Tuesday, March 14, 2017

An Encore -When The Tin Can Bended…. In The Time Of The Late Folk-Singer Dave Van Ronk’s Time

An Encore -When The Tin Can Bended…. In The Time Of The Late Folk-Singer Dave Van Ronk’s Time

From The Pen Of Bart Webber
 

Sometimes Sam Lowell and his “friend” (really “sweetie,” long time sweetie, paramour, significant other, consort or whatever passes for the socially acceptable or Census Bureau bureaucratic “speak” way to name somebody who is one’s soul-mate, his preferred term) Laura Perkins whose relationship to Sam was just described at the end of the parentheses, and righteously so, liked to go to Crane’s Beach in Ipswich to either cool off in the late summer heat or in the fall before the New England weather lowers its hammer and the place gets a bit inaccessible and too windswept to force the delicate Laura into the weathers. That later summer  heat escape valve is a result, unfortunately for an otherwise Edenic environment of the hard fact that July, when they really would like to go there to catch a few fresh sea breezes, is not a time to show up at the bleach white sands beach due to nasty blood-sucking green flies swarming and dive-bombing like some berserk renegade Air Force squadron lost on a spree captained by someone with a depraved childhood who breed in the nearby swaying mephitic marshes (mephitic courtesy of multi-use by Norman Mailer who seemed to get it in every novel- if you don't what it means look it up but think nasty and smelly and you will close-okay).


The only “safe haven” then is to drive up the hill to the nearby robber-baron days etched Crane Castle (they of the American indoor plumbing fortune way back) to get away from the buggers, although on a stagnant wind day you might have a few vagrant followers, as the well-to-do have been doing since there were the well-to-do and had the where-with-all to escape the summer heat and bugs at higher altitudes. By the way I assume that “castle” is capitalized when it part of a huge estate, the big ass estate of Crane, now a trust monument to the first Gilded Age, not today’s neo-Gilded Age, architectural proclivities of the rich, the guy whose company did, does all the plumbing fixture stuff on half the bathrooms in America including in the various incantations of the mansion. 

Along the way, along the hour way to get to Ipswich from Cambridge Sam and Laura had developed a habit of making the time more easy passing by listening to various CDs, inevitably not listened to for a long time folk CDs, not listened to for so long that the plastic containers needed to be dusted off before being brought along, on the car's improvised  CD player. And as is their wont while listening to some CD to comment on this or that thing that some song brought to mind, or the significance of some song in their youth.  One of the things that had brought them together early on several years back was their mutual interest in the old 1960s folk minute which Sam, a little older and having grown up within thirty miles of Harvard Square, one the big folk centers of that period along with the Village and North Beach out in Frisco town, had imbibed deeply. Laura, growing up “in the sticks,” in farm country in upstate New York had gotten the breeze at second-hand through records, records bought at Cheapo Records and the eternal Sandy's on Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge and a little the fading Cambridge folk scene through breathing in the coffeehouse atmosphere when she had moved to Boston in the early 1970s to go to graduate school.     

One hot late August day they got into one such discussion about how they first developed an interest in folk music when Sam had said “sure everybody, everybody over the age of say fifty to be on the safe side, knows about Bob Dylan, maybe some a little younger too if some hip kids have browsed through their parents’ old vinyl record collections now safely ensconced in the attic although there are stirrings of retro-vinyl revival of late according a report I had heard on NPR."

Some of that over 50 crowd and their young acolytes would also have known about how Dylan, after serving something like an apprenticeship under the influence of Woody Guthrie in the late 1950s singing Woody’s songs imitating Woody's style something fellow Woody acolytes like Ramblin’ Jack Elliot never quite got over moved on, got all hung up on high symbolism and obscure references. Funny guys like Jack actually made a nice workman-like career out of Woody covers, so their complaints about the "great Dylan betrayal, about moving on, seen rather hollow now. That over 50s crowd would also know Dylan became if not the voice of the Generation of ’68, their generation, which he probably did not seriously aspire in the final analysis, then he would settle for the master troubadour of the age.

Sam continued along that line after Laura had said she was not sure about the connection and he said he meant, “troubadour in the medieval sense of bringing news to the people and entertaining them by song and poetry as well if not decked in some officially approved garb like back in those olden days where they worked under a king’s license if lucky, by their wit otherwise but the 'new wave' post-beatnik flannel shirt, work boots, and dungarees which connected you with the roots, the American folk roots down in the Piedmont, down in Appalachia, down in Mister James Crow’s Delta, and out in the high plains, the dust bowl plains. So, yes, that story has been pretty well covered.”  

Laura said she knew all of that about the desperate search for roots although not that Ramblin’ Jack had been an acolyte of Woody’s but she wondered about others, some other folk performers whom she listened to on WUMB on Saturday morning when some weeping willow DJ put forth about fifty old time rock and folk rock things a lot of which she had never heard of back in Mechanicsville outside of Albany where she grew up. Sam then started in again, “Of course that is hardly the end of the story since Dylan did not create that now hallowed folk minute of the early 1960s. He had been washed by it when he came to the East from Hibbing, Minnesota for God’s sake (via Dink’s at the University there), came into the Village where there was a cauldron of talent trying to make folk the next big thing, the next big cultural thing for the young and restless of the post-World War II generations. For us. But also those in little oases like the Village where the disaffected could pick up on stuff they couldn’t get in places like Mechanicsville or Carver where I grew up. People who I guess, since even I was too young to know about that red scare stuff except you had to follow your teacher’s orders to put your head under your desk and hands neatly folded over your head if the nuclear holocaust was coming, were frankly fed up with the cultural straightjacket of the red scare Cold War times and began seriously looking as hard at roots in all its manifestations as our parents, definitely mine, yours were just weird about stuff like that, right, were burying those same roots under a vanilla existential Americanization. How do you like that for pop sociology 101.”

“One of the talents who was already there when hick Dylan came a calling, lived there, came from around there was the late Dave Van Ronk who as you know we had heard several times in person, although unfortunately when his health and well-being were declining not when he was a young politico and hell-raising folk aspirant. You know he also, deservedly, fancied himself a folk historian as well as musician.”    

“Here’s the funny thing, Laura, that former role is important because we all know that behind every  'king' is the 'fixer man,' the guy who knows what is what, the guy who tells one and all what the roots of the matter were like some mighty mystic (although in those days when he fancied himself a socialist that mystic part was played down). Dave Van Ronk was serious about that part, serious about imparting that knowledge about the little influences that had accumulated during the middle to late 1950s especially around New York which set up that folk minute. New York like I said, Frisco, maybe in small enclaves in L.A. and in precious few other places during those frozen times a haven for the misfits, the outlaws, the outcast, the politically “unreliable,” and the just curious. People like the mistreated Weavers, you know, Pete Seeger and that crowd found refuge there when the hammer came down around their heads from the red-baiters and others like advertisers who ran for cover to “protect” their precious soap, toothpaste, beer, deodorant or whatever they were mass producing to sell to a hungry pent-up market.  


"Boston and Cambridge by comparison until late in the 1950s when the Club 47 and other little places started up and the guys and gals who could sing, could write songs, could recite some be-bop deep from the blackened soul poetry even had a place to show their stuff instead of to the winos, rummies, grifters and con men who hung out at the Hayes-Bickford or out on the streets could have been any of the thousands of towns who bought into the freeze.”     

“Sweetie, I remember one time but I don’t remember where, maybe the CafĂ© Nana when that was still around after it had been part of the Club 47 folk circuit for new talent to play and before Harry Reid, who ran the place, died and it closed down, I know it was before we met, so it had to be before the late 1980s Von Ronk told a funny story, actually two funny stories, about the folk scene and his part in that scene as it developed a head of steam in the mid-1950s which will give you an idea about his place in the pantheon. During the late 1950s after the publication of Jack Kerouac’s ground-breaking road wanderlust adventure novel, On The Road, that got young blood stirring, not mine until later since I was clueless on all that stuff except rock and roll which I didn’t read until high school, the jazz scene, the cool be-bop jazz scene and poetry reading, poems reflecting off of “beat” giant Allen Ginsberg’s Howl the clubs and coffeehouse of the Village were ablaze with readings and cool jazz, people waiting in line to get in to hear the next big poetic wisdom guy if you can believe that these days when poetry is generally some esoteric endeavor by small clots of devotees just like folk music. The crush of the lines meant that there were several shows per evening. But how to get rid of one audience to bring in another in those small quarters was a challenge."


"Presto, if you wanted to clear the house just bring in some desperate “from hunger” snarly nasally folk singer for a couple, maybe three songs, and if that did not clear the high art be-bop poetry house then that folk singer was a goner. A goner until the folk minute of the 1960s where that very same folk singer probably in that very same club then played for the 'basket.' You know the 'passed hat' which even on a cheap date, and a folk music coffeehouse date was a cheap one in those days like I told you before and you laughed at cheapie me and the 'Dutch treat' thing, you felt obliged to throw a few bucks into to show solidarity or something.  And so the roots of New York City folk according to the 'father.'

Laura interrupted to ask if that “basket” was like the buskers put in front them these days and Sam said yes. And then asked Sam about a few of the dates he took to the coffeehouses in those days, just out of curiosity she said, meaning if she had been around would he have taken her there then. He answered that question but since it is an eternally complicated and internal one I having to do with where she stood in the long Sam girlfriend  pecking order (very high and leave it at that unless she reads this and then the highest) have skipped it to let him go on with the other Von Ronk story.

He continued with the other funny story like this-“The second story involved his [Von Ronk's] authoritative role as a folk historian who after the folk minute had passed became the subject matter for, well, for doctoral dissertations of course just like today maybe people are getting doctorates in hip-hop or some such subject. Eager young students, having basked in the folk moment in the abstract and with an academic bent, breaking new ground in folk history who would come to him for the 'skinny.' Now Van Ronk had a peculiar if not savage sense of humor and a wicked snarly cynic’s laugh but also could not abide academia and its’ barren insider language so when those eager young students came a calling he would give them some gibberish which they would duly note and footnote. Here is the funny part. That gibberish once published in the dissertation would then be cited by some other younger and even more eager students complete with the appropriate footnotes. Nice touch, nice touch indeed on that one, right.”

Laura did not answer but laughed, laughed harder as she thought about it having come from that unformed academic background and having read plenty of sterile themes turned inside out.       

As Laura laugh settled Sam continued “As for Van Ronk’s music, his musicianship which he cultivated throughout his life, I think the best way to describe that for me is that one Sunday night in the early 1960s I was listening to the local folk program on WBZ hosted by Dick Summer, who was influential in boosting local folk musician Tom Rush’s career and who was featured on that  Tom Rush documentary No Regrets we got for being members of WUMB, when this gravelly-voice guy, sounding like some old mountain pioneer, sang the Kentucky hills classic Fair and Tender Ladies. It turned out to be Von Ronk's version which you know I still play up in the third floor attic. After that I was hooked on that voice and that depth of feeling that he brought to every song even those of his own creation which tended to be spoofs on some issue of the day.”

Laura laughed at Sam and the intensity with which his expressed his mentioning of the fact that he liked gravelly-voiced guys for some reason. Here is her answer, “You should became when you go up to the third floor to do your “third floor folk- singer” thing and you sing Fair and Tender Ladies I hear this gravelly-voiced guy, sounding like some old mountain pioneer, some Old Testament Jehovah prophet come to pass judgment come that end day time.”
They both laughed. 


Laura then mentioned the various times that they had seen Dave Von Ronk before he passed away, not having seen him in his prime, when that voice did sound like some old time prophet, a title he would have probably secretly enjoyed for publicly he was an adamant atheist. Sam went on, “ I saw him perform many times over the years, sometimes in high form and sometimes when drinking too much high-shelf whiskey, Chavis Regal, or something like that not so good. Remember we had expected to see him perform as part of Rosalie Sorrels’ farewell concert at Saunders Theater at Harvard in 2002 I think. He had died a few weeks before.  Remember though before that when we had seen him for what turned out to be our last time and I told you he did not look well and had been, as always, drinking heavily and we agreed his performance was subpar. But that was at the end. For a long time he sang well, sang us well with his own troubadour style, and gave us plenty of real information about the history of American folk music. Yeah like he always used to say-'when the tin can bended …..and the story ended.'

As they came to the admission booth at the entrance to Crane’s Beach Sam with Carolyn Hester’s song version of Walt Whitman’s On Captain, My Captain on the CD player said “I was on my soap box long enough on the way out here. You’re turn with Carolyn Hester on the way back who you know a lot about and I know zero, okay.” Laura retorted, “Yeah you were definitely on your soap-box but yes we can talk Carolyn Hester because I am going to cover one of her songs at my next “open mic.” And so it goes.                      

In Boston-Join The Struggle Against Homelessness


In Boston-Join The Struggle Against Homelessness








In Boton Two Veterans Groups Banned from the Saint Patrick’s Day Parade Veterans For Peace Are Out as Well



  Veterans For Peace 

For Immediate Release
 
Contact: Pat Scanlon at 978-590-4248 or
 
Two Veterans Groups Banned from the
Saint Patrick’s Day Parade 
Veterans For Peace Are Out as Well
 
March 10, 2017

SOUTH BOSTON— There are two veterans organizations prohibited from marching in the Saint Patrick’s Day Parade this year. One group because they dare to exhibit a tiny rainbow flag to identify who they are as individuals. The second group is being denied because they work for Peace and Peaceful resolution of conflict. Veterans For Peace have also been denied to walk in the parade on March 19.
 
Both Governor Baker and Mayor Walsh had wonderful things to say about veterans in yesterday’s news”, stated Pat Scanlon, Special Event Coordinator for the local chapter of Veterans For Peace. “Mayor Walsh stated, “I will not tolerate discrimination in our city” and the Governor had moving words to say about our veterans. To quote the governor as reported; "That word veteran, to me it approaches holy," Baker said. "And the idea that we would restrict the opportunity for men and women who put on that uniform knowing full well they could put themselves in harm's way, and deny them an opportunity to march in a parade that's about celebrating veterans, doesn't make any sense to me."
 
“What are we, chopped liver”, continued Scanlon. Veterans For Peace is a national veterans organization with over two hundred veterans in their local chapter for the Boston area. These are Veterans have fought in every war since WWII. Many of these Veterans have been in harms way defending this country, have seen the horrors of war first hand, are highly decorated and now work for peace. Yet, once again not allowed to march in this historical parade. Where is the outcry from our leaders about these veterans not being able to walk in this parade? It is as if Peace is a Dirty Word.
 
The application that was sent to the AWVC is attached – please read it and try to figure out why the members of the AWVC denied Veterans For Peace to participate.
 
“It is shameful”, stated Scanlon. “The City of Boston should take back this parade and truly make it inclusive for all, regardless if you are gay or work for peace”.
 
Attachments include: 
Application for participation in Saint Patrick's Day Parade
Press Release
Picture of Veterans For Peace on West Broadway in 2016Inline image
########

*From The Pages Of “Workers Vanguard”-Foreclosures, Unemployment, Union Busting:Capitalism U.S.A.

Click on the headline to link to the Part Two of article from “Workers Vanguard” described in the title.

Markin comment:

As almost always these historical articles and polemics are purposefully helpful to clarify the issues in the struggle against world imperialism, particularly the “monster” here in America.

Workers Vanguard No. 910
14 March 2008

Foreclosures, Unemployment, Union Busting: Capitalism U.S.A.

Break with the Democrats!

For a Revolutionary Workers Party That Fights for a Workers Government!

Part One


“The streets are empty. Trash rustles down the road past rusted barbecues, abandoned furniture, sagging homes and gardens turned to weed.... Faded ‘for sale’ signs sit in front of deserted houses. The residents are gone, most after being evicted for missing their mortgage payments.” This is Mount Pleasant, once a residential neighborhood in southeastern Cleveland, now a ghost town ravaged by the mortgage crisis sweeping the country. One of its few remaining residents, Sarah Evans, 60, herself on the verge of losing her home of 30 years, declared: “I had my American Dream but it became a nightmare” (Agence France-Presse, 28 January).

Such scenes of gutted dwellings, devastated communities and ruined families are being multiplied across the country at a rate not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Last year, more than 1 percent of all U.S. households were in some phase of the foreclosure process, facing threats of eviction or watching helplessly as the bank prepared to auction off their homes. Enforcing foreclosures is an act of brutal state repression: the police come to a home, put the furniture and other possessions on the street and lock the family out.

In some largely black and Latino neighborhoods of South Chicago, as well as across the Detroit metropolitan area, one of every 20 households was in foreclosure. Many other regions, including large areas of California, Florida, Michigan and Ohio, are being hit almost as hard. This is a monumental disaster for poor and working-class families whose personal wealth, to the extent that they have any, is primarily invested in their homes.

The destructive irrationality of the capitalist system is highlighted by the boom-and-bust cycle, this time centered on the U.S. housing industry. Following the recession that came on the heels of the stock market boom of the mid-late 1990s, frenzied financial speculation took hold in real estate as bankers and financial analysts crowed that home prices could only keep soaring. Yet as has necessarily and repeatedly happened throughout the history of capitalism, the speculative bubble burst.

The boom-and-bust cycle, driven by the anarchy of the market, is intrinsic to the capitalist system of production and was analyzed a century and a half ago by Karl Marx. That system is maintained and defended by both major political parties in this country, the Republicans and Democrats (with the latter often posturing as sympathetic to working people). We seek to build a workers party that fights for the interests of the working class and all the oppressed against this brutally exploitative system. Those interests can be fully realized only through the overthrow of the capitalist order through socialist revolution and its replacement by a workers government establishing a planned, collectivized economy based on production for human need and not for profit.

The wealth of the capitalist class—the owners of the means of production—derives from the exploitation of labor, holding down and driving down wages. Key to the Marxist understanding of the exploitation of labor by capital is the labor theory of value. As a norm, the market value of a commodity is determined by the labor time necessary to produce it. During the workday the value that a worker produces is greater than the value of the wages he receives. The difference is appropriated by the capitalist as surplus value in the form of profits, interest and rent.

Over the past three and a half decades, while the rich have fabulously increased their wealth, the average weekly real wages for non-supervisory workers in the private sector have fallen. Yet during this period labor productivity (according to government figures) increased by 81 percent. In other words, there has been an enormous increase in what Marx called the rate of exploitation. This is the ratio of the share of the product of labor appropriated by the capitalists to the share represented by the worker’s wage.

The massive shift of social product from labor to capital did not encourage corporate America to expand productive capacity. Just the opposite has happened. The deterioration in the condition of the working class is directly related to the deindustrialization of America. Since 1979 the share of the labor force employed in the goods-producing sector has fallen steadily from almost 28 percent to 16.6 percent (in 2005). Between 2000 and 2005 alone, over three million manufacturing jobs were eliminated.

Liberal Democrats and reformist leftists put the onus for the deterioration in workers’ living standards on the economic policies of the Bush White House. But, writing in the 19th century, Marx explained in Capital (Volume I) that both the ever-increasing concentration of production and the immiseration of the laboring masses are inherent in the capitalist system itself:

“Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital, who usurp and monopolise all advantages of this process of transformation, grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation; but with this too grows the revolt of the working-class, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united, organised by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself. The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and under it. Centralisation of the means of production and socialisation of labour at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. This integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.”

To realize the expropriation of the expropriators requires the forging of a revolutionary party to lead the proletariat in the fight for working-class rule.

Financial Crisis Deepens

The current financial crisis was triggered by the collapse of the market for subprime mortgages. These are loans to families with low incomes and, in some cases, checkered credit histories that would in the past have disqualified them from home ownership. Bankers and other financial operators induced such families into “buying” rather than renting a house by offering them “teaser” loans with low initial interest, no down payments and deferred repayment on principal. Now with rising interest rates along with higher property taxes and insurance premiums, many of these families, as well as many above the subprime category, are being hit with monthly payments they cannot afford. More than 1.8 million subprime mortgages are scheduled to reset to higher interest rates this year and next.

Lending scams like subprime mortgages have especially targeted black, Latino and other minority communities. More than half of all black borrowers face such high-risk, high-cost loans. Even high-income blacks and Latinos are two to three times more likely to have subprime loans than comparable non-Latino white borrowers. A study by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition showed that black and Latino loan applicants were half as likely as whites to even be told by brokers what interest rates they would have to pay. One study concluded that “the current foreclosure crisis can be considered the greatest loss of wealth for communities and individuals of color in modern US history” (United for a Fair Economy, Foreclosed: State of the Dream 2008).

The U.S. “subprime mess,” as the business press now calls it, has roiled international financial markets since last August, when nearly the entire spectrum of credit markets seized up. Large firms found it almost impossible to borrow by issuing corporate bonds, and banks almost stopped lending to one another. Floyd Norris of the New York Times (10 August 2007) called it “the 21st-century equivalent of a run on a bank.”

Indeed, last September’s credit crisis triggered Britain’s first classic bank run in over a century, as long lines of frantic customers of Northern Rock clamored to withdraw their money, helping to bring that bank to its knees. Desperately trying to unfreeze the financial markets, central banks in the U.S. and Europe have granted over half a trillion dollars in loans to large banks. In a string of moves since last September, the U.S. Federal Reserve slashed the interest rate that banks charge one another for overnight loans from 5.25 percent to 3 percent. In this way the government is seeking to bail out those financial capitalists who bet the wrong way on mortgage-backed securities. Wall Street financial journalist James Grant commented acidly on the Fed’s policy that “capitalism without financial failure is not capitalism at all, but a kind of socialism for the rich” (New York Times, 26 August 2007).

Another major factor feeding into the current economic crisis is the sky-high price of oil now hovering around its real (inflation-adjusted) historical peak. What we see here is the combined impact of the anarchy of the capitalist market with the extortionate practices of capitalist monopolies. During the 1990s the price of oil fell steadily, reaching a low point by the end of the decade. As a consequence, Exxon-Mobil and the other members of the Anglo-American oil cartel cut back in developing new oil fields and expanding refining capacity. Nonetheless, there is still a plentiful supply of oil in the ground that is readily extractable, especially in Saudi Arabia, by far the world’s biggest producer. But that oil is being deliberately withheld from the market by Exxon-Mobil et al. in league with U.S. imperialism’s client, the Saudi monarchy, and other member states of the OPEC oil cartel. At the same time, instability, graphically expressed by the bloody Iraq occupation, has served to drive up the price of oil. Meanwhile, the downward slide of the dollar against other world currencies has helped push up the price of oil (which is priced in dollars), in turn prompting a wave of speculative buying by bankers and other financial operators (AP, 3 March). As a result, working families are being wracked by skyrocketing heating fuel and gasoline prices, even though U.S. inventories are relatively high.

It is now widely recognized that the U.S. economy is tumbling into recession, as consumers slash spending and companies, finding it difficult or impossible to borrow, cut back investment and lay off workers. Since interest rate cuts began last September, the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index has lost about 9 percent of its value. An economic downturn in the United States—which despite the erosion of its dominance over the past several decades is still responsible for about a quarter of the world’s output—would have devastating impact internationally, especially in semicolonial countries like Mexico.

Desperate to head off a recession, Democrats and Republicans in Congress voted to jump-start U.S. consumer spending by disbursing government payments totaling over $100 billion. By proposing to stimulate the economy through subsidizing consumption, the bourgeoisie implicitly (and unconsciously) endorsed the following observation by Karl Marx in Capital (Volume III): “The ultimate reason for all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses as opposed to the drive of capitalist production to develop the productive forces as though only the absolute consuming power of society constituted their limit.”

For a Workers Government to Expropriate the Bourgeoisie!

Democratic presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton promise to produce a financial windfall by withdrawing many (but not all) troops from Iraq. That money, they say, could then be used to pay for improved health care, education and other services. This is a cynical lie. Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. The scramble for markets, natural resources and sources of cheap labor between the capitalist-imperialist powers necessarily produces a drive toward war—colonial war as well as wars among the imperialist powers themselves (e.g., World Wars I and II). Despite Obama’s early opposition to the invasion of Iraq, he and Clinton have repeatedly voted to finance that murderous occupation to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Both call for escalating the war in Afghanistan and have made not-so-veiled threats of a possible military attack on Iran.

Calls for “Money for jobs and education, not for war” or tax-the-rich schemes are commonly put forward by phony “socialists” like the International Socialist Organization and Workers World Party. This only serves to reinforce the liberal illusion that the murderous, profit-driven capitalist system can be reformed to serve human needs by convincing or pressuring the bourgeois rulers to reorder their priorities. But the bourgeoisie’s top priority is to maintain and defend the capitalist system, which necessarily entails war, racist oppression and exploitation.

The enormous increase in the rate of exploitation of a generation of workers is expressed in decades of giveback union contracts, two-tier wage systems and similar devices acceded to by the trade-union bureaucrats. As V.I. Lenin explained in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916), the bourgeoisie has cultivated a materially privileged social stratum—the labor bureaucracy—which while sitting atop the mass organizations of the working class, serves to ensure the subordination of the workers to the interests of the class enemy of the proletariat. In the U.S., this collaboration with the capitalist rulers is exemplified by the labor bureaucrats’ overwhelming fealty to the Democratic Party, of which they are an integral part. No less than the Republicans, the Democrats are a party of and for the capitalist class—the difference being that while the Republicans make no bones about openly trying to oppress working people, the Democrats do the same while bemoaning the consequences or proclaiming themselves “friends of labor.”

The pro-capitalist trade-union bureaucrats have by and large renounced the class-struggle methods that built the mass industrial unions in the 1930s, such as mass picketing, plant occupations and secondary labor strikes (refusing to handle struck goods). The labor tops did everything in their power to isolate major recent strikes that, moreover, had broad popular support, notably the 2005 New York City transit strike and the supermarket workers strike in Southern California in 2003-04.

It is necessary to forge a new leadership of the unions based on the understanding that there are two decisive classes in capitalist society, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, whose interests are irreconcilably opposed. Such a leadership, fighting for the unity of the multiracial proletariat in hard class struggle, would link those struggles to defense of the social interests of black people, Latinos and other oppressed minorities. The organized workers movement must demand full citizenship rights for all immigrants, documented or undocumented, to unite the working class regardless of its origins; must fight for labor/black mobilizations to stop the KKK and other racist terrorists; must fight to organize the open shop South, where “right to work” laws have historically been backed by Klan terror. Proletarian-centered actions are necessary to fight against U.S. imperialism’s military depredations, such as the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and combat the intensified state repression carried out in the name of the “war on terror”—a war on immigrants, black people and labor at home and an all-purpose pretense for imperialist war and plunder internationally.

A class-struggle leadership of the unions would fight for a series of transitional demands, which start from the current consciousness of wide layers of the working class and their daily struggles against the capitalists and lead to the program of proletarian revolution. The fight to mobilize labor in struggle for its class interests must include the fight for a shorter workweek with no loss in pay in order to fight unemployment and the bosses’ union-busting drive for “two-tier” contracts; for union defense guards against the scabherders; for mass picketing and plant occupations to win strikes instead of bowing to the bosses’ laws.

To forge such a leadership requires a political fight within the labor movement to sweep away all wings of the pro-capitalist labor bureaucracy. This is integrally linked to the fight for a workers party—like Lenin and Trotsky’s Bolshevik Party that led the Russian Revolution of 1917—to provide revolutionary leadership to the struggles of the workers in the fight for socialist revolution and the building of a workers state where those who labor rule.

The Clinton Era Economy and Its Liberal Apologists

Obama, Clinton and the trade-union bureaucrats portray the years of the Bill Clinton presidency as a golden age of successful economic stewardship. Paul Krugman, probably the country’s most widely read liberal economist, painted a glowing picture of the U.S. economy in the late 1990s: “The economy was booming, jobs were plentiful, and millions of people were getting rich. Budget deficits had given way to record surpluses.... The future seemed almost incredibly bright” (preface to The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century [2003]).

It didn’t look that bright to those less favored. During the 1990s the U.S. continued to experience at an accelerated pace ever-widening economic and social inequalities. In 1991 under Bush I, the average corporate CEO (chief executive officer) made 113 times more than the average worker. In 2001, when Clinton turned over the White House to Bush II, corporate CEOs were making 449 times more than the average worker!

Liberal publicists for the Democrats can argue that real wages for most people did increase during the boom years of the late 1990s. But that was nowhere near enough to reverse the long-term immiseration of the American working class. In 2000, after nine years of an economic expansion, the real average annual income of workers in their twenties with a high school-only education was 16 percent less than what their parents had earned three decades before.

Underlying the fiscal turnaround of the late 1990s (which turned out to be short-lived) was a world-historic defeat for the international proletariat—the counterrevolutionary destruction of the Soviet Union and the East and Central European workers states. In 1991-92, the Soviet Union, which had been politically undermined for decades by Stalinist bureaucratic rule, succumbed to the pressures of world imperialism, triggering a catastrophic economic collapse and corresponding social degradation in the former Soviet bloc that is historically unprecedented in any advanced industrial society. From 1989 to 1994, male life expectancy in Russia dropped by over six years to 57.6, and from 1991 to 2001, deaths exceeded births by nearly seven million.

Triumphantly proclaiming the “death of communism,” the men who run Wall Street and the Fortune 500 corporations now believe they can do anything to the workers, the poor, the elderly, the black and Latino communities without the slightest danger of serious social turmoil, not to speak of revolution. As masters of the “world’s only superpower,” the U.S. ruling class was able during the 1990s to reduce the country’s military expenditure while still maintaining absolute superiority in armed force on the global level. The share of military spending in the U.S. gross domestic product declined from close to 5 percent in 1992 to 3 percent in 2000. Nonetheless, in that latter year the Pentagon budget of $300 billion was greater than the combined total military spending of all other members of NATO as well as Russia and all countries in the Near East.

There was, however, no “peace dividend” for American working people. Quite the contrary. The budget surpluses of the latter Clinton years were achieved in part by substantially reducing domestic social programs, especially those benefiting the poorest sections of the populace. Between 1992 and 2000, as Clinton did away with “welfare as we know it,” the share of federal government spending for programs labeled “income security” (unemployment insurance, welfare, food stamps and other poverty programs) declined from over 3 percent to 2.6 percent of the country’s gross domestic product. Also reduced was federal government spending (as a proportion of total national output) for education, transportation, scientific research and environmental protection.

Why were the Clintonite New Democrats able to reduce a wide range of social programs beneficial to working people? A key was the steady decline in the strength of the organized labor movement over the previous decade and a half, beginning under the previous Democratic administration of Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s. As the sharp world economic downturn of 1974-75 revealed the weakened position of American capitalism vis-Ă -vis its West European and Japanese rivals, the U.S. ruling class moved to restore profitability by intensifying the rate of exploitation. Corporate managers demanded and got from the servile, pro-capitalist AFL-CIO bureaucracy give-back contracts and two-tier wage systems with lower pay scales for newly hired younger workers. The smashing of the PATCO air traffic controllers union in 1981—conceived by Democrat Jimmy Carter and implemented by Ronald Reagan—was the model of what the bourgeoisie had in store for the labor movement. In turn, the supine surrender of the labor tops to Reagan’s busting of PATCO was a badge of infamy that became a model for the union tops’ response to the capitalists’ drive to gut the labor movement.

During the 16 years between the inaugurations of Carter and Bill Clinton, the unionization of the labor force declined from 26 to 18 percent. It now stands at 12 percent, and at only 7.5 percent in the private sector. Responsibility for the de-unionization of the American working class lies with the defeatist and treacherous policies of the labor bureaucracy, aptly described by the early 20th-century American socialist Daniel De Leon as the “labor lieutenants of the capitalist class.”

Against Chauvinist Protectionism! For International Labor Solidarity!

The economic slowdown in the U.S. has been accompanied by increasing calls for chauvinist protectionism that are pushed by both Democratic politicians and the trade-union bureaucracy. In pushing trade protectionism against China, the labor tops combine anti-Communism with flag-waving national chauvinism. During the Cold War era, the AFL-CIO bureaucracy was among the most rabid supporters of American imperialism against the Soviet Union. Today, these labor misleaders are directing their virulent hostility toward the People’s Republic of China in the name of “workers’ rights.”

China is not a capitalist but a workers state, albeit one that was bureaucratically deformed from its inception. The fact that capitalist rule was overthrown in China by the 1949 Revolution, leading to the building of a collectivized economy, represents a historic gain for the working class internationally. Despite inroads of “market reforms,” the core of China’s economy remains collectivized, including in the state ownership of the banking system. While the U.S. is moving into a recession amid fears that this will drag down the rest of the capitalist world, China has maintained a high level of economic growth—11 percent last year.

At the same time, a deepgoing and prolonged downturn in the U.S., especially if accompanied by trade-protectionist measures, would have a negative impact on China’s economy. But unlike semicolonial capitalist countries like Mexico, China has the capacity to counteract a steep decline in export earnings by rechanneling investment for domestic purposes. Addressing this question, the London Economist (5 January) pointed out: “China’s economy is driven not by exports but by investment, which accounts for over 40% of GDP [gross domestic product].” The Economist cites a study by Dragonomics, a Beijing-based research firm, indicating that only 7 percent of total investment is directly tied to export production.

The aim of the U.S. and other imperialists is to destroy the Chinese workers state and restore bourgeois rule in order to turn the Chinese mainland into one gigantic sweatshop for the generation of capitalist profits. The international working class must stand for the unconditional military defense of China against imperialist attack from without and counterrevolution from within. At the same time, we call for proletarian political revolution to oust the parasitic and nationalist Stalinist bureaucrats and to establish a regime based on workers democracy and revolutionary internationalism.

Chauvinist protectionism—this time mainly directed against Mexico—was front and center in the Democratic primary campaign in Ohio, where both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama railed against NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and promised to renegotiate its terms with Canada and Mexico. Part of the Midwest “rust belt,” Ohio has experienced a decades-long decline in manufacturing employment; 200,000 jobs were lost in the last seven years alone. In their present-day nationalist opposition to NAFTA, Hillary Clinton (who earlier supported her husband’s signing of NAFTA) and Barack Obama portray the U.S., the world’s most powerful imperialist state, as the victim of this agreement, rather than semicolonial Mexico.

For their part, the misleaders of the AFL-CIO and Change to Win trade-union federations blame workers in other countries for “stealing” U.S. jobs and argue that by “protecting” American industry from foreign competition, American workers will benefit and the outflow of jobs from the U.S. will be stopped. This is a lie. The capitalists will do what they need to do in order to increase their profit margins—by intensifying exploitation of workers at home and/or by exporting their capital, thus moving jobs to countries where labor costs are cheaper. In opposition to protectionism, the labor movement must fight for international labor solidarity, linking the economic and other struggles of workers in the U.S. with those of workers around the world, particularly in such Third World countries as Mexico. What is ultimately necessary is the sweeping away of the global capitalist order through a series of socialist revolutions that establish an international planned economy.

Protectionism is deadly poison for workers in the U.S., not least because it is based on the lie that their enemies are the workers of other countries while serving to conceal the fact that it is the capitalists and their system that are responsible for the destitution of the working class. When NAFTA was being negotiated in 1991 under the Republican presidency of George Bush I, the Grupo Espartaquista de MĂ©xico, the Spartacist League/U.S. and the Trotskyist League of Canada—sections of the International Communist League—issued a joint statement, “Stop U.S. ‘Free Trade’ Rape of Mexico,” explaining that “Yankee imperialism wants to turn Mexico into a giant maquiladora, or free trade zone—‘free’ of unions, and ‘free’ for capital.” At the same time, we pointed out that the “main opposition to the trade pact has come from the openly racist and protectionist AFL-CIO bureaucracy, which treacherously sets U.S. workers against their Mexican and Canadian class brothers and sisters” (WV No. 530, 5 July 1991).

A few years later, NAFTA was implemented by Bush’s Democratic successor, Bill Clinton. Indeed, this “free trade” pact was a centerpiece of his international economic policies. Since then the effects of NAFTA have been, as we warned, disastrous for the workers, peasants and urban poor of Mexico. Given the backwardness of Mexican agriculture and the inability of the peasants to compete with U.S. agribusiness, NAFTA has caused millions of peasants to be condemned to misery, while millions more try to survive by emigrating to the U.S. or to the big cities of Mexico, where they join the huge army that makes up the “informal economy.”

Labor should be mobilized in opposition to NAFTA—but not on the basis of the “stars and stripes” chauvinism and racist job-trusting protectionism exemplified by the Teamster bureaucracy’s years-long campaign against Mexican truckers using U.S. highways. We oppose NAFTA as a “free trade” rape of Mexico under which the U.S. rulers are increasing their profits and power through the superexploitation of Mexican workers while also bringing about the economic ruination of Mexican peasants.

Labor Must Fight for Immigrant Rights!

Over the last several years, the bourgeois rulers have intensified their drive against immigrants; deportations have been on the rise while agents of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.) have carried out brutal anti-immigrant raids at homes and workplaces. Last year’s Republican debates saw the candidates competing with each other over who could be the most racist and anti-immigrant bigot. As for the Democrats, both Obama and Clinton voted in May 2006 for the Senate’s “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act,” which would have set up a “guest worker” program, the modern equivalent of indentured servitude, tying immigrants’ visas to their employers and depriving them of any rights. Obama and Clinton also voted in September 2006 for the “Secure Fence Act” mandating the construction of a 700-mile wall along the U.S./Mexico border.

For their part, the labor bureaucrats have not waged any real struggle against the anti-immigrant drive. As the SL/U.S. and the Grupo Espartaquista de MĂ©xico declared in a joint statement printed in WV No. 867 (31 March 2006):

“Instead of mobilizing union power in defense of immigrants, the union tops embrace one or another of the capitalists’ anti-immigrant ‘reforms,’ particularly favoring their so-called ‘friends’ in the capitalist Democratic Party. This policy of class collaboration, sacrificing labor’s interests on the altar of capitalist profitability, flows from the labor bureaucracy’s support for the capitalist system and its identification with the ‘national interests’ of U.S. imperialism. This program has led to defeat after defeat, leaving the U.S. labor movement weaker today than at any time since the early 1900s.”

Change to Win, which includes the Teamsters, as well as the SEIU service workers and other heavily immigrant unions, has pushed immigration “reform” bills with provisions to expand so-called “guest worker” programs. While the Change to Win leaders’ rivals in the AFL-CIO bureaucracy oppose expanding “guest worker” programs, they do not fight for citizenship rights for immigrants or even condemn plans to further militarize the border.

It is in the vital interest of the U.S. labor movement to mobilize in defense of immigrants, who form a key and vibrant component of the U.S. working class and a living bridge to the struggles of working people in Mexico and elsewhere. One key labor battle is the years-long effort by the United Food and Commercial Workers to organize the Smithfield pork processing plant—the largest such plant in the world—in Tar Heel, North Carolina. Smithfield management has repeatedly collaborated with I.C.E. to target militant immigrant workers, who along with black workers make up the bulk of the workforce (see “Smithfield Plant: Smash Anti-Union RICO Suit!”, WV No. 909, 29 February).

The labor movement must mobilize to organize immigrant workers into the unions and fight for full citizenship rights for all immigrants. It is particularly important to combat anti-immigrant chauvinism in the working class, while the immigrant-derived proletariat and all workers must grasp that anti-black racism remains the touchstone of social reaction in this country.

Black Liberation Through Socialist Revolution!

Barack Obama, son of a Kenyan father and a white American mother, is the first black candidate who could actually be elected president. Obama appears to be perfectly well qualified to be the chief executive of U.S. imperialism, including by refurbishing its credentials on the world arena. A central theme of his campaign is that he stands for a “color-blind” America. Contrary to the myth promoted by Obama and other liberals, black oppression continues to be the central defining feature of U.S. society. A year after Obama gave his 2004 Democratic National Convention speech, which propelled him to national fame, the horror of Hurricane Katrina would expose (again) Obama’s “end of racism” lie for what it is. In response to this glaring racist atrocity, Obama declared that “the incompetence was color-blind.” As we wrote in “The Obama Campaign and the ‘End of Racism’ Myth” (WV No. 906, 18 January):

“The daily reality of racist oppression can be measured in astronomical unemployment rates for blacks and decrepit ghetto housing; rampant police terror and the consignment of nearly one million black men and women to America’s hellhole prisons, mainly due to the ‘war on drugs’; prison-like inner-city schools and the purge of black youth from higher education. Obama looks upon all this and claims, as he did in his speech in Selma last year, that the civil rights movement brought America ‘90 percent of the way’ toward racial equality!”

Liberal publicists point with approval to a reduction in the official government poverty rate under the Clinton presidency from almost 14 percent in 1992 to slightly over 11 percent in 2000. However, this statistic masks the fact that the economic condition of the large majority of those at the rock bottom of American society—numbering in the tens of millions—actually worsened during this period. Indeed, the average poor person fell farther below the poverty line in 1999 than in any year since 1979, the first year for which such data are available.

The main reason was the elimination in 1996 by the Clinton administration, with bipartisan Congressional support, of the principal federal welfare program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Obama has retrospectively embraced that policy, writing in his 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope, that “we should also acknowledge that conservatives—and Bill Clinton—were right about welfare.” The result was that millions of single mothers, disproportionately black and Latino, were condemned to even greater destitution than before. In the period 1964-1973, 24 percent of black families were so poor that they fell within the bottom 10 percent of the national income distribution. During the 1991-2000 period, 39 percent of black families fell into that category!

Deepening the devastation of the country’s ghettos, Clinton greatly increased the incarceration rate of black people and other minorities, surpassing the rate during Ronald Reagan’s terms. Especially as a result of the racist “war on drugs” (a war on the ghettos and barrios), when Clinton left office in January 2001 almost one in ten black men between the ages of 25 and 29 was in prison. Today, over 900,000 black men and women, including one out of every eight black men between the ages of 25 and 29, are in prison.

Once supplying a “reserve army of labor” to be employed when the bosses needed them, the ghetto poor have been largely discarded by a ruling class that no longer needs their labor power. But black workers remain a significant component of organized labor, integrated into strategic sections of the proletariat, in whose hands lies the power to break the chains of capitalist exploitation and racial oppression. Black workers today are still about 30 percent more likely than the rest of the workforce to be in a union. They also make up a large percentage of unionized blue collar workers in the public sector, such as transit workers. Won to a revolutionary program, black workers will be the living link fusing the anger of the dispossessed ghetto masses with the social power of the multiracial proletariat, and will play a vanguard role in the fight for a socialist America.

The forcible subjugation and segregation of much of the black population at the bottom of this society is an essential foundation stone of American capitalism. At the same time, the capitalist rulers have fomented racial hatred and made the color bar a key dividing line in this country in order to obscure the irreconcilable class divide between labor and capital. The road to black freedom lies in the struggle to shatter this racist capitalist system through proletarian socialist revolution, and the power to do that lies with the multiracial working class. But this power cannot and will not be realized unless a class-struggle labor movement actively champions the cause of black liberation and is mobilized in defense of the rights of immigrants and all the oppressed.

Against both the liberal-reformist and black separatist responses to black oppression, we base our struggle for black liberation on the program of revolutionary integrationism. While combatting every manifestation of racist oppression, fighting in particular to mobilize the social power of the multiracial labor movement, we underline that full equality for the black masses requires that the working class rip the economy out of the hands of the racist capitalist rulers and reorganize it on a socialist basis. Only then will it be possible to eliminate the material roots of black oppression through the full integration of black people into an egalitarian socialist society based on a collectivized economy with quality jobs, housing, health care and education for all.

The success or failure of the multiracial working class to achieve victory depends upon the organization and consciousness of the masses, i.e., on revolutionary leadership. It is vitally necessary to forge an international Leninist-Trotskyist vanguard party, the essential instrument to lead the multiracial working class to power, to expropriate the capitalist class and set up a collectivized planned economy.

[TO BE CONTINUED] Click on headline to this post to read Part Two of this article.

From On Point Radio- The Dropkick Murphys- On Saint Patrick's Day, Natch

From On Point Radio- The Dropkick Murphys- On Saint Patrick's Day, Natch



Click on the headline to link to an On Point broadcast featuring The Dropkick Murphys- St.Pat's Day, Okay.

*********
DROPKICK MURPHYS LYRICS
"Peg O' My Heart"
Featuring Bruce Springsteen

Peg of my heart I love you
Don't let us part I love you
I always knew it would be you
Peg of my heart
Since I heard your lilting laughter
It's your Irish heart I'm after
Peg of my heart

Peg of my heart, oh your glances
Make my heart sing how's chances
Come be my own
Come make your home in my heart

Peg of my heart I love you
We'll never never part I love you
I always knew it would be you
Peg of my heart
Since I heard your lilting laughter
It's your Irish heart I'm after
It's your Irish heart I'm after
Peg of my heart

Peg of my heart I love you
Don't let us part I love you
I always knew it would be you
Peg of my heart
Since I heard your lilting laughter
It's your Irish heart I'm after
It's your Irish heart I'm after
Peg of my heart
Since I heard your lilting laughter
It's your Irish heart I'm after
It's your Irish heart I'm after
Peg of my heart

Peg of my heart
Peg of my heart
Peg of my heart
Peg of my heart
*****
DROPKICK MURPHYS LYRICS
"Deeds Not Words"

Where you gonna run to? Where you gonna hide?
Bodies on the floor no one's getting out alive
Death is in the air there's trouble all around
Now you got it coming This time you're going down
Deeds not words you should've told the truth
You're a liar and traitor and now we got the proof

Liar and a traitor
And now we got the proof

Hindsight's twenty twenty it's so easy looking back
You made all the wrong choices Now you gotta live with that
But living's not the problem I got better plans for you
Like a bug I'm gonna crush you and then scrape you off my shoe
You've been thinkin' that you're safe but you're too blind to see
You turned your best friends into mortal enemies

Where you gonna run to?
Where you gonna hide?
You're running for the door now
No one's getting out alive
Where you gonna run to?
Where you gonna hide?
You're running for the door now
No one's getting out alive

Better watch your back you'll never get away
No talkin' your way out there'll be nothing left to say
I knew you as a child I hate you as a man
You're a two faced rat that nobody can stand
Deeds not words you should've told the truth
You're a liar and traitor and now we got the proof

Liar and a traitor
And now we got the proof

Deeds not words you should've told the truth
You're a liar and traitor and now we got the proof

Where you gonna run to?
Where you gonna hide?
You're running for the door now
No one's getting out alive
Where you gonna run to?
Where you gonna hide?
You're running for the door now
No one's getting out alive
Where you gonna run to?
Where you gonna hide?
You're running for the door now
No one's getting out alive

[ www.plyrics.com ] All lyrics are property and copyright of their actual owners and provided for educational purposes and personal use only

Dancing Cheek To Cheek, Oops-Ginger Rogers And Fred Astaire’s “Roberta” (1935)-A Film Review

Dancing Cheek To Cheek, Oops-Ginger Rogers And Fred Astaire’s “Roberta” (1935)-A Film Review 


This YouTube film clip is from Top Hat but will serve here to show the excellent dancing in Roberta done in the same year.  





DVD Review

By Sandy Salmon

Roberta, Ginger Rogers, Fred Astaire, Irene Dunne, music by Jerome Kern, 1935

I can’t dance, can’t dance a lick. Like a lot of guys, maybe gals too but I will just concentrate on guys here, I have two left feet. Nevertheless I have always been intrigued by people who can dance and do it well. Have been fascinated by the likes of James Brown and Michael Jackson growing up. As a kid though I, unlike most of the guys around my way, I was weaned on the musicals, the song and dance routines where the couples kicked out the jams. Top of the list in those efforts were the dance team of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers whose dancing mesmerized a two left feet kid just at a time when I was coming of age, coming of school dance and checking out girls age and once in a while in the privacy of my lonely room I would try to work out a couple of steps sent on the big screen. No success.Although I had never viewed the Rogers-Astaire film under review back then I got a distinct rush of dĂ©jĂ  vu watching this film, Roberta.          

DĂ©jĂ  vu is right since although I had not viewed the film on one of those dark Saturday afternoon matinee double-features when they were running a retrospective at the local theater I already knew what was going to happen. I had seen say Top Hat then and if the truth be known the formula did not vary that much in the whole series of song and dance films they did together. It was not about story line although it probably helped the director to have a working script so he could figure out where to have somebody burst out in song, or trip over a table and begin an extended dance routine. That said the “cover” story here is Fred leading a band of upstart Americans into gay Paree expecting to have a gig which went south on them. Fred meets Ginger working as Polish countess who is into high fashion which I expect everyone knows old Paris is famous for. That’s allows those bursts into song and dance to go forth without too much interference from the story-line. In short do as I did as a kid and now too just watch Ginger and Fred go through their paces. That’s worth the price of admission.  That and tunes like Smoke Gets In Your Eyes via the magical and under-rated composer Jerome Kern         


Out In The Film Noir Night- Dashiell Hammett’s The Maltese Falcon

Out In The Film Noir Night- Dashiell Hammett’s The Maltese Falcon


Films In Brief

The Maltese Falcon, written Dashiell Hammett, starring Humphrey Bogart, Mary Astor, Sidney Greenstreet

In literature and film there have been no lack of private detective-types depicted from the urbane Nick Charles (also a Hammett creation) to Mickey Spillane’s rough and tumble Mike Hammer but the classic model for all modern ones is Dashiell Hammett’s Sam Spade (the Humphrey Bogart role in the film) in The Maltese Falcon. Some may argue Raymond Chandler’s Phillip Marlowe and may have a point but as for film adaptation Spade wins hands down. Compare, if you will, Bogart’s performance in The Maltese Falcon with The Big Sleep. Get my point. But enough of that. What make’s Spade the classic is his intrepidness, his orneriness, his dauntless dedication to the task at hand, his sense of irony, his incorruptibility, his willingness to take an inordinate amount of bumps and bruises for paltry fees and his off-hand manner with the ladies and a gun. And in The Maltese Falcon he needs all of these qualities and then some.

Out In The Film Noir Night- Ernest Hemingway’s To Have And To Not

Out In The Film Noir Night- Ernest Hemingway’s To Have And To Not




Films In Brief

To Have Or To Have Not, based on Ernest Hemingway’s novel, starring Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, Walter Brennan

A story based, very loosely based I might add, on Ernest Hemingway’s short novel. A screenplay written in part by William Faulkner. The lead roles played by the charismatic Humphrey Bogart and the dishy Lauren Bacall with able assists by Walter Brennan and the legendary songwriter Hoagie Carmichael. Some classic Hollywood lines. What is not to like about this 1940’s black white film that still plays well after over fifty years. Only if you naively expected faithfulness to the author’s novelistic intent by those who bought the film rights would you complain. But, don’t be silly it happens all the time. If you want Hemingway’s gritty tale of a down and out sea captain scratching out a living for his family anyway he can go read the book. Here we are talking about the film adaptation. And on those terms what a seamless piece of cinematic art.

As is the case in most of the early movies the story line is simple. Jaded boy meets slightly world-weary girl in the throes of Vichy-administered Martinique during World War II. Naturally, given the times, the local variant of the French Resistance is in need of help and a skittish, but in the end courageous, Captain Morgan (the Bogart role) is dragged into the middle of it. Some of this is an echo of the story line in Casablanca but this time Bogart, thankfully, does not let the dame go. All the politics and heroics aside this film is all about the romance. For a 1940’s film the sexual tension and resolution between Morgan and Slim (Bacall’s role) is as steamy as it gets with two people who still have their clothes on. It probably does not hurt the romantic buildup that Bogart and Bacall were an item off-screen, as well. If you want classic Bogart and Bacall this is for you.