Thursday, June 08, 2017

*From The Pages Of "Workers Vanguard"- On German "Collective Guilt" For World War II- A Guest Commentary

Click on the title to link to Part Two of this "Workers Vanguard" article, dated June 8, 2007.


Workers Vanguard No. 893
25 May 2007


German Trotskyists on World War II

German Imperialism and the Lie of “Collective Guilt”

The Red Army Smashed the Nazi Regime!

Workers Revolution Will Avenge the Victims of the Holocaust!

Part One


This article is an edited translation from Spartakist No. 163 (Summer 2006), publication of the Spartakist Arbeiterpartei Deutschlands, German section of the International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist). The article was based on a 2005 SpAD educational presentation.

On the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the liberation [of Germany from Nazism], there was widespread debate in society about the Third Reich and World War II. The German bourgeoisie and their SPD [Social Democratic Party]/Green government took the opportunity of the various commemorative ceremonies to advance the interests of German imperialism. In contrast to the Japanese ruling class, which honors its butchers every year—as Kohl and Reagan also did in 1985 with the SS murderers in Bitburg—the German bourgeoisie prefers, in view of their indescribably terrible crimes, to shed a few crocodile tears at commemorative events.

Other examples include building the Holocaust memorial in the center of Berlin or displaying a bit of anti-fascism every couple of years by organizing an “uprising of decent people,” whenever the daily racist terror, which is promoted by the state, threatens to damage Germany’s image once again. The central ideological means they resort to is preaching that all Germans are guilty of the Nazis’ crimes—collective guilt—in order to let those who are really guilty off the hook: the German bourgeoisie, the ruling class at that time and today. The issue was and is that the German bourgeoisie wants to play a role on the world stage; to promote this goal it cynically manipulates the memories of its crimes.

With capitalist reunification and the counterrevolutionary destruction of the [East German] DDR deformed workers state in 1990 and the destruction of the Soviet degenerated workers state in 1991-92, German imperialism has become stronger. It is now undertaking the first steps to compete against the global hegemony of U.S. imperialism. “German interests” are again represented in the Balkans, in Afghanistan, on the Horn of Africa, and soon they will also be represented in Congo. In 1999, [SPD Chancellor Gerhard] Schröder and [Green Party Foreign Minister Joschka] Fischer proclaimed, “Never again Auschwitz,” which served to justify participating in the U.S.-led NATO war against Serbia. The sole purpose of this was to carry through the first military intervention by German imperialism since the end of World War II, give the Bundeswehr practical experience and station troops in the Balkans. The hypocrisy of the bourgeoisie of Auschwitz then and now only serves to pave the way for the next round of dangerous resurgence of German nationalism. “Collective guilt” chains the working class to its own bourgeoisie and prevents it from calling the bourgeoisie to account for its crimes.

On 8 May 2005, at the Berlin demonstration by the so-called Spasibo [Russian for “thank you”] alliance against the Nazis, Peter Gingold, a Jewish Stalinist and fighter in the bourgeois French resistance, made a speech (which got more than a little applause). What he said corresponded to a contribution he made in the South Baden Stattzeitung (March 2005) under the title: “For the Majority of the German Population, the Defeat of the Nazis Was Their Own Defeat.” Gingold “confirmed” this infamous assertion when he said that the Germans “didn’t prevent 1933,” that is, the seizure of power by the Nazis. But the overwhelming majority of the German proletariat was in the KPD [Communist Party of Germany] and SPD and in the unions, which at the end of the 1920s were led mostly by Social Democrats. The bourgeoisie brought the fascists to power because it feared workers revolution. The fascists were based on the petty bourgeoisie (peasants, students, the intelligentsia, civil servants, etc.) that had been ruined by the world economic crisis at the end of the 1920s, on the cops and on the lumpenproletariat, that is, the long-term unemployed and totally impoverished who had lost any connection to the working class. Fascism was the last means of rescuing bourgeois class rule.

In the 1938 Transitional Program, the founding document of the Fourth International, Leon Trotsky, co-leader of the October Revolution alongside Lenin, exposed the lies of the Stalinists and, comparing the defeat in Germany in 1933 with the experience of Russia in 1905, showed who bore the responsibility for the Nazi victory:

“The Bolshevik faction had at that time [1905] not celebrated even its third birthday. It is completely otherwise in Germany, where the leadership came from powerful parties, one of which had existed for seventy years, the other almost fifteen. Both these parties, with millions of voters behind them, were morally paralyzed before the battle and capitulated without a fight. History has recorded no parallel catastrophe. The German proletariat was not smashed by the enemy in battle. It was crushed by the cowardice, baseness, and perfidy of its own parties. Small wonder then that it has lost faith in everything in which it had been accustomed to believe for almost three generations....

“The protracted failure of revolutionary work in Spain or Germany is but the reward for the criminal politics of the Social Democracy and the Comintern.”

The Revolutionary Tradition of the German Workers Movement

With the outbreak of World War I, the SPD went over openly to the side of its own bourgeoisie by voting for war credits to the Kaiser on 4 August 1914 and then herding the working class into the slaughter of World War I. Lenin called the SPD a bourgeois workers party, that is, a party with a bourgeois program entirely in the framework of capitalism, but with a proletarian base. It was strategically necessary to split the working-class base of the SPD from its bourgeois leadership. The SPD bears the responsibility for the defeat of the postwar revolutionary wave; their betrayal was the key to rescuing bourgeois rule. The SPD drowned the [1918-19] revolution in blood and had the leadership of the KPD—Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg, Leo Jogiches and Eugen Leviné—murdered.

As for the young, recently founded Communist Party, it was too inexperienced. In 1923, the KPD leadership, discouraged by Stalin from fighting for power, recognized the revolutionary crisis too late. They made the call for an uprising dependent on the agreement of the left wing of the SPD, which was equivalent to giving the revolution a third-class burial (see Spartacist [English-language edition] No. 56, Spring 2001). Since the attempts of the German working class to find a way out of the capitalist crisis through proletarian revolution—inspired by the 1917 October Revolution—were unsuccessful, the situation resulted in a right-wing radicalization of the petty bourgeoisie.

The defeat of the 1923 revolution in Germany sealed the isolation of the young Soviet workers state at the time. The developing Soviet bureaucracy took advantage of the disappointment and apathy that spread among the exhausted masses, and, under Stalin’s leadership, seized control and power over the Bolshevik Party at the end of 1923 to early 1924. Stalin replaced Bolshevik internationalism and the struggle for world revolution with the dogma of “building socialism in one country.” The Communist International, founded as the party of world revolution, was transformed into an instrument to foster illusions in peaceful coexistence between the Soviet Union and imperialism, which was decisive in chaining workers to the bourgeoisie.

This counterrevolution was political, not social; the Stalinist bureaucracy was based on the collectivized property forms that had been created by the October Revolution. Thus the state remained a workers state, although bureaucratically degenerated, and it was the duty of the international proletariat to defend it against the class enemy. For many years, the Trotskyist International Left Opposition carried out a struggle against Stalin & Co. and against the destruction of the party in order to return the Comintern to its revolutionary program.

The Betrayal by the SPD and KPD in 1933

The defeats of workers revolutions and the world economic crisis at the end of the 1920s enabled the Nazis to grow. But the workers wanted to fight and the bourgeoisie was no longer in a position to stem the danger of revolution through bourgeois democracy. There was a mass radicalization, and three consecutive bonapartist regimes—Brüning in 1930, Papen in 1932, Schleicher in 1932-33—could not get the crisis under control for the bourgeoisie, which increasingly counted on Nazi terror against the workers movement and saw the smashing of the workers movement as the only possibility to save its rule. The SPD leadership feared mobilizing the workers against the Nazis because workers would become more radicalized and slip out of the control of the SPD and its class-collaborationist program. The KPD leadership under [Ernst] Thälmann, as well as Stalin, refused, however, to force the SPD into a united front, even declaring the SPD “social fascist.” The KPD instead came up with the slogan “After Hitler, us.” In the face of the threatened destruction of the workers movement and the fascist seizure of power, this was nothing other than a declaration of capitulation.

In contrast, the Trotskyist Left Opposition warned of the danger of the Nazis taking power and fought to organize the workers in proletarian united fronts in order to smash the Nazis. The betrayal by the Stalinists and Social Democrats was enormous: while workers, organized by the hundreds of thousands into party militias, had waged street battles against the Nazis, sometimes overcoming their political divisions, the Nazis were able to come to power without a shot being fired. The betrayal of the KPD weighs twice as heavily because it was seen as the party of the Russian Revolution in which the vanguard of the proletariat was organized.

Nothing is more demoralizing than a defeat without a fight. When, following this historic betrayal, no criticism was raised in the ranks of the Third [Communist] International, the Trotskyists began to fight to build a new revolutionary International. Meanwhile, in 1935 the Stalinists came out for building popular fronts
—alliances of workers parties with sections of the bourgeoisie—against fascism. Based on class collaboration, the popular front—an obstacle to class struggle against the capitalist system that produces the Nazis—in reality paves the way for the Nazis. This was expressed most clearly in the mid 1930s when the Stalinists treacherously strangled the Spanish Revolution, which resulted in Franco’s fascists taking power.

It was the Red Army that smashed the Nazi regime and brought to an end the Holocaust—the industrial murder of millions of Jews, Roma and Sinti [Gypsies]
—and the persecution and murder of Communists and countless others. After the victory of the Red Army, the lie of the “collective guilt of all Germans” for the Holocaust and the other Nazi atrocities was a central means of defending the rule of the German bourgeoisie in West Germany. Thus the responsibility of the bourgeoisie, which had brought Hitler to power in order to smash the working class, was shifted to “the people.” And if everyone was guilty, then no one, in particular the bourgeoisie, really was. In his memoirs, And Red Is the Colour of Our Flag, the German Trotskyist Oskar Hippe powerfully described the purpose of the lie of collective guilt after World War II:

“The declaration that there is a ‘collective guilt’ in the German people also belongs to this struggle against the proletariat, since from the outset they want to discriminate against the proletariat, the overwhelming majority of the people. They want to drive home the idea that their failure was due to their inferiority, and to explain once and for all that the proletariat is incapable of taking a grip on its own fate and revolutionising society.”

After the war, the KPD and SPD leaderships had their own reasons for adopting the lie of collective guilt. It enabled them to shift the responsibility for their own betrayal—their cowardly capitulation to the Nazis in 1933 without a fight—onto the shoulders of the German working class which they had betrayed. Today DKPers [members of the present-day German Communist Party] seek to blame the Nazi seizure of power on the unwillingness of the “German people” (i.e., the workers) to fight. This is an outrageous whitewash of the betrayal of the KPD leadership. What is behind this is the program expressed in an 11 June 1945 call issued by the KPD:

“In our opinion it would be wrong to impose the Soviet system on Germany, because this road does not correspond to the current conditions of development in Germany.

“Our opinion is rather that the decisive interests of the German people in the current situation dictate another path—that of an anti-fascist, democratic regime, a parliamentary-democratic republic with all democratic rights and freedoms for the people.”

So they stood for the rule of the bourgeoisie—democratic, of course. An article in the DKP paper unsere zeit (10 June 2005) explained: “The call of the Central Committee of the KPD of 11 June 1945 is one of the most brilliant and creative texts published by the German communists in their history.”

In fact, however, Nazi leaders and the bourgeoisie fled from East Germany, where the Red Army was in power, to the imperialist West. The increasing confrontation between the Soviet Union and its imperialist “democratic” wartime allies culminated in the first Cold War. Consequently, in the late 1940s in East Germany, as in the rest of East Europe, the bourgeoisie was expropriated and a deformed workers state, the DDR, was erected on the model of the bureaucratically degenerated workers state of the Soviet Union.

World War II—An Imperialist War

One central point in the Stalinist and social-democratic propaganda on World War II, as well as in the collective-guilt propaganda, is to present World War II as a war between democracy and fascism. But World War II, like World War I, was an imperialist war; in fact it was simply the continuation of the earlier war. With regard to the Soviet Union, the Trotskyists had a side—with the Soviet Union. They also supported uprisings of oppressed colonial peoples if these were directed against imperialist domination, whether in India against Britain, in China against Japan and the U.S., in Indochina against France, etc.

After World War I, the victory of the proletarian revolution in Russia left its mark on the consciousness of all classes in Europe. And both the bourgeoisie and the Trotskyists expected revolutions as the outcome of a new world war. The capitalist rulers had drawn their own lessons from the Revolution. For example, the fraternization of German and Russian soldiers on the Eastern Front in December 1917 was initially seen by the Reichswehr merely as a sign that the Russian army was disintegrating. In the Museum of the Red Army exhibition in the Berlin district of Karlshorst, next to a photo titled “Fraternization of German and Russian Soldiers,” there is the following comment:

“In hindsight, after the November Revolution [1918] in Germany, this rapprochement of the soldiers was regarded as the beginning of subversion by Bolshevism. Later, this understanding influenced the orders of the National Socialists in the war strategy against the Soviet Union.”

The Trotskyists had prepared very thoroughly for the occurrence of a new world war. Their model was the struggle of Karl Liebknecht and of the Bolsheviks in World War I. Their principled position was presented in the decisive programmatic document, Trotsky’s 1934 “War and the Fourth International.” The “general strategic task to which the whole work of a proletarian party during war should be subordinated” is to turn the imperialist war into a civil war. It explains:

“18. The sham of national defense is covered up wherever possible by the additional sham of the defense of democracy. If even now, in the imperialist epoch, Marxists do not identify democracy with fascism and are ready at any moment to repel fascism’s encroachment upon democracy, must not the proletariat in case of war support the democratic governments against the fascist governments?

“Flagrant sophism! We defend democracy against fascism by means of the organizations and methods of the proletariat.... And if we remain in irreconcilable opposition to the most ‘democratic’ government in time of peace, how can we take upon ourselves even a shadow of responsibility for it in time of war when all the infamies and crimes of capitalism take on a most brutal and bloody form?

“19. A modern war between the great powers does not signify a conflict between democracy and fascism but a struggle of two imperialisms for the redivision of the world.”

Only one point was added to the revolutionary program for World War I: the duty of the world proletariat to fight for the unconditional military defense of the gains of the October Revolution, despite the usurpation of political power by the bureaucratic caste headed by Stalin:

“Defense of the Soviet Union from the blows of the capitalist enemies, irrespective of the circumstances and immediate causes of the conflict, is the elementary and imperative duty of every honest labor organization.”

When Germany invaded the Soviet Union, the Soviet Trotskyists who were imprisoned in Stalin’s camps volunteered to defend the Soviet Union with arms in hand. And when the Stalinist bureaucracy refused out of fear, the Trotskyists relinquished some of their rights and extended their working day to 12 hours to help the Soviet Union win the war.

On the question of the defense of the Soviet Union there were fights within the Fourth International; the clearest and best-documented fight was in the American section, the Socialist Workers Party. Under pressure of petty-bourgeois public outrage over the Hitler-Stalin pact and the Soviet-Finnish war, the petty-bourgeois opposition of Shachtman, Burnham and Abern wanted to give up defense of the Soviet Union. In 1940 they split the party, taking 40 percent of the membership with them.

In 1938, in “A Fresh Lesson—After the Imperialist ‘Peace’ at Munich,” Trotsky answered the central question of what bourgeois democracy actually is:

“Democracy can be maintained only so long as class contradictions do not reach an explosive state. In order to mitigate social frictions the bourgeoisie has been compelled to provide feed for a broad layer of petty-bourgeois intellectuals, and the bureaucracy and aristocracy of labor. The bigger the feeding-trough the more ardent is social patriotism. The reformist feeding-trough has nowadays been preserved only in those countries which were able in the past to accumulate vast wealth, thanks to the exploitation of the world market, and their pillage of the colonies. In other words, in the condition of capitalist decay a democratic regime is accessible (up to a certain time) only to the most aristocratic bourgeoisie. The basis of social patriotism remains colonial slavery.”

The Stalinists, entirely in line with their popular-frontist politics and their support for the bourgeoisies of the “democratic” imperialist allies of the Soviet Union in World War II, laid the blame for the war on Germany. But there was never “German guilt” for the war, because it was an imperialist war. As Lenin already explained in World War I, for Marxists the question of who shoots first is irrelevant for evaluating a war. Germany and Japan made it into the ranks of major imperialist powers only at the end of the 19th century. When it came to dividing up the world, they were too late. Since they had less reserves, they had designs on the colonies being plundered by Britain and France. The U.S. was waiting to skim the cream at the end. It went to war against Japan above all to resolve who would get to exploit and enslave China and Asia.

The Defense of the Soviet Union

The Stalinist, popular-frontist fairy tale of an anti-fascist war of the democracies served only to chain the American and West European working class to their own bourgeoisies. In 1917, the Bolsheviks had seen the extension of the Russian Revolution to the advanced imperialist countries as its only road to survival. In particular, they counted on the German working class, the strongest and best-organized in Europe. But the German proletariat had been defeated by its bourgeoisie, and young German workers, now stuck in Wehrmacht uniforms, were deployed against the Soviet Union. At the time, only the Trotskyists fought for independent class politics in the tradition of Lenin and Liebknecht. James P. Cannon, leader of the American Trotskyists, spoke to this point in 1942:

“We make a fundamental distinction between the Soviet Union and its ‘democratic’ allies. We defend the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is a workers’ state, although degenerated under the totalitarian-political rule of the Kremlin bureaucracy. Only traitors can deny support to the Soviet workers’ state in its war against fascist Germany. To defend the Soviet Union, in spite of Stalin and against Stalin, is to defend the nationalized property established by the October revolution. That is a progressive war.”

—“A Statement on the War,” Fourth International,
Vol. III, No. 1, January 1942
(emphasis in original)

It was the Soviet Union that had to bear the brunt of this war. Even when it was in an alliance with the U.S. and Britain, the Soviet Union almost always faced 90 percent of the German troops (and at no point in the war was it less than two-thirds). As for the economic support the Soviet Union received, especially from the U.S., it amounted to at most 10 percent of its own industrial output. And it was the Red Army that smashed the Nazi regime. It brought the Holocaust to an end. It liberated Europe from enslavement and bloody oppression by the Nazis.

The policies of the Stalinist bureaucracy ruling over the Soviet state, and preventing any initiative by the masses, led to the devastating loss of 27 million Soviet citizens. Three million died in the first three months alone. Stalin trusted his 1939 pact with Hitler, even though he had been warned, for instance by the heroic Soviet spies Richard Sorge and Ozaki Hotsumi. You can also find out a lot about this in Khrushchev’s secret speech at the 1956 Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union under the strange title, “On the Cult of Personality.” (Except that he does not answer the question: “Where were you, Khrushchev?”) In this speech, he showed that Stalin was demoralized and hid like a coward for the first ten days following the German attack.

One of the main ways that Stalin had weakened the Soviet Union was by exterminating almost the entire officer corps three or four years earlier, including Tukhachevsky, for example. Rokossovsky, one of the most important generals in the Soviet struggle for the liberation of Europe, had fortunately not been murdered but only transferred, and was therefore able to become active again. Even Zhukov had been purged, but he was reinstated because there were not enough officers. A gigantic myth was created that Stalin led the “Great Patriotic War.” In actual fact, however, it was his generals and the soldiers of the Red Army who won the war, in spite of Stalin. Stalin’s favorite general was Vlasov, who later betrayed and went over to Hitler.

When the Stalinist bureaucracy propagated the notion that the war against Germany was a “Great Patriotic War” to defend Mother Russia, it represented a politically decisive turn. The invasion of the Soviet Union took place on 22 June 1941. Stalin made his first speech on July 3, declaring:

“The war against fascist Germany cannot be regarded as an ordinary war.… At the same time it is the great war of the whole Soviet people against the fascist German troops. This patriotic people’s war against the fascist oppressor has as its goal not only to rid us of the danger approaching us, but also to help all the peoples of Europe.”

—Exhibition catalogue, Der Krieg gegen die Sowjetunion 1941–1945 [The War Against the Soviet Union 1941-1945]

So, right from the beginning the war was waged under the motto of Russian nationalism. And that hindered the mass desertion of German units going over to fight alongside their Soviet class brothers against the common class enemy, the German bourgeoisie. With this, the Stalinists also managed to displace the October Revolution as the goal the Soviet working class identified with and to replace it with the Great Patriotic War. This went along with the elimination by the Stalinist bureaucracy of the entire layer of Bolsheviks who had led the October Revolution.

According to the propaganda spread in the Red Army and the working class, the Germans were all fascists, the Wehrmacht was a fascist army, etc. That is why at Stalingrad there were posters and inscriptions in Russian (also documented in the museum in Berlin-Karlshorst) such as: “How Many Germans Did You Kill Today?” and “No German Should Leave Stalingrad Alive.” Later the Red Army distributed leaflets to the German soldiers to get them to capitulate, but the example of capitulation they gave was that of Hitler-loyal, arch-reactionary General Field Marshal Paulus, who had commanded the German troops in Stalingrad. They also founded the National Committee for a Free Germany, with Graf [Count] von Einsiedel at its head, in order to demonstrate, in line with the popular- front policy, that they did not want revolution but a settlement with the bourgeoisie. Other leaflets said that soldiers who did not surrender would be killed.

This had nothing to do with revolutionary internationalist propaganda, which would have exploited the fact that the soldiers they faced were German workers who may have been the children of Communists, or perhaps even Communists themselves. There was a big anti-German hate campaign by Ilya Ehrenburg, a Jewish Soviet author, who became the mouthpiece for Stalin’s own nationalist campaign. Although it was dropped after the Red Army reached Germany, the content of the Stalinist policy did not significantly change.

Although it was very difficult to defect, some did. Gerhard Bögelein, for example, was a German worker who changed sides and became a soldier in the Red Army. Right after the reunification in 1990, he was thrown into jail by the vindictive West German courts in Hamburg. Karl Kielhorn organized an anti-fascist committee in a Soviet prisoner-of-war camp, where they read Marx and he was recruited to the CP. We Spartakists defended Bögelein and Kielhorn against the vengeance of the Fourth Reich. Heinz Kessler, who was later a founder of the National People’s Army in the DDR, and who became an army general and then Minister of Defense, had gone over to the Soviet Union when he was a Wehrmacht soldier. We are proud to have defended him against the anti-Communist witchhunt after the capitalist counterrevolution.

The invasion of the Soviet Union spurred massive resistance, which is the main reason why the Soviet Union was able to prevail in the end. The Nazis and the Wehrmacht command believed they would win within four months. The Wehrmacht command thought that by winter the Soviet Union would already have collapsed like a house of cards; that’s why the German soldiers supposedly didn’t need any winter clothing.

There was a difference between the defense of Leningrad and the rest of the Soviet Union. In Leningrad there existed a high degree of consciousness that they were defending the birthplace of the October Revolution. And it is precisely because of the October Revolution that Hitler and his Wehrmacht leadership wanted to completely wipe out Leningrad and let the population starve to death, even if they attempted to surrender. The order was to accept no surrender. The siege lasted 900 days, and the number of people who died in the defense of Leningrad and in the city itself—about one million—was higher than the number of soldiers of American and British imperialism killed in World War II, which was a total of 800,000. But the Nazis did not succeed in taking Leningrad.

The victory at Stalingrad was a psychological turn in the war, and the military turn was the battle of Kursk in 1943. The Soviet Union bore the brunt of the war against the Nazis and was able in the end to beat back the German armies. The Western Allies were counting on their imperialist rival Germany and the Soviet degenerated workers state to destroy each other on the battlefield. This is why the Allies opened the “second front” only in June 1944, with the invasion of Normandy. The only reason the Western Allies opened a second front was to push back Soviet influence in Europe, fearing that the Red Army would liberate the whole of Germany.

The reports by the SD (Security Service of the Reichsführer SS) in the catalogue for the exhibition, The War Against the Soviet Union 1941-1945, give a good example of the attitude of the German population toward the Soviet Union. There is a document there on the population’s reaction to the campaign against “Soviet Untermenschen [subhumans].” There had been a Nazi exhibition on this theme in Berlin, at which the resistance group led by Jewish Communist Herbert Baum planted a bomb.

The Nazi propaganda tried to paint a picture of Jews, Slavs and Communists as “subhuman,” and with that aim they exhibited pictures taken in concentration camps of people they themselves had almost starved to death, as typical examples of the peoples they wanted to wipe out. An April 1943 SD report noted that the way the Germans viewed these people had changed, because now hundreds of thousands of workers from the East as well as prisoners of war were working in Germany. The report gives examples of how the population supported the forced laborers, who included many highly skilled workers, so that later the death penalty had to be imposed for helping forced laborers or workers from the East. Nevertheless, support for them continued. There are examples of Polish and other forced laborers in the countryside basically being taken in by families.

Another example is when the Nazis tried to capitalize on the shooting of 4,000 Polish officers at Katyn. They dug up the graves of the Polish officers, who had been captured by the Red Army in Eastern Poland during the German-Polish war in 1939. The Polish officers were certainly hardened counterrevolutionaries, but it does not mean that we support their execution by the NKVD [Soviet secret police]. In any case, the Goebbels propaganda machine tried to capitalize on this. The SD reported that in Germany people would say: “We have no right to complain about this Soviet action, because on the German side Poles and Jews were wiped out on a much larger scale.” Of course that doesn’t fit into the distorted picture presented by collective-guilt propaganda, that all Germans were somehow Nazis and supported them.

[TO BE CONTINUED]

In Massachusetts Support The Safe Communities Act-Don't Support Aiding ICE Immigrant Round-Ups

In Massachusetts Support The Safe Communities Act-Don't Support Aiding ICE Immigrant Round-Ups  



From The Marxist Archives-Karl Liebknecht-No Unity With The Class Enemy-Build The Resistance







From The Marxist Archives-Karl Liebknecht-No Unity With The Class Enemy-Build The Resistance  


Workers Vanguard No. 1104
27 January 2017

TROTSKY

LENIN
No to Unity with Class Enemy!
(Quote of the Week)
Today, the reformist left calls for “unity” to fight against Trump. This boils down to uniting behind the Democratic Party, political representatives of the class enemy. Writing in 1918, as the German Revolution was unfolding, revolutionary leader Karl Liebknecht warned against the dangers of unity with those defending the capitalist order. Liebknecht, along with Rosa Luxemburg, belatedly split with the socialist conciliators who wanted to unite with the Social Democratic Party (SPD), which had betrayed the working class by supporting German imperialism during World War I. In January 1919, shortly after founding the German Communist Party, Liebknecht and Luxemburg were murdered by right-wing paramilitary forces at the behest of the SPD government and the revolution was defeated.
Unity! Who could yearn and strive for it more than we? Unity, which gives the proletariat the strength to carry out its historic mission.
But not all “unity” breeds strength. Unity between fire and water extinguishes the fire and turns the water to steam. Unity between wolf and lamb makes the lamb a meal for the wolf. Unity between the proletariat and the ruling classes sacrifices the proletariat. Unity with traitors means defeat.
Only forces pulling in the same direction are made stronger through unity. When forces pull against each other, chaining them together cripples them both.
We strive to combine forces that pull in the same direction. The current apostles of unity, like the unity preachers during the war, strive to unite opposing forces in order to obstruct and deflect the radical forces of the revolution. Politics is action. Working together in action presupposes unity on means and ends. Whoever agrees with us on means and ends is for us a welcome comrade in battle. Unity in thought and attitude, in aspiration and action, that is the only real unity. Unity in words is an illusion, ​self-​deception, or a fraud. The revolution has hardly begun, and the apostles of unity already want to liquidate it. They want to steer the movement onto “peaceful paths” to save capitalist society. They want to hypnotize the proletariat with the catchword of unity in order to wrench power from its hands by reestablishing the class state and preserving economic class rule. They lash out at us because we frustrate these plans, because we are truly serious about the liberation of the working class and the world socialist revolution.
Can we unify with those who are nothing more than substitutes for the capitalist exploiter, dressed as socialists?
Can we, may we join with them without becoming accomplices in their conspiracies?
Unity with them would mean ruin for the proletariat. It would mean renouncing socialism and the International. They are not fit for a fraternal handshake. They should be met not with unity, but with battle.
The toiling masses are the prime movers of social revolution. Clear class consciousness, clear recognition of their historic tasks, a clear will to achieve them, and unerring effectiveness—these are the attributes without which they will not be able to complete their work. Today more than ever the task is to clear away the unity smokescreen, expose half measures and halfheartedness, and unmask all false friends of the working class. Clarity can arise only out of pitiless criticism, unity only out of clarity, and the strength to create the new socialist world only out of unity in spirit, goals, and purpose.
—Karl Liebknecht, “The New ‘Civil Peace’” (19 November 1918), printed in The German Revolution and the Debate on Soviet Power (Pathfinder Press, 1986)

Wednesday, June 07, 2017

The Other Thin Man-Ginger Rogers And William Powell’s “Star Of Midnight” (1935)-A Film Review

The Other Thin Man-Ginger Rogers And William Powell’s “Star Of Midnight” (1935)-A Film Review




DVD Review

By Film Emeritus Sam Lowell

[Although Sam is formerly retired he has expressed a desire to help out when we have several films to review and not enough hands to do the task. Since he is very familiar with The Thin Man series which also starred William Powell (and Myrna Loy) he was the natural choice to cover this film. Thanks, Sam-Pete Markin]

Star of Midnight, starring Ginger Rogers, William Powell, 1935 

One of the problems a few actors have had is to be type-cast into a certain cinematic persona. That was generally the case with William Powell, the male lead in the film under review, Star of Midnight where he plays a smart, sophisticated urban (New York City of course) man about town very similar to the role that he played in The Thin Man the year before this film was released (and would go on to star with Myrna Loy in six sequels, ouch) except here he is a high-priced lawyer, Dal, and not an ex-cop private dick Nick Charle. 


The play is the same though although the romantic interest is Donna a young smitten, smitten by Dal, played by Ginger Rogers who is not his boon companion as Myra Loy as Nora Charles was. Here a friend of Dal’s is looking for him to find his missing paramour who blew Chic town (okay Chicago) a year before without leaving a forwarding address. (Forget it buddy, move on, and that isn’t even high-priced legal advice.)  The plot thickens when the three of them attend a play and nobody but a masked girlfriend is on the stage. The guy yells out Alice Bad move though since she is on the lam from somebody trying to silence here after she witnessed a murder in, ah, Chicago. Somebody has reason to silence her to cover up his own dastardly deeds so he let out that he was looking for Alice too. Don’t worry even though Dal was accused of killing a source killed in his own apartment he was left by the coppers to figure the whole thing out. And you know just like Nick (and Nora) he does. By the way Dal won’t be lonesome anymore. Donna snagged him. The killer: well grab the film and check it out. It could have been one of several people as usual.      

The 50th Anniversary Of The Summer Of Love, 1967- The Ebb Tide- The Rolling Stones- Altamont 1969

The 50th Anniversary Of The Summer Of Love, 1967- The Ebb Tide-  The Rolling Stones- Altamont 1969




Zack James’ comment June, 2017:

You know it is in a way too bad that “Doctor Gonzo”-Hunter S Thompson, the late legendary journalist who broke the back, hell broke the neck, legs, arms of so-called objective journalism in a drug-blazed frenzy back in the 1970s when he “walked with the king”’ is not with us in these times. In the times of this 50th anniversary commemoration of the Summer of Love, 1967 which he worked the edges of while he was doing research (live and in your face research by the way) on the notorious West Coast-based Hell’s Angels. His “hook” through Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters down in Kesey’s place in La Honda where many an “acid test” took place and where for a time the Angels, Hunter in tow, were welcomed. He had been there in the high tide, when it looked like we had the night-takers on the run and later as well when he saw the ebb tide of the 1960s coming a year or so later although that did not stop him from developing the quintessential “gonzo” journalism fine-tuned with plenty of dope for which he would become famous before the end, before he took his aging life and left Johnny Depp and company to fling his ashes over this good green planet. He would have “dug” the exhibition, maybe smoked a joint for old times’ sake (oh no, no that is not done in proper society) at the de Young Museum at the Golden Gate Park highlighting the events of the period showing until August 20th of this year.   


Better yet he would have had this Trump thug bizarre weirdness wrapped up and bleeding from all pores just like he regaled us with the tales from the White House bunker back in the days when Trump’s kindred one Richard Milhous Nixon, President of the United States and common criminal was running the same low rent trip before he was run out of town by his own like some rabid rat. But perhaps the road to truth these days, in the days of “alternate facts” and assorted other bullshit    would have been bumpier than in those more “civilized” times when simple burglaries and silly tape-recorders ruled the roost. Hunter did not make the Nixon “hit list” (to his everlasting regret for which he could hardly hold his head up in public) but these days he surely would find himself in the top echelon. Maybe too though with these thugs he might have found himself in some back alley bleeding from all pores. Hunter Thompson wherever you are –help. Selah. Enough said-for now  



DVD REVIEW

Gimme Shelter, The Rolling Stones Altamont Concert 1969, 1970


I have written elsewhere in this space that when it comes to musical influences in my youth that the Stones played a key role in developing my tastes. I have also mentioned elsewhere that my youthful alienation was reflected in the language and sound of the group. I mentioned Street Fighting Man and Tumbling Dice, as well as an earlier cover of Little Red Rooster as important. All this is by way of saying that I looked forward recently to re-watching the old Stones documentary Gimme Shelter reviewed here, despite my knowledge of the tragic and unnecessary incidents that occurred at Altamont and marred the whole experience.

If one is to recount the nodal points of the too short counter-cultural explosion of the 1960’s one could arbitrarily assign the Summer of Love in 1967 as the height and Altamont as the start of the decline. We can argue that point endlessly but clearly something or some things happened at Altamont that exposed the ugly side of the dope/counter-cultural scene. Moreover, on reflection no one can deny the unreasonableness of having the notorious California Hell’s Angels, despite favorable press from Tom Wolfe in Electric Kool Aid Acid Test and Hunter Thompson in his classic study Hell’s Angels, as security for a 300,000 person event.

Now, we finally get to the music and the film. And I think that this is about the right place for such comments about the event itself in the scheme of things. There have been many, many Stones concerts during the past forty years but none have had the cultural significance of Altamont. Most of the film is about how the Stones, good-naturedly if ultimately naively, tried to put the event together. A fair portion of the film is footage of the reaction by the Stones to the events that they witnessed from the stage including the one that led to a death. These segments are interspersed in between parts of the performances by the Stones and others.

This film has not aged well, although Mick has. His voice comes off tinny here reflecting an earlier, more primitive sound technology that does not do justice to how Mick and the boys could whip up an audience. A nice surprise though is a very sensual Tina Turner (backed by Ike) performance. Unfortunately, the Jefferson Airplane's afternoon performance is marred by the same kind of violence that doomed the event. But here is the skinny. If you need to look at rock and roll history watch this one and one half hour documentary. If you want to hear the Stones at their best then purchase any one of about ten greatest hits albums available. That’s the ticket.

The 50th Anniversary Of The Summer Of Love, 1967-When “Doctor Gonzo” Was 'King Of The Hill'-The Master Journalism Of Hunter S. Thompson-"Songs Of The Doomed"

The 50th Anniversary Of The Summer Of Love, 1967-When “Doctor Gonzo” Was 'King Of The Hill'-The Master Journalism Of Hunter S. Thompson-"Songs Of The Doomed"



Zack James’ comment June, 2017:

You know it is in a way too bad that “Doctor Gonzo”-Hunter S Thompson, the late legendary journalist who broke the back, hell broke the neck, legs, arms of so-called objective journalism in a drug-blazed frenzy back in the 1970s when he “walked with the king”’ is not with us in these times. In the times of this 50th anniversary commemoration of the Summer of Love, 1967 which he worked the edges of while he was doing research (live and in your face research by the way) on the notorious West Coast-based Hell’s Angels. His “hook” through Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters down in Kesey’s place in La Honda where many an “acid test” took place and where for a time the Angels, Hunter in tow, were welcomed. He had been there in the high tide, when it looked like we had the night-takers on the run and later as well when he saw the ebb tide of the 1960s coming a year or so later although that did not stop him from developing the quintessential “gonzo” journalism fine-tuned with plenty of dope for which he would become famous before the end, before he took his aging life and left Johnny Depp and company to fling his ashes over this good green planet. He would have “dug” the exhibition, maybe smoked a joint for old times’ sake (oh no, no that is not done in proper society) at the de Young Museum at the Golden Gate Park highlighting the events of the period showing until August 20th of this year.   


Better yet he would have had this Trump thug bizarre weirdness wrapped up and bleeding from all pores just like he regaled us with the tales from the White House bunker back in the days when Trump’s kindred one Richard Milhous Nixon, President of the United States and common criminal was running the same low rent trip before he was run out of town by his own like some rabid rat. But perhaps the road to truth these days, in the days of “alternate facts” and assorted other bullshit    would have been bumpier than in those more “civilized” times when simple burglaries and silly tape-recorders ruled the roost. Hunter did not make the Nixon “hit list” (to his everlasting regret for which he could hardly hold his head up in public) but these days he surely would find himself in the top echelon. Maybe too though with these thugs he might have found himself in some back alley bleeding from all pores. Hunter Thompson wherever you are –help. Selah. Enough said-for now  


Book Review

Songs Of The Doomed; Gonzo Papers Volume Three, Hunter S. Thompson, 1978


In a review of Hunter Thompson's early journalistic work compiled under the title , The Great Shark Hunt, a retrospective sampling of his works through the early 1970s, many which appeared in the pages of Rolling Stone magazine during its more radical, hipper phase, I noted the following points that are useful to repost here in reviewing Songs Of The Doomed, another later , similar compilation of his journalistic pieces:

“Generally the most the trenchant social criticism, commentary and analysis complete with a prescriptive social program ripe for implementation has been done by thinkers and writers who work outside the realm of bourgeois society, notably socialists, like Karl Marx. Vladimir Lenin, and Leon Trotsky and other less radical progressive thinkers. Bourgeois society rarely allows itself, in self-defense if nothing else, to be skewered by trenchant criticism from within. This is particularly true when it comes from a man of big, high life appetites, a known dope fiend, a furious wild man gun freak, and all-around edge city lifestyle addict like the late, massively lamented, massively lamented in this quarter in any case, Dr. Hunter S. Thompson. Nevertheless, although he was far, very far, from any thought of a socialist solution to society's current problems and would reject such a designation, I think out of hand, we could travel part of the way with him. We saw him as a kindred spirit. He was not one of us-but he was one of us. All honor to him for pushing the envelope of mad truth-seeking journalism in new directions and for his pinpricks at the hypocrisy of bourgeois society. Such men are dangerous.

I am not sure whether at the end of the day Hunter Thompson saw himself, or wanted to been seen, as a voice, or the voice, of his generation but he would not be an unworthy candidate. In any case, his was not the voice of the generation of 1968, my generation, being just enough older to have been formed by an earlier, less forgiving milieu, coming of adult age in the drab Cold War, red scare, conformist 1950s that not even the wildly popular Mad Men can resurrect as a time which honored fruitful and edgy work, except on the coastal margins of society. His earlier writings show that effect. Nevertheless, only a few, and with time it seems fewer in each generation, allow themselves to search for some kind of truth even if they cannot go the whole distance. This compilation under review is a hodgepodge of articles over the best part of Thompson’s career, the part culminating with the demise of the arch-fiend, arch-political fiend, Richard Nixon. As with all journalists, as indeed with all writers especially those who are writing under the pressure of time-lines and for mass circulation media, these pieces show an uneven quality. Hunter's manic work habits, driven by high dope infusions and high-wire physical stress, only added to the frenzied corners of his work which inevitably was produced under some duress, a duress that drove his hard-boiled inner demons onward. However the total effect is to blast old bourgeois society almost to its foundations. Others, hopefully, will push on further.

One should note that "gonzo" journalism is quite compatible with socialist materialism. That is, the writer is not precluded from interpreting the events described within a story by interposing himself/herself as an actor in that story. The worst swindle in journalism, fostered by the formal journalism schools, as well as in the formal schools of other disciplines like history and political science, is that somehow one must be ‘objective’. Reality is better served if the writer puts his/her analysis correctly and then gets out of the way. In his best work that was Hunter’s way.

As a member of the generation of 1968 I would note that the period covered by this compilation was a period of particular importance in American history, the covering of which won Hunter his spurs as a journalist. Hunter, like many of us, cut his political teeth on wrestling with the phenomena of one Richard Milhous Nixon, at one time President of the United States, all-around political chameleon and off-hand common criminal. His articles beginning in 1968 when Nixon was on the rising curve of his never ending “comeback” trail to his fated (yes, fated) demise in the aftermath of the Watergate are required reading (and funny to boot). Thompson went out of his way, way out of his way, and with pleasure, skewering that man when he was riding high. He was moreover just as happy to kick Nixon when he was down, just for good measure. Nixon, as Robert Kennedy in one of his more lucid comments noted, represented the "dark side" of the American spirit- the side that appears today as the bully boy of the world and as craven brute. If for nothing else Brother Thompson deserves a place in the pantheon of journalistic heroes for this exercise in elementary political hygiene. Anyone who wants to rehabilitate THAT man before history please consult Thompson’s work.

Beyond the Nixon-related articles that form the core of the book there are some early pieces that are definitely not Gonzo-like. They are more straightforward journalism to earn a buck, although they show the trademark insightfulness that served Thompson well over the early part of his career. Read his pieces on Ernest Hemingway-searching in Idaho, the non-student left in the 1960’s, especially the earnest early 1960s before the other shoe dropped and we were all confronted with the madness of the beast, unchained , the impact of the ‘beats’ on the later counter cultural movements and about the ‘hippie’ invasion of San Francisco. The seminal piece on the Kentucky Derby in 1970 which is his ‘failed’ (according to him, not others) initial stab at “gonzo” journalism is a must read. And finally, if nothing else read the zany adventures of the articles that give us the title of the book, “The Great Shark Hunt”, and his ‘tribute’ to his friend the “Brown Buffalo” of future legend, Oscar Acosta. Those are high water marks in the great swirl of Hunter S. Thompson’s career. Hunter, I hope you find the Brown Buffalo wherever you are. Read this book. Read all his books.”

As for the pieces here, mainly the journalistic pieces that form the core of this compilation, the format of the book is divided up into decades starting from the pre-gonzo days of the1950s (although you can detect a certain flare for putting himself inside the story even then, note Prince Jellyfish) to the woe-begone mad efforts (on local law enforcement’s part) to legally destroy Brother Thompson in the early 1990s. In between, Thompson runs through side commentaries on the whys and wherefore of his famous “fear and loathing” works that were the bedrock of his version of gonzo journalism. Additionally, in the 1980s he makes, to my mind, something of a comeback with his reportage on the Pulitzer divorce proceedings in Palm Beach and some of his work (published more extensively elsewhere in another compilation as well) for the San Francisco Examiner. One piece, one short piece that may sum up what Hunter Thompson was trying to do, and what make be his best individual piece of flat-out king hell king good Hemingway/Fitzgerald writing is High Water Mark from Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas. That is “high” Thompson as well as very good exposition of where and when the tide ebbed for those of us seeking a “newer world” in the 1960s. Buy the ticket; take the ride as he would say.

*The 50th Anniversary Of The Summer of Love,1967-When “Doctor Gonzo” Was 'King Of The Hill'-The Master Journalism Of Hunter S. Thompson

*The 50th Anniversary Of The Summer of Love,1967-When “Doctor Gonzo” Was 'King Of The Hill'-The Master Journalism Of Hunter S. Thompson






Book Review

The Great Shark Hunt; Gonzo Papers Volume One, Hunter S. Thompson, 1978


Most of this review of “The Great Shark Hunt” the master journalistic work of the late Hunter S. Thompson, a man much missed in these quarters by this reviewer originally appeared in a review of one of his latter, lesser books, “Songs Of The Doomed”. Most of the points made there apply here as well but I want to add some additional comments concerning specific articles which you NEED to read to know what mad man journalism in search of the truth, some truth anyway, was all about.

“Generally the most the trenchant social criticism, commentary and analysis complete with a prescriptive social program ripe for implementation has been done by thinkers and writers who work outside the realm of bourgeois society, notably socialists, like Karl Marx. Vladimir Lenin, and Leon Trotsky and other less radical progressive thinkers. Bourgeois society rarely allows itself, in self-defense if nothing else, to be skewered by trenchant criticism from within. This is particularly true when it comes from a man of big, high life appetites, a known dope fiend, a ferious wild man gun freak, and all-around edge city lifestyle addict like the late, massively lamented, massively lamented in this quarter in any case, Dr. Hunter S. Thompson. Nevertheless, although he was far, very far, from any thought of a socialist solution to society's current problems and would reject such a designation, I think out of hand, we could travel part of the way with him. We saw him as a kindred spirit. He was not one of us-but he was one of us. All honor to him for pushing the envelope of mad truth-seeking journalism in new directions and for his pinpricks at the hypocrisy of bourgeois society. Such men are dangerous.

I am not sure whether at the end of the day Hunter Thompson saw himself, or wanted to been seen, as a voice, or the voice, of his generation but he would not be an unworthy candidate. In any case, his was not the voice of the generation of 1968, my generation, being just enough older to have been formed by an earlier, less forgiving milieu, coming of adult age in the drab Cold War, red scare, conformist 1950s that not even the wildly popular Mad Men can resurrect as a time which honored fruitful and edgy work, except on the coastal margins of society. His earlier writings show that effect. Nevertheless, only a few, and with time it seems fewer in each generation, allow themselves to search for some kind of truth even if they cannot go the whole distance. This compilation under review is a hodgepodge of articles over the best part of Thompson’s career, the part culminating with the demise of the arch-fiend, arch-poltical fiend, Richard Nixon. As with all journalists, as indeed with all writers especially those who are writing under the pressure of time-lines and for mass circulation media, these pieces show an uneven quality. Hunter's manic work habits, driven by high dope infusions and high-wire physicial stress, only added to the frenzied corners of his work which inevitably was produced under some duress, a duress that drove his hard-boiled inner demons onward. However the total effect is to blast old bourgeois society almost to its foundations. Others, hopefully, will push on further.

One should note that "gonzo" journalism is quite compatible with socialist materialism. That is, the writer is not precluded from interpreting the events described within a story by interposing himself/herself as an actor in that story. The worst swindle in journalism, fostered by the formal journalism schools, as well as in the formal schools of other disciplines like history and political science, is that somehow one must be ‘objective’. Reality is better served if the writer puts his/her analysis correctly and then gets out of the way. In his best work that was Hunter’s way.

As a member of the generation of 1968 I would note that the period covered by this compilation was a period of particular importance in American history, the covering of which won Hunter his spurs as a journalist. Hunter, like many of us, cut his political teeth on wrestling with the phenomena of one Richard Milhous Nixon, at one time President of the United States, all-around political chameleon and off-hand common criminal. His articles beginning in 1968 when Nixon was on the rising curve of his never ending “comeback” trail to his fated (yes, fated) demise in the aftermath of the Watergate are required reading (and funny to boot). Thompson went out of his way, way out of his way, and with pleasure, skewering that man when he was riding high. He was moreover just as happy to kick Nixon when he was down, just for good measure. Nixon, as Robert Kennedy in one of his more lucid comments noted, represented the "dark side" of the American spirit- the side that appears today as the bully boy of the world and as craven brute. If for nothing else Brother Thompson deserves a place in the pantheon of journalistic heroes for this exercise in elementary political hygiene. Anyone who wants to rehabilitate THAT man before history please consult Thompson’s work."

********
Beyond the Nixon-related articles that form the core of the book there are some early pieces that are definitely not Gonzo-like. They are more straightforward journalism to earn a buck, although they show the trademark insightfulness that served Thompson well over the early part of his career. Read his pieces on Ernest Hemingway-searching in Idaho, the non-student left in the 1960’s, especially the earnest early 1960s before the other shoe dropped and we were all confronted with the madness of the beast, unchained , the impact of the ‘beats’ on the later counter cultural movements and about the ‘hippie’ invasion of San Francisco. The seminal piece on the Kentucky Derby in 1970 which is his ‘failed’ (according to him, not others) initial stab at “gonzo” journalism is a must read. And finally, if nothing else read the zany adventures of the articles that give us the title of the book, “The Great Shark Hunt”, and his ‘tribute’ to his friend the “Brown Buffalo” of future legend, Oscar Acosta. Those are high water marks in the great swirl of Hunter S. Thompson’s career. Hunter, I hope you find the Brown Buffalo wherever you are. Read this book. Read all his books.”

Stand In International Solidarity-13 Union Militants Sentenced to Life India: Free Maruti Suzuki Union Leaders!

Workers Vanguard No. 1112
19 May 2017
 
13 Union Militants Sentenced to Life
India: Free Maruti Suzuki Union Leaders!
In an attempt to crush the most militant union in India’s fast-growing auto industry, a judge in the north Indian state of Haryana sentenced 13 activists in the Maruti Suzuki Workers Union (MSWU) to life in prison on March 18. Along with more than 100 others, these workers faced transparently bogus charges, including murder and attempted murder, in connection with the death of a company manager five years ago. The public prosecutor argued for the death penalty, railing that they had committed crimes against Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s “Make in India” campaign, which aims to attract foreign investment by promising a cheap, submissive labor force. All trade unions and supporters of workers’ rights must demand: Freedom for the Maruti Suzuki class-war prisoners!
At the time of the arrests, the MSWU was engaged in a fierce battle for union recognition at a Maruti Suzuki auto plant in the Gurgaon-Manesar industrial belt near Delhi. Twelve of the 13 workers were leaders of the union. In opposition to an existing company union, the workers waged several strikes, including sit-ins, starting in 2011. The frame-up grew out of a series of provocations staged by management in July 2012, shortly after the company had been forced to formally recognize the MSWU. On July 18, a dalit (“untouchable”) worker—one of the 13 sentenced to life—was subjected to caste-based slurs by a supervisor and suspended. The union demanded his reinstatement; and in the aftermath of an altercation instigated by management, a suspicious fire broke out in which several people were injured and a manager died. The union had absolutely no involvement in the death of this manager, whom they described as pro-worker.
The Maruti Suzuki bosses had set up the provocation by bringing hundreds of “bouncers” (company thugs) dressed in workers’ clothes into the plant. Evidence about the origin of the fire disappeared, the attendance register was supposedly destroyed and closed-circuit TV cameras were switched off. The company then moved to crush the union by shutting the plant for several weeks, bringing in police to occupy it and providing lists of union activists, nearly 150 of whom were arrested. Some 546 permanent and 2,000 contract (temporary) workers were thrown out of their jobs. When the case finally came to court, 117 of the workers were acquitted. Eighteen others received prison terms, but most were released as they had already served more jail time than their sentences while awaiting trial. Reinstate all victimized workers!
The Japanese-controlled automotive company and the Haryana state government have worked together to destroy the MSWU. Importantly, the union has fought to unite permanent and contract workers, demanding permanent jobs for the latter and an end to the whole cheap-labor contract system. As of 2012, more than three-quarters of the plant’s workers were contract workers, many of them drawn from impoverished rural areas. Such workers earn much less than permanent workers while having no job security.
Despite relentless state repression, the MSWU has not been crushed. Some 30,000 Maruti Suzuki workers staged a one-hour protest strike immediately after the court verdict, even though they were threatened with the loss of eight days’ pay and, in the words of a union statement, “The entire Gurgaon and Manesar areas have been turned into Police camps.” Several days later, thousands of workers rallied in protest in Manesar. On April 4-5, workers from various unions protested on behalf of the Maruti Suzuki militants in hundreds of cities, industrial centers and rural areas.
The Gurgaon-Manesar area is known as the “outsourcing capital of the world.” General Motors, Ford, Suzuki, Honda and other automotive companies have set up manufacturing plants there and elsewhere in India, where some 7.6 million workers are now employed in auto and components manufacturing. Maruti Suzuki’s factories make roughly half the cars sold in the country, underscoring the potential power of its workforce. While numerically small relative to the rural population, it is the Indian proletariat that has the social power to lead the peasant masses and all the oppressed in a fight to break the shackles of capitalist exploitation through socialist revolution.
Continuing the divide-and-rule machinations of the British colonialists, India’s capitalist rulers undermine the struggles of the working class by fostering deep divisions along religious, caste and national lines. Hindu upper-caste supremacy is rife, as is the brutal oppression of women and of Muslims. One of the worst communalist massacres of recent times took place in the state of Gujarat while Modi was chief minister in 2002; Hindu-supremacist thugs organized by his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) massacred 2,000 people, chiefly Muslims. In the wake of the fight to unionize Maruti Suzuki’s Haryana plants in 2011, the company opened a new plant in Gujarat, which Modi had turned into a showcase for low-wage foreign investment.
The government’s “Make in India” program aims to extend the “Gujarat model” throughout the country by means of brutal exploitation and ever-deeper attacks on workers’ rights and working conditions. The connection was made clear in a 2013 High Court ruling, which, in denying bail to the Maruti Suzuki workers, stated: “Foreign direct investment is likely not to happen due to fear of growing labour unrest.” But it is not just Modi’s BJP that is a bitter enemy of the working people. The drive to make India a cheap-labor center for the imperialists began under successive governments led by the Congress Party, which pushed a program of cutting tariffs and social spending and privatizing state-owned companies. Indeed, when the frame-up of the Maruti Suzuki workers began, Congress controlled both the Indian and Haryana state governments, and continued to do so until 2014.
Working-class struggles against the manufacturing giants have continued. In February 2016, some 4,000 workers at a Honda motorcycle plant in the nearby state of Rajasthan waged a strike with strong parallels to the Maruti Suzuki fight. Some 500 contract workers and the union president were dismissed for organizing a union. Both permanent and contract workers went on strike together when a supervisor physically attacked a contract worker, and were met with police repression. Struggles have also taken place in other areas, including the southern auto hub around Chennai.
Our perspective is the building of a revolutionary Marxist party in India, forged in the course of struggle. Such a party—section of a reforged Trotskyist Fourth International—would fight for proletarian unity and class independence from all wings of the capitalists. It would struggle against all manifestations of caste and national oppression, religious communalism and the subjugation of women, while championing the cause of the hideously impoverished peasant masses.
The French CGT, South Korean KCTU, Indian NTUI and Japanese Zenroren union federations have issued a joint declaration on April 7 demanding, “Release the Maruti Suzuki 13 Now.” As proletarian internationalists, we urge other trade unions and working-class organizations in the U.S. and internationally to support the fight of the Maruti Suzuki workers. Messages of support can be sent to the MSWU’s Provisional Working Committee at marutiworkersstruggle@gmail.com.

*In Honor Of Our Class-War Prisoners- Free All The Class-War Prisoners!-Mutulu Shakur

*In Honor Of Our Class-War Prisoners- Free All The Class-War Prisoners!-Mutulu Shakur

 

http://www.thejerichomovement.com/prisoners.html

 

A link above to more information about the class-war prisoner honored in this entry.

Make June Class-War Prisoners Freedom Month

Markin comment (reposted from 2010)


In “surfing” the National Jericho Movement Website recently in order to find out more, if possible, about class- war prisoner and 1960s radical, Marilyn Buck, whom I had read about in a The Rag Blog post I linked to the Jericho list of class war prisoners. I found Marilyn Buck listed there but also others, some of whose cases, like that of the “voice of the voiceless” Pennsylvania death row prisoner, Mumia Abu-Jamal, are well-known and others who seemingly have languished in obscurity. All of the cases, at least from the information that I could glean from the site, seemed compelling. And all seemed worthy of far more publicity and of a more public fight for their freedom.

That last notion set me to the task at hand. Readers of this space know that I am a longtime supporter of the Partisan Defense Committee, a class struggle, non-sectarian legal and social defense organization which supports class war prisoners as part of the process of advancing the international working class’ struggle for socialism. In that spirit I am honoring the class war prisoners on the National Jericho Movement list this June as the start of what I hope will be an on-going attempt by all serious leftist militants to do their duty- fighting for freedom for these brothers and sisters. We will fight out our political differences and disagreements as a separate matter. What matters here and now is the old Wobblie (IWW) slogan - An injury to one is an injury to all.

Note: This list, right now, is composed of class-war prisoners held in American detention. If others are likewise incarcerated that are not listed here feel free to leave information on their cases in the comment section. Likewise any cases, internationally, that come to your attention. I am sure there are many, many such cases out there. Make this June, and every June, a Class-War Prisoners Freedom Month- Free All Class-War Prisoners Now!

  • Call 1-855-68-NO-WAR. Stop Weapons Sales to Saudi Arabia. End the War in Yemen.

    Dear Douglas,
    This is an urgent alert that requires action from all of us. US arms sales to Saudi Arabia are fueling the deadly war and famine that are destroying Yemen and indiscriminately killing thousands of people. We each need to call Congress today to tell our legislators to block the sale of US bombs to Saudi Arabia. Congress is expected to vote on S.J. Res 42 and H.J. Res. 102 as early as Thursday, June 6.

    Please Use the Following 3 Steps from FCNL to CALL CONGRESS:

    1. Dial the Capitol switchboard:

    1-855-68-NO-WAR (1-855-686-6927), where you will be directed to provide information to identify your district, and will be automatically connected to the offices of your legislators.

    2. Ask your senators to vote for S.J. Res 42:

    Please call both of your senators. Every vote will make a difference to block the bombs and challenge the war. We are asking senators to vote for the legislation, since we know that the resolution will go to the Senator floor for a vote by mid-June.
    Please cosponsor S.J. Res 42, the Murphy-Paul-Franken legislation to block bombs to Saudi Arabia. In a war that has killed over 10,000 Yemeni civilians, the US should not support indiscriminate killings of civilians in Yemen and instead should push for peace.

    3. Ask your representative to cosponsor H.J. Res. 102:

    Please ask your representative to support a parallel effort in the House. We have no assurance that there will be a vote on this legislation, so please ask your representative to cosponsor the bill in a strong show of support.
    Please cosponsor H.J. Res. 102 the Amash-Pocan legislation to block bombs to Saudi Arabia. In a war that has killed over 10,000 Yemeni civilians, the US should not support indiscriminate killings of civilians in Yemen and instead should push for peace.


    Once you've made your call, which is the most important action you can take today, please also take a moment to send a letter to your Senators and Representative using our online formdemanding that they stop supporting potential war crimes in Yemen!

    Thank you for taking this important action, today!
    In Solidarity,
    UFPJ's Coordinating Committee
    Help us continue to do this critical work and more-- make a donation to UFPJ today.
    Sent via ActionNetwork.org. To update your email address or to stop receiving emails from United for Peace & Justice, please click here.
    -- 
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SmedleyVFP" group.
    To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Smedleyvfp+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

    Sculptors' Corner-On The 100th Anniversary Of August Rodin's Death

    Sculptors' Corner-On The 100th Anniversary Of August Rodin's Death   




    Frtiz Taylor comment; 

    No question Rodin was the big sculptor of his time and while we should not forget that he treated his long-time companion and fellow sculptor Camille Claudel rather poorly when the deal went down that reputation still holds up. By the way in these times everybody should take a view of his "The Thinker"-and act on it.