Monday, September 04, 2017

***Stop The Killer-Drone Madness…Stop It Now

***Stop The Killer-Drone Madness…Stop It Now









Late one night in 2014 Ralph Morris and Sam Eaton had been sitting at a bar in Boston, Jack Higgin’s Grille, down a few streets from the financial district toward Quincy Market talking about various experiences, political experiences in their lives as they were wont to do these days since they were both mostly retired. Ralph having turned over the day to day operation of his specialty electronics shop in Troy, New York to his youngest son as he in his turn had taken over from his father Ralph, Sr. when he had retired in 1991 (the eldest son, Ralph III, had opted for a career as a software engineer for General Electric still a force in the local economy although not nearly as powerful as when Ralph was young and it had been the largest private employer in the Tri-City area) and Sam had sold off his small print shop business in Carver down about thirty miles south of Boston to a large copying company when he had finally seen a few years before the writing on the wall that the day of the small specialty print shop specializing in silk-screening and other odd job methods of reproduction was done for in the computerized color world. 

So they had time for remembrances back to the days in the early 1970s when they had first met and had caught the tail-end of the big splash 1960s political and social explosion that stirred significant elements of their generation, “the generation of ’68” so-called by Sam’s friend from New York City Fritz Jasper although neither of them had been involved in any of the cataclysmic events that had occurred in America (and the world) that year. Sam had that year fitfully been trying to start his own small printing business after working for a few years for Mr. Snyder the premier printer in town and he was knee-deep in trying to mop up on the silk-screen craze for posters and tee shirts and had even hired his old friend from high school Jack Callahan who had gone to the Massachusetts School of Art as his chief silk-screen designer, and later when he moved off the dime politically his acting manager as well. Ralph’s excuse was simpler, simplicity itself for he was knee-deep in the big muddy in the Central Highlands of Vietnam trying to keep body and soul together against that damn Charlie who wouldn’t take no for an answer.

Occasionally over the years Ralph would come to Boston on trips at Sam’s invitation and they almost always would go have a few at Jack Higgin’s during his stay talking mainly family matters before Ralph would head back to Troy and his family but more frequently of late they would go back over the ground of their youth, would go over more that ground more than one time to see if something they could have done, or something they did not do, would have made a difference when the “counter-revolution,” when the conservative push-back reared its head, when the cultural wars began in earnest with the ebbing of that big good night 1960s explosion. Sam would return the favor by going out to Albany, or more frequently to Saratoga Springs where he, they could see who from the old days, Utah Phillips before he passed away, Rosalie Sorrels before she left the road, Ronnie Gilbert and Pete Seeger before they passed but you get the picture, the old folk minute of the early 1960s that Sam had been very interested in when he started to hang around Cambridge later in that decade, were still alive enough to be playing at the famous coffeehouse still going from the 1960s, the Café Lena, although minus founder Lena for quite a while now. Sam had never lost the bug, never lost that longing for the lost folk minute that in his mind connected in with him hanging around the Hayes-Bickford in Harvard Square on lonesome weekends nights seeing what was to be seen. Sam had dragged Ralph, who despite living on about less than an hour away had never heard of the Café Lena since he had been tuned to the AM stations playing the awful stuff that got air time after the classic period of rock went into decline and before rock became acid-tinged, along with him and he had developed a pretty fair appreciation for the music as well.          

The conversation that night in 2014 got going after the usual few whiskey and sodas used to fortify them for the night talkfest had begun to take effect had been pushed in the direction of what ever happened to that socialist vision that had driven some of their early radical political work together (in the old days both of them in these midnight gabfest would have fortified themselves with in succession grass, cocaine, speed and watch the sun come up and still be talking. These days about midnight would be the end point, maybe earlier.). The specific reason for that question coming up that night had been that Sam had asked Ralph a few weeks before to write up a little remembrance of when he had first heard the socialist-anarchist-communist-radical labor militant   international working class anthem, the Internationale, for Fritz Jasper’s blog, American Protest Music

Sam had noted that Ralph had with a certain sorrow stated that he no longer had occasion to sing the song. Moreover one of the reasons for that absence was that  despite his and Sam’s continued “good old cause” left-wing political activism socialism as a solution to humankind’s impasses was deeply out of favor (that activism as Ralph mentioned to Sam on more than one occasion these days considerably shortened from the old frenzied 24/7 desperate struggles around trying unsuccessfully end the Vietnam War from the American side by getting the government to stop the damn thing although the Vietnamese liberation forces in the end and at great cost had had no trouble doing so). 

People, intellectuals and working stiffs alike, no longer for the most part had that socialist vision goal that had driven several generations, or the best parts of those generations, since the mid-19th century to put their efforts into, did not have that goal on their radar, didn’t see a way out of the malaise through that route. Had moreover backed off considerably from that prospective since the demise of the Soviet Union and its satellites in the early 1990s if not before despite the obvious failure of capitalism to any longer put a dent in the vast inequalities and injustices, their suffered inequalities and injustices, in the world. Sam had had to agree to that sad statement, had had to agree that they, in effect, too had abandoned that goal in their own lives for all practical purposes even though they had been driven by that vision for a while once they got “religion” in the old days in the early 1970s, once they saw that the anti-war struggle that animated their first efforts was not going to get the war-makers to stop making war. 

Maybe it was the booze, maybe it was growing older and more reflective, maybe it was that Ralph’s comments had stirred up some sense of guilt for losing the hard edge of their youthful dreams but that night Sam wanted to press the issue of what that socialist prospective meant, what they thought it was all about (both agreed in passing, almost as an afterthought that what had happened, what passed for socialism in the Soviet Union and elsewhere was NOT what they were dreaming of although they gave third world liberation struggles against imperialism like in Vietnam dependent on Soviet aid plenty of wiggle room to make mistakes and still retain their support).        

Both men during the course of their conversation commented on the fact that no way, no way in hell, if it had not been for the explosive events of the 1960s, of the war and later a bunch of social issue questions, mainly third world liberation struggles internationally and the black liberation question at home they would not even be having the conversation they were having (both also chuckling a little at using the old time terms, especially the use of “struggle” and “question,” for example the  black, gay, woman question since lately they had noticed that younger activists no longer spoke in such terms but used more ephemeral “white privilege,” “patriarchy,”  “gender” terms reflecting the identity politics that have been in fashion for a long time, since the ebb flow of the 1960s).  

No, nothing in the sweet young lives of Samuel Eaton to the Carver cranberry bog capital of world in Carver (then) working-class born (his father a “bogger” himself when they needed extra help) and Ralph Morris, Junior to the Troy General Electric plants-dominated working- class born would have in say 1967, maybe later, projected that almost fifty years later they would be fitfully and regretfully speaking about the their visions of socialism and it demise as a world driving force for social change.  

Ralph and Sam had imbibed all the standard identifiable working-class prejudices against reds, some of those prejudices more widespread among the general population of the times, you know, like the big red scare Cold War “your mommy is a commie, turn her in,” “the Russians are coming get under the desk and hold onto your head,” anybody to the left of Grandpa Ike, maybe even him, communist dupes of Joe Stalin and his progeny who pulled the strings from Moscow and made everybody jumpy; against blacks (Ralph had stood there right next to his father, Ralph, Sr., when he led the physical opposition to blacks moving into the Tappan Street section of town and had nothing, along with his corner boys at Van Patten’s Drugstore, but the “n” word to call black people, sometimes to their faces and Sam’s father was not much better, a southerner from hillbilly country down in Appalachia who had been stationed in Hingham at the end of World War II and stayed, who never could until his dying breathe call blacks anything but the “n” word); against gays and lesbians (Ralph and his boys mercilessly fag and dyke baiting them whenever the guys and he went to Saratoga Springs where those creeps spent their summers doing whatever nasty things they did to each other and Sam likewise down in Provincetown with his boys, he helping, beating up some poor guy in a back alley after one of them had made a fake pass at the guy, Jesus; against uppity woman, servile, domestic child-producing women like their good old mothers and sisters and wanna-bes were okay as were “easy” girls ready to toot their whistles, attitudes which they had only gotten beaten out of them when they ran into their respective future wives who had both been influenced by the women’s liberation movement although truth to tell they were not especially political, but rather artistic.  Native Americans didn’t even rate a nod since they were not on the radar, were written off in any case as fodder for cowboys and soldiers in blue. But mainly they had been red, white and blue American patriotic guys who really did have ice picks in their eyes for anybody who thought they would like to tread on old Uncle Sam (who had been “invented” around Ralph’s hometown way).       

See Ralph, Sam too for that matter, had joined the anti-war movement for personal reasons at first which had to do a lot with ending the war in Vietnam and not a lot about “changing the whole freaking world” (Ralph’s term). Certainly not creeping around the fringes of socialism before the 1960s ebbed and they had to look to the long haul to pursue their political dreams. Ralph’s story was a little bit amazing that way, see, he had served in the military, served in the Army, in Vietnam, had been drafted in early 1967 while he was working in his father’s electrical shop and to avoid being “cannon fodder” as anybody could see what was happening to every “drafted as infantry guy” he had enlisted (three years against the draft’s two) with the expectation of getting something in the electrical field as a job, something useful. But in 1967, 1968 what Uncle needed, desperately needed as General Westmoreland called for more troops, was more “grunts” to flush out Charlie and so Ralph wound up with a unit in the Central Highlands, up in the bush trying to kill every commie he could get his hands on just like the General wanted. He had extended his tour to eighteen months to get out a little early from his enlistment not so much that he was gung-ho but because he had become fed up with what the war had done to him, what he had had to do to survive, what his buddies had had to do to survive and what the American government had turned them all into, nothing but animals, nothing more, as he told everybody who would listen. When he was discharged in late 1969 he wound up joining the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), the main anti-war veterans group at the time. Such a move by Ralph and thousands of other soldiers who had served in ‘Nam a real indication even today of how unpopular that war was when the guys who had fought the damn thing arms in hand, mostly guys then, rose up against the slaughter, taking part in a lot of their actions around Albany and New York City mainly.

Here is the way Ralph told Sam in 1971 about how he came in contact with VVAW while they had plenty of time to talk when they were being detained in RFK Stadium after being arrested in a May Day demonstration. One day in 1970 Ralph was taking a high compression motor to Albany to a customer and had parked the shop truck on Van Dyke Street near Russell Sage College. Coming down the line, silent, silent as the grave he thought later, were a ragtag bunch of guys in mismatched (on purpose he found out later) military uniforms carrying individual signs but with a big banner in front calling for immediate withdrawal from Vietnam and signing the banner with the name of the organization-Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). That was all, and all that was needed. Nobody on those still patriotic, mostly government worker, streets called them commies or anything like that but you could tell some guys in white collars who never came close to a gun, except maybe to kill animals or something defenseless really wanted to. One veteran as they came nearer to Ralph shouted out for any veterans to join them, to tell the world what they knew first-hand about what was going on in Vietnam. Yeah, that shout-out was all Ralph needed he said, all he needed to join his “band of brothers.”                               

Sam as he recalled how he and Ralph had met in Washington had remembered that Ralph had first noticed that he was wearing a VVAW supporter button and Ralph had asked if he had been in ‘Nam. Sam, a little sheepishly, explained that he had been exempted from military duty since he was the sole support for his mother and four younger sisters after his father had passed away of a massive heart attack in 1965. (He had gone to work in Mister Snyder’s print shop where he had learned enough about the printing business to later open his own shop which he kept afloat somehow during the late 1960s with Jack Callahan’s help and which became his career after he settled down when the 1960s ebbed and people started heading back to “normal.”) He then told Ralph the reason that he had joined the anti-war movement after years of relative indifference since he was not involved in the war effort had been that his closest high school friend, Jeff Mullins, had been blown away in the Central Highlands and that had made him question what was going on. Jeff, like them had been as red, white and blue as any guy, had written him when he was in Vietnam that he thought that the place, the situation that he found himself in was more than he bargained for, and that if he didn’t make it back for Sam to tell people, everybody he could what was really going on. Then with just a few months to go Jeff was blown away near some village that Sam could not spell or pronounce correctly even all these many years later. Jeff had not only been Sam’s best friend but was as straight a guy as you could meet, and had gotten Sam out of more than a few scrapes, a few illegal scrapes that could have got him before some judge. So that was how Sam got “religion,” not through some intellectual or rational argument about the theories of war, just wars or “your country right or wrong wars,” but because his friend had been blown away, blown away for no good reason as far as that went.  

At first Sam had worked with Quakers and other pacifist types because he knew they were in Cambridge where he found himself hanging out more and more trying to connect with the happenings that were splitting his generation to hell and back. They got him doing acts of civil disobedience at draft boards, including the Carver Draft Board on Allan Road the place where Jeff had been drafted from (and which created no little turmoil and threats among the Eaton’s neighbors who were still plenty patriotic at that point, his mother and sisters took some of the fire as well), military bases and recruiting stations to try to get the word out to kids who might get hoodwinked in joining up in the slaughter. As the war dragged on though he started going to Cambridge meetings where more radical elements were trying to figure out actions that might stop the damn war cold and that appealed to him more than the “assuming the government was rational and would listen to reason” protest actions of those “gentile little old ladies in tennis sneakers.”

1971 though, May Day 1971 to be exact is, where these two stories, two very different stories with the same theme joined together. Sam at that point in 1971 was like Ralph just trying to get the war ended, maybe help out the Panthers a little but before May Day had no grandiose ideas about changing the “whole freaking world.” Sam had gone down to Washington with a group of Cambridge radicals and “reds” to do what he could to shut down the war under the slogan-“if the government does not shut down the war, we will shut down the government.” Ralph had come down with a contingent of ex-veterans and supporters from Albany for that same purpose. Sam and Ralph had as a result met on the bizarre football field at RFK Stadium which was the main holding area for the thousands of people arrested that day (and throughout the week)

So May Day was a watershed for both men, both men having before May Day sensed that more drastic action was necessary to “tame the American imperial monster” (Sam’s term picked up from The Real Paper, an alternative newspaper he had picked up at a street newsstand in Cambridge) and had come away from that experience, that disaster, with the understanding that even to end the war would take much more, and many more people, than they had previously expected. Ralph, in particular, had been carried away with the notion that what he and his fellow veterans who were going to try to symbolically close down the Pentagon were doing as veterans would cause the government pause, would make them think twice about any retaliation to guys who had served and seen it all. Ralph got “smart” on that one fast when the National Guard which was defending the Pentagon, or part of it that day, treated them like any Chicago cops at the Democratic Party Convention in 1968, treated them like cops did to any SDS-ers anywhere, and like anybody else who raised their voices against governmental policy in the streets.

Ralph told Sam while in captivity that he still worked in his father’s shop for a while but their relationship was icy (and would be for a long time after that although in 1991 when Ralph, Senior retired Ralph took over the business). He would take part in whatever actions he could around the area (and down in New York City a couple of times when they called for re-enforcements to make a big splash).

Ralph has like he said joined with a group of VVAW-ers and supporters for an action down in Washington, D.C. The idea, which would sound kind of strange today in a different time when there is very little overt anti-war activity against the current crop of endless wars but also shows how desperate they were to end that damn war, was to on May Day shut down the government if it did not shut down the war. Their task, as part of the bigger scheme, since they were to form up as a total veterans and supporters contingent was to symbolically shut down the Pentagon. Wild right, but see the figuring was that they, the government, would not dare to arrest vets and they figured (“they” meaning all those who planned the events and went along with the plan) the government would treat it somewhat like the big civilian action at the Pentagon in 1967 which Norman Mailer won a literary prize writing a book about, Armies of the Night. Silly them. 

They after the fall-out from that event were thus searching for a better way to handle things, a better way to make an impact because those few days of detention in D.C. that they had jointly suffered not only started what would be a lifelong personal friendship but an on-going conversation between them over the next several years about how to bring about the greater social change they sensed was needed before one could even think about stopping wars and stuff like that. (The story in short of how they got out of RFK after a few days was pretty straight forward. Since law enforcement was so strapped that week somebody had noticed and passed the word along that some of the side exits in the stadium were not guarded and so they had just walked out and got out of town fast, very fast, hitchhiking back north to Carver, and Ralph later to Troy). Hence the push by Sam toward the study groups led by “red collectives” that were sprouting up then peopled by others who had the same kind of questions which they would join, unjoin and work with, or not work with over the next few years before both men sensed the tide of the rolling 1960s had ebbed. 

Old time high school thoughts even with the cross-fire hells of burned down Vietnam villages melted into the back of his brain crossed his mind when Ralph thought of Marx, Lenin (he, they, were not familiar with Trotsky except he had “bought it” down in Mexico with an icepick from some assassin), Joe Stalin, Red Square, Moscow and commie dupes. Sam had not been far behind in his own youthful prejudices as he told Ralph one night after a class and they were tossing down a few at Jack’s in Cambridge before heading home to the commune where Sam was staying.

Ralph had gone out of his way to note in that blog entry for Fritz that before he got “religion” on the anti-war and later social justice issues he held as many anti-communist prejudices as anybody else in Troy, New York where he hailed from, not excluding his rabidly right-wing father who never really believed until his dying days in 2005 that the United States had lost the war in Vietnam. Ralph had realized that all the propaganda he had been fed was like the wind and his realization of that had made him  a very angry young man when he got out of the Army in late 1969. He tried to talk to his father about it but Ralph, Senior was hung up in a combination “good war, World War II, his war where America saved international civilization from the Nazis and Nips (his father’s term since he fought in the Pacific with the Marines) and “my country, right or wrong.” All Ralph, Senior really wanted Ralph to do was get back to the shop and help him fill those goddam GE defense contract orders. And he did it, for a while.

Ralph had also expressed his feelings of trepidation when after a lot of things went south on the social justice front with damn little to show for all the arrests, deaths, and social cataclysm he and Sam had gotten into a study group in Cambridge run by a “Red October Collective” which focused on studying “Che” Guevara and the Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky after an introduction to the Marxist classics. Sam who was living in that commune in Cambridge at the time, the summer of 1972, had invited Ralph to come over from Troy to spent the summer in the study group trying to find out what had gone wrong (and what they had gotten right too, as Sam told him not to forget), why they were spinning their wheels trying to change the world for the better just then and to think about new strategies and tactics for the next big break-out of social activism. At the end of each meeting they would sing the Internationale before the group broke up. At first Ralph had a hard time with the idea of singing a “commie” song (he didn’t put it that way but he might as well have according to Sam) unlike something like John Lennon’s Give Peace A Chance, songs like that. As he, they got immersed in the group Ralph lightened up and would sing along if not with gusto then without a snicker.

That same apprehensive attitude had prevailed when after about three meetings they began to study what the group leader, Jeremy, called classic Marxism, the line from Marx and Engels to Lenin and the Bolsheviks. A couple of the early classes dealt with the American Civil War and its relationship to the class struggle in America, and Marx’s views on what was happening, why it was necessary for all progressives to side with the North and the end of slavery, and why despite his personal flaws and attitudes toward blacks Abraham Lincoln was a figure to admire all of which both men knew little about except the battles and military leaders in American History classes. What caused the most fears and consternation was the need for revolution worked out in practice during the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917. They could see that it was necessary in Russia during those times but America in the 1970s was a different question, not to speak of the beating that they had taken for being “uppity” in the streets in Washington, D.C. in 1971 when they didn’t think about revolution (maybe others had such ideas but if so they kept them to themselves) and the state came crashing down on them.    

The biggest problem though was trying to decipher all the various tendencies in the socialist movement. Ralph, maybe Sam more so, though if everybody wanted the same thing, wanted a better and more peaceful system to live under then they should all get together in one organization, or some such form. The split between the Social Democrats and the Communists, later the split between Stalinists and Trotskyists, and still later the split between Stalinists and Maoists had their heads spinning, had then thankful that they did not have to fight those fights out.

All in all though they had the greatest respect for Trotsky, Trotsky the serious smart intellectual with a revolver in his hand. Had maybe a little sympathy for the doomed revolutionary tilling against the windmills and not bitching about it. Maybe feeling a little like that was the rolling the rock up the hill that they would be facing. That admiration of Trotsky did not extend to the twelve million sects, maybe that number is too low, who have endlessly split from a stillborn organization he started when he felt the Communist International had stopped being a revolutionary force, the Fourth International. Sam brought up a Catholic would make Ralph laugh when he compared those disputes to the old time religious disputes back in the Middle Ages about how many angels would fit on the tip of a needle. They, after spending the summer in study decided that for a while they would work with whoever still needed help but that as far as committing to joining an ongoing organization forget it. 

At the beginning in any case, and that might have affected his ultimate decision, some of Ralph’s old habits kind of held him back, you know the anti-red stuff, Cold War enemy stuff, just like at first he had had trouble despite all he knew about calling for victory to the Viet Cong (who in-country they called “Charlie” in derision although after  Tet 1968 with much more respect when Charlie came at them and kept coming despite high losses). But Ralph got over it, got in the swing. 

The Marxism did not come easy, the theory part, maybe for Ralph a little more than Sam who had taken junior college night classes to bolster the small print shop he had built from nothing after Mister Snyder moved his operation to Quincy to be nearer his main client, State Street Bank and Trust (although for long periods his old Carver friend, Jack Callahan, managed the place when Sam was off on his campaigns). They got that the working-class, their class, should rule and be done with inequalities of all kinds but the idea of a revolution, or more importantly, a working class party which was on everybody’s mind in those days to lead that revolution seemed, well, utopian. The economic theory behind Marxism, that impossible to read Das Capital and historical materialism as a philosophy were books sealed with seven seals for them both. Nevertheless for a few years, say until 1975, 1976 when the tide really had ebbed for anybody who wanted to see they hung around with the local “reds,” mostly those interested in third world liberation struggles and political prisoner defense work. Those were really the earnest “socialist years” although if you had asked them for a model of what their socialism looked like they probably would have pointed to Cuba which seemed fresher than the stodgy old Soviet Union with their Brezhnev bureaucrats.

After that time while they would periodically read the left press and participate any time somebody, some group needed bodies for a rally, demonstration, some street action they would be there in their respective hometowns that they both eventually filtered back to. Then 2002 came and the endless wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and seemingly a million other places drove them to drop their “armed truce” (Sam’s term picked up by Ralph) with society and return to the streets , return with an almost youthful vengeance. They would see young people at the rallies hocking their little Marxist papers, maybe buy one to read a home but that flame that had caused them to join study groups, to work with Marxist-oriented “red collectives,” to read books that were hard to fathom had passed, had passed just as socialism as a way to end humankind’s impasses had fallen out of favor once the Soviet Union and its satellites had gone up in a puff of smoke. Sam thought one time that maybe those earnest kids with their wafer-thin newspapers will study the classics and make more sense out of them than Sam and Ralph could. As for Sam and Ralph they would now just keep showing up to support the “good old cause.”              
 And here is what Ralph, an ex-Vietnam veteran and no stranger to war up close and personal  had to say about the damn drones:   

If one takes a quick look at military history not at the pre-conditions that set any particular war up but, you know, what was decisive in the victory of one side over the other you will, except those times when desperate valor saved the day, actually an unusual occurrence in the great scheme of warfare, notice that the side with the technological advantage, the latest gadget usually will prevail. Or at least that is what the average run of military historians will highlight. Taking an example from American internal war history, the Civil War of the 1860s, the decisive edge had been given to the industrial power of the North to produce as many cannon, guns, wagons, etc. as needed whereas the South, especially after Billy Sherman and his “bummers” marched through Georgia and its environs squeezing whatever industrial capacity that region did have, was starved for such materials. Thereafter the massing of high caliber accurate firepower weaponry became the standard on the battlefield.





All of this simple-simon history is presented to make a point about what military strategists are up to these days with the incessant use of killer-drones, those gadgets that now, whether recognized as such or not are seen as the solution to reducing the need for boots on the ground which in turn means that those like the American military and its civilian administrators need to worry less about outraged citizens when the body count gets too high. That has not deterred every administration, including the current Obama one from anteing up the boots on the ground when the deal goes down and land needs to be secured. So needless to say this military “new age” thinking is hogwash since while drones had more than occasionally hit their targets they have more than occasionally created what is euphemistically termed “collateral damage” to anybody in the area of the strike.

That fact alone, that fact of innocent civilian causalities, is why I along with others, hopefully a growing number of others, are out in the streets at anti-war rallies and elsewhere telling presidents and generals to stop their killer-drone programs. Join us on this one just like you would when the American government throws boot on the ground in some ill-conceived plan to make the world “safe for democracy.”         

Keep Space for Peace Week - October 13-21

From The Pages Of The Socialist Alternative Press-Quebec Students Fight Tuition Hikes

Click on the headline to link to the Socialist Alternative (CWI) website.

Markin comment:

I place some material in this space which may be of interest to the radical public that I do not necessarily agree with or support. Off hand, as I have mentioned before, I think it would be easier, infinitely easier, to fight for the socialist revolution straight up than some of the “remedies” provided by the commentators in these entries. But part of that struggle for the socialist revolution is to sort out the “real” stuff from the fluff as we struggle for that more just world that animates our efforts.
***********
Quebec Students Fight Tuition Hikes

Aug 31, 2012
By Joshua H. Koritz

Tuition fees, society in Quebec has been shaken to the core by four months of student strikes, which have garnered support from trade unions and been linked to far-reaching anti-austerity demands. At the movement’s peak, the demonstrations turned out an estimated 310,000 students: three out of every four students in Quebec.

CLASSE (the main radi­cal student union) put out the call last autumn for strikes starting on February 13 of this year. The first major actions took place Febru­ary 16, when students joined together with workers and activists to blockade the streets surrounding stock market buildings, demand­ing no increase in tuition fees, no increase in electric­ity charges, and no to all fees for health services.


In line with this strategy, the ruling Parti Libérale du Québec (PLQ) pushed through the repressive anti-protest Bill 78, targeting the political rights of the dem­onstrators. Far from cur­tailing protests or breaking up the movement, however, the law has stirred up even more outrage in broader layers of society; the pro­tests in defiance of the law were the largest yet, with up to 500,000 marching in Montreal, the largest ever in Quebec Province.


Bill 78 failed to beat the movement back, so the PLQ called elections for Septem­ber 4 – when one represen­tative of the ruling class is unpopular, they offer the working class the opportu­nity to try a different one. The fact that the PLQ were forced to call an election demonstrates the huge power exerted by this strug­gle. However, only further mobilization can achieve a real victory.


The announcement of the election, along with a cer­tain tiring of the movement during the summer “truce,” has diminished the energy of the movement. The August 22 demonstration was the smallest of the monthly mobilizations since the movement started. As of this writing, several schools have voted to return to classes, as the right wing of the move­ment sees the elections as a victory.


The Parti Quebecois (PQ), the traditional inde­pendence party, and tradi­tionally connected to the trade union leaderships, is currently ahead in the polls. While the PLQ has led the charge for austerity and against the demonstra­tors, the PQ does not have any principled disagreement with them. The PQ prom­ises only to “freeze” the tuition hikes temporarily. To oppose neo-liberal policies effectively, the workers and their unions must be able to politically act independently from all pro-capitalist par­ties, including the PQ.


Further complicating the elections is the massive corruption of the political parties in Quebec. It is esti­mated that as much as three quarters of the financing for the main traditional parties of Quebec is obtained ille­gally. This has created a new centrist party that will likely split the votes of both the PLQ and the PQ.


CLASSE does not sup­port any party, correctly pointing out that change can only be won on the streets. Unfortunately, it has missed the opportunity to use this election to build the idea of a general strike and to broaden the struggle into a general fight against austerity, which could be done by appealing to the movement to support Québec Solidaire, the only party that is running on an anti-austerity program.


The decisive factor in this situation is the degree of rank-and-file organization, activism and political con­sciousness within the unions. The only way that the unions will be mobilized to enter the struggle in full force is by a relentless push from below. This type of devel­opment can be encouraged by bold calls to the unions from the student movement. Socialists, in particular, have an important role to play in popularizing the idea of a united anti-austerity fight-back among all sections of the movement.


This is the work that Alternative Socialiste (CWI in Quebec) is doing right now, concretely by calling for a 24-hour gen­eral strike as the next step to bring together workers and students against auster­ity, for free education at all levels, for decent jobs for all to combat youth unemploy­ment, and to build Quebec Solidaire in this election as a tactic to achieve these demands.


Socialist Alternative, P.O. Box 45343, Seattle WA 98145
Phone: (206)526-7185
Comments? Suggestions for improving our web page? Please email info@SocialistAlternative.org

From The Pages Of The Socialist Alternative Press-Quebec Students Fight Tuition Hikes

Click on the headline to link to the Socialist Alternative (CWI) website.

Markin comment:

I place some material in this space which may be of interest to the radical public that I do not necessarily agree with or support. Off hand, as I have mentioned before, I think it would be easier, infinitely easier, to fight for the socialist revolution straight up than some of the “remedies” provided by the commentators in these entries. But part of that struggle for the socialist revolution is to sort out the “real” stuff from the fluff as we struggle for that more just world that animates our efforts.
***********
Quebec Students Fight Tuition Hikes

Aug 31, 2012
By Joshua H. Koritz

Tuition fees, society in Quebec has been shaken to the core by four months of student strikes, which have garnered support from trade unions and been linked to far-reaching anti-austerity demands. At the movement’s peak, the demonstrations turned out an estimated 310,000 students: three out of every four students in Quebec.

CLASSE (the main radi­cal student union) put out the call last autumn for strikes starting on February 13 of this year. The first major actions took place Febru­ary 16, when students joined together with workers and activists to blockade the streets surrounding stock market buildings, demand­ing no increase in tuition fees, no increase in electric­ity charges, and no to all fees for health services.


In line with this strategy, the ruling Parti Libérale du Québec (PLQ) pushed through the repressive anti-protest Bill 78, targeting the political rights of the dem­onstrators. Far from cur­tailing protests or breaking up the movement, however, the law has stirred up even more outrage in broader layers of society; the pro­tests in defiance of the law were the largest yet, with up to 500,000 marching in Montreal, the largest ever in Quebec Province.


Bill 78 failed to beat the movement back, so the PLQ called elections for Septem­ber 4 – when one represen­tative of the ruling class is unpopular, they offer the working class the opportu­nity to try a different one. The fact that the PLQ were forced to call an election demonstrates the huge power exerted by this strug­gle. However, only further mobilization can achieve a real victory.


The announcement of the election, along with a cer­tain tiring of the movement during the summer “truce,” has diminished the energy of the movement. The August 22 demonstration was the smallest of the monthly mobilizations since the movement started. As of this writing, several schools have voted to return to classes, as the right wing of the move­ment sees the elections as a victory.


The Parti Quebecois (PQ), the traditional inde­pendence party, and tradi­tionally connected to the trade union leaderships, is currently ahead in the polls. While the PLQ has led the charge for austerity and against the demonstra­tors, the PQ does not have any principled disagreement with them. The PQ prom­ises only to “freeze” the tuition hikes temporarily. To oppose neo-liberal policies effectively, the workers and their unions must be able to politically act independently from all pro-capitalist par­ties, including the PQ.


Further complicating the elections is the massive corruption of the political parties in Quebec. It is esti­mated that as much as three quarters of the financing for the main traditional parties of Quebec is obtained ille­gally. This has created a new centrist party that will likely split the votes of both the PLQ and the PQ.


CLASSE does not sup­port any party, correctly pointing out that change can only be won on the streets. Unfortunately, it has missed the opportunity to use this election to build the idea of a general strike and to broaden the struggle into a general fight against austerity, which could be done by appealing to the movement to support Québec Solidaire, the only party that is running on an anti-austerity program.


The decisive factor in this situation is the degree of rank-and-file organization, activism and political con­sciousness within the unions. The only way that the unions will be mobilized to enter the struggle in full force is by a relentless push from below. This type of devel­opment can be encouraged by bold calls to the unions from the student movement. Socialists, in particular, have an important role to play in popularizing the idea of a united anti-austerity fight-back among all sections of the movement.


This is the work that Alternative Socialiste (CWI in Quebec) is doing right now, concretely by calling for a 24-hour gen­eral strike as the next step to bring together workers and students against auster­ity, for free education at all levels, for decent jobs for all to combat youth unemploy­ment, and to build Quebec Solidaire in this election as a tactic to achieve these demands.


Socialist Alternative, P.O. Box 45343, Seattle WA 98145
Phone: (206)526-7185
Comments? Suggestions for improving our web page? Please email info@SocialistAlternative.org

Labor Day Task Of The Moment- Fight for $15



Fight for $15
Daniel – Tomorrow is the big day.
Here's all the info for the #FightFor15 action closest to you tomorrow:
Where: Boston Common Band Stand, Tremont Street & Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
When: 11:00 AM
For the first time ever, we're taking the fight directly to the politicians standing in the way of fair pay of $15 an hour and union rights. And we need you right there with us.
Don't forget to use #FightFor15 whenever you post protest photos on social media. We'll be looking out for your best posts – and sharing and retweeting to the whole Fight for $15 movement.
Want to help grow the movement RIGHT NOW? Text a friend to join you at the protest tomorrow – or just forward this email.
Thanks for being a part of this movement.
The Fight for $15
Brought to you by Fight for $15. To unsubscribe from these emails please click here.

From The Pages Of The Socialist Alternative Press-A Way Out of Depression? Answering Paul Krugman's Keynesian Proposals

Click on the headline to link to the Socialist Alternative (CWI) website.

Markin comment:

I place some material in this space which may be of interest to the radical public that I do not necessarily agree with or support. Off hand, as I have mentioned before, I think it would be easier, infinitely easier, to fight for the socialist revolution straight up than some of the “remedies” provided by the commentators in these entries. But part of that struggle for the socialist revolution is to sort out the “real” stuff from the fluff as we struggle for that more just world that animates our efforts.
***********
A Way Out of Depression? Answering Paul Krugman's Keynesian Proposals

Aug 27, 2012

By Lynn Walsh, Editor, Socialism Today, monthly magazine of the Socialist Party (CWI England & Wales)

Global capitalism is mired in depression. A Keynesian tract for our times by Paul Krugman proposes a way out

Review: End This Depression Now! By Paul Krugman, Published by WW Norton & Co, 2012, £14.99

THE US ECONOMY, with feeble growth and persistently high unemployment, is in a state of depression, according to Paul Krugman. It is not as severe as the great depression of the 1930s, but “it’s nonetheless essentially the same kind of situation that John Maynard Keynes described in the 1930s: ‘a chronic condition of subnormal activity for a considerable period without any marked tendency either towards recovery or towards complete collapse’.”


Krugman deplores the huge loss of economic output, the permanent undermining of manufacturing capacity, and the social catastrophe of long-term mass unemployment. The rescue of the banks through the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Programme) after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008 averted a collapse of the financial system, though on extremely favourable terms to the banks and speculators. President Barack Obama’s Keynesian-type stimulus programme averted a catastrophic economic slump, but was too limited (in Krugman’s view) to produce sustained growth.

Political leaders, according to Krugman, have failed to learn the lessons of the 1930s. Through a combination of distorted ideology and economic self-interest they exerted pressure for a return to deficit reduction policies in 2010, undermining the fiscal stimulus policy. Obama lacked the “Rooseveltian resolve” demonstrated by president Franklin D Roosevelt during the great depression. Krugman recognises that Obama faced bitter opposition from the Republican-dominated Congress, but criticises his failure to make the case for a bigger stimulus package. Obama failed to effectively mobilise public opinion behind such an intervention. The result is the current, lamentable state of the US economy.


So Krugman has written a tract for the times. Its title suggests that it is a campaigning pamphlet rather than an academic analysis. It is succinct, polemical, satirical in places, advocating unashamedly Keynesian policies which, in his view, could rapidly end the recession and produce sustained growth.


Krugman is a prominent academic economist in the US, but best known for his informative and polemical columns in the New York Times. He is the most prominent of the Keynesian economists (including people like Joseph Stiglitz) who advocate more state intervention to stimulate recovery, and are severely critical of the voodoo economics of the ultra-free-marketeers, now championed by the Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, and especially by his vice-presidential candidate, Paul Ryan.


Much of the book is an analysis of the crisis which hit the US and the world economy from the end of 2007. It is succinct and clear, jargon free, and sound, as far as it goes – but ultimately superficial. It is a well-known story. The massive credit boom after 2001 (both in the US and throughout the capitalist world) led to a housing bubble, especially in those countries which followed the US/Anglo-Saxon model. Finance, particularly the shadow banking system, became even more dominant. The securitisation of debt and the vast expansion of financial derivatives were supposed to minimise or – in some people’s dreams – even rule out risk.

As the financier Warren Buffett (and Socialism Today) predicated, however, derivatives became instruments of mass destruction. With the collapse of the housing bubble they amplified the fallout. Without state intervention in the US and elsewhere to rescue the banks there would have been a worldwide collapse of the financial system.


Krugman’s explanation, however, is limited. He argues that political leaders ‘forgot’ the lessons of the 1930s, cancelling out much of the regulatory limits on financial institutions (starting under Ronald Reagan but much more under Bill Clinton). Undoubtedly, the abolition of the Glass-Steagall Act (1933), which enforced the separation of deposit banks and speculative finance houses, facilitated rather than caused the acceleration of financialisation. Underlying this trend was a turn by the capitalists away from investment in manufacturing and towards ever greater investment in the financial sector. Short-term profits through financial speculation, which tended to concentrate profits increasingly in the hands of the top 1% - or, more accurately, the top 0.01% - became a dominant economic trend. Ultra-free-market ideology was promoted to legitimise the shift.


Financialisation changed the structure of the US economy and other advanced capitalist countries. They concentrated more and more on services, boosted consumer demand through the expansion of cheap credit and the boom in housing and financial assets, and outsourced manufacturing to low-cost economies such as China. Krugman has little or nothing to say about these structural changes in the US and the global economy. This reflects the characteristic weakness of the Keynesian approach. He believes that the current problems could be rapidly overcome by a change in macroeconomic policy.


He sees the current depression as “gratuitous” – “this doesn’t have to be happening”. His explanation is that “we’ve suffered a software crash… The point is that the problem isn’t with the economic engine, which is as powerful as ever. Instead, we are talking about what is basically a technical problem, a problem of organisation and coordination – a ‘colossal muddle’, as Keynes put it. Solve this technical problem, and the economy will roar back to life”.


This reflects Krugman’s illusion – the Keynesian illusion – that the capitalist economy can be managed, that imbalances can be overcome by government intervention with the right policies, that capitalist leaders and policymakers can be persuaded to adopt the right policies through rational argument. If anything, Krugman is even more naive than Keynes himself, who recognised the difficulty of persuading capitalists to accept state intervention outside a war situation that threatened their existence.


‘It’s all about demand’


KRUGMAN DESCRIBES HIMSELF as “a sorta-kinda New Keynesian” who “often turn[s] to old Keynesian ideas”. He follows Keynesian thinking that rejects ‘Say’s law’, the idea that, over time, demand will always match supply. According to the classical political economists of the early period of capitalism this reflected the fact that the market would always achieve equilibrium. This doctrine came to the fore again in the 1990s, when free-market economists (including Alan Greenspan, one time head of the Federal Reserve bank) embraced the absurd idea of the perfectibility of markets. Some enthusiasts even claimed that booms and slumps were phenomena of the past. After the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008, even Greenspan had to admit that he was wrong, although he has subsequently reverted to his ultra-free-market notions.


Krugman also follows Keynes in arguing that “it’s all about demand”: the main factor in the current depression is the insufficiency of aggregate demand (that is, the total money-backed demand for goods and services, including capital goods). “In 2008 [Krugman writes] we suddenly found ourselves living in a Keynesian world… by that I mean that we found ourselves in a world in which lack of sufficient demand had become the key economic problem…” This situation, he argues, requires activist government policies.


Clearly, the collapse of demand following the financial crisis was the immediate cause of the economic downswing. Households were massively in debt, and were hit by the collapse in house prices and the steep rise in unemployment. Many businesses (especially small and medium) were hit by the credit squeeze and the collapse of consumer demand. Big corporations, with huge cash reserves, were not prepared to invest in new capacity on the basis of shrinking markets. Both the household and the business sector were caught in a classic ‘debt trap’. They desperately struggled to reduce their debts, ‘saving’ more than they invested or spent on goods and services.


The Keynesian argument is that in this situation the state has to step in and stimulate demand. Lowering interest rates (even to zero) is not enough. By borrowing money to finance deficit spending – or by printing money – the state should inject demand into the economy. Increases in the social safety net (for instance, unemployment benefit) and job creation schemes (such as, infrastructure projects) could reduce unemployment and support increased demand.


Krugman approves of the measures taken by the US government and the Federal Reserve in 2008/09. The Fed reduced interest rates to near-zero and pumped credit into the economy through the so-called quantitative easing policy. Krugman also approves the rescue under George W Bush of the banks and the shadow banking institutions through the TARP ($700bn), though he rightly comments that they were bailed out on extremely lenient terms. In contrast, the promised help for ‘under-water’ mortgage holders (home buyers with negative equity) has largely failed to materialise. He particularly supports Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package, but is very critical of its limited character (almost 40% of it taking the form of tax cuts rather than increased spending).


Krugman’s main criticism is that the programme was much too small and has been largely abandoned since 2010. This, he argues, is why the recession has continued and unemployment remains at such a high level. (Krugman’s criticism of Roosevelt’s New Deal stimulus is also that it was too small, giving way to another recession in 1937.)


If Obama had continued the stimulus policy, particularly through public works that created millions of jobs, the US recession might not have been so severe. However, in isolating the factor of ‘demand’ as the crucial factor, Krugman fails to get to the root of the problem. The Keynesian idea is that a spurt of state spending will jump-start the economy, creating jobs, stimulating investment, and so on, “until the private sector is ready to carry the economy forward again”. But it is far from certain (leaving aside capitalist hostility to an increase in the economic role of the state) that a short-term stimulus of this type would actually revive investment and production by the big corporations.


Capital investment has been declining as a share of GDP in the US and other advanced capitalist countries since the early 1980s, despite the increased share of profits in national income. The stagnation of capital investment continued in the US in the 1990s and the 2000s despite the high level of demand (which was sustained by credit/debt).


Keynes believed that ‘equilibrium’ of the market would break down at a certain point because of the capitalists’ so-called ‘liquidity preference’. In other words, they would save more than they invested, preferring to hoard their cash rather than invest it productively. Keynes explained this through the factor of ‘confidence’, a subjective explanation. In reality, the lack of confidence is rooted in an estimation of a much more objective factor: the prospects of making adequate profits.


It is the ‘liquidity preference’ of the big corporations which has been behind the turn towards speculative financial activity since the early 1980s. Krugman’s analysis reflects the weakness of Keynesian theory: it focuses on empirical, macroeconomic policy, and fails to come to grips with the underlying forces, especially the trajectory of profitability. Amazingly, Krugman makes no reference to profits or profitability – the word does not even appear in the index (but this is not uncommon in Keynesian textbooks). He graphically illustrates the growing inequality in the US, but makes no attempt to link this to the intensified exploitation of the working class, from whose labour power all profit is derived.


A policy fix?


“BY APPLYING TIME-HONOURED economic principles whose validity has only been reinforced by recent events, we could be back to more or less full employment very fast, probably in less than two years. All that is blocking recovery is a lack of intellectual clarity and political will”. This is a point that Krugman repeats several times throughout the book. “Time-honoured principles” refers to Keynesian policies.


Like Keynes before him, Krugman argues that his policies are moderate. He is proposing “measures that would mainly try to boost the economy rather than trying to transform it…” Like Keynes, he makes it clear that he is not challenging the fundamental structure of capitalism. He is warning that a prolonged slump “poses [dangers] to democratic values and institutions” – code for upheavals and class conflict.


Despite his biting criticism of Republican politicians, big-business leaders and academic advocates of ultra-free-market policies, Krugman frequently appears surprised at their posture. He sees it as a failure on their part to understand the issues and come to grips with reality. He hopes that the pressure of enlightened public opinion may change their position. “The sources of our suffering are relatively trivial in the scheme of things, and could be fixed quickly and fairly easily if enough people in positions of power understood the realities”.


Yet the author himself repeatedly points to the vested interests – or, as Americans say, ‘special interests’ – of those championing free-market policies. The social weight of big business has been markedly increased in the last 30 years. There has been a huge concentration of wealth into the hands of the top 1%, or even a small fraction of the top 1%. Money, as Krugman says, buys influence, and big business has exerted enormous influence over both the Democratic and Republican parties.


Why do many on the right, for instance, vehemently oppose the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve under Ben Bernanke? In effect, quantitative easing is a form of Keynesianism for bankers. Many of the major financial institutions would have collapsed but for the cheap liquidity provided by the Fed. However, the finance capitalists in particular are obsessed by the spectre of inflation, even though it is not an immediate threat. (Given that there is global overcapacity which depresses price levels and the banks are mostly sitting on the reserves rather than channelling them into circulation.) The financiers support policies that favour creditors rather than debtors. The moneylenders abhor low interest rates and inflation (which depresses real, inflation-adjusted interest rates).


Krugman quotes a comment of Keynes himself. Free-market ideas, Keynes said, “[afford] a measure of justification to the free activities of the individual capitalists, [attracting] to [these ideas] the support of the dominant social force [the capitalists] behind [government] authority”. In the US, big-business spokespersons and Republican politicians make no secret of the fact that they see any form of state intervention to overcome the recession as the thin end of the wedge, posing the danger of ‘socialism’.


Krugman provides many of the ingredients required for an analysis of the political-economic situation in the US. But he himself fails to provide such an analysis. As a liberal, he fails to see right-wing ideology, the vested interests of big business, and the rightward moving leaders of the Republican Party as manifestations of class interests, as, in fact, ideology/policy that represents the interests of a powerful section of the capitalist class, especially finance capital.


Krugman’s solution


KRUGMAN HAS LITTLE difficulty in showing that deficit reduction policies, to which capitalist governments turned as soon as there was a limited revival in 2010, have made the situation worse. His comments in the chapter on Europe, ‘Eurodämmerung’ (‘Europe’s twilight’, after Wagner), have been further confirmed by the continuing recession throughout the EU and eurozone. He shows that the policy of ‘expansionary austerity’ – based on the idea that deficit reduction will promote ‘confidence’ in the economy and thereby encourage investment and growth, is so much hocus-pocus. Krugman wittily refers to the ‘Austerians’, the leaders and economists who advocate austerity, strongly influenced by the ultra-free-market economics of the Austrian school like Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises.


Krugman argues that the additional $5 trillion of debt accumulated by the federal government since 2007 need not be an excessive burden on the economy. This requires about $125 billion in interest payments, around 1% of GDP. Plausibly, US capitalism could sustain a significantly higher level of debt – provided there was GDP growth that allowed it to be steadily reduced over a period (even a long period). The problem politically is that the capitalist class in the US, having enjoyed a steady reduction in its tax liabilities since the 1980s, is intransigently opposed to paying higher taxes in order to finance public investment.

Krugman justifiably criticises Obama’s stimulus (including the very limited second package) as too little, too late. But, given the clarion call of this book’s title, Krugman’s proposals are surprisingly limited and vague. He advocates a big extension of quantitative easing, with the Fed buying up a much wider range of assets (including company bonds and home mortgages) to inject more money into the economy. He argues that the restoration of federal support to states and cities could create three million jobs over the next two or three years. Effective mortgage relief, promised by Obama but never delivered, could stimulate consumer spending. Krugman calls for more public spending and public works (repair and renewal of infrastructure), but is surprisingly vague. He recognises that Obama faced massive political opposition in Congress, even from sections of the Democratic Party, and perhaps Krugman himself wants to avoid giving a hostage to fortune by proposing specific measures.


No historical perspective


KRUGMAN’S ANALYSIS LACKS historical perspective. He recognises that Roosevelt’s New Deal was not entirely successful, giving way to a new recession in 1937. In his view, it was not big enough or sustained long enough. However, he argues that the huge increase of public spending in a response to the opening of the second world war in 1939 pulled the US out of recession. Even before the US entered the war, rearmament and the increased global demand for US goods boosted its economy.


The war was financed by borrowing, but the national debt was paid down quite rapidly during the post-war economic upswing. According to Krugman, this shows that historically high levels of debt need not be a problem, so long as there is sustained GDP growth. “What the threat of war did was to finally silence the voices of fiscal conservatism, opening the door for recovery…” Liberal Keynesians, however, can hardly advocate a war to resolve economic problems!


Jokingly, Krugman suggests that “what we really need right now is a fake threat of alien invasion that leads to massive spending on anti-alien defences”. This is revealing. The joke highlights Krugman’s failure to grasp the unique historical character of the second world war and the post-war upswing – or of the current historical conjuncture.


“The fact is that we had almost two generations of more or less adequate employment and tolerable levels of inequality after world war two, and we can do it again”. But Keynesian policies cannot recreate the conditions required for a prolonged economic upswing. The structure of capitalism (though not its essential character) has changed, as have global economic relations. The collapse after 1989 of the Soviet Union and the other Stalinist states (planned economies ruled by bureaucratic regimes) removed a counterweight to capitalism. There was a weakening and political disorientation of the trade unions and traditional workers’ organisations. This emboldened the capitalists, led by the US ruling class, to launch an assault on working-class living standards and rights, and to push for the ‘perfection’ of the market. Finance became the dominant force in the advanced capitalist countries. The situation is entirely different from the post-second world war period.


A programme of public works?


ARE KEYNESIAN POLICIES now ruled out? Some people undoubtedly think so. “In the current market environment”, says a Deutsche Bank analyst, “there is no room for using a Keynesian-type expansionary fiscal policy to boost demand in countries with low growth – the markets will simply not accept such a strategy”. (International Herald Tribune, 10 January). Global financial markets are now far bigger than they were in Keynes’s time, or even before the 1980 neo-liberal ‘revolution’. In 1980 financial assets (in reality, credit/debt securities) were equal to one year’s output of the global economy. By 2006 such assets amounted to four times global output. This scale gives speculators – the so-called ‘bond-market vigilantes’ – the power to speculate against any governments that carry out policies of which they disapprove.


The bond traders, moreover, are reinforced by ultra-free-market ideology, which now dominates the thinking of capitalist governments and international agencies such as the OECD. Despite the deepening of the current world recession, they really believe that unfettered markets will produce growth – and mass unemployment and impoverishment of sections of the working class will not dent this growth.


The kind of policies advocated by Krugman, if effectively implemented, could cushion the downswing in the US and elsewhere. But they would not overcome the underlying problems of capitalist accumulation. In any case, many Keynesians feel that it is already too late. For instance, Keynes’s biographer, Robert Skidelsky, writes: “At last, opinion is starting to shift [in favour of Keynesian policies] – but too slowly and too late to save the world from years of stagnation”. (The New Republic, 12 July)


Yet things can change. The capitalist crisis will produce social explosions and eruptions of class conflict. In the US, for instance, in the event of Romney winning the presidency and implementing the policies advocated by Ryan, they are likely to provoke an even worse slump. (It is possible that even a Romney-Ryan presidency would be forced more by pressure from big business to temper its crazy ideas with more pragmatic policies.)


Explosive movements of the working class and deep social crisis will, under certain conditions, push capitalist governments into adopting Keynesian-type measures to avoid a mortal threat to their system. Keynes himself said that his policies were designed to avoid revolution. When it is a question of saving their system, the capitalist class will, at least temporarily, make concessions to the working class. To reduce mass unemployment they may well adopt public works programmes. They will be forced to repair the social safety net. But such policies will be a temporary expedient. They will not be a return to the long-term, sustained Keynesian policies of the post-war upswing, when the state increased its intervention in the economy and developed an extensive social welfare infrastructure. Keynesian policies may buy time for the ruling class but they cannot resolve the crisis of capitalism.


How, as socialists, should we regard a stimulus package or programme of public works? In the face of mass unemployment and the prospect of prolonged economic stagnation, the leaders of workers’ organisations should indeed be calling for a massive programme of public works to provide jobs and stimulate growth.

To be effective, a public works programme would have to be on a much bigger scale than that proposed by Krugman. It would mean the refurbishment and addition of new infrastructure, especially homes, schools, hospitals, community facilities, etc. Workers should be employed on a living wage with full trade union rights.


Effective economic stimulus would require a big increase in social spending, increasing pensions and other benefits. Tax rates for the wealthy and big corporations should be substantially increased, with a levy on the uninvested cash piles of big companies. Effective measures should be taken against tax evasion and avoidance.


It has to be recognised in advance, however, that the capitalists will vehemently resist a bigger role for the state and increased taxation. A programme to provide jobs and stimulate growth would require the mobilisation of the working class. Moreover, increased taxation in itself will not be sufficient to develop the economy. The dramatic raising of the living standards of the majority of the population would require the resources (additional real wealth) created by increased production.


The banks and finance houses would have to be nationalised (not bailed out and propped up at public expense), and run under democratic workers’ control and management. This would ensure the credit required to develop all sectors of the economy. There would also have to be capital controls to prevent any flight of capital. Such measures would undoubtedly meet the entrenched resistance of the capitalist class. State intervention in favour of the working class would unavoidably pose the question of the takeover of the commanding heights of the economy, to form the basis of a democratic plan of production (run by elected representatives of the workers and the wider community).


Any government carrying out such a policy would need an international perspective, collaborating with the workers’ movement in other countries to develop socialist planning at an international level.

Socialist Alternative, P.O. Box 45343, Seattle WA 98145
Phone: (206)526-7185
Comments? Suggestions for improving our web page? Please email info@SocialistAlternative.org



Far From The Outlaw Minute-Willie Nelson’s Outlaws And Angels (2004 )-A Musical Film Review

Far From The Outlaw Minute-Willie Nelson’s Outlaws And Angels (2004 )-A Musical Film Review   



DVD Review

By Film Editor Sandy Salmon

Willie Nelson: Outlaws and Angels, starring Willie Nelson and a cast of outlaws like Merle Haggard and angels like Lucinda Williams and everything in between including a retired outlaw like Jerry Lee Lewis, 2004     


I freely admit that as a tough mean city streets New Jersey-bred guy I did not have anything like an “outlaw country music minute” back in early 1980s when traditional country music, Nashville-driven music by the likes of George Jones and say Loretta Lynn ran out of steam. Or out of ideas beyond whiskey nights, faded love, fast cars, fast women and good old boy foolishness. The time when guys like the central figure in this music video Willie Nelson, Waylon Jennings, Guy Clark, Jerry Jeff Walker and Townes Van Zandt and gals like Emmylou Harris and Rachel Farling stepped off that reservation and gave a new definition to the parameters of country music. Brought an updated beat, an update ethos and some quirky twists to the genre. In some cases as well living the real outlaw life, by approximating the free spirit life.        

My admission has a purpose since under normal circumstances I would not review a country music video having neither expertise nor interest in the genre. The only reason I have done so is as a favor to my old friend and fellow film critic from the American Film Gazette Sam Lowell who is my immediate predecessor at this site who actually did have a “outlaw country music minute.” Since he is in retirement and only wishes to review material periodically when something like say the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Summer of Love, 1967 sparks his interest. At least that was the story line he spun when he practically begged me to do this review. (I really think that he just wanted to see the expression “outlaw country music minute” used in a review here like he used to hammer endlessly on the “folk minute” of the early 1969s in a lot of his reviews).

That short flirtation was driven by the musical stalemate of those early 1980s when classic rock and roll had had one of its periodic fallow periods like it had in the late 1950s and Sam was looking for something interesting musically to listen to and maybe drive to wider critical notice. According to Sam he was snagged into the moment not by Willie Nelson but by Townes Van Zandt one night at Jackie Speed’s in of all places Harvard Square in Cambridge. Hardly a known Mecca for country music although well know back in the “folk minute” days of Sam’s blessed memory. He had appreciated Willie as outside the Nashville club (although Nelson had started in traditional 1950s Nashville fashion with Crazy made a big of by the premier woman traditional country singer of the time Patty Cline, who still has the best version of that classic). But something about the painful Van Zandt lyrics and rough-hewn sense of humor appealed to his strictly urban upbringing like there might be a bridge somehow.           

But on to the music DVD. This is the third in a series of Willie Nelson driven DVDs with various themes and various guest singers and hangers-on. This one took place in Los Angeles under the guise of outlaws and angels. The line-up was certainly filled with guys with outlaw reputations like Bob Dylan (who “mailed in” his duet with Willie on the Hank Williams classic “You Win Again” reportedly via YouTube being drunk on stage in the days when he used to drink), legendary Merle Haggard (who passed away in 2016), Kid Rock and Keith Richards among others. And gals like Lucinda William and Ricki Lee Jones who can make the real angels weep for their inadequacies. Overall though other than showing that Willie has a great command of the American (maybe world) songbook most of the performances were unremarkable. Except, and this is a big exception, when the ancient rock and roller Jerry Lee Lewis whose prime before that fallow time in the late 1950s previously mentioned who “stole” the show with his two songs. Leave it to a rocker to bail things out. You would grab this one for that performance.          


As The Burns-Novick Vietnam War Documentary Airs- No Black-Bordered Obituary For Defense Secretary Robert McNamara

As The Burns-Novick Vietnam War Documentary Airs- No Black-Bordered Obituary For Defense Secretary Robert McNamara 




A Link To "New York Times" July 6, 2009 Obituary For Robert McNamara. The Point Of This Link Is To Teach The Next Generation To Know The "Rational" Kind Of Monster We Have To Boot Out In Order To Get The Just World WE Desperately Need.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/us/07mcnamara.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all


Commentary (July 6, 2009)


The recent death, at 93, of Kennedy/Johnson Vietnam War-era War Secretary Robert McNamara has been met with a number of tributes in the bourgeois media about his role as architect of various Cold War military policies in defense of the American Imperial state. That is to be expected for those sources. There is, apparently, an unwritten rule that one does not speak ill of the dead in those circles. Including legitimate war criminals. And in the normal course of events that might be an appropriate response. But one Robert Strange McNamara is of a different stripe.

After a life time of public service to the bourgeois state Mr. McNamara, seemingly, late in life started to worry about his eternal soul and the harm that he had done to it by trying, as an example, to wipe the country of Vietnam, North and South at the time, off the face of the earth with his incessant strategic bombing policy. After exhibiting some qualms late in the Johnson presidency (and around the time of TET 1968) he was booted upstairs to become President of the American-dominated World Bank. Nice soft landing for a war criminal, right?

And who called him a war criminal? Well, of course, this writer did (and does). And so did many of the anti-war activists of the 1960’s. Those calls are to be expected (and might be considered to constitute a minimum response to his egregious policies). But, surprise, surprise late in life, after serious reflection, McNamara implied, haltingly to be sure, in his memoirs (a review of which is re-posted below) that that might have been the case. However, unlike some of his compadres at the Nuremberg War Crimes tribunals and other such venues, Mr. McNamara died quietly in his bed.

Not so fortunate were the millions of Vietnamese peasants and workers who bore the onslaught of the maximum fire-power the American military could lay down. No, there will be no final justice in this sorry old world until a future American Workers Republic pays real justice (and serious cash) to the people of Vietnam. As for Robert Strange McNamara, if the worst that happened to him was a “bad conscience” he got off easy.

******

Reposted below is a review of Robert Strange McNamara’s memoirs and of a documentary “Fog Of War” used by him in order to help “the second draft” of history of his legacy.

Reposted From April 30, 2009 Entry

The Fog Of War, Part II- War Secretary Robert McNamara’s View Of His Handiwork in Vietnam

Book Review

In Retrospect: The Tragedy And Lessons Of Vietnam, Robert Strange McNamara with Brain VanDeMark, Random House, 1995


Anyone who had caught the Friday March 27, 2009 headlines is aware that the Democratic Party-run Obama government has called for some 4,000 additional troops for Afghanistan and what they, euphemistically, call civilian support teams in order to bolster the sagging regime of “Mayor of Kabul” Karzai. Those numbers are in addition to the 17,000 extras already committed by the Obama regime in February. Does the word escalation seem appropriate here?

One of the problems of having gone through the Vietnam experience in my youth (including periods of lukewarm support for American policy under John F. Kennedy, a hands-off attitude in the early Lyndon B. Johnson years and then full-bore opposition under the late Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and Gerald Ford regimes) is a tendency to view today’s American imperial policy in the same by-the-numbers approach as I took as a result of observing the Vietnam War as it unfolded. There are differences, some of them hugely so, between Vietnam and Afghanistan. Just as, I have previously noted in this space, there are differences between Vietnam and the recently “completed” Iraq War. (Hey, I’m just going by what the media tells me is going on. They wouldn’t lead us astray, would they?)

But, I keep getting this eerie feeling in the back of my neck every time I hear, or see, anything concerning Afghanistan coming out of this new Obama administration. They appear clueless, yet are determined to forge ahead with this policy that can only lead to the same kind of quagmire than Vietnam and Iraq turned into. That is where the analogies to Vietnam do connect up. In this regard, I have recently been re-reading Kennedy/Johnson War Secretary Robert Strange (that’s his middle name, folk, I didn’t make it up and didn’t need to) McNamara’s memoirs, written in 1995, of his central role in the development of Vietnam policy, “In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam”.

Obviously McNamara has put his own ‘spin’ on his personal role then in order to absolve himself (a little) before history. That is to be expected. What comes through crystal clear, however, because in the final analysis McNamara still doesn’t get it, is that when you’re the number one imperial power all the decisions you make are suppose to fall into place for your benefit because you represent the “good guys”. Regardless of what you do, or do not, know about the internal workings of the situation at hand. The Kennedy/Johnson administrations were almost totally ignorant of the internal working of Vietnamese society. That is why I have that eerie, very eerie, feeling about this Obama war policy.

In the normal course of events former high level bureaucrats in American presidential administrations usually save their attempts at self-justification for high ticket published memoirs or congenial `softball' speaking tours and conferences. In short, they prefer to preach to the choir at retail prices. Apparently, Cold Warrior extraordinaire Secretary of War Robert Strange McNamara felt that such efforts were very necessary in his case and hence he had to go to the prints in order to whitewash his role in the history of his times. Despite an apparent agreement with his “ghost writer” not to cover certain subjects and be allowed to present his story his way it is always good to catch a view of how the other side operates. It ain't pretty.

After a lifetime of relative public silence, at the age of 8o something, McNamara decided to give his take on events in which he was a central figure like dealing with the fact of American imperial military superiority in the post- World War II period, dealing with the Russians and the fight for American nuclear superiority during the Cold War, the ill-conceived Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, the later Cuban Missile crisis and above all his role in the escalation of the wars in Southeast Asia, primarily Vietnam.

Very little here focuses on his time at the World Bank, a not unimportant omission that would highlight my point that he might have changed his clothing in the course of his career but not his mindset. While those of us interested in learning the lessons of history have long understood that to know the political enemy is the beginning of wisdom one will not find much here that was not infinitely better covered by the late journalist David Halberstam in his classic “The Best and The Brightest”.

McNamara has chosen to present his story in the form of parables, or rather, little vignettes about the “lessons” to be drawn from experiences (eleven in all by the way). Thus, we are asked to sit, embarrassingly, through McNamara's freshman course in revisionist history as he attempts to take himself from the cold-hearted Cold Warrior and legitimate “war criminal” to the teddy-bearish old man who has learned something in his life- after a lifetime of treachery. Yet, like that freshman course there are things to be learned despite the professor and more to learn, if only by reading between the lines, than he or she wanted to express.

McNamara presents his take by dividing the Vietnam War buildup, at least at the executive level, into periods; the early almost passive Kennedy days; the post Kennedy assassination period when Lyndon Johnson was trying to be all things to all men; the decisive post-1964 election period; and, various periods of fruitless and clueless escalation. It is this process that is, almost unwittingly, the most important to take from this world. Although McNamara, at the time of writing was an older and wiser man, when he had power he went along with ever step of the “hawks”, civilian and military. He led no internal opposition, and certainly not public one. This is the classic “good old boys” network where one falls on one’s sword when the policy turns wrong. And he is still scratching his head over why masses of anti-war protesters chanted “war criminal” when they confronted him with his deeds. And then listen to the latest screeds by current War Secretary Gates concerning Afghanistan. It will sound very familiar.

In the end, if one took his story at face value, one could only conclude that he was just trying to serve his bosses the best way he could and if things went wrong it was their fault. Nothing new there, though. Henry Kissinger has turned that little devise into an art form. Teary-eyed at the end McNamara might be as he acknowledges his role in the mass killings of his time, but beware of a wolf in sheep's clothing. Yet, you need to read this book if you want to understand how these guys (and gals) defended their state then, and now.

DVD REVIEW

The Fog of War, starring former Secretary of War Robert Strange McNamara, 2003


In the normal course of events former high level bureaucrats in American presidential administrations usually save their attempts at self-justification for high ticket published memoirs or congenial `softball' speaking tours and conferences. In short, they prefer to preach to the choir at retail prices. Apparently, former Kennedy and Johnson Administration Cold Warrior extraordinaire Secretary of War Robert Strange McNamara felt that such efforts were not enough and hence he had to go before the cameras in order to whitewash his role in the history of his times. Despite an apparent agreement with his interviewer not to cover certain subjects and be allowed to present his story his way it is always good to catch a view of how the other side operates. It ain't pretty.

After a lifetime of relative public silence, at the age of 85, McNamara decided to give his take on events in which he was a central figure like dealing with the fact of American imperial military superiority in the post- World War II period, dealing with the Russians and the fight for American nuclear superiority during the Cold War, the ill-conceived Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, the later Cuban Missile crisis and above all his role in the escalation of the wars in Southeast Asia, primarily Vietnam.

Very little here focuses on his time at the World Bank, a not unimportant omission that would highlight my point that he might have changed his clothing in the course of his career but not his mindset. While those of us interested in learning the lessons of history have long understood that to know the political enemy is the beginning of wisdom one will not find much here that was not infinitely better covered by the late journalist David Halberstam in his classic The Best and The Brightest.

McNamara has chosen to present his story in the form of parables, or rather, little vignettes about the `lessons' to be drawn from experiences. Thus, we are asked to sit, embarrassingly, through McNamara's Freshman course in revisionist history as he attempts to take himself from the cold-hearted Cold Warrior and legitimate `war criminal' to the teddy-bearish old man who has learned something in his life- after a lifetime of treachery.

In the end, if one took his story at face value, one could only conclude that he was just trying to serve his bosses the best way he could and if things went wrong it was their fault. Nothing new there, though. Henry Kissinger has turned that little devise into an art form. Teary-eyed at the end McNamara might be as he acknowledges his role in the mass killings of his time, but beware of a wolf in sheep's clothing. Yet, you need to watch this film if you want to understand how these guys (and gals) defend their state.

On Labor Day- “Workers of The World Unite, You Have Nothing To Lose But Your Chains”-The Struggle For Trotsky's Fourth (Communist) International-From The Archives

On Labor Day- “Workers of The World Unite, You Have Nothing To Lose But Your Chains”-The Struggle For Trotsky's Fourth (Communist) International-From The Archives

 

 

Markin comment (repost from September 2010 slightly edited):

 

Several years ago, when the question of an international, a new workers international, a fifth international, was broached by the International Marxist Tendency (IMT), faintly echoing the call issued during the presidency of the late Venezuelan caudillo, Hugo Chavez, I got to thinking a little bit more on the subject. Moreover, it must have been something in the air at the time (maybe caused by these global climatic changes that are hazarding our collective future) because I had  also seen a spade of then recent commentary on the need to go back to something that looked very much like Karl Marx’s one-size-fits-all First International. Of course in the 21st century, after over one hundred and fifty years of attempts to create adequate international working-class organizations, just what the doctor by all means, be my guest, but only if the shades of Proudhon and Bakunin can join. Boys and girls that First International was disbanded in the wake of the demise of the Paris Commune for a reason, okay. Mixing political banners (Marxism and fifty-seven varieties of anarchism) was appropriate to a united front, not a hell-bent revolutionary International fighting, and fighting hard, for our communist future. Forward

The Second International, for those six, no seven, people who might care, is still alive and well (at least for periodic international conferences) as a mail-drop for homeless social democrats who want to maintain a fig leaf of internationalism without having to do much about it. Needless to say, one Joseph Stalin and his cohorts liquidated the Communist (Third) International in 1943, long after it turned from a revolutionary headquarters into an outpost of Soviet foreign policy. By then no revolutionary missed its demise, nor shed a tear goodbye. And of course there are always a million commentaries by groups, cults, leagues, tendencies, etc. claiming to stand in the tradition (although, rarely, the program) of the Leon Trotsky-inspired Fourth International that, logically and programmatically, is the starting point of any discussion of the modern struggle for a new communist international.

With that caveat in mind this month, the September American Labor Day month, but more importantly the month in 1938 that the ill-fated Fourth International was founded I am posting some documents around the history of that formation, and its program, the program known by the shorthand, Transitional Program. If you want to call for a fifth, sixth, seventh, what have you, revolutionary international, and you are serious about it beyond the "mail-drop" potential, then you have to look seriously into that organization's origins, and the world-class Bolshevik revolutionary who inspired it. Forward.