DAVE HARVEY Reviews Piketty's "Capitalism"
by Dave Harvey	27 May 2014
Click on image for a larger version
Afterthoughts on Piketty’s Capital David Harvey Thomas Piketty has written a book called Capital that has caused quite a stir. He advocates progressive taxation and a global wealth tax as the only way to counter the trend towards the creation of a “patrimonial” form of capitalism marked by what he dubs “terrifying” inequalities of wealth and income. He also documents in excruciating and hard to rebut detail how social inequality of both wealth and income has evolved over the last two centuries, with particular emphasis on the role of wealth. He demolishes the widely-held view that free market capitalism spreads the wealth around and that it is the great bulwark for the defense of individual liberties and freedoms. Free-market capitalism, in the absence of any major redistributive interventions on the part of the state, Piketty shows, produces anti-democratic oligarchies. This demonstration has given sustenance to liberal outrage as it drives the Wall Street Journal apoplectic. The book has often been presented as a twenty-first century substitute for Karl Marx’s nineteenth century work of the same title. Piketty actually denies this was his intention, which is just as well since his is not a book about capital at all. It does not tell us why the crash of 2008 occurred and why it is taking so long for so many people to get out from under the dual burdens of prolonged unemployment and millions of houses lost to foreclosure. It does not help us understand why growth is currently so sluggish in the US as opposed to China and why Europe is locked down in a politics of austerity and an economy of stagnation. What Piketty does show statistically (and we should be indebted to him and his colleagues for this) is that capital has tended throughout its history to produce ever-greater levels of inequality. This is, for many of us, hardly news. It was, moreover, exactly Marx’s theoretical conclusion in Volume One of his version of Capital. Piketty fails to note this, which is not surprising since he has since claimed, in the face of accusations in the right wing press that he is a Marxist in disguise, not to have read Marx’s Capital. Piketty assembles a lot of data to support his arguments. His account of the differences between income and wealth is persuasive and helpful. And he gives a thoughtful defense of inheritance taxes, progressive taxation and a global wealth tax as possible (though almost certainly not politically viable) antidotes to the further concentration of wealth and power. But why does this trend towards greater inequality over time occur? From his data (spiced up with some neat literary allusions to Jane Austen and Balzac) he derives a mathematical law to explain what happens: the ever-increasing accumulation of wealth on the part of the famous one percent (a term popularized thanks of course to the “Occupy” movement) is due to the simple fact that the rate of return on capital (r) always exceeds the rate of growth of income (g). This, says Piketty, is and always has been “the central contradiction” of capital. But a statistical regularity of this sort hardly constitutes an adequate explanation let alone a law. So what forces produce and sustain such a contradiction? Piketty does not say. The law is the law and that is that. Marx would obviously have attributed the existence of such a law to the imbalance of power between capital and labor. And that explanation still holds water. The steady decline in labor’s share of national income since the 1970s derived from the declining political and economic power of labor as capital mobilized technologies, unemployment, off-shoring and anti-labor politics (such as those of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan) to crush all opposition. As Alan Budd, an economic advisor to Margaret Thatcher confessed in an unguarded moment, anti-inflation policies of the 1980s turned out to be “a very good way to raise unemployment, and raising unemployment was an extremely desirable way of reducing the strength of the working classes…what was engineered there in Marxist terms was a crisis of capitalism which recreated a reserve army of labour and has allowed capitalists to make high profits ever since.” The disparity in remuneration between average workers and CEO’s stood at around thirty to one in 1970. It now is well above three hundred to one and in the case of MacDonalds about 1200 to one. But in Volume 2 of Marx’s Capital (which Piketty also has not read even as he cheerfully dismisses it) Marx pointed out that capital’s penchant for driving wages down would at some point restrict the capacity of the market to absorb capital’s product. Henry Ford recognized this dilemma long ago when he mandated the $5 eight-hour day for his workers in order, he said, to boost consumer demand. Many thought that lack of effective demand underpinned the Great Depression of the 1930s. This inspired Keynesian expansionary policies after World War Two and resulted in some reductions in inequalities of incomes (though not so much of wealth) in the midst of strong demand led growth. But this solution rested on the relative empowerment of labor and the construction of the “social state” (Piketty’s term) funded by progressive taxation. “All told,” he writes, “over the period 1932-1980, nearly half a century, the top federal income tax in the United States averaged 81 percent.” And this did not in any way dampen growth (another piece of Piketty’s evidence that rebuts right wing beliefs). By the end of the 1960s it became clear to many capitalists that they needed to do something about the excessive power of labor. Hence the demotion of Keynes from the pantheon of respectable economists, the switch to the supply side thinking of Milton Friedman, the crusade to stabilize if not reduce taxation, to deconstruct the social state and to discipline the forces of labor. After 1980 top tax rates came down and capital gains – a major source of income for the ultra-wealthy – were taxed at a much lower rate in the US, hugely boosting the flow of wealth to the top one percent. But the impact on growth, Piketty shows, was negligible. So “trickle down” of benefits from the rich to the rest (another right wing favorite belief) does not work. None of this was dictated by any mathematical law. It was all about politics. But then the wheel turned full circle and the more pressing question became: where is the demand? Piketty systematically ignores this question. The 1990s fudged the answer by a vast expansion of credit, including the extension of mortgage finance into sub-prime markets. But the resultant asset bubble was bound to go pop as it did in 2007-8 bringing down Lehman Brothers and the credit system with it. However, profit rates and the further concentration of private wealth recovered very quickly after 2009 while everything and everyone else did badly. Profit rates of businesses are now as high as they have ever been in the US. Businesses are sitting on oodles of cash and refuse to spend it because market conditions are not robust. Piketty’s formulation of the mathematical law disguises more than it reveals about the class politics involved. As Warren Buffett has noted, “sure there is class war, and it is my class, the rich, who are making it and we are winning.” One key measure of their victory is the growing disparities in wealth and income of the top one percent relative to everyone else. There is, however, a central difficulty with Piketty’s argument. It rests on a mistaken definition of capital. Capital is a process not a thing. It is a process of circulation in which money is used to make more money often, but not exclusively through the exploitation of labor power. Piketty defines capital as the stock of all assets held by private individuals, corporations and governments that can be traded in the market no matter whether these assets are being used or not. This includes land, real estate and intellectual property rights as well as my art and jewelry collection. How to determine the value of all of these things is a difficult technical problem that has no agreed upon solution. In order to calculate a meaningful rate of return, r, we have to have some way of valuing the initial capital. Unfortunately there is no way to value it independently of the value of the goods and services it is used to produce or how much it can be sold for in the market. The whole of neo-classical economic thought (which is the basis of Piketty’s thinking) is founded on a tautology. The rate of return on capital depends crucially on the rate of growth because capital is valued by way of that which it produces and not by what went into its production. Its value is heavily influenced by speculative conditions and can be seriously warped by the famous “irrational exuberance” that Greenspan spotted as characteristic of stock and housing markets. If we subtract housing and real estate – to say nothing of the value of the art collections of the hedge funders – from the definition of capital (and the rationale for their inclusion is rather weak) then Piketty’s explanation for increasing disparities in wealth and income would fall flat on its face, though his descriptions of the state of past and present inequalities would still stand. Money, land, real estate and plant and equipment that are not being used productively are not capital. If the rate of return on the capital that is being used is high then this is because a part of capital is withdrawn from circulation and in effect goes on strike. Restricting the supply of capital to new investment (a phenomena we are now witnessing) ensures a high rate of return on that capital which is in circulation. The creation of such artificial scarcity is not only what the oil companies do to ensure their high rate of return: it is what all capital does when given the chance. This is what underpins the tendency for the rate of return on capital (no matter how it is defined and measured) to always exceed the rate of growth of income. This is how capital ensures its own reproduction, no matter how uncomfortable the consequences are for the rest of us. And this is how the capitalist class lives. There is much that is valuable in Piketty’s data sets. But his explanation as to why the inequalities and oligarchic tendencies arise is seriously flawed. His proposals as to the remedies for the inequalities are naïve if not utopian. And he has certainly not produced a working model for capital of the twenty-first century. For that we still need Marx or his modern-day equivalent. — David Harvey is a Distinguished Professor at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. His most recent book is Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism, published by Profile Press in London and Oxford University Press in New York.
See also: http://davidharvey.org/2014/05/afterthoughts-pikettys-capital/

UK Guardian Reviews Glenn Greenwald's New Book
by UK Guardian	27 May 2014
Click on image for a larger version
Before Glenn Greenwald appeared on Newsnight last October to argue the case for the Snowden revelations on a link from Brazil, the presenter that evening, Kirsty Wark, popped into the green room to have a word with the other guests on the show, one of whom was Pauline Neville-Jones, formerly chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee. The interview, she apparently told them, would show that Greenwald was just "a campaigner and an activist", a phrase she later used disparagingly on air. No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA and the Surveillance State by Glenn Greenwald Tell us what you think: Star-rate and review this book And so the BBC went after the man, not the story. However, on this occasion, the man held his own rather well, roasting Wark and Neville-Jones with remorseless trial lawyer logic, making them look ill-prepared and silly in the process. At the time, I remember thinking that Edward Snowden had chosen exactly the right person for the job of chief advocate – a smart, unyielding, fundamentalist liberal outsider. Some of these characteristics made me wonder if his account of the Snowden affair would be one long harangue, but No Place to Hide is clearly written and compelling. Though I have been writing about the war on liberty for nearly a decade, I found that reacquainting myself with the details of surveillance and intrusion by America's NSA and Britain's GCHQ was simply shocking. As the stories rolled out last year, there was almost too much to absorb – from Prism, the program used by the NSA to access, among others, Google, Microsoft and Apple servers, to the UK's Tempora, which taps fibre optic cables and draws up web and telephone traffic; from the secret collaboration of the web and phone giants to the subversion of internet encryption and spying on ordinary people's political activities, their medical history, their friends and intimate relations and all their activities online. I published a dystopian novel in 2009 that featured a similarly intrusive program, which I named DEEPTRUTH, and let me tell you, I didn't predict half of it. Greenwald's book is a tough read if you find these things disturbing. The insouciance and dishonesty of politicians – some of whom in the UK last week called for increased access to our data – as well as the muted reaction of the established media last year do not augur well for the future of nations that currently regard themselves as free. Democracy and liberty are not synonyms and what Greenwald's book reminds us is that we may well end up as a series of hollowed-out, faux democracies, where the freedoms that we grew up with vanish almost unnoticed, like the extinction of a species of migrant bird. He writes: "A citizenry that is aware of always being watched quickly becomes a compliant and fearful one", as well as one that is far less likely to express legitimate dissent, of course. The irony of Snowden's actions is that he may have hastened the chill. There are now legitimate things that many of us will never express in private, unencrypted emails or look up on the web because of surveillance. I read No Place to Hide wondering how we let the spies probe our lives with such inadequate controls, and how on earth we fell for the propaganda that this massive apparatus was there to protect, not control, us. Greenwald quotes Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, saying: "If you have something you don't want people to know about, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place" – and later amusingly catalogues the lengths to which Silicon Valley bosses "who devalued our privacy" have gone to protect their own. When speaking in public, he often takes on those who say they do not believe that privacy is the core condition of freedom by asking for their private information – passwords, salaries, etc. I have used the same trick. No one ever raises a hand. The book is organised in three sections, starting with the story of how Greenwald was contacted by Snowden, Greenwald's flight to Hong Kong with film-maker Laura Poitras and their meeting with Snowden, whose bravery and clarity of purpose Greenwald rightly praises. There follows a useful section describing the main revelations, using the original NSA/GCHQ documents, and a third that deals with Greenwald's views on the established media and privacy. It would have been good to have a chart or timeline of the major revelations as well as a proper index. And I did feel the argument lost momentum in the middle, but on the whole this is a vigorously executed and important book. One of the depressing parts of last summer in Britain was the failure of the quality press and the broadcasting media to react to Snowden and Greenwald is rightly contemptuous of the journalists on both sides of the Atlantic who act as proxies for authority – better an activist journalist than a lackey anytime. But let me just say I think the book does a disservice to my colleagues at the Guardian, which after all is established media. The author tips his hat occasionally but does not really acknowledge the importance of the seasoned reporter Ewen MacAskill's work in Hong Kong, or the team that assembled to sift the documents, decode their inner secrets, prioritise information, gain reaction, shape the stories and provide analysis.
See also: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/may/19/no-place-to-hide-review-glenn-greenwald-nsa-gchq-surveillance-edward-snowden-spyin

Afghanistan: Permanent US Occupation Planned
by Stephen Lendman	29 May 2014
Afghanistan
Afghanistan: Permanent US Occupation Planned by Stephen Lendman America came to stay. Obama saying "(w)e will bring America's longest war to a responsible end" is false. It's his latest Big Lie. His Monday statement included many others. "The United States did not seek this fight," he said. "We went into Afghanistan out of necessity, after our nation was attacked by al Qaeda on September 11th, 2001." "We went to war against al Qaeda and its extremist allies with the strong support of the American people and their representatives in Congress; with the international community and our NATO allies; and with the Afghan people, who welcomed the opportunity of a life free from the dark tyranny of extremism." "(W)e have struck significant blows against al Qaeda's leadership, we have eliminated Osama bin Laden, and we have prevented Afghanistan from being used to launch attacks against our homeland." "We have also supported the Afghan people as they continue the hard work of building a democracy." Fact: On October 28, 2007, candidate Obama said: "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do." "I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." Fact: On December 1, 2009, President Obama said: "(A)s Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan." Fact: After 18 months, "our troops will begin to come home," he said. Fact: They didn't come home. Fact: They stayed. Fact: Afghanistan was Bush's war. Fact: It's Obama's since January 20, 2009. Fact: Waging it had nothing to do with necessity. Fact: It was a war of choice. Fact: It remains one. Fact: It shows no signs of ending. Fact: 9/11 was the mother of all US false flags. Fact: It was pretext for war on terror duplicity. Fact: It was a thinly veiled reason for maintaining Washington's permanent war policy. Fact: It had nothing to do with striking "significant blows against al Qaeda's leadership." Fact: Or eliminating bin Laden. Fact: In December 2001, he died naturally from kidney disease. BBC said so at the time. So did other major media reports. Fact: Afghanistan poses no threat to America. Fact: Not post-9/11. Fact: Not now. Fact: Washington's Afghanistan war had nothing to with protecting national security. Fact: It aimed to restore the world's largest opium supply for global heroin trafficking. Fact: To control it. Fact: To give Wall Street huge amounts of hot money to launder. Fact: An estimated $1.5 trillion annually. Fact: CIA involvement is longstanding. Fact: So are business, financial, government and underworld figures. Fact: Over 12 and a half years of war left millions dead. Fact: Millions more deeply impoverished, unemployed, underemployed, without basic services and immiserated. Fact: America deplores democracy at home and abroad. Fact: Afghanistan democracy is fantasy. Fact: Its elections are more farcical than real. Fact: Fraud substitutes for a free and open process. Fact: Voters have no say. Fact: Pentagon commanders consider Afghanistan extremely important. Fact: It's strategically located. Fact: It straddles the Middle East, South and Central Asia. Fact: It's in the heart of Eurasia. Fact: It's perhaps the world's largest land-based aircraft carrier. Fact: Occupation projects America's military might. Fact: It targets Russia, China, Iran, and other oil-rich Middle East states. Fact: It advances America's imperium. Fact: It serves its aim for unchallenged global dominance. Fact: It seeks control over Afghan's untapped natural gas, oil and other mineral resources. Fact: They're huge. Fact: They're worth an estimated $1 trillion. Fact: Perhaps more. Fact: They include gas, iron, cobalt, gold, other minerals, and over 90% of global opium used for heroin production. Fact: Afghanistan is considered the Saudi Arabia of lithium. Fact: It's essential for modern industry. Fact: It's vital for producing batteries, laptops and other key products. Fact: Afghanistan is at the crossroads of vital pipeline routes. Fact: It represents huge potential. Fact: An economic bonanza awaits profiteers. Fact: Afghans won't benefit. Fact: Surviving concerns them most. Fact: Violence continues daily. Don't expect Obama's drawdown to change things. Perhaps it won't come. Earlier promises he made were broken. Several times during his tenure he promised an Afghanistan exit plan. Letting Afghan forces replace US ones. Shifting America's mission from combat to support. Ending its longest war. In January 2013, he said "transition is well underway. Plans are for Afghan forces to replace Americans." By yearend 2014, they'll "have full responsibility for their security, and this war will come to a responsible end." By spring 2013, "our troops will have a different mission - training, advising, assisting Afghan forces. It will be a historic moment and another step toward full Afghan sovereignty." "Afghanistan (has) a long-term partner in the United States of America." US Special Forces and CIA elements came to stay. Search and destroy missions are prioritized. Drone wars continue. They're instruments of state terror. They don't make America safer. Or Afghanistan and neighboring countries. Mostly noncombatant civilians are killed. Few so-called high value ones. Claims otherwise are false. All wars are based on Big Lies. They're sold to gullible Americans. Facts are twisted to fit US policy. It bears repeating, America came to Afghanistan to stay. Super-bases were built to accommodate US forces. Tens of thousands of private military contractors supplement them. They're staying. Their skills range from technical to hired guns like Blackwater (now Academi). Afghans deplore war. They want peace. They want America, its minions and related elements out. They want their country back. Months earlier, an unnamed European diplomat said: "Never in history has any superpower spent so much money, sent so many troops to a country, and had so little influence over" what followed. As long as Afghanistan remains strategically important, US forces and influence will remain. Troop numbers can surge any time. By presidential diktat. Pretexts are easy to invent. Fictitious enemies make it easy to do so. Washington's current Afghanistan troop strength numbers around 32,000. Obama announced a reduction to 9,800. By end of 2014. To 4,000 by end of 2015, he said. Mostly in Kabul and Bagram air base. By end of 2016, an unspecified number of US forces will remain. To protect America's embassy, Obama said. To maintain a so-called "security assistance component." At least 1,000 US forces will be involved, he said. After 2014, they'll no longer patrol Afghan "cities, towns, mountains and valleys." So-called "cooperat(ion)" will follow. For "training" purposes. For "anti-terrorism operations against remnants of Al Qaeda." Since the 1980s, Al Qaeda and similar groups have been used strategically as enemies and allies. Obama didn't explain. Washington needs a Status of Forces (SOFA) agreement to stay. It establishes the framework under which US forces operate abroad. The Department of Defense Technical Information Center calls them agreements "that define the legal position of a 'visiting' military force deployed in the territory of a friendly state." They delineate "the status of visiting military forces (and) may be bilateral or multilateral." "Provisions pertaining to the status of visiting forces may be set forth in a separate agreement, or they may form a part of a more comprehensive agreement." "These provisions describe how the authorities of a visiting force may control members of that force and the amenability of the force or its member to the local law or to the authority of local officials." "To the extent that agreements delineate matters affecting the relations between a military force and civilian authorities and population, they may be considered as civil affairs agreements." Occupied countries get little choice. Pentagon officials draft provisions. They're largely one way. The late Chalmers Johnson explained them saying: "America's foreign military enclaves, though structurally, legally, and conceptually different from colonies, are themselves something like microcolonies in that they are completely beyond the jurisdiction of the occupied nation." "The US virtually always negotiates a 'status of forces agreement' (SOFA) with the ostensibly independent 'host' nation." They're a modern day version of 19th century China's "extraterritoriality" agreements. They granted foreigners charged with crimes the "right" to be tried by his (or her) own government under his (or her) own national law. Most SOFAs prevent local courts from exercising legal jurisdiction over American personnel. Even those committing murder and rape are exempt unless US officials yield to local authorities. Usually, offenders are whisked out of countries before they ask. America's total number of SOFAs is unknown. Most are secret. Some are too embarrassing to reveal. America has hundreds of known, shared, and secret bases in over 150 countries. Johnson said they "usurp, distort, or subvert whatever institutions of democratic (or other form of) government may exist with the host society." Their presence assures trouble. It includes murder, rape, theft, drunken driving, and other crimes. Locals also face unacceptable noise, pollution, environmental destruction, appropriated public land, and US personnel mindless of local laws, customs, and rights of ordinary people. Locals lose control of their lives. They have no say. They have virtually no chance for redress. They're most harmed when occupations are permanent. Current US-installed Afghan president Hamid Karzai refused to sign a SOFA. Presidential runoff candidates Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai said they'll support one. Afghans have no say. Or Americans. They're tired of wars without end. Over 80% oppose them. They want them ended. They want long overdue vital domestic issues addressed. They want them prioritized. Wars without mercy remain official US policy. Public opposition won't stop them. They continue. It's the American way. Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen (at) sbcglobal.net. His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III." http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

Daniel Ellsberg: Snowden would not get a fair trial – and Kerry is wrong
by .	31 May 2014
Edward Snowden is the greatest patriot whistleblower of our time, and he knows what I learned more than four decades ago: until the Espionage Act gets reformed, he can never come home safe and receive justice
Click on image for a larger version
John Kerry was in my mind Wednesday morning, and not because he had called me a patriot on NBC News. I was reading the lead story in the New York Times – "US Troops to Leave Afghanistan by End of 2016" – with a photo of American soldiers looking for caves. I recalled not the Secretary of State but a 27-year-old Kerry, asking, as he testified to the Senate about the US troops who were still in Vietnam and were to remain for another two years: How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? I wondered how a 70-year-old Kerry would relate to that question as he looked at that picture and that headline. And then there he was on MSNBC an hour later, thinking about me, too, during a round of interviews about Afghanistan that inevitably turned to Edward Snowden ahead of my fellow whistleblower’s own primetime interview that night: There are many a patriot – you can go back to the Pentagon Papers with Dan Ellsberg and others who stood and went to the court system of America and made their case. Edward Snowden is a coward, he is a traitor, and he has betrayed his country. And if he wants to come home tomorrow to face the music, he can do so. On the Today show and CBS, Kerry complimented me again – and said Snowden "should man up and come back to the United States" to face charges. But John Kerry is wrong, because that's not the measure of patriotism when it comes to whistleblowing, for me or Snowden, who is facing the same criminal charges I did for exposing the Pentagon Papers. As Snowden told Brian Williams on NBC later that night and Snowden's lawyer told me the next morning, he would have no chance whatsoever to come home and make his case – in public or in court. Snowden would come back home to a jail cell – and not just an ordinary cell-block but isolation in solitary confinement, not just for months like Chelsea Manning but for the rest of his sentence, and probably the rest of his life. His legal adviser, Ben Wizner, told me that he estimates Snowden's chance of being allowed out on bail as zero. (I was out on bond, speaking against the Vietnam war, the whole 23 months I was under indictment). More importantly, the current state of whistleblowing prosecutions under the Espionage Act makes a truly fair trial wholly unavailable to an American who has exposed classified wrongdoing. Legal scholars have strongly argued that the US supreme court – which has never yet addressed the constitutionality of applying the Espionage Act to leaks to the American public – should find the use of it overbroad and unconstitutional in the absence of a public interest defense. The Espionage Act, as applied to whistleblowers, violates the First Amendment, is what they're saying. As I know from my own case, even Snowden's own testimony on the stand would be gagged by government objections and the (arguably unconstitutional) nature of his charges. That was my own experience in court, as the first American to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act – or any other statute – for giving information to the American people. I had looked forward to offering a fuller account in my trial than I had given previously to any journalist – any Glenn Greenwald or Brian Williams of my time – as to the considerations that led me to copy and distribute thousands of pages of top-secret documents. I had saved many details until I could present them on the stand, under oath, just as a young John Kerry had delivered his strongest lines in sworn testimony. But when I finally heard my lawyer ask the prearranged question in direct examination – Why did you copy the Pentagon Papers? – I was silenced before I could begin to answer. The government prosecutor objected – irrelevant – and the judge sustained. My lawyer, exasperated, said he "had never heard of a case where a defendant was not permitted to tell the jury why he did what he did." The judge responded: well, you're hearing one now. And so it has been with every subsequent whistleblower under indictment, and so it would be if Edward Snowden was on trial in an American courtroom now. Indeed, in recent years, the silencing effect of the Espionage Act has only become worse. The other NSA whistleblower prosecuted, Thomas Drake, was barred from uttering the words "whistleblowing" and "overclassification" in his trial. (Thankfully, the Justice Department's case fell apart one day before it was to begin). In the recent case of the State Department contractor Stephen Kim, the presiding judge ruled the prosecution "need not show that the information he allegedly leaked could damage US national security or benefit a foreign power, even potentially." We saw this entire scenario play out last summer in the trial of Chelsea Manning. The military judge in that case did not let Manning or her lawyer argue her intent, the lack of damage to the US, overclassification of the cables or the benefits of the leaks ... until she was already found guilty. Without reform to the Espionage Act that lets a court hear a public interest defense – or a challenge to the appropriateness of government secrecy in each particular case – Snowden and future Snowdens can and will only be able to "make their case" from outside the United States. As I know from direct chat-log conversations with him over the past year, Snowden acted in full knowledge of the constitutionally questionable efforts of the Obama administration, in particular, to use the Espionage Act in a way it was never intended by Congress: as the equivalent of a British-type Official Secrets Act criminalizing any and all unauthorized release of classified information. (Congress has repeatedly rejected proposals for such an act as violating the First Amendment protections of free speech and a free press; the one exception to that was vetoed by President Clinton in November 2000, on constitutional grounds.) John Kerry's challenge to Snowden to return and face trial is either disingenuous or simply ignorant that current prosecutions under the Espionage Act allow no distinction whatever between a patriotic whistleblower and a spy. Either way, nothing excuses Kerry's slanderous and despicable characterizations of a young man who, in my opinion, has done more than anyone in or out of government in this century to demonstrate his patriotism, moral courage and loyalty to the oath of office the three of us swore: to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
See also: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/30/daniel-ellsberg-snowden-fair-trial-kerry-espionage-act

Elizabeth Warren and Thomas Piketty, 47min
by MoveOn and HuffPost Live Email: marc1seed (nospam) yahoo.com	03 Jun 2014
The rich get richer and everybody else suffers. The tax code must be radically revised so the top 1% pay the same tax as their secretaries. If capital were taxed at the same rate as labor, we'd have hundreds of billions more in the treasury. Prof. Piketty7 explains that the rigged system has continued for centuries.
to watch the 47-minute video discussion from June 2, 2014, click on http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/elizabeth-warren-thomas-piketty http://www.foreffectivegov.org www.therealnews.com www.onthecommons.org
See also: http://www.freembtranslations.net http://www.nextnewdeal.net

Northhampton, MA - Smith College Students Protest for Transgender Rights
by Lauren Walleser	07 Jun 2014
Students and activists protest admissions policies at Smith College Photo: Jenny Perrin
NORTHAMPTON, Mass.—Smith College students recently held a protest on campus in response to admissions policies they say are exclusionary towards transgender women, and many local activists agree. “After several talks with administrators, they still have not accepted our central demand of a gender supplement compromise so that Office of Admission materials do not have to have all female gender markers,” said Sarah Fraas, organizer of the protest with Smith Q&A (Queers and Allies), a student-run consensus-based organization dedicated to justice for trans women, starting with the Smith community. “They have, however, made a couple great changes—Office of Disability and Office of Financial Aid materials no longer have to have all female gender markers.” Students and activists are still fighting for other admissions documents, including transcripts, letters of recommendation, the Common App., a guidance counselor recommendation, and mid-year academic reports, to not have to include female gender markers. Smith Q&A suggests that the Office of Admission change their policy to allow a supplement, so that if admissions materials have a “male” gender marker, Smith can request “two letters of support from health providers, school administrators, teachers, guidance counselors, social workers, advisors, clergy, family, employers, etc.” Smith Q&A suggests that the Office of Admission change their policy to allow a supplement, so that if admissions materials have a “male” gender marker, Smith can request “two letters of support from health providers, school administrators, teachers, guidance counselors, social workers, advisors, clergy, family, employers, etc.” A flyer composed by the group states “Smith Admissions has always been concerned that someone might assert they’re a woman for the wrong reasons—this eliminates that risk as it would be hard to imagine two trusted adults being ‘in’ on such a scheme. Although we know that not every single trans girl will have two adults willing to affirm her identity, it’s certainly a start.” “Less than half of trans high school students are able to change documents like their transcripts, and that is readily accessible information,” Fraas said. “In practice, Smith’s policy excludes most women without a supportive school and family, which in reality is most trans women, and perhaps the trans women who need to come to Smith the most.” BET POWER ALWIN, executive director of the Sexual Minorities Educational Foundation, Inc. and curator of the Sexual Minorities Archives, also attended the protest. “Admissions at Smith College is blocking entry to trans women undergraduate students and that is blatant discrimination in education,” said Power Alwin. “Smith cannot claim to be a college for all ‘Women of the World’ if they exclude trans women, who are women. It is very frustrating because student and community activists like myself have been working to improve this situation for over a year and yet another school year has come to a close. It won’t be until fall semester when student activists will work on this problem some more. In the meantime, trans women who may apply to Smith this spring and summer will encounter a barrier to entry in the form of having to present gender credentials from others that cisgender women do not have to supply. It is the rare case, indeed, when an adult—much less a youth—who is trans has all of their identity documents consistently ‘F’ or ‘M’ across the board. It takes decades to achieve that, and years of time, effort, and money to achieve that! In many cases, it is outright impossible. There are several states that will not change the gender marker on a birth certificate or even amend it to the correct gender.” “ Smith cannot claim to be a college for all ‘Women of the World’ if they exclude trans women, who are women.” — Bet Power Alwin Genny BEEMYN, director of the Stonewall Center at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, shared their take on the situation as it stands now. “Smith officials are not doing enough to enable trans female students to be able to attend the college,” Beemyn said. “There is no reason that all of a student’s documents have to indicate that they are female. I have spoken to leaders in the Department of Education about this, and it is not an issue for them if MTF [male to female] students attend a women’s college. Smith could enable a MTF student to include a statement with their application confirming their female gender identity. This would not be too onerous on their Admissions people, but be a tremendous benefit to trans women.” “Smith could enable a MTF student to include a statement with their application confirming their female gender identity. This would not be too onerous on their Admissions people, but be a tremendous benefit to trans women.”—Genny Beemyn, Director, UMass Stonewall Center MASON DUNN, executive director of the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition, also commented on the issue. “By relying on administrative, state, and federal documents to affirm gender identity, Smith College is silencing the voices of trans applicants,” said Dunn. “All people should have the right to define their gender identity for themselves, rather than rely on often unachievable or discriminatory processes imposed by schools and government bodies.” Additionally, CARLY BURTON, deputy director of MassEquality, shared her perspective. “My personal take is that the admissions office needs to make these changes quickly so that the next class of Smith students is truly as diverse as it could be,” Burton said. The issue was spurred last spring after Smith College rejected the application of Calliope Mora Wong, stating “undergraduate applicants to Smith must be female at the time of admission.” While Wong identifies as a woman, her Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) listed her gender marker as male, prompting the college’s decision to return her application. The issue was spurred last spring after Smith College rejected the application of Calliope Mora Wong, stating “undergraduate applicants to Smith must be female at the time of admission.” While Wong identifies as a woman, her Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) listed her gender marker as male, prompting the college’s decision to return her application. Students protested outside the Smith admissions office Thursday, April 24 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. “The rally was a peaceful celebration of unity and sisterhood, as we chanted ‘It’s been too long! Trans women belong!’” said Fraas. “We handed out over 300 flyers explaining the cause to students, prospective students and their families, passersby, faculty and staff.” Fraas shared that several members of the faculty were in attendance. The event featured acoustic guitars, chants and picketing outside. NYC-based musician, activist and trans woman Joanna BLACKHART spoke about her experiences and read a statement from Wong, and the group also read a solidarity statement sent to them by the Trans Youth Equality Foundation. “You could hear us from every vantage point on campus,” said Fraas. “We marched into the library, the campus center, and college hall to make our presence known in other spaces on campus as well. People spontaneously stopped and were given a sign to hold and joined the crowd. We sat-in at the Admissions office, and also walked through the very busy office chanting and holding our signs every hour. The rally certainly sent a strong message that the inclusion of trans women at Smith has popular support in the student body.” The Office of Admissions did not officially respond to the protest. Fraas said she e-mailed the Dean of Admission to ask her to come outside and make a statement, which she also declined, saying that the admissions practices were on the website and that media could contact College Relations if they had questions. After the event, Karen KRISTOF, senior associate director of admission for Smith, said she “could not answer questions about the student demands and referred any questions about policy to the college website,” according to MassLive. “But she said as far as the admission office was concerned, ‘it was business as usual.’” Fraas, however, shared a different perspective. “I do know that we caused quite a stir: parking had to be re-routed, tour groups were snuck out the back door, and guides were apparently told not to answer any questions about the protest,” she said. “However, many prospective students and their families came up to us and asked for a flyer and asked us questions, ultimately asking ‘Why can’t Smith just change this?’” ELLI Palmer, co-chair of Smith Q&A last year and current member, said she believes there is “a pretty evident disparity between the understandings of most students and the administration of Smith when it comes to trans women.” “All people should have the right to define their gender identity for themselves, rather than rely on often unachievable or discriminatory processes imposed by schools and government bodies.”—Mason Dunn, Director, MTPC “From the conversations I have had it seems clear to me that the administration simply does not understand the complexity of this issue,” said Palmer. “They seem to see trans women as just another ‘special case’ rather than a group of women who face extreme oppression and who should have the extra support of women’s spaces. Quite simply there is a divide that exists between the way Smith students see the world and imagine the Smith community and the way the administration sees the world and envisions the Smith community. So long as the administration does not have to change the policy, I believe they won’t because they simply don’t seem to see how problematic it is. So for student activists there are only a few options available to us with that understanding—we can try to teach the administration why what they’re doing is wrong, which requires a desire to learn and change which we have not seen from them, or we can effectively force them by showing them it is their only option to avoid protests, bad press, etcetera. Hopefully we can change the policy with a combination of these two methods, but the future is still unclear and I see no change in the policy in the near future.” Smith student Raven Fowlkes-Witten said that Q&A meetings will resume again in the fall, but that people can get involved now by sending a picture holding a sign that explains “why you understand that trans women belong at Smith and why it matters to you” to http://smith-q-and-a.tumblr.com/submit. Fowlkes-Witten also suggested calling or e-mailing Smith’s Office of Admission to share your thoughts. “As a women’s college, Smith should be admitting all women—not just the women they label as ‘real’ or ‘legitimate,’” said Julia Marciano, ANOTHER Smith student. “Smith College has a longstanding tradition as a college for iron women, a place where feminism is an integral part of the liberal arts. By disenfranchising trans women—as well as women of color and queer people, on a whole other note—the college contradicts itself. I believe that there needs to be a transition from white ‘pearl and cashmere’ feminism, which is trans exclusionary and violent in nature, to good intersectional feminism that includes all women, not just those who were given that title at birth. As a feminist, it makes sense to me to fight for this issue. I love Smith enough that I want every woman to have the chance to go here.” Marciano said Smith Q&A is on hiatus for the summer, but is currently planning for the fall, including working on establishing privately funded scholarships for trans women who wish to attend women’s colleges. “After the rally and the tremendous attention it’s received, it is my hope that we can re-establish a working relationship with the administration and pass the gender supplement compromise,” said Fraas. “There’s nothing stopping Smith from doing so, and it would open up access to Smith a lot, changing women’s lives in the process.” Smith College did not return this reporter’s inquiries. For more information, visit the Facebook page for Smith Q&A at http://tiny.cc/x5xigx.
See also: http://www.therainbowtimesmass.com/2014/06/04/smith-students-continue-protest-smith-admissions-policies-transgender-women/

Defend Nurses Labor Union SF - by Carl Finamore
by Carl Finamore Email: local1781 (nospam) yahoo.com.	09 Jun 2014
“It’s locked!” Norlissa Cooper exclaimed incredulously to a contingent of several dozen other nurses from San Francisco General Hospital. The nurses were attempting to open Mayor Ed Lee’s office door May 20 to discuss with him the critically high staffing shortages at their hospital. The premier public hospital has the city’s busiest emergency room and its only Level 1 Trauma Center, which is supposed to provide the highest level of care. Overall, it serves some 100,000 patients each year, providing 20 percent of the city’s inpatient care. And yet it’s “severely understaffed and our patients severely underserved,” says Lorraine Thiebaud, a nurse for 40 years and RN chapter president in Service Employees Local 1021. The union will vote in early June whether to strike over the staffing violations. Their contract expires June 30. Coddling Tech “This has to be a first,” Cooper said about the mayor’s ducking out. “Since when is the public office of the mayor locked up in the middle of the day? Certainly not when the mayor meets with wealthy executives from Twitter and Google.” Cooper, a member of the union’s bargaining committee, was referring to regular Tuesday meetings the mayor holds with leaders of high-tech companies that have been granted big and controversial tax exemptions and even free use of city facilities. It was this “tech troubleshooting” meeting the union nurses were hoping to crash on Tuesday, Cooper said, “so we could ‘troubleshoot’ the problems of our poor, immigrant, and underprivileged patients.” The mayor’s office did not respond to requests for a statement but hospital spokeswoman Rachael Kagan said staffing levels at San Francisco General are safe and meet all the requirements of federal and state regulators and accreditation organizations. "We do have vacancies, as do all hospitals," she said. "We take it very seriously, but it's not a crisis of public safety by any stretch." Ratios Ignored The nurses disagree and say they can document how the city is violating not only its own staffing standards but also those of California’s landmark 2004 legislation establishing specific nurse-to-patient ratios. The law says hospitals must provide at least one nurse for every five patients—or fewer patients if they need more care. The California Nurses Association led efforts for a decade to pass this legislation—against intense lobbying by hospital executives. It is supposed to be enforced by the California Department of Health Services. But the numbers are simply not being achieved at San Francisco General, say the nurses, and it’s seriously affecting care. “When those ratios are ignored, patients suffer,” said Heather Bollinger, an emergency department nurse. “Patients go unattended. They fall. Their pain medication gets delayed. They get sicker.” The union estimates a 26 percent nurse shortfall in the emergency room. The union says the city's primary safety-net facility has been chronically understaffed since early last year and that its 13.7 percent vacancy rate for registered nurses and "other front-line staff," as reported by the city Department of Public Health, is putting patients at risk. Nurses have filed 300 official reports in the last two years, detailing unsafe conditions, but there has been no response from hospital management. “We are anywhere from 90 to 230 nurses short of where we should be,” said emergency room nurse Bob Ivory, citing union research. The union just released a report, “Empty Scrubs and Overflowing Beds,” documenting their claims (see box). Patients even disappear. The hospital made international headlines last year when a missing patient’s body was found after several weeks in a remote hospital stairwell. In February, a mentally unstable patient who was left unsupervised attacked another patient who was 93 years old. Two days after the protest at the mayor’s office, the union filed an unfair labor practice charge, stating that “wholesale repudiation of the staffing standards in the collective bargaining agreement… is contaminating the bargaining process” and creating impossible workloads which are damaging patient care. City Saves, Patients Lose The puzzling part of this whole “hot mess,” as Cooper describes it, is that the city has already allocated funds in its current budget to solve the crisis. The city Controller reported this year that the San Francisco Health Department is predicting a $46.3 million budget surplus this year, with $16.6 million of that stemming from salary savings at San Francisco General over nine months. The hospital itself reports a budget surplus of $26 million. Then why isn’t it hiring? Some health activists speculate that the mayor enjoys padding his much-ballyhooed budget surplus by complicating and slowing the hiring process. The union’s report notes that only one nursing position is listed on relevant jobs website. Ivory, who has been nursing since 1982, believes it might be more “politics than economics, because the money is there.” He testified at the city’s health commission, so far without results. Meanwhile, he said, patients are in hallways waiting for beds, or are even diverted to other hospitals. This is costing the city $1.4 million a month in fees paid to other care facilities, Ivory said. “That could be spent on staffing us.” - http://labornotes.org/2014/05/empty-scrubs-need-be-filled-say-san-franci

Lucy Parsons on the Origins of May Day
by Lucy Parsons	01 May 2014
The following article is by Lucy Parsons. She was a comrade of Haymarket martyr Albert Parsons. The article first appeared in the Labor Defender in November 1926. The Labor Defender was a newspaper of the International Labor Defense, a working class defense organization tied to the early American Communist Party.
Lucy Parsons on the Origins of May Day “The Haymarket Martyrs” 1926 Article from Labor Defender Does this rising generation know that those who inaugurated the eight-hour day were put to death at the command of capital? Until forty years ago men, women, and children toiled ten and often twelve hours a day in factories for a mere pittance and children from eight to nine years of age had to work to help to keep up the family. The Knights of Labor, a powerful organization, claiming 500,000 members, had never agitated for a reduction of the hours of labor. Then who were the pioneers of the eight-hour movement? Those martyrs who were strung from the gallows in Chicago on November 11, 1887, the much lied about and abused Anarchists. I will verify this statement. Until 1885 there had never been a concerted action for the reduction of the hours of labor. If eight hours was mentioned in some of our meetings (they were never really mentioned), why, that was only a dream to be indulged in by fools; the bosses would never tolerate such a thing, was the reply. In 1885 a convention was held in Chicago, composed largely of delegates from Canada. They passed a resolution calling upon the workers of this country and Canada to unite in a demand for a reduction of the hours of daily toil to eight a day on the first of May, 1886, and to strike wherever it was refused. Albert R. Parsons brought the matter up before the Trade and Labor Assembly of Chicago, the first central body ever organized in this city, a body which he himself organized and of which he was elected president three consecutive times. The matter was hotly debated and finally rejected on the ground that the bosses would never tolerate it. The Central Labor Union, composed of German mechanics, took the matter up and endorsed it. At the same time they passed a resolution requesting August Spies, editor of the Chicago Arbeiterzeitung, the daily German paper, and Albert R. Parsons, editor of the Alarm, to support it in their papers and speeches; they were both splendid orators. Thus it was that the eight-hour movement got under way. Many other cities agitated for it, but Chicago was the storm center of the movement owing to the zeal and courage of the men and women of this city who worked day and night for it. The result was that when May 1, 1886, arrived, it found Chicago well organized and demanding the eight-hour day, striking by the thousands where the demand was refused. It was a veritable holiday for the workers. The bosses were taken completely by surprise. Some were frightened and threatening; some were signing up; others were abusing those “scoundrels” who had brought all this trouble upon “our” city and declaring that they would be made examples of, that they ought to be hung and the like. Bradstreet [a financial publication of the time] declared (see Bradstreet of that date) that stocks had slumped on the New York market owing to the strike situation in Chicago. The police were unspeakably brutal, clubbing and shooting; factory whistles blew, but few responded. I was chairman of the Women’s Organization Committee and know personally how that great strike spread. I have never seen such solidarity. I only wish I could describe it in detail, those stirring times. It would make the blood course swiftly through the veins of the rebels of today, but lack of space forbids. In the afternoon of May 3, the McCormick Reaper Works employees were holding a meeting at the noon hour, discussing the strike and declaring for the eight-hour day—they were then working twelve hours—when wagon loads of police dashed down upon them and began clubbing and shooting without a word of warning. An afternoon paper stated there were five killed and many injured at this meeting. August Spies who was addressing the meeting, returned to the Arbeiterzeitung office and issued the circular calling the Haymarket meeting for the next evening, May 4. I will allow Mayor Harrison, who was the first witness for the defense, to describe that meeting: “I went to the meeting for the purpose of dispersing it in case I should feel it necessary to do so for the safety of the city...there was no suggestion made by either of the speakers looking toward calling for immediate use of force or violence. I saw no weapons at all upon any person. In listening to the speeches I concluded that it was not an organization to destroy property...” For holding that peaceable protest meeting, five of as fine young men as ever lived, all labor organizers, were condemned and judicially murdered on November 11, 1887, in Chicago, Illinois. There was a riot at the Haymarket meeting, it is true, but it was a police riot. Mayor Harrison further testified that, when the meeting was about to adjourn, he went to the police station, half a block distant, and ordered Captain Bondfield to send the reserves to the other stations, as the meeting was about to adjourn and was quiet. Instead of Bondfield obeying the orders of the Mayor, as soon as the Mayor started home, Bondfield rushed a company of police at double quick, with drawn clubs, upon the meeting of peaceably assembled men, women and children. At the onrush of these violators of the people’s constitutional rights someone hurled a bomb. Who threw that bomb has never become known. Neither the police nor the capitalists wanted to know; what they wanted was to get hold of the labor organizers and make “examples” of them as they said openly they would do. The trial, so-called, lasted sixty-one days. The jury reached their verdict in less than three hours, condemning seven men to the gallows and one to prison for fourteen years. I herewith give a few, just a few, samples of the rulings of the judge who presided at the trial in selecting the jury. James H. Walker said he had formed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendants, which opinion he still held. Now the judge takes him in hand. “Do you believe that you can listen to the testimony and the charge of the court and decide upon that alone, uninfluenced and unbiased by the opinion that you now have?” “No, I don’t.” “That is what I asked you.” “I said I would be handicapped.” “Do you believe that you can fairly and impartially render a verdict in accordance with the law and the evidence in this case?” “I shall try to do it, sir.” “But do you believe that you can sit here and fairly and impartially make up your mind from the evidence whether that evidence proves that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or not?” “I think I could but I would feel that I was a little handicapped in my judgment. I am prejudiced, sir.” “Well, that is a sufficient qualification for a juror in this case. Of course, the more a man feels that he is handicapped the more he will guard against it.” W.B. Allen, another juror. The judge asked: “I will ask you whether what you have formed from what you have read and heard is a slight impression or an opinion, or a conviction?” “It is a decided conviction.” “Have you made up your mind as to whether these men are guilty or innocent?” “Yes, sir.” “Would it be difficult to change that conviction or impression perhaps?” “It would be hard to change my conviction.” Seven years later Governor John P. Altgeld reviewed the whole case. He, having been a judge before he was elected governor, was amply competent to review the case in a legal manner. He took the testimony and proved from it that our comrades were absolutely innocent. In his masterly State Paper, Altgeld’s “Reasons” (I can only take a few extracts from it here, the document is printed in the Life of Albert R. Parsons in full) Governor Altgeld says: “The state has never discovered who threw the bomb which killed the policemen and the evidence does not show any connection between the defendants and the man who did throw it...and again it is shown here that the bomb was, in all probability, thrown by someone seeking revenge, that is, a course had been pursued by the authorities which would naturally cause this; that for a number of years prior to the Haymarket affair there had been labor troubles, and in several cases a number of laboring people, guilty of no offense had been shot down in cold blood by the Pinkerton’s men, and none of the murderers were brought to justice... “All facts tend to show the improbability of the theory of the prosecution that the bomb was thrown as the result of a conspiracy on the part of the defendants to commit murder; if the theory of the prosecution were correct, there would have been many more bombs thrown and the fact that only one was thrown shows that it was an act of personal revenge... The record of the case shows that the judge conducted the trial with malicious ferocity and forced eight men to be tried together who should have been tried separately.” Albert R. Parsons was not arrested immediately after the Haymarket meeting. He left Chicago and stayed with his friend, D.W. Hoan, father of the present mayor of Milwaukee, at Waukesha, Wisconsin. The day the trial began he came into court and surrendered, stating that he was innocent of bomb-throwing and only wanted a chance to prove his innocence. But he too was murdered along with the other four. Parsons, Spies, Lingg, Fischer and Engel. Although all that is mortal of you is laid beneath that beautiful monument in Waldheim Cemetery, you are not dead. You are just beginning to live in the hearts of all true lovers of liberty. For now, after forty years that you are gone, thousands who were then unborn are eager to learn of your lives and heroic martyrdom, and as the years lengthen the brighter will shine your names, and the more you will come to be appreciated and loved. Those who so foully murdered you, under the forms of law—lynch law—in a court of supposed justice, are forgotten. Rest, comrades, rest. All the tomorrows are yours! Distributed by Liberation News, newsletter of the Revolutionary Tendency, subscribe free: https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

Video/Photos: May Day Boston/ Chelsea
by Michael Borkson Email: nosanctions (nospam) yahoo.com	02 May 2014
May Day rally Boston/ Chelsea.
Click on image for a larger version
May Day Boston 2014: About 800 people gathered in front of Chelsea City Hall to celebrate International Workers Day. The issues were for an increase in the minimum wage to $15 an hour and workers and immigrants rights. Feeder marches came from East Boston, Everett, and Revere. Speeches were from labor leaders and immigrants rights advocates; both in Spanish and English. Also, cultural performances by Native American and Asian artists added to the diversity of the rally. A wide range of labor/immigrants/social justice organizations organized the protest. VIDEO: http://youtu.be/ZwNO8BHlL90 PHOTOS: https://www.flickr.com/photos/protestphotos1/sets/72157644459317772/ https://www.facebook.com/m1coalition
Click on image for a larger version
Click on image for a larger version
Click on image for a larger version
Click on image for a larger version
Click on image for a larger version
See also: https://www.facebook.com/m1coalition

Video/Photos-US Hands Off Ukraine Rally-Boston
by Michael Borkson Email: nosanctions (nospam) yahoo.com	18 May 2014
Boston protest against US involvement in the Ukraine.
Click on image for a larger version
Boston, Mass.-May 17, 2014: A small but vocal protest gathered today at Park St. in Boston to protest against US involvement in the Ukraine.;another part of the world where the US has no business in; its solely a Russian and Eastern Europe affair. The protest was organized by UNAC, IAC Boston, and The Committee For Peace and Human Rights. Photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/protestphotos1/sets/72157644721378174/ Video: http://youtu.be/VjaaGqgc-DM (from the event announcement) EMERGENCY BOSTON ANTI-WAR SPEAKOUT AND RALLY TO OPPOSE U.S./NATO INTERVENTION IN THE UKRAINE No to Fascism in the Ukraine! No New Cold War! Money for Jobs, Not War! SATURDAY, MAY 17 1 PM PARK ST. STATION, BOSTON In response to United National Antiwar Coalition United Call for National Actions May 9 - May 26 , below. COME OUT AND SPEAK OUT! For more information: iacboston(no spam)gmail.com > 617-792-8136 Let's make our collective voices heard. For unity and solidarity against war. Call for Emergency Antiwar Actions – May 9 to May 26 US/NATO war moves in Eastern Europe, the Black Sea, and the Baltic Sea – the borders of Russia – are a danger to the whole world. Positioning destroyers and missiles, scheduling war games, and imposing sanctions (an act of war) risk wider war. We are deeply disturbed by the expansion of the U.S.-commanded NATO military alliance and U.S. recognition and speedy grant of billions in loans to a right-wing coup government in Ukraine, which overthrew the elected government. This illegal government has used fascist violence against all forms of peoples’ resistance in Ukraine. By more than 2 to 1, the population in the U.S. is against another war and opposed to US military moves or aid to the coup government in Ukraine (4-28-14 Pew/USA Today poll). We must make our voices heard. The time to act is now! We need jobs, health care and social services, not another war. We urge nationally coordinated antiwar actions across the U.S. and internationally - protests, vigils, teach-ins, antiwar resolutions and visits to offices of elected officials. From May 9 to May 26 let us act together, in unity, as a powerful voice against the threat of another war.
Click on image for a larger version
Click on image for a larger version
Click on image for a larger version
Click on image for a larger version
Click on image for a larger version

Photos/Video- Veterans For Peace Anti-War Memorial Day
by Michael Borkson Email: nosanctions (nospam) yahoo.com	27 May 2014
Boston, Mass.-Memorial Day-May 26, 2014: About 100 peace activists gathered in Boston Waterfront Park for the annual Smedley Butler Brigade Veterans For Peace anti-war Memorial Day commemoration.
Click on image for a larger version
Boston, Mass.-Memorial Day-May 26, 2014: About 100 peace activists gathered in Boston Waterfront Park for the annual Smedley Butler Brigade Veterans For Peace anti-war Memorial Day commemoration. VFP speakers spoke of the waste of war, those killed in combat plus those veterans who return from the US wars with broken minds and bodies. Notably the epidemic of suicides and homelessness and incarceration among veterans takes their toll as well. An addition this year was the reading of peace poetry by VFP members. Also, some Iraqi war refugees and an Iraqi poet spoke of the deadly toll the US invasion of Iraq rendered. The observance ended with a reading of the names of Massachusetts veterans killed in the wars as well as names of civilian Iraqis and Afghanis killed by the US invasions--after each name was read aloud, participants took a flower and tossed it into Boston Harbor as a commemoration of lives lost. The many holiday passersby were visibly moved by the message of peace--even two high school ROTC cadets stopped to listen. Photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/protestphotos1/sets/72157644449496869/ Video: http://youtu.be/l6Ydazw48As Boston chapter of Vets For Peace: http://www.smedleyvfp.org
Click on image for a larger version
Click on image for a larger version
Click on image for a larger version
Click on image for a larger version
Click on image for a larger version
Click on image for a larger version

Radical Labor Unions Picket Harvard Commencement
by Boston IWW	30 May 2014
Reposted from the Boston IWW blog. Yesterday IWW’s who are members of HUCTW (the Harvard Union of Clerical & Technical Workers) helped organize an action at the world’s richest University’s Commencement Exercises. The Student Labor Action Movement (SLAM) helped us build for the event, and mobilized their members to turn out. SLAM has been fiercely defending campus workers for many years.
Click on image for a larger version
Participants in the visibility action included HUCTW’s Johany Pilar, facing ongoing retaliation for reporting sexual harassment. Johany was called an “embarassing Latina” by a manager in Harvard’s Campus Services. HUCTW Rep Nassim Kerkache, who also attended, was demoted three salary grades by the same manager, who said his English wasn’t good enough to be a Coordinator, the position he’d occupied for nine years! HUCTW member Marvin Byrd was another subject of the protest. Marvin, who uses braces to walk, was called “that dirty black man,” by the very same administrator, has been kept in a lower salary grade than co-workers with the same job duties, and threatened with termination. Paul Casey, laid off after 30+ years of service shortly after he returned from a disability leave, was another participant in the visibility action. Paul was supposedly laid off for “lack of work,” although he was very busy in his job. His duties were simply distributed to other employees. Flyers we distributed to hundreds of graduates, families and passers-by also called attention to the case of Judy Rouse. Judy, a member of UNITE HERE Local 26, was fired by Harvard in retaliation for being an active and effective shop steward. Highlights of the action included the huge surrealist puppets which were kindly hauled to the protest and hoisted by local anarchists from the Lantern collective. They got a lot of attention and made it easy to pass out flyers! Everybody wanted to know what was going on when they saw the striking figures, one enormous one bearing the motto “Mentiri” or “to lie,” a play on Harvard’s Latin motto Veritas (truth). Wobs and HUCTW members were also heartened by the solidarity from USW Local 8751, the Boston School Bus Drivers’ Union. Drivers Steve Gilles and Steve Kirschbaum, terminated for union activity, helped us hand out flyers and support Harvard workers under attack. All photos by Le Le Lechat & Steve Kirschbaum.
Click on image for a larger version
Click on image for a larger version
Click on image for a larger version
Click on image for a larger version
Click on image for a larger version
Click on image for a larger version

Marx and Engels Belong to the Workers of the World Workers Vanguard No. 1047	30 May 2014

Marx and Engels Belong to the Workers of the World

 

(Editorial Note)

 

Lawrence & Wishart, the British publisher of the Collected Works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (MECW), has compelled the Marxists Internet Archive to remove free digital versions of this 50-volume treasure from its Web site. This step is meant to further the publisher’s pursuit of private, profitable licenses with paying customers. In a particularly bitter and ironic twist, the ax fell on the eve of May Day, the international proletarian holiday. Restricting free public access to writings by the founders of the Marxist movement is a blow to working people, students and the oppressed at a time when a new generation is grappling with the inequalities and irrationality of the capitalist system—from Washington’s slashing of food stamps after bailing out the banks to European Union/IMF-imposed austerity against working people in Greece.

Lawrence & Wishart, formerly associated with the British Communist Party, complains that the left, which has howled in protest against this move, would have them commit “institutional suicide” rather than make financial ends meet in a capitalist world. In fact, we buy their well-translated and beautifully bound MECW and hope they will someday have the resources to bring out an index to this vital trove of writings. But restricting public access to Marxist writings is reprehensible and technologically as dim as a ten-watt incandescent bulb. Scans of these writings are out there in the world and streaming faster than hooch in a gin joint during Prohibition.

Lawrence & Wishart wrongly claim that the public will still have access to the MECW via university libraries. Working people, the poor and the unemployed are not exactly welcome to pad the hallowed halls of academia, whether in the U.S., Britain or elsewhere. Moreover, university libraries are drastically cutting back on subscriptions as the licensing costs for digital publications are beyond the grasp of all but the wealthiest enclaves of bourgeois privilege. Huge profit margins demanded by science publishers like Elsevier impede the very collaboration that is so vital to scientific advance. An annual, online-only subscription to the Journal of Comparative Neurology, for example, is currently $30,860!

Lawrence & Wishart’s action against the Marxists Internet Archive recalls earlier proprietary piggishness by the American Socialist Workers Party (SWP). The SWP threatened legal action against the Marxists Internet Archive in 2000 and demanded removal of digital versions of writings by Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky as well as SWP founding documents, including the early Trotskyist organ Socialist Appeal. The publishing preferences of the SWP, which long ago repudiated Trotskyism, resemble a Third Worldist book-of-the-month club. The SWP nonetheless also claims ownership of genuine Marxist writers like Trotsky and founding American Trotskyist James P. Cannon because it is deeply concerned with cashing in on these works, which should be disseminated as freely and widely as possible.

Granted we live in a capitalist society driven by the profit motive, but it is informative to look at the policies and practices of the Bolsheviks, who saw further from the heights of their conquest of state power for the working people in the 1917 Russian October Revolution. The Third (Communist) International was launched to generalize the lessons of the Russian experience and extend the gains of October through international socialist revolution. The Comintern’s journal International Press Correspondence (known as InPreCor) was translated and published in several languages, and the words “Please reprint” appeared over the masthead. Later, the Soviet Union was behind the effort to translate the MECW into English and other languages, the project for which Lawrence & Wishart was awarded its copyright.

The Spartacist Publishing Company is not proprietary about Workers Vanguard or our other journals, and they are available on the International Communist League’s Web site (www.icl-fi.org). Books and bulletins produced by the Prometheus Research Library (the central archival repository of the Central Committee of the Spartacist League) are available in free digital versions on the PRL’s Web site (www.prl.org). The Prometheus Research Library also promotes and practices archival collaboration with the Marxists Internet Archive, the Riazanov Library, the Internet Archive and other libraries and researchers to help make the most complete history of the Marxist movement available to the public. This includes not only our own publications but also our archives of the publications of other tendencies in the international workers movement.

We appreciate the wider public access and search capabilities afforded by digital versions of Marxist publications. But this media form is no substitute for the print editions of journals of record and works of enduring value. We use, cherish and preserve print publications and encourage serious students of Marxism and fighters for social change to buy subscriptions to our press. We are proud of our history and programmatic fidelity and offer for sale indexed bound volumes of WV as well as other publications of our party.

Anyone wishing to fight the ravages of capitalism would do well to read the 1848 Communist Manifesto, in which Marx and Engels addressed their bourgeois critics:

“In your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.”

As they said of the “business” of revolutionary politics: “In a word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.”

Free the NATO 3 Now! Workers Vanguard No. 1047	30 May 2014

 

Chicago

 

Free the NATO 3 Now!

 

On April 25, Cook County judge Thaddeus Wilson sentenced Jared Chase, Brent Betterly and Brian Church to prison for eight, six and five years respectively. The three fell prey to a sting operation carried out in the name of the bipartisan “war on terror” after traveling to Chicago to join protests against a May 2012 gathering of NATO imperialist war criminals. Across the country, “anti-terror” witchhunts have increasingly become a club wielded by the Feds and local cops in their efforts to quash leftist political protest. All opponents of capitalist inequality and the depredations of U.S. imperialism as well as fighters for black and immigrant rights have an interest in demanding freedom for the NATO 3.

The young activists had been convicted on February 7 on two frame-up felony counts of possessing Molotov cocktails and two misdemeanor “mob action” charges in what was a chemically pure example of police entrapment. Undercover agents Nadia Chikko and Mehmet Uygun infiltrated the Occupy group with whom the defendants, who had driven up from Florida, were bunking. The agents provocateurs hatched a plan, pushed it forward and assembled some Molotov cocktails, goading and dragging along Betterly, Church and Chase at every step. Despite two weeks of intense surveillance, not a single piece of evidence was produced linking the NATO 3 to the assembly of the Molotov cocktails, as charged in the indictment.

In the lead-up to the NATO summit, Democratic mayor Rahm Emanuel and Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy whipped up an atmosphere of hysteria and unleashed a massive display of police power to intimidate protesters (see “Defend Anti-NATO Protesters!” WV No. 1003, 25 May 2012). The “Welcome Wagon” offered by Emanuel, President Obama’s former chief of staff, was captured in a YouTube video, posted by the NATO 3 less than a week prior to their arrest, that shows squad cars surrounding their vehicle. Invoking the police riot against protesters at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, one cop taunts them, “What did they say back in ’68?” Another cop replies: “Billy club to the fucking skull.”

The NATO 3 are the first to ever be charged with violating Illinois anti-terror statutes, which were enacted after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. But, in a partial setback to the state, the jury did not buy the “conspiracy to commit terrorism” charges. Calling the proceedings a “terrorist show trial,” the NATO 3’s defense team aptly noted that the state’s definition of terrorism was so vague and broad that it could include “labor strikes, peaceful occupations and sit-ins, political protests and boycotts.” And “conspiracy” is what the government uses to nail those it wants to silence but cannot charge with demonstrable criminal acts. Organizing against slavery was “conspiratorial,” and labor unions used to be considered illegal conspiracies in this country.

The conviction and draconian sentences for these activists is a frontal attack on the right of protest. The Partisan Defense Committee has contributed to their defense and urges WV readers to do likewise. Donations can be made at www.wepay.com/donations/freethenato3.