 5-3 Chief Justice Roberts recused himself on this one- but WE all know where he stands) to deny President Bush the right to use his own executive-derived and organized private Star Chamber proceedings against detained ‘enemy combatants’.

This decision would seem to negate this writer’s usual uncanny grasp of which way the political winds are blowing. Not so. Without trying to weasel out of this squeamish situation by lawyerly argument I would point out that in The Angels of Death Ride Again (see above) that the Court was positioning itself just to the left of the medieval Star Chamber. And I am correct on this. The Court’s decision did not strike down the executive military commissions as the vehicles for show trials that such commissions had become but only that the President must ask Congress nicely to set them up with all due regard for those shopworn concepts- the rule of law and the constitutional balance of powers. When the Court starts bringing these arguments in it’s definitely time to head for cover. How hard do you think the Bush administration is going to have to fight Congress (presumably in an election year) to get approval for legislation military commissions to try a bunch of Moslems fanatics. Damn, they live and breathe for these kinds of soft ball votes.

We live in desperate times as the above commentaries for only ONE WEEK make abundantly clear so we have to take even small victories, such as this decision when we can get them. Any limitation, no matter how small, on the Imperial Presidency can only help give us a little breather. Enough said.

WHAT FOURTH AMENDMENT?

I had expected Congress to give the Administration its desired open-ended ability to wiretap domestic operations to its heart’s context without the niceties of Fourth Amendment protection. The Congress adjourned without taking up a final vote on this legislation. Presumably it will do so in an aptly named “lame duck” session after the November 7^th elections. Below is a republication of a blog commenting on Judge Diggs ruling that such previous practices were unconstitutional.

A VICTORY (IF ONLY TEMPORARY) FOR THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

SHOCKING REVELATION: A FEDERAL JUDGE ACTUALLY KNOWS THE 4^th AMENDMENT EXISTS. APPARENTLY NOT EVERY LAW SCHOOL TUITION WAS WASTED.

Every once in a while a judge does something right. While militant leftists have no illusions in the bourgeois judicial system, as such, we will grasp in both hands every little minor victory, even if temporary, that comes our way. In this case a federal district court judge, Judge Diggs Taylor, has held that the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping of every piece of information not nailed down and that the agency can get its hands on is unconstitutional. Judge Diggs Taylor will not be getting invited to any Federalist Society seminars or other such cozy affairs any time soon.

Naturally, the Bush Administration, normally slow to act when democratic rights are to be enforced, has ordered the Justice Department to appeal this decision- immediately, with all deliberate speed. When the 6^th Circuit Appeals Court or the Supremes get this one you know its fate. I will take bets, even up, on a 5-4 quashing of this decision even though I have it on good authority that Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy etc. al are all unaware that there IS a Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Now for the politics. Yes, the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights are pretty faded as working documents for any kind of just society today. But, damn, something like the Fourth Amendment against general searches and seizures even though its parameters are getting narrower and narrower with virtually every new court decision is something militant leftist defend. WE WOULD WANT THIS SAFEGUARD UNDER A WORKERS GOVERNMENT- WE DESPERATELY NEED IT NOW.

We are the best defenders of that right if for no other reason that it makes our work easier. Hell, what do you think the original American revolutionaries, particularly those at the base, were fighting against? That very same prohibition against general writs that the National Security Agency and the Bush Administration is more than happy to flaunt in our faces. Do we really want to have big brother having the right to look at everything we do. On the other hand we are not Pollyannas. We are not blinded by a mistaken believe in the “sweet” rule of law that gets bandied amount. And honored more in the breech than the observance. If this government wants to get information (even if no usable in court) it will find a way to get it warrant or no warrant. Nevertheless we will savory this decision a little for now.

SUPREME COURT OUTLAWS PRIVATE PRESIDENTIAL MILITARY COURTS-FOR NOW

PRESIDENT MUST BEG CONGRESS REAL HARD FOR MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

From The American Left History Blog Archives (2006) - On American Political Discourse

Markin comment:

************

NO TO THE FLAG-BURNING AMENDMENT- NO TO FEDERAL ANTI-FLAG-BURNING LEGISLATION

THEIR FLAG IS RED, WHITE AND BLUE. OUR FLAG IS STILL RED.

The Senate has just rejected, by a 66-34 vote, a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution which would give special protection to the American flag and enable Congress to pass legislation penalizing acts of desecration on that banner. That vote fell just one vote short of the required 2/3 (66.66%) vote needed to pass it on to the state legislatures for a vote and final enactment. Of course, this kind of proposition is red meat to most Republicans and many Democrats. They can vote for these kind of measures all day, every day and not work up a sweat. The political calculus which drives American bourgeois electoral politics, votes, makes this a real slam dunk. The flag-burning community (all eleven of them) against your average sunshine, couch potato patriot. Even perennial Democratic presidential campaign consultant Robert Schrum can figure that one out.

The Democrats, not to be outdone, proposed as an alternative federal legislation which would protect the flag on federal property. A WORKERS PARTY Senator, on a straight up or down vote on the amendment would vote NO. (Yes, even if that meant a bloc with Democrats- this after all, is a democratic rights issue which we most definitely care about). He or She would also then turn around and vote NO on any federal anti-flag-burning legislation for the same reason (and feel good about being able kick the Democrats in the shins). Following are some quick comments on these developments.

There was a time in America when the American flag was worth militants fighting and dying for- the Civil War, 1961-65. Unfortunately, certain forebears of the current august Senators on Capitol Hill, particularly from the Southern states, had no problem desecrating that flag as they beat the path to secession from the Union over the slavery question. Shouldn’t they then be just a little more circumspect about the rights of others these days who may not be respectful to their Confederate (oops, American) flag.

The amendment’s main sponsor Senator Hatch of Utah (Jesus, I thought he died during the Hoover administration, I really have to pay more attention to who is alive and who isn’t up on the Hill) who claimed that his motivation was to show respect for soldiers, etc. If the Senator means support the troops I already have a proposal for that- and it has nothing to do with flag-burning amendments. It has to do with fully funding 138,000 pairs of sneakers to get American troops the hell out of Iraq now. (See my blog, dated June 23, 2006). Hatch’s bizarre efforts are clear proof of why they are that quagmire in the first place.

Personally, this writer does not see the point of flag-burning as political protest. However, this is a First Amendment free speech issue and even the Neanderthals on the United States Supreme Court have, for now, declared that it is a protected expression of free speech. Moreover, I can sympathize with any militant (or ordinary citizen, for that matter) who is so outraged by the government’s policies that he or she needs to make such a material statement. However, in contrast to that form of expression let me propose another. This writer shed no tears when Old Glory was pulled down from the American Embassy after the Cuban Revolution by the Cubans or when it was pulled down from the American Embassy by the Vietnamese in 1975. Organizing the fight for socialism to change the flag from red, white and blue to red- that’s the real way to express our outrage. OUR FLAG IS STILL RED.

From The American Left History Blog Archives (2006) - On American Political Discourse

Markin comment:

************

THE ANGELS OF DEATH RIDE AGAIN

DOWN WITH THE BARBARIC DEATH PENALTY!!

FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!

The United States Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, has just overturned a Kansas State Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of a Kansas death penalty statute. The Kansas court had held that the statute- which provided that where the evidence was equally divided on the question of sentencing a defendant to life imprisonment without parole or death the death penalty should apply- was unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment. Apparently the U.S. Supreme Court had no such qualms as it positioned itself just slightly to the left of the medieval Star Chamber. New justices, Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito voted with the majority, the usual rogue’s gallery of black-robed closet Nazis Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy. That should come as no surprise to militants.

The immediate impact on the decision on death penalty cases is to further narrow the so-called technical arguments for appeal on due process or equal protection grounds. There was a time when the legal concept of an ‘evolving standard of human decency’ in death penalty cases was making some headway. That concept seems foreclosed by the current U.S. Supreme Court lineup for the foreseeable future The wrangling now seems to be over whether the court will continue to ‘tinker with the machinery of death’ as the liberals on the court will argue or basically let the death machine roll along relatively unimpeded. Remember this, however, not one of the nine current justices, liberal or conservative, has come close to calling the death penalty unconstitutional. Whatever the grounds for argument all militants know that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment and should be abolished.

A reader might ask what a workers party justice of the U.S. Supreme Court would do. In the immediate case, obviously bloc with the minority of justices to oppose this decision which narrows the legal basis for individual appeals. He or she, however, would write a separate opinion denouncing the death penalty and use this tribunal as a way to galvanize support for that position. Realistically, although many bourgeois governments have abolished the death penalty, at the point where we had a workers party U.S. Supreme Court justice we would probably have a workers government. As one of its first acts that government would abolish such punishment without fanfare.

In any case, no serious militant should believe that the fight against the death penalty (for the guilty as well as the innocent) depends on court majorities. While all legal avenues, including the U.S. Supreme Court, should be pursued in individual death penalty cases this is a fight that can only be finally won by organizing mass demonstrations and other militant action. Let us do it. DOWN WITH DEATH PENALTY!

From The American Left History Blog Archives (2006) - On American Political Discourse

Markin comment:

************
VOTE NO ON THE ABORTION REFERENDUM- HR
1215 -IN SOUTH DAKOTA ON NOV. 7^TH

COMMENTARY

VOTE NO ON THIS DIRECT CHALLENGE TO ROE vs. WADE

FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY

This writer has spilled no little ink castigating the judicial decisions of the Neanderthals who pose as justices on the United States Supreme Court. And rightly so. And I am sure that I will have plenty of occasions to do so again. But some times these guys (and I do mean guys because at the time, in 1973, the court consisted of all men) get it at least partially right. That decision was Roe v. Wade which for all intents and purposes declared that a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion (or not) fell within her right to privacy and thus was constitutional protected against the snooping of the state. As far as that decision went in the direction of increased, if partial and reversible, democratic rights militant leftists supported the decision. And defend it today. Moreover, today we face yet another, apparently frontal, challenge to the decision this time in South Dakota. We are duty-bound to try to beat this one back as well.

Since 1973 later Supreme Court memberships have attempted to nullify abortion rights by making the scope of Roe v. Wade much more restrictive than the original court decision, generally under some compelling state interest rationale in creating more restrictive procedures. State legislatures have also contributed their ‘wisdom’ by narrowing its scope and making the procedures, especially for the most vulnerable- teenage girls and poor women, as hard and impractical as possible. To add fuel to the fire various so-called “right-to-life” groups have, at times, spent much time and effort in intimidating women at abortion clinics. Now the South Dakota legislature has passed a law which has all the hallmarks of an openly declared war cry to get this issue before the Supremes again. The legislation, HR 1215, is intentionally so restrictive of the conditions under which an abortion would be legally permitted as to totally negate the right. The only stated condition that would make an abortion legal in South Dakota is if the mother’s life was in danger. Not even rape or incest cases would qualify. Thanks a lot. Christ, where the hell do these people who make such proposals come from. However, the legislation is up for a vote by the citizens of South Dakota on November 7^th. This bill must be voted down.

Militant leftists must remember, or be made aware, that the political environment in 1973 when Roe. v. Wade was officially decided was a time of social protest and the awakening of the women’s liberation movement. Such protest has quite a lot to do with how the decision came down and that it was decided at all. There is a lesson for us here. The long and short of it is that every democratic gain must be defended strongly against the inevitable war to chip away those rights. A women’s right to choose falls in that category. But it is not enough to merely defend that right. To make the right real we need to insure those poor women, teenagers and others who do not have easy access to abortion clinics have that access as part of free, yes free, universal quality health care. This fact starkly comes home in the case of South Dakota where, according to news reports, there is only one abortion clinic in the whole state. Thus, the beginning of wisdom on this issue is that we need to fight to implement the socialist program. But until that time- DEFEND ABORTION RIGHTS. NO ON HR 1215. FREE ABORTION ON DEMAND. FREE QUALITY UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL.

From The American Left History Blog Archives (2006)- On American Political Discourse

Markin comment:

************
HOLD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE

FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY

The election cycle of 2006-2008 has started, a time for all militants to run for cover. It will not be pretty and certainly is not for the faint-hearted. The Democrats smell blood in the water. The Greens smell that the Democrats smell blood. Various parliamentary leftists and some ostensibly socialists smell that the Greens smell blood. You get the drift. Before we go to ground let me make a point.

The central issue in the 2006 elections is the Iraq quagmire. As we enter the fourth year in the bloody war in Iraq many liberals, and some not so liberal, in Congress and elsewhere are looking to rehabilitate their sorry records on Iraq and are having a cheap field day. As militants we know that the only serious call is- Immediate Withdrawal of all U.S. and Allied Forces Now (or rather yesterday). Many politicians have supported a pale imitation of this slogan-now that it safe to do so. These courageous positions range from immediate withdrawal in six months, one year, six years, etc. My personal favorite is withdrawal when the situation in Iraq stabilizes. Compared to that position, Mr. Bush’s statement in May, 2003 that the mission in Iraq was accomplished seems the height of political realism. Hold on though.

After the last slogan has faded from the last mass anti-war demonstration, after the last e-mail has been sent to the last unresponsive Congressman, after the last petition signed on behalf of the fellowship of humankind has been signed where we stand in 2006. When the vast majority of Americans (and the world) are against the Iraq war and it still goes on and yet the “masses” are not ready for more drastic action we need some immediate leverage.

The only material way to end the war on the parliamentary level is opposition to the continued funding for the occupation. For that, however, you need votes in Congress. Here is my proposal. Make a N0 vote on the war budget a condition for your vote. When the Democrats, Republicans, Greens, or whoever, come to your door, your mailbox , your computer or call you on the telephone or cell phone ask this simple question- YES or NO on the war budget.

Now, lest I be accused of being an ultra-left let me make this clear. I am talking about the supplementary budget for Iraq. Heaven forbid that I mean the real war budget, you know, the 400 billion plus one. No, we are reasonable people and until we get universal health care we do not want these “leaders” to suffer heart attacks. And being reasonable people we can be proper parliamentarians when the occasion requires it. If the answer is YES, then we ask YES or NO on the appropriations for bombs in the war budget. And if the answer is still YES, then we ask YES or NO on the appropriations for gold-plated kitchen sinks in the war budget. If to your utter surprise any politician says NO here’s your comeback- Since you have approximated the beginning of wisdom, get the hell out of the party you represent. You are in the wrong place. Come down here in the mud and fight for a party workers can call their own. Then, maybe, just maybe, I can support you.

I do not believe that there has been a decline in physical courage. What has declined is political courage, and this seems an irreversible decline on the part of parliamentary politicians. That said, I want to finish up with a woefully inadequate political appreciation of Karl Liebknecht, member of the German Social Democratic faction in the Reichstag in the early 1900’s. Karl was also a son of Wilhelm Liebknecht, friend of Karl Marx and founder of the German Social Democratic Party in the 1860’s. On August 4, 1914, at the start of World War I the German Social Democratic Party voted YES on the war budget of the Kaiser against all its previous historic positions on German militarism. This vote was rightly seen as a betrayal of socialist principles. Due to a policy of parliamentary solidarity Karl Liebknecht also voted for this budget, or at least felt he had to go along with his faction. Shortly thereafter, he broke ranks and voted NO against the war appropriations. As pointed out below Karl Liebknecht did much more than that to oppose the German side in the First World War. THAT, MY FRIENDS, IS THE KIND OF POLITICAN I COULD HAVE SUPPORTED. TODAY, AS FOR THE REST- HOLD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE!

EVERY JANUARY WE HONOR, LENIN OF RUSSIA, ROSA LUXEMBURG OF POLAND AND KARL LIEBKNECHT OF GERMANY AS THREE LEADERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL WORKING CLASS MOVEMENT. HERE’S WHY WE HONOR LIEBKNECHT.

In honor of the 3 Ls. The authority of Lenin, leader of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917, and Luxemburg, the Rose of the Revolution, need no special commendation. I would however like to comment on Karl Liebknecht who has received less historical recognition and has had less written about him. Nevertheless, Karl Liebknecht apparently had the capacity to lead the German Revolution. A man whose actions inspired 50,000 Berlin workers, under penalty of being drafted to the front, to strike against his imprisonment in the middle of a World War is self- evidently a man with the authority to lead a revolution. His tragic personal fate in the aftermath of the Spartacus Uprising of 1919, being killed by counterrevolutionaries aided by his former comrades in the German Social Democratic Party, helped condition the later dismal fate of the German Revolution in1923.

History has posed certain questions concerning the establishment of socialism that remains unresolved primarily to due the crisis of leadership of the international labor movement. Although Liebknecht admittedly was not a theoretician I do not believe that someone of Lenin's or Trotsky's theoretical level was necessary after the Russian experience. What was necessary was a leadership that assimilated those lessons. Liebknecht, given enough time to study those lessons, seems to have been capable of that. A corollary to that view is that one must protect leading cadre when the state starts bearing down. Especially small propaganda groups like the Spartacus with fewer resources for protection of leadership. This was not done. If you do not protect your leadership you wind up with a Levi, Brander or Thalheimer (successively leaders of the German Communist Party in the early 1920’s) who seemed organically incapable of learning those lessons

One of the problems with being the son of a famous politician is that as founder of the early German Social Democratic Party Wilhelm Liebknecht's son much was expected of Karl, especially on the question of leading the German working class against German militarism. Wilhelm had done a prison term (with August Bebel) for opposition to the Franco-Prussian War. As for Karl I have always admired that famous picture of him walking across the Potsdam Plaza in uniform, subject to imprisonment after lost of his parliamentary immunity, with briefcase under arm ready to go in and do battle with the parliamentary cretins of the Social Democratic Party over support for the war budget. (THIS PICTURE CAN BE GOOGLED) That is the kind of leadership cadre we desperately need now. REMEMBER LIEBKNECHT’S FAMOUS SLOGANS- ‘THE MAIN ENEMY IS AT HOME’-‘NOT ONE PENNY, NOT ONE PERSON (updated) FOR THE WAR’. Wilhelm would have been proud.

From The American Left History Blog Archives (2006) - On American Political Discourse

Markin comment:

************

IN THE CASE OF ONE DONALD RUMSFELD- RESIGNATION IS NOT ENOUGH!

I must admit that I am a little uncomfortable when all manner of retired general are coming out of the woodwork aiming at Mr. Rumsfeld’s head. We are respectable people and THESE are certainly not our kind of people. Except under normal circumstances these types, despite an occasional candidate for the role of American Napoleon Bonaparte like General Douglas MacArthur, keep quiet and take their consultant fees. Things must be far, far worst than we suspect in Iraq if the chiefs are abandoning ship already. Moreover, the thrust of the former generals’ criticism is that Mr. Rumsfeld did not adequately provision them with enough troops to get the job done. This is a veiled, and maybe not so veiled, call for escalation. There are differences between the Iraq War and the Vietnam War which we need to appreciate but escalation would dramatically close the gap between those differences. We could go from the Big Muddy of Vietnam to the Big Sandy of Iraq. Watch out.

From The American Left History Blog Archives (2006) - On American Political Discourse

Markin comment:

************
VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL TICKET OF ASSATA SHAKUR/LYNNE STEWART IN NOVEMBER OF 2008

COMMENTARY

BY ALL MEANS LET US HAVE A WOMAN PRESIDENT BUT NOT “THAT” WOMAN

FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY

Well the dust has finally settled on the broken down electoral campaign of 2006 and now we can get down to the really fun part of commenting on the endless campaign for president in 2008. And it ain’t going to be pretty. Let us face it any political system that can do no better than provide the perfecta of Bush-Clinton, their families, their near and distant relatives, their pets, etc. every four years deserves all the problems it gets. Talk about the modern day parliamentary equivalent of the War of the Roses this nonsense has got to stop. And this writer is just the, as always to provide a constructive alternative to the nastiness of bourgeois choices and politics. Here goes.

For those unfamiliar with Lynne Stewart or her case the following is a note from the Partisan Defense Committee which supports the efforts to get her conviction overturned:

“On June 19, Lynne Stewart's counsel filed court papers seeking to discover if any warrantless or illegal electronic surveillance was conducted on her or anyone involved in her case. Then on July 5, Lynne's attorneys filed a Sentencing Memorandum on her behalf asking for a non-custodial sentence, i.e., one involving no jail time. As you are aware, Lynne Stewart was falsely convicted of material support for terrorism for her work representing an imprisoned client, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, a direct attack on the right to an attorney and First Amendment rights for all. She is also recovering from surgery for breast cancer and subsequent radiation and hormone therapy. Currently she awaits sentencing on September 25 to be preceded by a rally at Riverside Church in New York on September 24. We say again her conviction and those of her co-defendants were an outrage. Hands Off Lynne Stewart, Mohamed Yousry and Ahmed Abdel Sattar!”

Since the above information was published in an earlier blog Ms. Stewart has received a 28 month sentence. Her co-defendant Mohamed Yoursy has received a sentence of 20 months. Her other co-defendant Ahmed Sattar has received an outrageous sentence of 24 years. For further information contact the PDC, P.O. Box 99, Canal Street Station, New York, NY 10013-0099, The Lynne Stewart Defense Fund or see my blog, dated June 13, 2006.

Assata Shakur, Tupac’s “Auntie”, is a revolutionary black fighter for justice who was convicted for murder in the 1970’s and later escaped to Cuba where she now resides in political asylum. Over the past year the United States Justice Department has increased its bounty on her up to one million dollars. To this writer’s mind that makes her quality presidential material in these times.

Let me motive these candidacies a little further. I will merely freshen up some of the material I used in earlier blogs (see November 2006 archives) to motivate a write in vote for Lynne Stewart in the United States Senate race in New York against Hillary Clinton. Some will say Ms. Stewart and Ms. Shaker have been convicted of serious felonies. Grow up! If we counted all the indicted felons, unindicted co-conspirators, and those waiting for or in fear of indictment hanging around Washington the Congressional pages would be the only ones left to run the government. Hell, maybe, they are? Besides, think about this- imagine the respect Ms. Stewart and Ms. Shakur would get from those federal district court judges and appeals court judges if they had the power to vote on their nominations and impeachments.

Hillary “Hawk”, Assata Shakur and Lynne Stewart are women. Moreover, Ms. Shakur is a black woman. I did not want to incur the wrath of my feminist friends by proposing a man for president. After all we need women to break down the doors to the historic men’s club atmosphere of the United States Presidency. True enough, but as I have pointed out before in regard to Senator Clinton, she, and in this she is not alone, stands for the proposition that for all the virtues of the fight for the equality of women over the past decades women can have politics just as ugly as men. Some victory.

But, some will argue, Hillary is a progressive and we do not want to divide the progressive forces, etc., etc. Get over it! Yes, Hillary was a “progressive”, or what passed for such at Wellesley when she got uppity in her valedictorian speech. But, hell that was a long, long time ago. Since that time she has adhered to classic Clintonian Democratic Party centrism. Translation- she stays as close as close to the Republicans as possible without wearing an elephant on her lapel. Unfortunately for her the Republican Party these days is to the right of Genghis Khan (although that may be a slander on Mr. Khan because, as recently reported on the occasion of the 800^th anniversary of his birth, the Mongolian nationalists are currently touting his progressive nature for the times-talk about revisionism). But, let’s get to the bottom line- Hillary is operating in the coin of the realm of bourgeois politics- looking out for the main chance. Lynne and Assata have spent their careers on behalf of the voiceless and unrepresented- looking to give people a fighting chance. More, much more on this issue later.

DISCLAIMER: FOR ALL INTERESTED PARTIES- IN ORDER NOT TO BE ACCCUSED OF GIVING MATERIAL AID TO THOSE WHO GAVE MATERIAL AID TO THOSE WHO GAVE MATERIAL AID, ETC. THIS WRITER STATES THAT THIS ENDORSEMENT OF MS. STEWART AND MS. SHAKUR IS UNSOLICITED. I DO NOT KNOW MS. STEWART OR MS. SHAKUR PERSONALLY AND HAVE NOT COMMUNICATED WITH THEM ABOUT THESE CANDIDACIES. WE BREATH THE SAME POLITICAL AIR- AND BELIEVE ME THAT ACCRUES ALL TO MY BENEFIT.

From The American Left History Blog Archives (2006) - On American Political Discourse

Markin comment:

************
OF HILLARY “HAWK” CLINTON, BARACK OBAMA AND RALPH NADER (OR A SURROGATE) AS PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

COMMENTARY

FORGET OBAMA THE ‘CHARMA’, HILLARY “HAWK’ AND RALPH NADER- FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- ORGANIZE A WRITE-IN WORKERS PARTY PRESIDENTIAL TICKET FOR 2008

Now that over a week has passed since the hoopla over the 2006 midterm elections sufficient time has passed so that a proper political junkie can freely comment on the contours of the upcoming apparently endless presidential elections of 2008. And it ain’t going to be pretty. As I pointed out in a post-election blog (see the Emperor Has No Clothes, November 2006 archives) any political system that can do no better than provide the perfecta of Bush-Clinton, their families, their near and distant relatives, their pets, etc. every four years deserves all the problems it gets. With that caveat in mind it is a fair time to talk about the prospects of a woman president, a black president and, if he is still up for it, an old white man. In the concrete, that is the prospects or desirability of electing one New York Senator Hillary “Hawk” Clinton, black Illinois Senator Barack Obama or a Green/ Independent Ralph Nader (or his surrogate). And this writer is just the one, as always, to provide a ‘constructive’ alternative to the nastiness of bourgeois choices and politics. Here goes.

In a previous blog (see VOTE ASSATA SHAKUR/LYNNE STEWART IN 2008, NOVEMBER 2006 ARCHIVES) I proposed a write-in campaign for a presidential ticket of Assata Shakur and Lynne Stewart to run on a working class program. For those not familiar with those candidates both Ms. Shakur and Attorney Stewart are women. Ms. Shakur is also black. Those interested in the motivation for that proposal can read the above-mentioned blog. What I want to discuss here is the more general question of a woman, a black or at least formally non- Democratic/Republican candidate for president.

From The American Left History Blog Archives (2006) - On American Political Discourse

Markin comment:

************
ROTC OFF CAMPUSES! JROTC OUT OF THE HIGH SCHOOLS!

COMMENTARY

WHILE WE ARE AT IT-KEEP THE MILITARY RECRUITERS OUT TOO!

HATS OFF TO THE SAN FRANCISCO SCHOOL BOARD

In the Op/Ed page of the Idea section of the Boston Sunday Globe of November 19, 2006 conservative pundit, one Jeff Jacoby, in a commentary entitled “Anti-Military Bigotry” is up in arms (figuratively, of course, since like most neo-cons of late he did not avail himself of the opportunity to partake of military service) about the decision of the San Francisco School Board to eliminate the JROTC program from the city’s schools. The gist of Mr. Jacoby’s argument is that the decision of that Left Coast town is another unmistakable example of its anti-military and therefore unpatriotic bias, especially in a time of the great struggle his beloved President Bush is leading in the “war on terror”. Militant leftists take a rather different view of the matter. Yes, indeed we do. Hell, we commend that school board decision as an exemplary anti-war action and seek to drive ROTC and JROTC out off all campuses and out of all schools.

As part of his argument Mr. Jacoby has dressed up the role of JROTC by giving a litany of its positive effects on San Francisco students as a great bonding and “community” creating activity. In short, it is on the same level as the Boy or Girl Scouts, 4-H Clubs and the like. Wrong. However one wants to dress it up ROTC and JROTC are military organizations which act as a transmission belt to recruit students for military service. Whether those organizations do that successfully or not or provide some non-military activities are separate questions- and subordinate to their real aim. The military is not using them as a vehicle to further the brotherhood and sisterhood of humankind. Ask the Iraqis, for one, for the truth of the matter.

It is no accident that in the 1930’s prior to World War II and again during the Vietnam War of the 1960’s that a major campus activity for leftists, and not only leftists, was to drive ROTC off college campuses. Why? In the final analysis, as Karl Marx and V.I. Lenin pointed out long ago, the state is “armed bodies of men (and these days, women) - the military, the police, etc.” There are many ways to create that armed body-ROTC and JROTC help that effort. If you want to stop a war there is no way around that hard political problem. As an elementary and concrete act of opposition to the Iraq War and ultimately of American imperialism militants have to demand-ROTC OFF CAMPUSES! JROTC OUT OF THE SCHOOLS! MILITARY RECRUITERS OUT EVERYWHERE!

BOYCOTT WAL-MART

COMMENTARY

THE RACE TO THE BOTTOM MUST STOP HERE!

SUPPORT THE BOYCOTT- UNIONIZE WAL-MART

FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!

This writer has just received news that the Massachusetts Federation of Teachers (MFT) has voted to support the Wal-Mart boycott. Thus, the MFT joins a growing number of other unions and union federations nationally and internationally in support of this first step in the struggle to organize Wal-Mart. Every militant is obliged to and must support this boycott as a first step in the struggle against this greedy mega-corporation. To list the egregious labor practices of this corporation is like reading pages from the history relating the sweatshop conditions of the American labor movement at the turn of the 20th century. Whatever piddling savings one might receive by shopping at Wal-Mart is negated by the degradation of its labor force. It is high time for the labor movement to move on this outfit and move hard. The race to the bottom stops here.

Whatever the practical effect of the boycott it can only be a first step in the ultimate union organization of Wal-Mart. A boycott is not enough! A consumer boycott, as has been shown by past practices, is only as effective as the diffuse shopping public is aware of it. In general, a consumer boycott has little or no effect at all. In any case it is not decisive. There is no short-cut to effective organization at the point of production and, particularly in the case of Wal-Mart, distribution. The leadership of the organized American labor movement (now centered in the AFL-CIO and Change to Win Coalition) has chiefly used to the tactic of boycott to avoid the hard struggle to unionize the workforce. In the final analysis only organization in the field will bring unionization.

To organize Wal-Mart means there must be the will to organize Wal-Mart. It is necessary to go all out to win once the decision has been made to organize this monster along industrial lines, like the automobile industry in the 1930’s. Previous local efforts (such as in Quebec and Texas) to organize particular stores have shown that this strategy (or lack of strategy) has been a failure. Wal-Mart is just too big and powerful to be taken on piecemeal. This writer has seen estimates that the number of field organizers necessary to effectively organize Wal-Mart is at least 3000. Militants must call on the organized labor movement to fund and sent out that number en masse. The time is now.

Those even slightly familiar with the Wal-Mart operation know that the corporation has a fleet of at least 7000 trucks to transport and deliver goods to its various locations. This should make every militant salivate at the prospect of organizing that fleet. Militants must demand that the Teamsters International Union organize the fleet. Know this, if the trucks, the key to the distribution process are unionized that is a very powerful argument in the workers favor if a showdown with other parts of the Wal-Mart workforce is necessary. This writer suggests that militants read Teamster Rebellion and Teamster Power by Farrell Dobbs; a central organizer of the successful Teamster union drives in Minneapolis and later over the road drivers in the 1930’s. (These books have been reviewed elsewhere in this space, see April 2006 archives.) One thing is sure, if it took practically a civil war to bring the relatively loosely organized trucking company bosses to their knees in the 1930’s it will be 1000 times harder to do so against this monolithic giant. But the victory will be sweeter.

I mentioned above the need to fund field organizers, and plenty of them, and other support staff. Unlike the 1930’s the organized labor movement has no lack of funds for such an operation today. However, what is necessary is the political will to organize and fight rather rely someone else’s good will. The great lesson from the 1930’s is that you win on the streets, not in the White House or courthouse. Organized labor’s support for the failed Kerry Democratic presidential campaign wasted millions of dollars. Instead of using funds to support bourgeois candidates, mainly so-called Democratic Party ‘friends of labor’, through COPE and other PAC’s for minimal or no returns use the funds to organize Wal-Mart (and the South, while we are at it). That is the real way to use union money.

SUPPORT THE CALL TO ORGANIZE WAL-MART NOW!

NO MONEY FOR POLITICANS-USE THE FUNDS FOR THE ORGANIZING DRIVE AT WAL-MART!

BRING MOTIONS TO YOUR UNION CALLING FOR SUPPORT OF THE WAL-MART BOYCOTT!

BRING MOTIONS TO CALLING ON YOUR UNION TO SUPPORT AN ORGANIZING DRIVE OF WAL-MART!

AMERICAN LEFT HISTORY

Tuesday, March 05, 2013

Left Links

About Me