Markin comment:
In the strategic fight against imperialist war Lenin is always a place to look for support. In this case support for my anti-Afghan War entry posted earlier today.
V. I. Lenin
The Tasks of Revolutionary Social-Democracy in the European War[1]
Written: Written not later than August 24 (September 6), 1914
Published: The introduction The Russian Social-Democrats on the European War is published for the first time. The theses (resolution) were first published in full in 1929 in the second and third editions of the works of V. I. Lenin, Volume 18. The introduction is published according to the manuscript; the theses (resolution) according to a copy made by N. K. Krupskaya.
Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, [197[4]], Moscow, Volume 21, pages 15-19.
Translated:
Transcription\Markup: D. Walters and R. Cymbala
Public Domain: Lenin Internet Archive 2002 (2005). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.
Other Formats: Text • README
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reports have reached us from most reliable sources, regarding a conference recently held by leaders of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, on the question of the European war. The conference was not of a wholly official nature, since the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. has as yet been unable to gather, as a result of the numerous arrests and unprecedented persecution by the tsarist government. We do, however, have precise information that the conference gave expression to views held by the most influential circles of the R.S.D.L.P.
The conference adopted the following resolution, whose full text we are quoting below as a document:
Resolution Of A Group Of Social-Democrats
1.The European and world war has the clearly defined character of a bourgeois, imperialist and dynastic war. A struggle for markets and for freedom to loot foreign countries, a striving to suppress the revolutionary movement of the proletariat and democracy in the individual countries, a desire to deceive, disunite, and slaughter the proletarians of all countries by setting the wage slaves of one nation against those of another so as to benefit the bourgeoisie—these are the only real content and significance of the war.
2.The conduct of the leaders of the German Social-Democratic Party, the strongest and the most influential in the Second International (1889-1914), a party which has voted for war credits and repeated the bourgeois-chauvinist phrases of the Prussian Junkers and the bourgeoisie, is sheer betrayal of socialism. Under no circumstances can the conduct of the leaders of the German Social-Democratic Party be condoned, even if we assume that the party was absolutely weak and had temporarily to bow to the will of the bourgeois majority of the nation. This party has in fact adopted a national-liberal policy.
3.The conduct of the Belgian and French Social-Democratic party leaders, who have betrayed socialism by entering bourgeois governments,[2] is just as reprehensible.
4.The betrayal of socialism by most leaders of the Second International (1889-1914) signifies the ideological and political bankruptcy of the International. This collapse has been mainly caused by the actual prevalence in it of petty-bourgeois opportunism, the bourgeois nature and the danger of which have long been indicated by the finest representatives of the revolutionary proletariat of all countries. The opportunists had long been preparing to wreck the Second International by denying the socialist revolution and substituting bourgeois reformism in its stead, by rejecting the class struggle with its inevitable conversion at certain moments into civil war, and by preaching class collaboration; by preaching bourgeois chauvinism under the guise of patriotism and the defence of the fatherland, and ignoring or rejecting the fundamental truth of socialism, long ago set forth in the Communist Manifesto, that the workingmen have no country; by confining themselves, in the struggle against militarism, to a sentimental philistine point of view, instead of recognising the need for a revolutionary war by the proletarians of all countries, against the bourgeoisie of all countries; by making a fetish of the necessary utilisation of bourgeois parliamentarianism and bourgeois legality, and forgetting that illegal forms of organisation and agitation are imperative at times of crises. One of the organs of international opportunism, Sozialistische Monatshefte,[3] which has long taken a national liberal stand, is very properly celebrating its victory over European socialism. The so-called Centre of the German and other Social-Democratic parties has in actual fact faint heartedly capitulated to the opportunists. It must be the task of the future International resolutely and irrevocably to rid itself of this bourgeois trend in socialism.
5.With reference to the bourgeois and chauvinist sophisms being used by the bourgeois parties and the governments of the two chief rival nations of the Continent—the German and the French—to fool the masses most effectively, and being copied by both the overt and covert socialist opportunists, who are slavishly following in the wake of the bourgeoisie, one must particularly note and brand the following:
When the German bourgeois refer to the defence of the fatherland and to the struggle against tsarism, and insist on the freedom of cultural and national development, they are lying, because it has always been the policy of Prussian Junkerdom, headed by Wilhelm II, and the big bourgeoisie of Germany, to defend the tsarist monarchy; whatever the outcome of the war, they are sure to try to bolster it. They are lying because, in actual fact, the Austrian bourgeoisie have launched a robber campaign against Serbia, and the German bourgeoisie are oppressing Danes, Poles, and Frenchmen (in Alsace-Lorraine); they are waging a war of aggression against Belgium and France so as to loot the richer and freer countries; they have organised an offensive at a moment which seemed best for the use of the latest improvements in military matériel, and on the eve of the introduction of the so-called big military programme in Russia.
Similarly, when the French bourgeois refer to the defence of the fatherland, etc., they are lying, because in actual fact they are defending countries that are backward in capitalist technology and are developing more slowly, and because they spend thousands of millions to hire Russian tsarism’s Black-Hundred[4] gangs for a war of aggression, i.e., the looting of Austrian and German lands.
Neither of the two belligerent groups of nations is second to the other in cruelty and atrocities in warfare.
6.It is the first and foremost task of Russian Social-Democrats to wage a ruthless and all-out struggle against Great-Russian and tsarist-monarchist chauvinism, and against the sophisms used by the Russian liberals, Cadets,[5] a section of the Narodniks, and other bourgeois parties, in defence of that chauvinism. From the viewpoint of the working class and the toiling masses of all the peoples of Russia, the defeat of the tsarist monarchy and its army, which oppress Poland, the Ukraine, and many other peoples of Russia, and foment hatred among the peoples so as to increase Great-Russian oppression of the other nationalities, and consolidate the reactionary and barbarous government of the tsar’s monarchy, would be the lesser evil by far.
7.The following must now be the slogans of Social-Democracy:
First, all-embracing propaganda, involving the army and the theatre of hostilities as well, for the socialist revolution and the need to use weapons, not against their brothers, the wage slaves in other countries, but against the reactionary and bourgeois governments and parties of all countries; the urgent necessity of organising illegal nuclei and groups in the armies of all nations, to conduct such propaganda. in all languages; a merciless struggle against the chauvinism and “patriotism” of the philistines and bourgeoisie of all countries without exception. In the struggle against the leaders of the present International, who have betrayed socialism, it is imperative to appeal to the revolutionary consciousness of the working masses, who bear the entire burden of the war and are in most cases hostile to opportunism and chauvinism.
Secondly, as an immediate slogan, propaganda for republics in (Germany, Poland, Russia, and other countries, and for the transforming of all the separate states of Europe into a republican United States of Europe.[6]
Thirdly and particularly, a struggle against the tsarist monarchy and Great-Russian, Pan-Slavist chauvinism, and advocacy of a revolution in Russia, as well as of the liberation of and self-determination for nationalities oppressed by Russia, coupled with the immediate slogans of a democratic republic, the confiscation of the landed estates, and an eight-hour working day.
A group of Social-Democrats, members of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
[1] These theses on the war were drawn up by Lenin not later than August 24 (September 6), 1914 after he had come to Berne from Poronin (Galicia). They were discussed at a meeting of the Bolshevik group in Berne on August 24-26 (September 6-8). Approved by the group, the theses were circulated among Bolshevik groups abroad. To throw the police off the scent, the copy of the theses made out by N. K. Krupskaya, carried the inscription: “Copy of the manifesto issued in Denmark. ”
The theses were smuggled into Russia for discussion by the Russian section of the Central Committee, Party organisations and the Bolshevik Duma group.
Through Swiss Social-Democrats the theses were submitted to the conference of the Swiss and Italian Socialists held in Lugano on September 27, 1914. Many of the ideas contained in the theses were incorporated in the conference’s resolution.
On learning of the approval of the theses in Russia, Lenin used them as a basis for writing the manifesto of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee “The War and Russian Social-Democracy ”(see this volume, pp. 25-34).
The introduction to the theses (“The Russian Social-Democrats on the European War”, which was written on a separate sheet) was discovered only later, and was first published in the 4th Russian edition of Lenin’s Collected Works.
[2] Among those who joined the bourgeois government of Belgium was Vandervelde, and in France Jules Guesde, Marcel Sembat and Albert Thomas.
[3] Sozialistische Monatshefte (Socialist Monthly )—the principal organ of the German opportunists, and one of the organs of international opportunism. It was published in Berlin from 1897 to 1933. During the First World War it took a social-chauvinist stand.
[4] The Black Hundreds—monarchist gangs formed by the tsarist police to fight the revolutionary movement. They murdered revolutionaries, assaulted progressive intellectuals and organised pogroms.
[5] Cadets—members of the Constitutional-Democratic Party, the leading party of the liberal-monarchist bourgeoisie in Russia. Founded in 1905, the party represented the bourgeoisie, Zemstvo landowner leaders and bourgeois intellectuals. Prominent among its members were Milyukov, Muromtsev, Maklakov, Shingaryov, Struve, and Rodichev.
The Cadets were active in Russia’s war preparations. They stood solidly behind the tsarist government’s predatory designs, hoping to batten on war contracts, strengthen the bourgeoisie’s positions, and suppress the revolutionary movement in the country.
With the outbreak of the war the Cadets advanced the slogan of “War to the victorious end! ”When, in 1915, the tsarist forces suffered a defeat at the front, which led to the aggravation of the revolutionary crisis, the Cadet members of the State Duma, headed by Milyukov, and the other representatives of the bourgeoisie and the landowners formed a “Progressist ”bloc aimed at checking the revolution, preserving the monarchy and bringing the war to a “victorious end”. The Cadets actively helped to set up war-industries committees.
[6] See Lenin’s articles “On the Slogan for a United States of Europe” and “On the Slogan for a United States of Europe. Editorial Comment by Sotsial-Demokrat on the Manifesto on War Issued by the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P.” (see this volume, pp. 339-43, 344).
Thursday, December 09, 2010
What’s Up With All This Anti-Afghan War Propaganda On The "American Left History" Blog ?- A Short Note
Click on the headline to link to theLenin Internet Archives online copy of his The Tasks of Revolutionary Social-Democracy in the European War.(1914)
Markin comment:
Every once in a while I get thrown for a political loop and this is one of them, although as the headline hints at the resulting reflection on the question may have done some good. Here was the question (paraphrased) as it was posed to me by one of our recent contacts at an anti-war rally: Why, given all the social and economic issues in play in American and world politics is most of the propaganda that you guys (meaning the anti-imperialist committee that I am part of-Markin) centered on the fight against Obama’s Afghan (and Iraq, don’t forget) war policies? That question, or its substance brought forth a rather far-reaching recent discussion (still on-going) about our purpose, our political perspective and our orientation. It is in that sense that I meant the question did some good.
First things first though. A quick refresher on where we have been. Our local anti-imperialist political committee started out in October 2001 in order to consciously, and fervently, oppose the original Afghan invasion (yes, the one now in its ninth going on tenth year and under its second American president) as tough as that action was to protest on the streets of America in the wake of the criminal World Trade Center acts. Almost immediately after that we had to gear up for Bush II’s long running Iraq War and more recently, directly reflecting the contact’s point, Obama’s troop escalations for what amounts to Afghan War II. Along the way we have, of course, intervened in other social struggles like the local fight against home foreclosures, strike support work (none very recently unfortunately, except the local Shaw Supermarket warehouse workers lockout last spring), the struggle against budget cuts all levels of public education, including defense of teachers and professors unions, and the Palestinian struggle for statehood. However, in general, the contact’s point is on point.
Frankly, we made a conscious decision in the wake of the initial overwhelming (but apparently, apparent now that is) superficial Obama wave in his 2008 American presidential victory to concentrate on what we perceived to be his upcoming Achilles’ heel. His, upfront, clear-cut unmistakable promise to escalate the war in Afghanistan upon taking office. From the beginning, almost the very beginning of his term (remember that initial February 2009 20,000 troop escalation, yes, that one, the one that didn’t really count). And he did just as he promised (and then some) on this issue providing us with plenty of anti-imperialist, anti-militarist, anti-war propaganda. And continues to do so. But there has been a problem. There was an old expression that some people used to put on their posters at anti-war rallies- “What if they gave a war and nobody came?” Well, in the past year many political things have happened but the Afghan war, as a protest issue, if not as a news issue has fallen off the radar. In short our “slogan” today, sadly, would read “What If they gave an anti-war and nobody came?” That hard fact and the contact’s point come together around this political truth.
I will also admit here that I was one of the main, if not the main, driving forces behind the policy of centering on Obama’s Afghan War policy. I firmly believed early on (and still do) that Obama fully intended to stake his presidency on a successful Afghan war closure, come hell or high water. He probably, in some hidden recess of his mind, still does. Time, politics and other issues have got in his way. But let me lay out my reasoning then, and now, for continuing to focus of Afghanistan, although I am certainly more open to including other issues that previously.
First, the milieu we that work in here in Boston is overwhelming a college one, including graduate school hangers-on and yuppies. That means plenty (hopefully, if we can get their eyes off the ipod, iphone, i-whatever for five minutes, hell, two minutes) of best and brightest starry-eyed idealists (praise be) to try to rally around us. Just exactly the kind of people who, looking at their world, looking at their society and, most importantly, looking at their government can be won, with some patient and savvy, to an anti-war, anti-imperialist , and, hopefully, an anti-capitalist perspective. You may find this crowd out on Earth Day; you may find this crowd out at some Tech fair. You may find them at the myriad music concerts and festivals. You may find them checking the sun signs on May Day (not our red banner May Day, the other one, the maypole one). Hell, even an otherwise politically unemployable old windbag like Professor Noam Chomsky with no political program and no sense of organization can draw a circle of adoring students (and others) around him. What you will not see is them involved in labor struggles, home foreclosure struggles, or even, for that matter, in the struggle against higher public education budget cuts (unlike in other places, like California). From past experience the anti-imperialist propaganda thrust, however, has produced, although always with the caveat “not many recently”, some good militants.
Secondly, we are painfully aware of the economic doldrums of the past few years. Hell, those are our people out there on the unemployment lines: those are our people being foreclosed on; these are our people being pushed out into the mean streets, and not the voluntary streets of the youthful 1960s hippie lark. But here is the hard truth on this. Right this minute, and to a certain extent not unnaturally in a deep recession/depression, the level of class struggle is de minimis. Moreover, unlike in the 1930s that I have been looking at recently for some models, there are no mass leftist parties around to lead rent strikes, eviction parties, unemployed councils, trade union organizing and a whole range of activities to bring some relief, gain some precious political capital, and make the anti-capitalist aspect of the overall anti-imperialist struggle jump. The Afghan war, it effects on the economy through the obscene war budgets, and to the greater overall obscene military budgets is a trigger for action right now, right this minute.
Lastly, politics is above all about timing, bourgeois politics and radical politics alike. I remain convinced, especially giving the general apathy and weariness on the war question among the public, that the short way home for us, for we anti-imperialist fighters to end the war on our terms, not Obama’s is to get to the soldiers fighting these wars as well as recruiting civilian supporters. With the shortage of our supporters out on the mean streets right now that means getting to the veterans and active duty soldiers who are in the front lines fighting the damn thing, just this minute. And pronto. That effort alone, and given the experience from the Vietnam era when the soldiers started turning against that war, conscript and volunteer both, once they get “religion” is worth keeping our eyes on the anti-war struggle. That is roughly my position in this on-going political discussion about how to, small forces, on the defensive and all, to change the course of history. More later.
Markin comment:
Every once in a while I get thrown for a political loop and this is one of them, although as the headline hints at the resulting reflection on the question may have done some good. Here was the question (paraphrased) as it was posed to me by one of our recent contacts at an anti-war rally: Why, given all the social and economic issues in play in American and world politics is most of the propaganda that you guys (meaning the anti-imperialist committee that I am part of-Markin) centered on the fight against Obama’s Afghan (and Iraq, don’t forget) war policies? That question, or its substance brought forth a rather far-reaching recent discussion (still on-going) about our purpose, our political perspective and our orientation. It is in that sense that I meant the question did some good.
First things first though. A quick refresher on where we have been. Our local anti-imperialist political committee started out in October 2001 in order to consciously, and fervently, oppose the original Afghan invasion (yes, the one now in its ninth going on tenth year and under its second American president) as tough as that action was to protest on the streets of America in the wake of the criminal World Trade Center acts. Almost immediately after that we had to gear up for Bush II’s long running Iraq War and more recently, directly reflecting the contact’s point, Obama’s troop escalations for what amounts to Afghan War II. Along the way we have, of course, intervened in other social struggles like the local fight against home foreclosures, strike support work (none very recently unfortunately, except the local Shaw Supermarket warehouse workers lockout last spring), the struggle against budget cuts all levels of public education, including defense of teachers and professors unions, and the Palestinian struggle for statehood. However, in general, the contact’s point is on point.
Frankly, we made a conscious decision in the wake of the initial overwhelming (but apparently, apparent now that is) superficial Obama wave in his 2008 American presidential victory to concentrate on what we perceived to be his upcoming Achilles’ heel. His, upfront, clear-cut unmistakable promise to escalate the war in Afghanistan upon taking office. From the beginning, almost the very beginning of his term (remember that initial February 2009 20,000 troop escalation, yes, that one, the one that didn’t really count). And he did just as he promised (and then some) on this issue providing us with plenty of anti-imperialist, anti-militarist, anti-war propaganda. And continues to do so. But there has been a problem. There was an old expression that some people used to put on their posters at anti-war rallies- “What if they gave a war and nobody came?” Well, in the past year many political things have happened but the Afghan war, as a protest issue, if not as a news issue has fallen off the radar. In short our “slogan” today, sadly, would read “What If they gave an anti-war and nobody came?” That hard fact and the contact’s point come together around this political truth.
I will also admit here that I was one of the main, if not the main, driving forces behind the policy of centering on Obama’s Afghan War policy. I firmly believed early on (and still do) that Obama fully intended to stake his presidency on a successful Afghan war closure, come hell or high water. He probably, in some hidden recess of his mind, still does. Time, politics and other issues have got in his way. But let me lay out my reasoning then, and now, for continuing to focus of Afghanistan, although I am certainly more open to including other issues that previously.
First, the milieu we that work in here in Boston is overwhelming a college one, including graduate school hangers-on and yuppies. That means plenty (hopefully, if we can get their eyes off the ipod, iphone, i-whatever for five minutes, hell, two minutes) of best and brightest starry-eyed idealists (praise be) to try to rally around us. Just exactly the kind of people who, looking at their world, looking at their society and, most importantly, looking at their government can be won, with some patient and savvy, to an anti-war, anti-imperialist , and, hopefully, an anti-capitalist perspective. You may find this crowd out on Earth Day; you may find this crowd out at some Tech fair. You may find them at the myriad music concerts and festivals. You may find them checking the sun signs on May Day (not our red banner May Day, the other one, the maypole one). Hell, even an otherwise politically unemployable old windbag like Professor Noam Chomsky with no political program and no sense of organization can draw a circle of adoring students (and others) around him. What you will not see is them involved in labor struggles, home foreclosure struggles, or even, for that matter, in the struggle against higher public education budget cuts (unlike in other places, like California). From past experience the anti-imperialist propaganda thrust, however, has produced, although always with the caveat “not many recently”, some good militants.
Secondly, we are painfully aware of the economic doldrums of the past few years. Hell, those are our people out there on the unemployment lines: those are our people being foreclosed on; these are our people being pushed out into the mean streets, and not the voluntary streets of the youthful 1960s hippie lark. But here is the hard truth on this. Right this minute, and to a certain extent not unnaturally in a deep recession/depression, the level of class struggle is de minimis. Moreover, unlike in the 1930s that I have been looking at recently for some models, there are no mass leftist parties around to lead rent strikes, eviction parties, unemployed councils, trade union organizing and a whole range of activities to bring some relief, gain some precious political capital, and make the anti-capitalist aspect of the overall anti-imperialist struggle jump. The Afghan war, it effects on the economy through the obscene war budgets, and to the greater overall obscene military budgets is a trigger for action right now, right this minute.
Lastly, politics is above all about timing, bourgeois politics and radical politics alike. I remain convinced, especially giving the general apathy and weariness on the war question among the public, that the short way home for us, for we anti-imperialist fighters to end the war on our terms, not Obama’s is to get to the soldiers fighting these wars as well as recruiting civilian supporters. With the shortage of our supporters out on the mean streets right now that means getting to the veterans and active duty soldiers who are in the front lines fighting the damn thing, just this minute. And pronto. That effort alone, and given the experience from the Vietnam era when the soldiers started turning against that war, conscript and volunteer both, once they get “religion” is worth keeping our eyes on the anti-war struggle. That is roughly my position in this on-going political discussion about how to, small forces, on the defensive and all, to change the course of history. More later.
Wednesday, December 08, 2010
**Once Again On The Massachusetts 54th Regiment In The American Civil War- All Honor To Its Memory
Click on the headline to link to a Wikipedia entry for the Massachusetts 54th Volunteer Regiment.
DVD Review
The Massachusetts 54th, staring the heroic black fighters of the volunteer Massachusetts 54th Regiment, narrated by Morgan Freeman, PBS American Experience Series, 2005
I have reviewed a number of materials, mainly film documentaries, about the heroic all black ranks (and white-officered) 54th Massachusetts Regiment who proved their valor in front of Fort Wagner down in South Carolina in 1863 (and did hard fight service thereafter until they marched into heart of Confederacy Charleston in 1865 singing, fittingly, John Brown’s Body). Every time I do such a review I like to preface my remarks with this comment which places the now “discovered” regiment in proper historical perspective, and says as much about official history as anything. As a student in the 1960s I passed the now famous Saint Gaudens relief sculpture of the Colonel Robert Gould Shaw-led 54th every day (then in bad condition, by the way) and yet never knew about that regiment, its history and its importance in the struggle to end slavery until later, much later when I emerged myself in the history of black struggles. Moreover, no history course, and I was a fanatic about history even then, mentioned the tremendous efforts, probably decisive efforts, that arming black soldiers to fight in their own emancipation struggle provided for the Union side. So much for history being written by the victors, at least on this issue.
Fortunately, now young budding historians and blacks looking to their roots have several sources to choice from on this regiment. The commercial film Glory, starring Denzel Washington, set a certain dramatic tension, especially around racism, the struggle for equal pay, the question of black officers, and the capacity of blacks to fight “like white men.” I think this PBS effort, as a documentary, however covers the bases better as a historical inquiry into the subject. Here is why. The various issues just mentioned are laid out, including the incipient racism faced by blacks in Boston even before Governor Andrews authorized the creation of the regiment. Moreover, as an added benefit the producers have brought in not only the normal “talking heads” scholars that one expects of a PBS effort but also descendants of some of the surviving 54th soldiers to tell grandpa’s story (or what he told them). Of course the plethora of photographs and other visuals keep this one hour production moving right along, as does the always calm narration by Morgan Freeman as he lays out the story line.
Note: Much is made in this documentary of the question, as it was at the time of the Civil War, of whether blacks, so seemingly servile and simple, could be trained to fight, arms in hand. Of course 200,000 strong black arms and their infusion at the decisive point when Union efforts were flagging put paid to that notion. That certainly was the importance of Fort Wagner as a test of black valor, although that effort was a defeat. The South never forgave or forgot that armed black mass in front of them. But that notion of blacks was wrong as those Southerners later found out. If the cause is right, or even if the cause is wrong, there will be men and women ready to fight, and fight valiantly, under their chosen banner. Those who do not understand this have poor military sense. The real question for us is whether we have enough fighters on the “side of the angels” when the cause is righteous.
DVD Review
The Massachusetts 54th, staring the heroic black fighters of the volunteer Massachusetts 54th Regiment, narrated by Morgan Freeman, PBS American Experience Series, 2005
I have reviewed a number of materials, mainly film documentaries, about the heroic all black ranks (and white-officered) 54th Massachusetts Regiment who proved their valor in front of Fort Wagner down in South Carolina in 1863 (and did hard fight service thereafter until they marched into heart of Confederacy Charleston in 1865 singing, fittingly, John Brown’s Body). Every time I do such a review I like to preface my remarks with this comment which places the now “discovered” regiment in proper historical perspective, and says as much about official history as anything. As a student in the 1960s I passed the now famous Saint Gaudens relief sculpture of the Colonel Robert Gould Shaw-led 54th every day (then in bad condition, by the way) and yet never knew about that regiment, its history and its importance in the struggle to end slavery until later, much later when I emerged myself in the history of black struggles. Moreover, no history course, and I was a fanatic about history even then, mentioned the tremendous efforts, probably decisive efforts, that arming black soldiers to fight in their own emancipation struggle provided for the Union side. So much for history being written by the victors, at least on this issue.
Fortunately, now young budding historians and blacks looking to their roots have several sources to choice from on this regiment. The commercial film Glory, starring Denzel Washington, set a certain dramatic tension, especially around racism, the struggle for equal pay, the question of black officers, and the capacity of blacks to fight “like white men.” I think this PBS effort, as a documentary, however covers the bases better as a historical inquiry into the subject. Here is why. The various issues just mentioned are laid out, including the incipient racism faced by blacks in Boston even before Governor Andrews authorized the creation of the regiment. Moreover, as an added benefit the producers have brought in not only the normal “talking heads” scholars that one expects of a PBS effort but also descendants of some of the surviving 54th soldiers to tell grandpa’s story (or what he told them). Of course the plethora of photographs and other visuals keep this one hour production moving right along, as does the always calm narration by Morgan Freeman as he lays out the story line.
Note: Much is made in this documentary of the question, as it was at the time of the Civil War, of whether blacks, so seemingly servile and simple, could be trained to fight, arms in hand. Of course 200,000 strong black arms and their infusion at the decisive point when Union efforts were flagging put paid to that notion. That certainly was the importance of Fort Wagner as a test of black valor, although that effort was a defeat. The South never forgave or forgot that armed black mass in front of them. But that notion of blacks was wrong as those Southerners later found out. If the cause is right, or even if the cause is wrong, there will be men and women ready to fight, and fight valiantly, under their chosen banner. Those who do not understand this have poor military sense. The real question for us is whether we have enough fighters on the “side of the angels” when the cause is righteous.
From The Blogosphere- "The SteveLendmanBlog"- More Fraud, Intimidation and Illegitimacy Assured in Haiti's Electoral Runoff
Wednesday, December 08, 2010
More Fraud, Intimidation and Illegitimacy Assured in Haiti's Electoral Runoff
More Fraud, Intimidation, and Illegitimacy Assured in Haiti's Electoral Runoff - by Stephen Lendman
On November 28, Haiti's first round legislative and presidential elections were so tainted, they elevated sham elections to a new level - a cruel joke, a process in name only, one fraudulent enough to make a despot blush. Now round two, New York Times writer Deborah Sontag headlining, "Candidates Face Runoff in Haiti's Troubled Vote," saying:
On December 7, Haiti's Provisional Electoral Council (CEP) announced "that Mirlande Manigat, a former Haitian first lady, and Jude Celestin, (Preval's man), had won the first round of voting."
Correction: stole the first round. Neither candidate was the people's choice. For them, none of the above ranked first, followed by Jean-Henry Ceant, a Haitian businessman, community leader and philanthropist.
He campaigned on Aristide's slogan: "All people are people/Everyone is equal (tou moun se moun)." Like so many previous times, it may have been campaign hyperbole. Now eliminated, we'll never know. What is clear is that Haitians again were defrauded, an old story they never accept.
In a mid-November interview, Aristide's spokeswoman Maryse Narcisse said:
Fanmi Lavalas supporters (the vast majority) "are not participating in an illegal election. The November 28 elections are not elections. It's a selection process. What we're doing now is mobilizing people, sensitizing people against the selection. With this selection process, we are not going anywhere. We are moving towards instability that will last for many years."
America controls everything in Haiti, orchestrating coup d'etat rule. Its iron fist is always ready to prevent democratic elections for populist governance, an anathema notion Washington rejects everywhere, including at home.
Sontag described a "long, tense day," then the 9PM electoral results announcement, followed by "rock-throwing, tire-burning and shooting in several urban neighborhoods and outside (Port-au-Prince). Toward midnight, smoke curled into the sky....protesters' chants and drums filled the air."
The US Embassy issued a boilerplate statement, saying:
"The United States, together with Haiti's international community partners, stands ready to support efforts to thoroughly review irregularities in support of electoral results that are consistent with the will of the Haitian people expressed in their votes."
In fact, Washington and its puppet Preval orchestrated the fraud, banned 15 parties, including by far the most popular - Aristide's Fanmi Lavalas that easily would have won overwhelmingly. As a result, the process was shamelessly tainted, an election in name only.
Voter disenfranchisement was widespread. Polls opened late and closed early. Ballot box stuffing was rampant. Voters faced intimidation and violence, and the electoral lineup had no legitimacy, excluding peoples' choice candidates, except for perhaps Ceant.
On December 8, Al Jazeera headlined, "Haiti set for election run-off," saying:
"According to (CEP's announced) results, Manigiat won 31 per cent of the vote and Celestin 22 per cent."
Protests and sporadic gunfire erupted. "Much of the concern centered around conflicts between the announced results and those reported (earlier) by the National Observation Council, a local election monitoring group financed by the European Union, which said that Celestin would be eliminated."
Haitians despise him. In a free and fair process, he'd have gotten well below 10%, not the announced 22%, possible only by widespread ballot box stuffing. As a result, daily street protests followed the November vote. Thousands of Haitians clashed with police, denouncing the sham process, demanding new elections, yelling "Arrest Preval," and accusing him and Celestin of electoral theft.
On December 20, final results will be announced. A presidential runoff is provisionally scheduled on January 16, confirmation awaiting CEP word.
A Final Comment
Following CEP's announced results, a US embassy press release said the following:
"As Haiti enters the period of electoral contestation, it is essential that all political actors remain calm and encourage their supporters to do the same....Haiti's transition to democracy over the past 24 years has seen many successes, overcoming major challenges. The 2010 elections represent a critical test of whether the Haitian people will determine their destiny through their vote. The United States is committed to the consolidation of democracy in Haiti and calls on the Government of Haiti, the CEP and all political forces to ensure that the will of the people is fully reflected in the outcome of this election."
The statement is self-explanatory, an imperial master's words to its subjects, establishing despotism masquerading as "democracy." As a result, Haitians get theater, not real elections, imperial rule, not of, by and for the people, hardline take-it-or-leave it tyranny. Its master's voice has spoken. It remains now how they'll react longer term for government representing them, no longer for wealth and power.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
More Fraud, Intimidation and Illegitimacy Assured in Haiti's Electoral Runoff
More Fraud, Intimidation, and Illegitimacy Assured in Haiti's Electoral Runoff - by Stephen Lendman
On November 28, Haiti's first round legislative and presidential elections were so tainted, they elevated sham elections to a new level - a cruel joke, a process in name only, one fraudulent enough to make a despot blush. Now round two, New York Times writer Deborah Sontag headlining, "Candidates Face Runoff in Haiti's Troubled Vote," saying:
On December 7, Haiti's Provisional Electoral Council (CEP) announced "that Mirlande Manigat, a former Haitian first lady, and Jude Celestin, (Preval's man), had won the first round of voting."
Correction: stole the first round. Neither candidate was the people's choice. For them, none of the above ranked first, followed by Jean-Henry Ceant, a Haitian businessman, community leader and philanthropist.
He campaigned on Aristide's slogan: "All people are people/Everyone is equal (tou moun se moun)." Like so many previous times, it may have been campaign hyperbole. Now eliminated, we'll never know. What is clear is that Haitians again were defrauded, an old story they never accept.
In a mid-November interview, Aristide's spokeswoman Maryse Narcisse said:
Fanmi Lavalas supporters (the vast majority) "are not participating in an illegal election. The November 28 elections are not elections. It's a selection process. What we're doing now is mobilizing people, sensitizing people against the selection. With this selection process, we are not going anywhere. We are moving towards instability that will last for many years."
America controls everything in Haiti, orchestrating coup d'etat rule. Its iron fist is always ready to prevent democratic elections for populist governance, an anathema notion Washington rejects everywhere, including at home.
Sontag described a "long, tense day," then the 9PM electoral results announcement, followed by "rock-throwing, tire-burning and shooting in several urban neighborhoods and outside (Port-au-Prince). Toward midnight, smoke curled into the sky....protesters' chants and drums filled the air."
The US Embassy issued a boilerplate statement, saying:
"The United States, together with Haiti's international community partners, stands ready to support efforts to thoroughly review irregularities in support of electoral results that are consistent with the will of the Haitian people expressed in their votes."
In fact, Washington and its puppet Preval orchestrated the fraud, banned 15 parties, including by far the most popular - Aristide's Fanmi Lavalas that easily would have won overwhelmingly. As a result, the process was shamelessly tainted, an election in name only.
Voter disenfranchisement was widespread. Polls opened late and closed early. Ballot box stuffing was rampant. Voters faced intimidation and violence, and the electoral lineup had no legitimacy, excluding peoples' choice candidates, except for perhaps Ceant.
On December 8, Al Jazeera headlined, "Haiti set for election run-off," saying:
"According to (CEP's announced) results, Manigiat won 31 per cent of the vote and Celestin 22 per cent."
Protests and sporadic gunfire erupted. "Much of the concern centered around conflicts between the announced results and those reported (earlier) by the National Observation Council, a local election monitoring group financed by the European Union, which said that Celestin would be eliminated."
Haitians despise him. In a free and fair process, he'd have gotten well below 10%, not the announced 22%, possible only by widespread ballot box stuffing. As a result, daily street protests followed the November vote. Thousands of Haitians clashed with police, denouncing the sham process, demanding new elections, yelling "Arrest Preval," and accusing him and Celestin of electoral theft.
On December 20, final results will be announced. A presidential runoff is provisionally scheduled on January 16, confirmation awaiting CEP word.
A Final Comment
Following CEP's announced results, a US embassy press release said the following:
"As Haiti enters the period of electoral contestation, it is essential that all political actors remain calm and encourage their supporters to do the same....Haiti's transition to democracy over the past 24 years has seen many successes, overcoming major challenges. The 2010 elections represent a critical test of whether the Haitian people will determine their destiny through their vote. The United States is committed to the consolidation of democracy in Haiti and calls on the Government of Haiti, the CEP and all political forces to ensure that the will of the people is fully reflected in the outcome of this election."
The statement is self-explanatory, an imperial master's words to its subjects, establishing despotism masquerading as "democracy." As a result, Haitians get theater, not real elections, imperial rule, not of, by and for the people, hardline take-it-or-leave it tyranny. Its master's voice has spoken. It remains now how they'll react longer term for government representing them, no longer for wealth and power.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
*From The Pen Of Vladimir Lenin- On Open Diplomacy-Speech at a Joint Meeting of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies and Delegates From the Fronts (November, 1917)
Markin comment:
In a post earlier today I noted in a commentary on Wikileaks the open diplomacy policy of the early Bolsheviks in 1917. Here is a sample from the pen of Vladimir Lenin
******
V. I. Lenin
Speech at a Joint Meeting of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies and Delegates From the Fronts
November 4 (17), 1917
Delivered: 4 November, 1917
First Published: Pravda No. 181, 18 November 1917; Published according to Pravda text.
Source:Lenin’s Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, Volume 26, 1972, pp. 294-296
Translated: Yuri Sdobnikov and George Hanna, Edited by George Hanna
Transcription & HTML Markup: Charles Farrell and David Walters
Online Version: Lenin Internet Archive November, 2000
Newspaper Report
I am unable to make a long speech; I can merely outline the new government’s position, programme and tasks.
You are aware that there was a unanimous demand for a policy of peace, for an immediate offer of peace. There is not a single bourgeois minister in the whole of Europe, including this country, who has not promised peace; the soldiers of Russia have found these speeches to be false; they were promised a policy of peace, but no peace was offered and instead they were driven into an offensive. We believed it to be our government’s first duty to offer an immediate peace, and this has been done.
Comrade Lenin sets forth the terms on which the new government has proposed peace, and. adds: If the powers keep their colonies, there will never be an end to this war. What is the way out? There is only one: it is for the workers’ and peasants’ revolution to defeat capital. We never promised that the war could be ended at one stroke, by driving bayonets into ground. War springs from the clash of fortunes running to thousands of millions, which have divided up the world, and if the war is to be brought to an end, the power of capital must be destroyed.
Comrade Lenin speaks on the transfer of power to the Soviets, and declares that we have witnessed a new phenomenon: the peasants refuse to believe that all power belongs to the Soviets, they are still expecting something else from the government and forget that the Soviet is not a private but a state institution. We declare that we want a new state, that the Soviet must replace the old officialdom, and that all the people must learn to govern. You should stand up to your full stature and straighten your backs, and then you need have no fear of threats. The officer cadets tried to engineer an uprising but we were able to deal with them; they organised a bloodbath in Moscow and shot soldiers on the Kremlin wall. But when the people won out, they let the enemy keep not only their military honour but also their arms.
The Vikzhel has threatened a strike, but we shall turn to the masses and ask them whether they want to go on strike and starve the soldiers at the front and the people in the rear, and I am sure that the railway proletariat won’t have it. We are accused of making arrests. Indeed, we have made arrests; today we arrested the director of the State Bank. We are accused of resorting to terrorism, but we have not resorted, and I hope will not resort, to the terrorism of the French revolutionaries who guillotined unarmed men. I hope we shall not resort to it, because we have strength on our side. When we arrested anyone we told him we would let him go if he gave us a written promise not to engage in sabotage. Such written promises have been given. Our fault is that the Soviet organisation has not yet learned to govern, and that there are far too many meetings. Let the Soviets form teams and get down to the business of government. Our task is to advance to socialism. A few days ago the workers received the law on the control of production[1] which makes the factory committee a state institution. The workers must implement this law immediately. They will supply the peasants with cloth andiron, and the peasants will give them grain. I just saw a comrade from Ivanovo-Voznesensk, and he told me this was the main thing. Socialism means keeping account of everything. You will have socialism if you take stock of every piece of iron and cloth. We need engineers for production, and we value their labour highly. We shall be glad to pay them. We do not intend, at the moment, to deprive them of their privileged position. We value everyone who is willing to work but he must not behave as a boss but as an equal, under workers’ control. We have no feeling of animosity for individuals, and we shall try to help them fit into the new pattern.
As for the peasants we say: help the working peasant, spare the middle peasant, compel the rich peasant to pay. After the October 25 Revolution we were threatened with destruction. Some were scared and wanted to escape power, but we were not destroyed. This was because our enemies could find support only from the officer cadets, whereas we had the people on our side. But for the massive drive by the soldiers and workers, power would never have dropped from the hands that held it. Power passed to the Soviets, which are organisations giving the people full freedom. We, the Soviet Government, have received our powers from the Congress of Soviets and, confident of your support, we shall continue to act as we have acted. We have not excluded anyone. The Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries have gone, but that is a crime on their part. We invited the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries to take part in the government, but they refused. We do not want any bargaining over power, we don’t want any bids or counterbids. We shall keep the City Council away from power because it is a Kornilovite centre. Some say we are isolated. The bourgeoisie has surrounded us with an atmosphere of lies and slander, but I have yet to see the soldier who is not enthusiastic over the Soviets having taken power. I have yet to see the peasant who opposes the Soviets. There must be an alliance of the poor peasants and the workers, and socialism will triumph the world over. (Members of the Soviet rise, and give Lenin a stormy ovation as he leaves.)
Footnotes
[1] See Draft Decree on Workers’s Control
In a post earlier today I noted in a commentary on Wikileaks the open diplomacy policy of the early Bolsheviks in 1917. Here is a sample from the pen of Vladimir Lenin
******
V. I. Lenin
Speech at a Joint Meeting of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies and Delegates From the Fronts
November 4 (17), 1917
Delivered: 4 November, 1917
First Published: Pravda No. 181, 18 November 1917; Published according to Pravda text.
Source:Lenin’s Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, Volume 26, 1972, pp. 294-296
Translated: Yuri Sdobnikov and George Hanna, Edited by George Hanna
Transcription & HTML Markup: Charles Farrell and David Walters
Online Version: Lenin Internet Archive November, 2000
Newspaper Report
I am unable to make a long speech; I can merely outline the new government’s position, programme and tasks.
You are aware that there was a unanimous demand for a policy of peace, for an immediate offer of peace. There is not a single bourgeois minister in the whole of Europe, including this country, who has not promised peace; the soldiers of Russia have found these speeches to be false; they were promised a policy of peace, but no peace was offered and instead they were driven into an offensive. We believed it to be our government’s first duty to offer an immediate peace, and this has been done.
Comrade Lenin sets forth the terms on which the new government has proposed peace, and. adds: If the powers keep their colonies, there will never be an end to this war. What is the way out? There is only one: it is for the workers’ and peasants’ revolution to defeat capital. We never promised that the war could be ended at one stroke, by driving bayonets into ground. War springs from the clash of fortunes running to thousands of millions, which have divided up the world, and if the war is to be brought to an end, the power of capital must be destroyed.
Comrade Lenin speaks on the transfer of power to the Soviets, and declares that we have witnessed a new phenomenon: the peasants refuse to believe that all power belongs to the Soviets, they are still expecting something else from the government and forget that the Soviet is not a private but a state institution. We declare that we want a new state, that the Soviet must replace the old officialdom, and that all the people must learn to govern. You should stand up to your full stature and straighten your backs, and then you need have no fear of threats. The officer cadets tried to engineer an uprising but we were able to deal with them; they organised a bloodbath in Moscow and shot soldiers on the Kremlin wall. But when the people won out, they let the enemy keep not only their military honour but also their arms.
The Vikzhel has threatened a strike, but we shall turn to the masses and ask them whether they want to go on strike and starve the soldiers at the front and the people in the rear, and I am sure that the railway proletariat won’t have it. We are accused of making arrests. Indeed, we have made arrests; today we arrested the director of the State Bank. We are accused of resorting to terrorism, but we have not resorted, and I hope will not resort, to the terrorism of the French revolutionaries who guillotined unarmed men. I hope we shall not resort to it, because we have strength on our side. When we arrested anyone we told him we would let him go if he gave us a written promise not to engage in sabotage. Such written promises have been given. Our fault is that the Soviet organisation has not yet learned to govern, and that there are far too many meetings. Let the Soviets form teams and get down to the business of government. Our task is to advance to socialism. A few days ago the workers received the law on the control of production[1] which makes the factory committee a state institution. The workers must implement this law immediately. They will supply the peasants with cloth andiron, and the peasants will give them grain. I just saw a comrade from Ivanovo-Voznesensk, and he told me this was the main thing. Socialism means keeping account of everything. You will have socialism if you take stock of every piece of iron and cloth. We need engineers for production, and we value their labour highly. We shall be glad to pay them. We do not intend, at the moment, to deprive them of their privileged position. We value everyone who is willing to work but he must not behave as a boss but as an equal, under workers’ control. We have no feeling of animosity for individuals, and we shall try to help them fit into the new pattern.
As for the peasants we say: help the working peasant, spare the middle peasant, compel the rich peasant to pay. After the October 25 Revolution we were threatened with destruction. Some were scared and wanted to escape power, but we were not destroyed. This was because our enemies could find support only from the officer cadets, whereas we had the people on our side. But for the massive drive by the soldiers and workers, power would never have dropped from the hands that held it. Power passed to the Soviets, which are organisations giving the people full freedom. We, the Soviet Government, have received our powers from the Congress of Soviets and, confident of your support, we shall continue to act as we have acted. We have not excluded anyone. The Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries have gone, but that is a crime on their part. We invited the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries to take part in the government, but they refused. We do not want any bargaining over power, we don’t want any bids or counterbids. We shall keep the City Council away from power because it is a Kornilovite centre. Some say we are isolated. The bourgeoisie has surrounded us with an atmosphere of lies and slander, but I have yet to see the soldier who is not enthusiastic over the Soviets having taken power. I have yet to see the peasant who opposes the Soviets. There must be an alliance of the poor peasants and the workers, and socialism will triumph the world over. (Members of the Soviet rise, and give Lenin a stormy ovation as he leaves.)
Footnotes
[1] See Draft Decree on Workers’s Control
*From The Pen Of Leon Trotsky- On Open Diplomacy- The Peace Program Of The Russian Revolution (1917)
Markin comment:
In a post earlier today I noted in a commentary on Wikileaks the open diplomacy policy of the early Bolsheviks in 1917. Here is a sample from the pen of Leon Trotsky.
Leon Trotsky
The Peace Programme of the Revolution
(November 1917)
Delivered: November, 1917
Source: Leon Trotsky: What Is A Peace Programme, Lanka Samasamaja Publications, Colombo, Ceylon, May 1956, pp.22-27.
First Published: This speech by Leon Trotsky is reproduced from pp.315-318 of the volume The Proletarian Revolution in Russia by Lenin and Trotsky, edited by Louis C. Fraina and published in 1918 in New York.
Transcription/Mark-up for TIA: A. Lehrer/David Walters.
Proofreading: Einde O’Callaghan, December 2006.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publisher’s Introduction
The book is now a rarity, and, as far as we know, there is no other translation of this speech available. The title given to the speech is ours.
In his editorial note, Fraina says in part:
“The first move toward the conclusion of peace was the offer of the Soviet government to all belligerents to declare an armistice on all fronts and open general peace negotiations. A day or two after this offer was made, Leon Trotsky, Commissar of Foreign Affairs, delivered an address in Petrograd to an audience of 12,000 people ...”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE PEACE PROGRAMME
OF THE REVOLUTION
In this building on November 5, I spoke to a popular meeting at which the question of an All-Russian Congress was being discussed, and all voices raised in favour of Soviet power. The question which has been most emphatically before the people in all the eight months of the Revolution is the question of war and peace, and we maintained that only a power basing its authority directly on the people could put an end to the slaughter. We maintained that the secret treaties must be published, and declared that the Russian people, not having made these treaties, could not be bound to carry out the conquests agreed upon therein. Our enemies answered that this was demagogy. You would never dare if you were in power, they said, to do this for then the Allies would oppose us. But we maintained that the salvation of Russia was in peace. We pointed out that the prolonged character of the war was destroying the Revolution, was exhausting and destroying the country and that the longer we should fight the more complete the slavish position we should then occupy so that at last we should merely be left the choice of picking a master.
We desire to live and develop as a free nation: but, for the conclusion of peace, we had to overthrow the power of the bourgeoisie and of Kerensky. They told us we would be left without any supporters. But on November 7, the local Soviet of Petrograd took the initiative upon itself, as well as the responsibility and with the aid of the garrison and the workers accomplished the coup d’etat, appeared before the Congress of Soviets then in session and said: “The old power in the country is broken, there is no authority, anywhere and we are obliged to take it into our own hands.” We have said that the first obligation devolving upon the new power is the offering of peace parleys on all fronts for the conclusion of a peace without annexations or indemnities on the basis of self-determination of peoples, that is, each people through popular elections, must speak for itself the decisive word: Do they wish to enter into a confederation with their present sovereign state, enjoying full autonomy under it or do they wish to separate themselves from it and have full independence?
We must put a stop to a condition in which the strong can, by force of arms, compel the weak to assume what conditions of life the strong may desire: every people, be it great or small, must be the master of its own fate. Now, this is the programme not of a party, not of a Soviet, but the whole people, excepting the predatory party which dares call itself the Party of Popular Liberty but which in reality is an enemy of popular liberty, fighting against peace with all its might. With the exception of this party, the whole Russian people has declared that it will not tolerate the use of force. And this is the spirit in which we issue our peace decree.
On the day on which we passed this decree, Krasnov’s Cossacks rebelled and danger threatened the very existence of the Soviet power. Yet, hardly had they been defeated and the Soviet power strengthened, than our first act was to turn to the Allied and German powers, simultaneously, with a proposition for peace parleys on all fronts. Our enemies, the Cadets and their appendages, said that Germany would ignore us – but it has turned out otherwise, “and we already have the assent of Germany and Austria-Hungary to the holding of peace parleys and preliminary peace on the Soviet formula. And even before that, as soon as we obtained the keys to the case of secret diplomatic correspondence, we published the secret treaties, thus fulfilling an obligation that we had assumed toward the people when we were still an insignificant opposition party. We said then and we say now that a people cannot shed their blood and that of their brothers for treaties that they have not themselves concluded, have never read or even seen. To these words of mine the adherents of coalition made reply: Do not speak to us in this tongue; this is not the Modern Circus. [1] And I answered them that I have only one tongue, the tongue of a socialist, and I shall speak in this tongue to the country and to you, to the Allies and the Germans.
To the adherents of the coalition, having the souls of hares, it seemed that to publish the secret treaties was equivalent to forcing England and France to declare war on us. But they did not understand that their ruling circles throughout the duration of the war have been talking the people into the idea that the treacherous, cruel enemy is Germany and that Russia is a noble land and it is impossible within twenty four hours to teach them the opposite. By publishing the secret treaties we have incurred the enmity of the governing classes in those countries but their peoples we have won to our support. We shall not make a diplomatic peace; it will be a people’s peace, a soldier’s peace, a real peace. And the outcome of our open policy was clear: Judson appeared at the Smolny Institute and declared, in the name of America, that the protest to the Dukhonin staff against the new power was a misunderstanding and that America had no desire to interfere in the internal affairs of Russia and, consequently, the American question is disposed of.
But there is another conflict that is not yet settled. I must tell you about it. Because of their fight for peace, the English Government has arrested and is now detaining in concentration camp George Chicherin [2], who had devoted his wealth and his knowledge to the peoples of Russia, England, Germany and France, and the courageous agitator of the English workers, the emigrant Petrov. I have communicated in writing with the English Embassy, saying that Russia was now permitting the presence within her borders of many wealthy Englishmen who are engaged in counter-revolutionary conspiracies with the Russian bourgeoisie and that we were therefore all the more disinclined to permit Russian citizens to be thrown into English prisons; that consequently all those against whom there were no criminal charges should be liberated at once. Failure to comply with this request will mean that we shall refuse passports to English subjects desiring to leave Russia. The People’s Soviet Power is responsible for the well-being of the entire people; wherever its citizens may be, they shall enjoy its protection. If Kerensky spoke to the Allies like a shop-attendant to his boss, we are prepared to show that we shall live with them only on terms of equality. WE have more than once said that anyone who counts on the support and friendship of the free and independent Russian people must approach them with respect for them and for their human dignity.
As soon as the Soviets found themselves with power in their hands, we proposed peace parleys in the name of the Russian people. We had a right to speak in the name of the people, for everything that we proposed, as well as the whole programme of the People’s Commissars, consists of doctrines and propositions voted on and passed in hundreds and thousands of Soviets, factories and works, that is, by the entire people. Our delegation will speak an open and courageous language: Do you agree to the holding of an immediate peace conference on all fronts? And if they say yes we shall ask them to invite their governments and allies to send their delegates. Our second question will be: Do you mean to conclude peace on a democratic foundation? If we are forced to make peace alone, we shall declare to Germany that it is inadmissible to withdraw their troops from the Russian front to some other front since we are making an honourable peace and cannot permit England and France to be crushed by reason of it.
Secret diplomacy shall not be tolerated for a single moment during the negotiations. Our flyers and our radio service will keep all the nations informed of every proposition we make, and of the answers they elicit from Germany. We shall be sitting in a glass house, as it were, and the German soldiers, through thousands of newspapers in German, which we shall distribute to them, will be informed of every step we take and of every German answer.
We say that Lithuania and Courland must themselves decide the question, with whom they will join forces and that Germany must not in words only but in deeds heed the free expression of the will of the peoples. And if, after these frank and honourable declarations, the Kaiser refuses to make peace, if the banks and exchanges which profit by the war destroy our peace, the nations will see on whose side is the right and we shall come out the stronger, the Kaiser and the financiers the weaker. We shall feel ourselves to be not the vanquished but the victors for peace hath its victories not less renowned than war. For a nation that has assumed power after having cast out its enemies, such a nation is victorious. We know no other interests than those of the people, but these interests are identical with the interests of the people of all nations.
We declare war upon war. The Czars are afraid of the conclusion of peace, are afraid that the people will ask for an accounting of all the great sacrifices they have made and all the blood they have shed. Germany, in agreeing to peace negotiations, is heeding the will of her people. She knows that they want her to answer and that if she does not answer the Russian Revolution will become the ally of the German people. France and England ought to come to the discussion on the conclusion of peace, but if they do not, their own peoples, who will know of the course of the transactions, will cast them out with rods. The Russian representatives at the peace table will be transformed into plaintiffs; the peoples will sit in judgement of their rulers. Our experience of the manner in which rulers have treated their peoples in the forty months of the war has not been wasted. “In your name”, we shall say to our brothers, “understand that the moment you turn your revolutionary strength against your bourgeoisie not one Russian soldier will shoot!” This promise will be given in your name and we shall keep it.
November 1917
Footnotes
1. A large hall for mass meetings in Petrograd where this particular address of Trotsky was also delivered. – L.C.F.
2. Who was released and subsequently became Commissar of Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Government. – L.C.F.
In a post earlier today I noted in a commentary on Wikileaks the open diplomacy policy of the early Bolsheviks in 1917. Here is a sample from the pen of Leon Trotsky.
Leon Trotsky
The Peace Programme of the Revolution
(November 1917)
Delivered: November, 1917
Source: Leon Trotsky: What Is A Peace Programme, Lanka Samasamaja Publications, Colombo, Ceylon, May 1956, pp.22-27.
First Published: This speech by Leon Trotsky is reproduced from pp.315-318 of the volume The Proletarian Revolution in Russia by Lenin and Trotsky, edited by Louis C. Fraina and published in 1918 in New York.
Transcription/Mark-up for TIA: A. Lehrer/David Walters.
Proofreading: Einde O’Callaghan, December 2006.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publisher’s Introduction
The book is now a rarity, and, as far as we know, there is no other translation of this speech available. The title given to the speech is ours.
In his editorial note, Fraina says in part:
“The first move toward the conclusion of peace was the offer of the Soviet government to all belligerents to declare an armistice on all fronts and open general peace negotiations. A day or two after this offer was made, Leon Trotsky, Commissar of Foreign Affairs, delivered an address in Petrograd to an audience of 12,000 people ...”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE PEACE PROGRAMME
OF THE REVOLUTION
In this building on November 5, I spoke to a popular meeting at which the question of an All-Russian Congress was being discussed, and all voices raised in favour of Soviet power. The question which has been most emphatically before the people in all the eight months of the Revolution is the question of war and peace, and we maintained that only a power basing its authority directly on the people could put an end to the slaughter. We maintained that the secret treaties must be published, and declared that the Russian people, not having made these treaties, could not be bound to carry out the conquests agreed upon therein. Our enemies answered that this was demagogy. You would never dare if you were in power, they said, to do this for then the Allies would oppose us. But we maintained that the salvation of Russia was in peace. We pointed out that the prolonged character of the war was destroying the Revolution, was exhausting and destroying the country and that the longer we should fight the more complete the slavish position we should then occupy so that at last we should merely be left the choice of picking a master.
We desire to live and develop as a free nation: but, for the conclusion of peace, we had to overthrow the power of the bourgeoisie and of Kerensky. They told us we would be left without any supporters. But on November 7, the local Soviet of Petrograd took the initiative upon itself, as well as the responsibility and with the aid of the garrison and the workers accomplished the coup d’etat, appeared before the Congress of Soviets then in session and said: “The old power in the country is broken, there is no authority, anywhere and we are obliged to take it into our own hands.” We have said that the first obligation devolving upon the new power is the offering of peace parleys on all fronts for the conclusion of a peace without annexations or indemnities on the basis of self-determination of peoples, that is, each people through popular elections, must speak for itself the decisive word: Do they wish to enter into a confederation with their present sovereign state, enjoying full autonomy under it or do they wish to separate themselves from it and have full independence?
We must put a stop to a condition in which the strong can, by force of arms, compel the weak to assume what conditions of life the strong may desire: every people, be it great or small, must be the master of its own fate. Now, this is the programme not of a party, not of a Soviet, but the whole people, excepting the predatory party which dares call itself the Party of Popular Liberty but which in reality is an enemy of popular liberty, fighting against peace with all its might. With the exception of this party, the whole Russian people has declared that it will not tolerate the use of force. And this is the spirit in which we issue our peace decree.
On the day on which we passed this decree, Krasnov’s Cossacks rebelled and danger threatened the very existence of the Soviet power. Yet, hardly had they been defeated and the Soviet power strengthened, than our first act was to turn to the Allied and German powers, simultaneously, with a proposition for peace parleys on all fronts. Our enemies, the Cadets and their appendages, said that Germany would ignore us – but it has turned out otherwise, “and we already have the assent of Germany and Austria-Hungary to the holding of peace parleys and preliminary peace on the Soviet formula. And even before that, as soon as we obtained the keys to the case of secret diplomatic correspondence, we published the secret treaties, thus fulfilling an obligation that we had assumed toward the people when we were still an insignificant opposition party. We said then and we say now that a people cannot shed their blood and that of their brothers for treaties that they have not themselves concluded, have never read or even seen. To these words of mine the adherents of coalition made reply: Do not speak to us in this tongue; this is not the Modern Circus. [1] And I answered them that I have only one tongue, the tongue of a socialist, and I shall speak in this tongue to the country and to you, to the Allies and the Germans.
To the adherents of the coalition, having the souls of hares, it seemed that to publish the secret treaties was equivalent to forcing England and France to declare war on us. But they did not understand that their ruling circles throughout the duration of the war have been talking the people into the idea that the treacherous, cruel enemy is Germany and that Russia is a noble land and it is impossible within twenty four hours to teach them the opposite. By publishing the secret treaties we have incurred the enmity of the governing classes in those countries but their peoples we have won to our support. We shall not make a diplomatic peace; it will be a people’s peace, a soldier’s peace, a real peace. And the outcome of our open policy was clear: Judson appeared at the Smolny Institute and declared, in the name of America, that the protest to the Dukhonin staff against the new power was a misunderstanding and that America had no desire to interfere in the internal affairs of Russia and, consequently, the American question is disposed of.
But there is another conflict that is not yet settled. I must tell you about it. Because of their fight for peace, the English Government has arrested and is now detaining in concentration camp George Chicherin [2], who had devoted his wealth and his knowledge to the peoples of Russia, England, Germany and France, and the courageous agitator of the English workers, the emigrant Petrov. I have communicated in writing with the English Embassy, saying that Russia was now permitting the presence within her borders of many wealthy Englishmen who are engaged in counter-revolutionary conspiracies with the Russian bourgeoisie and that we were therefore all the more disinclined to permit Russian citizens to be thrown into English prisons; that consequently all those against whom there were no criminal charges should be liberated at once. Failure to comply with this request will mean that we shall refuse passports to English subjects desiring to leave Russia. The People’s Soviet Power is responsible for the well-being of the entire people; wherever its citizens may be, they shall enjoy its protection. If Kerensky spoke to the Allies like a shop-attendant to his boss, we are prepared to show that we shall live with them only on terms of equality. WE have more than once said that anyone who counts on the support and friendship of the free and independent Russian people must approach them with respect for them and for their human dignity.
As soon as the Soviets found themselves with power in their hands, we proposed peace parleys in the name of the Russian people. We had a right to speak in the name of the people, for everything that we proposed, as well as the whole programme of the People’s Commissars, consists of doctrines and propositions voted on and passed in hundreds and thousands of Soviets, factories and works, that is, by the entire people. Our delegation will speak an open and courageous language: Do you agree to the holding of an immediate peace conference on all fronts? And if they say yes we shall ask them to invite their governments and allies to send their delegates. Our second question will be: Do you mean to conclude peace on a democratic foundation? If we are forced to make peace alone, we shall declare to Germany that it is inadmissible to withdraw their troops from the Russian front to some other front since we are making an honourable peace and cannot permit England and France to be crushed by reason of it.
Secret diplomacy shall not be tolerated for a single moment during the negotiations. Our flyers and our radio service will keep all the nations informed of every proposition we make, and of the answers they elicit from Germany. We shall be sitting in a glass house, as it were, and the German soldiers, through thousands of newspapers in German, which we shall distribute to them, will be informed of every step we take and of every German answer.
We say that Lithuania and Courland must themselves decide the question, with whom they will join forces and that Germany must not in words only but in deeds heed the free expression of the will of the peoples. And if, after these frank and honourable declarations, the Kaiser refuses to make peace, if the banks and exchanges which profit by the war destroy our peace, the nations will see on whose side is the right and we shall come out the stronger, the Kaiser and the financiers the weaker. We shall feel ourselves to be not the vanquished but the victors for peace hath its victories not less renowned than war. For a nation that has assumed power after having cast out its enemies, such a nation is victorious. We know no other interests than those of the people, but these interests are identical with the interests of the people of all nations.
We declare war upon war. The Czars are afraid of the conclusion of peace, are afraid that the people will ask for an accounting of all the great sacrifices they have made and all the blood they have shed. Germany, in agreeing to peace negotiations, is heeding the will of her people. She knows that they want her to answer and that if she does not answer the Russian Revolution will become the ally of the German people. France and England ought to come to the discussion on the conclusion of peace, but if they do not, their own peoples, who will know of the course of the transactions, will cast them out with rods. The Russian representatives at the peace table will be transformed into plaintiffs; the peoples will sit in judgement of their rulers. Our experience of the manner in which rulers have treated their peoples in the forty months of the war has not been wasted. “In your name”, we shall say to our brothers, “understand that the moment you turn your revolutionary strength against your bourgeoisie not one Russian soldier will shoot!” This promise will be given in your name and we shall keep it.
November 1917
Footnotes
1. A large hall for mass meetings in Petrograd where this particular address of Trotsky was also delivered. – L.C.F.
2. Who was released and subsequently became Commissar of Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Government. – L.C.F.
From The Archives- The Black Liberation Army (BLA)
Click on the headline for more information about the Black Liberation Army.
****
Black Liberation Army
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Logo of the Black Liberation ArmyThe Black Liberation Army (BLA) was an underground, black nationalist-Marxist militant organization that operated in the United States from 1970 to 1981. Composed largely of former Black Panthers (BPP), the organization's program was one of "armed struggle" and its stated goal was to "take up arms for the liberation and self-determination of black people in the United States."[1] The BLA carried out a series of bombings, robberies (what participants termed "expropriations"), and prison breaks.
Contents [hide]
1 Formation
2 Activities
3 Members and associates
4 References
[edit] Formation
The Black Liberation Army was formed after the demise of the Black Panther Party. By 1970, police and FBI pressure (see COINTELPRO), infiltration, sectarianism, the criminalization of the Black Power movement (including long prison sentences and the deaths of key members, among them Fred Hampton, at the hands of police) had crippled the Black Panther Party. This convinced many former party members of the desirability of an underground existence, including the assumption that a new period of violent repression was at hand. BLA members operated under the belief that only through covert means, including but not limited to violent acts, could the movement be continued until such a time when an above-ground existence was possible. In this sense, the BLA's reasoning was similar to that of the Weather Underground.
The conditions under which the Black Liberation Army formed are not entirely clear. It is commonly believed that the organization was founded by those who left the Black Panther Party after Eldridge Cleaver was expelled from the party's Central Committee.[2] A fallout was inevitable between Cleaver and other Panther leaders after he publicly criticized the BPP, among other things accusing Panther social programs of being reformist rather than revolutionary. Others, including black revolutionary Geronimo Pratt (AKA Geronimo ji Jaga), assert that the BLA "as a movement concept pre-dated and was broader than the BPP," suggesting that it was a refuge for ex-Panthers rather than a new organization formed through schism.[3]
Some accounts of the Black Liberation Army argue that the BLA grew out of the BPP and its original founders were members of the Party. The organization is often presented as a result of the repression on the BPP and the split within the Panthers. It is said to have formed after the collaboration of several Black revolutionary organizations and consisted of the Black underground which came to be collectively known as the Black Liberation Army.[4] Assata Shakur, in her autobiography, asserts “… the Black Liberation Army was not a centralized, organized group with a common leadership and chain of command. Instead there were various organizations and collectives working together and simultaneously independent of each other.” [5]
The newly formed BLA believed that "the character of reformism is based on unprincipled class collaboration with our enemy"[6] and asserted the following principles:
That we are anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, anti-racist, and anti-sexist.
That we must of necessity strive for the abolishment of these systems and for the institution of Socialistic relationships in which Black people have total and absolute control over their own destiny as a people.
That in order to abolish our systems of oppression, we must utilize the science of class struggle, develop this science as it relates to our unique national condition.
[edit] Activities
According to a Justice Department report on BLA activity, the Black Liberation Army is suspected of involvement in over 60 incidents of violence between 1970 and 1976.[7] The Fraternal Order of Police blames the BLA for the murders of 13 police officers.[8]
On October 22, 1970, the BLA is believed to have planted a bomb in St. Brendan's Church in San Francisco while it was full of mourners attending the funeral of San Francisco police officer Harold Hamilton, who had been killed in the line of duty while responding to a bank robbery. The bomb was detonated, but no one in the church suffered serious injuries.[9]
On May 21, 1971, as many as five men participated in the shootings of two New York City police officers, Joseph Piagentini and Waverly Jones. Those arrested and brought to trial for the shootings include Anthony Bottom (aka Jalil Muntaqim), Albert Washington, Francisco Torres, Gabriel Torres, and Herman Bell.
On August 29, 1971, three armed men murdered 51-year old San Francisco police officer John Victor Young while he was working at a desk in his police station, which was almost empty at the time due to a bombing attack on a bank that took place earlier - only one other officer and a civilian clerk were there. Two days later, the San Francisco Chronicle received a letter signed by the BLA claiming responsibility for the attack.
In January 2007, eight men, labeled the San Francisco 8 were charged by a joint state and federal task force with Young's murder.[10] The defendants have been identified as former members of the Black Liberation Army.[11] A similar case was dismissed in 1975 when a judge ruled that police gathered evidence through the use of torture.[12]. On June 29, 2009 Herman Bell pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter in the death of Sgt. Young. In July 2009, charges were dropped against four of the accused: Ray Boudreaux, Henry W. Jones, Richard Brown and Harold Taylor. Also that month Jalil Muntaquim pleaded no contest to conspiracy to commit voluntary manslaughter becoming the second person to be convicted in this case. [13]
On the 3 November, 1971, Officer James R. Greene of the Atlanta Police Department was shot and killed in his patrol van at a gas station. His wallet, badge, and weapon were taken, and the evidence at the scene pointed to two suspects. The first was Twymon Meyers, who was killed in a police shootout in 1973, and the second was Freddie Hilton (aka Kamau Sadiki), who evaded capture until 2002, when he was arrested in New York on a separate charge, and was recognized as one of the men wanted in the Greene murder. Apparently, the two men had attacked the officer to gain standing with their compatriots within Black Liberation Army.[14]
In another high-profile incident, Joanne Chesimard (aka Assata Shakur), James Coston (aka Zayd Shakur) and Clark Edward Squire (aka Sundiata Acoli) were said to have opened fire on state troopers in New Jersey after being pulled over for a broken taillight. Coston (Shakur) and state trooper Werner Foerster were both killed during the exchange. Following her capture, Chesimard was tried in six different criminal trials. According to Chesimard, she was beaten and tortured during her incarceration in a number of different federal and state prisons. The charges ranged from kidnapping to assault and battery to bank robbery. Chesimard was found guilty of the murder of both Foerster and her companion Coston (Shakur), but escaped prison in 1979 and eventually absconded to Cuba. Squire was convicted of killing Foerster and sentenced to life in prison.
The BLA was active in the US until at least 1981 when a Brinks truck robbery, conducted with support from Weather Underground members Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, left a guard and two police officers dead. Boudin and Gilbert, along with several BLA members, were subsequently arrested.[15]
Following the collapse of the BLA, some members - including Ashanti Alston, Donald Weems (aka Kuwasi Balagoon) and Ojore N. Lutalo- became outspoken proponents of anarchism. Weems died in prison of an AIDS-related disease in 1986. Alston remains active in prison support and other activist circles.
[edit] Members and associates
BLA members who remain in prison (as of January 2006), include the following:
Clark Edward Squire (aka Sundiata Acoli), convicted along with Joanne Chesimard (aka Assata Shakur) of the murder of a New Jersey state trooper in 1973.
Jeral Wayne Williams (aka Mutulu Shakur), charged in part with conspiracy in 1979 BLA prison break of Chesimard (Assata Shakur), FBI's top ten Fugitive #380. Captured in 1986 and convicted of participating in the 1981 Brinks robbery, he received a 60-year sentence in a federal prison.
Herman Bell and Anthony Bottom (aka Jalil Muntaqim), convicted of the murder of two New York City police officers in 1971.
Joseph Bowen
Robert Seth Hayes, convicted of the murder of a NYC Transit Police Officer.
William Turk (aka Sekou Kambui), convicted of two murders in Alabama.
Ojore N. Lutalo, convicted following a shootout with a drug dealer (released August 2009).
Anthony LaBorde (aka Abdul Majid) and James D. York (aka Bashir Hameed), convicted of the murder of a police officer in 1981.
Nathaniel Burns (aka Sekou Odinga), convicted of six counts of attempted murder for his participation in the 1981 Brinks robbery and other incidents.
Grailing Brown (aka Kojo Bomani Sababu), convicted of bank robbery.
Freddie Hilton (aka Kamau Sadiki), convicted of the murder of an Atlanta police officer in 1971.
Russel "Maroon" Shoatz, convicted of the murder of a police officer in 1972.
Other high-profile BLA members and associates:
Arthur Lee Washington, Jr., FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitive #427, wanted for 1989 attempted murder of a New Jersey state trooper. {Removed from list in December 2000 as no longer meeting criteria}
Joanne Chesimard (AKA Assata Shakur), fugitive from justice and currently in Havana, Cuba.
[edit] References
^ MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base. [1]
^ Le Monde diplomatique, Caged panthers, 2005. [2]
^ Liberation, Imagination and the Black Panther Party, 2001.
^ Umoja, Akinyele Omowale. “Repression Breeds Resistance: The Black Liberation Army and the Radical Legacy of the Black Panther Party.” New Political Science 21.2 (1999): 131-154.
^ Umoja, Akinyele Omowale. “Repression Breeds Resistance: The Black Liberation Army and the Radical Legacy of the Black Panther Party.” New Political Science 21.2 (1999): 131-154.
^ The BLA Coordinating Committee, Message to the Black Movement: A Political Statement from the Black Underground. [3]
^ Blast from the Past, 1979. [4]
^ New York State FOP, New York State Fraternal Order of Police Criticizes Judge's Decision on the release of Kathy Boudin. [5]
^ Van Derbeken and Lagos. Ex-militants charged in S.F. police officer's '71 slaying at station, San Francisco Chronicle (January 23, 2007)
^ Ex-militants charged in S.F. police officer's '71 slaying at station (via SFGate)
^ Black Liberation Army tied to 1971 slaying (via USA Today)
^ 8 arrested in 1971 cop-killing tied to Black Panthers (via Los Angeles Times)
^ 2nd guilty plea in 1971 killing of S.F. officer (via SFGate)
^ Fulton Co. District Attorney Report, [6]
^ CourtTV Crime Library, Ambush: The Brinks Robbery of 1981. [7]
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Liberation_Army"
****
Black Liberation Army
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Logo of the Black Liberation ArmyThe Black Liberation Army (BLA) was an underground, black nationalist-Marxist militant organization that operated in the United States from 1970 to 1981. Composed largely of former Black Panthers (BPP), the organization's program was one of "armed struggle" and its stated goal was to "take up arms for the liberation and self-determination of black people in the United States."[1] The BLA carried out a series of bombings, robberies (what participants termed "expropriations"), and prison breaks.
Contents [hide]
1 Formation
2 Activities
3 Members and associates
4 References
[edit] Formation
The Black Liberation Army was formed after the demise of the Black Panther Party. By 1970, police and FBI pressure (see COINTELPRO), infiltration, sectarianism, the criminalization of the Black Power movement (including long prison sentences and the deaths of key members, among them Fred Hampton, at the hands of police) had crippled the Black Panther Party. This convinced many former party members of the desirability of an underground existence, including the assumption that a new period of violent repression was at hand. BLA members operated under the belief that only through covert means, including but not limited to violent acts, could the movement be continued until such a time when an above-ground existence was possible. In this sense, the BLA's reasoning was similar to that of the Weather Underground.
The conditions under which the Black Liberation Army formed are not entirely clear. It is commonly believed that the organization was founded by those who left the Black Panther Party after Eldridge Cleaver was expelled from the party's Central Committee.[2] A fallout was inevitable between Cleaver and other Panther leaders after he publicly criticized the BPP, among other things accusing Panther social programs of being reformist rather than revolutionary. Others, including black revolutionary Geronimo Pratt (AKA Geronimo ji Jaga), assert that the BLA "as a movement concept pre-dated and was broader than the BPP," suggesting that it was a refuge for ex-Panthers rather than a new organization formed through schism.[3]
Some accounts of the Black Liberation Army argue that the BLA grew out of the BPP and its original founders were members of the Party. The organization is often presented as a result of the repression on the BPP and the split within the Panthers. It is said to have formed after the collaboration of several Black revolutionary organizations and consisted of the Black underground which came to be collectively known as the Black Liberation Army.[4] Assata Shakur, in her autobiography, asserts “… the Black Liberation Army was not a centralized, organized group with a common leadership and chain of command. Instead there were various organizations and collectives working together and simultaneously independent of each other.” [5]
The newly formed BLA believed that "the character of reformism is based on unprincipled class collaboration with our enemy"[6] and asserted the following principles:
That we are anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, anti-racist, and anti-sexist.
That we must of necessity strive for the abolishment of these systems and for the institution of Socialistic relationships in which Black people have total and absolute control over their own destiny as a people.
That in order to abolish our systems of oppression, we must utilize the science of class struggle, develop this science as it relates to our unique national condition.
[edit] Activities
According to a Justice Department report on BLA activity, the Black Liberation Army is suspected of involvement in over 60 incidents of violence between 1970 and 1976.[7] The Fraternal Order of Police blames the BLA for the murders of 13 police officers.[8]
On October 22, 1970, the BLA is believed to have planted a bomb in St. Brendan's Church in San Francisco while it was full of mourners attending the funeral of San Francisco police officer Harold Hamilton, who had been killed in the line of duty while responding to a bank robbery. The bomb was detonated, but no one in the church suffered serious injuries.[9]
On May 21, 1971, as many as five men participated in the shootings of two New York City police officers, Joseph Piagentini and Waverly Jones. Those arrested and brought to trial for the shootings include Anthony Bottom (aka Jalil Muntaqim), Albert Washington, Francisco Torres, Gabriel Torres, and Herman Bell.
On August 29, 1971, three armed men murdered 51-year old San Francisco police officer John Victor Young while he was working at a desk in his police station, which was almost empty at the time due to a bombing attack on a bank that took place earlier - only one other officer and a civilian clerk were there. Two days later, the San Francisco Chronicle received a letter signed by the BLA claiming responsibility for the attack.
In January 2007, eight men, labeled the San Francisco 8 were charged by a joint state and federal task force with Young's murder.[10] The defendants have been identified as former members of the Black Liberation Army.[11] A similar case was dismissed in 1975 when a judge ruled that police gathered evidence through the use of torture.[12]. On June 29, 2009 Herman Bell pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter in the death of Sgt. Young. In July 2009, charges were dropped against four of the accused: Ray Boudreaux, Henry W. Jones, Richard Brown and Harold Taylor. Also that month Jalil Muntaquim pleaded no contest to conspiracy to commit voluntary manslaughter becoming the second person to be convicted in this case. [13]
On the 3 November, 1971, Officer James R. Greene of the Atlanta Police Department was shot and killed in his patrol van at a gas station. His wallet, badge, and weapon were taken, and the evidence at the scene pointed to two suspects. The first was Twymon Meyers, who was killed in a police shootout in 1973, and the second was Freddie Hilton (aka Kamau Sadiki), who evaded capture until 2002, when he was arrested in New York on a separate charge, and was recognized as one of the men wanted in the Greene murder. Apparently, the two men had attacked the officer to gain standing with their compatriots within Black Liberation Army.[14]
In another high-profile incident, Joanne Chesimard (aka Assata Shakur), James Coston (aka Zayd Shakur) and Clark Edward Squire (aka Sundiata Acoli) were said to have opened fire on state troopers in New Jersey after being pulled over for a broken taillight. Coston (Shakur) and state trooper Werner Foerster were both killed during the exchange. Following her capture, Chesimard was tried in six different criminal trials. According to Chesimard, she was beaten and tortured during her incarceration in a number of different federal and state prisons. The charges ranged from kidnapping to assault and battery to bank robbery. Chesimard was found guilty of the murder of both Foerster and her companion Coston (Shakur), but escaped prison in 1979 and eventually absconded to Cuba. Squire was convicted of killing Foerster and sentenced to life in prison.
The BLA was active in the US until at least 1981 when a Brinks truck robbery, conducted with support from Weather Underground members Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, left a guard and two police officers dead. Boudin and Gilbert, along with several BLA members, were subsequently arrested.[15]
Following the collapse of the BLA, some members - including Ashanti Alston, Donald Weems (aka Kuwasi Balagoon) and Ojore N. Lutalo- became outspoken proponents of anarchism. Weems died in prison of an AIDS-related disease in 1986. Alston remains active in prison support and other activist circles.
[edit] Members and associates
BLA members who remain in prison (as of January 2006), include the following:
Clark Edward Squire (aka Sundiata Acoli), convicted along with Joanne Chesimard (aka Assata Shakur) of the murder of a New Jersey state trooper in 1973.
Jeral Wayne Williams (aka Mutulu Shakur), charged in part with conspiracy in 1979 BLA prison break of Chesimard (Assata Shakur), FBI's top ten Fugitive #380. Captured in 1986 and convicted of participating in the 1981 Brinks robbery, he received a 60-year sentence in a federal prison.
Herman Bell and Anthony Bottom (aka Jalil Muntaqim), convicted of the murder of two New York City police officers in 1971.
Joseph Bowen
Robert Seth Hayes, convicted of the murder of a NYC Transit Police Officer.
William Turk (aka Sekou Kambui), convicted of two murders in Alabama.
Ojore N. Lutalo, convicted following a shootout with a drug dealer (released August 2009).
Anthony LaBorde (aka Abdul Majid) and James D. York (aka Bashir Hameed), convicted of the murder of a police officer in 1981.
Nathaniel Burns (aka Sekou Odinga), convicted of six counts of attempted murder for his participation in the 1981 Brinks robbery and other incidents.
Grailing Brown (aka Kojo Bomani Sababu), convicted of bank robbery.
Freddie Hilton (aka Kamau Sadiki), convicted of the murder of an Atlanta police officer in 1971.
Russel "Maroon" Shoatz, convicted of the murder of a police officer in 1972.
Other high-profile BLA members and associates:
Arthur Lee Washington, Jr., FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitive #427, wanted for 1989 attempted murder of a New Jersey state trooper. {Removed from list in December 2000 as no longer meeting criteria}
Joanne Chesimard (AKA Assata Shakur), fugitive from justice and currently in Havana, Cuba.
[edit] References
^ MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base. [1]
^ Le Monde diplomatique, Caged panthers, 2005. [2]
^ Liberation, Imagination and the Black Panther Party, 2001.
^ Umoja, Akinyele Omowale. “Repression Breeds Resistance: The Black Liberation Army and the Radical Legacy of the Black Panther Party.” New Political Science 21.2 (1999): 131-154.
^ Umoja, Akinyele Omowale. “Repression Breeds Resistance: The Black Liberation Army and the Radical Legacy of the Black Panther Party.” New Political Science 21.2 (1999): 131-154.
^ The BLA Coordinating Committee, Message to the Black Movement: A Political Statement from the Black Underground. [3]
^ Blast from the Past, 1979. [4]
^ New York State FOP, New York State Fraternal Order of Police Criticizes Judge's Decision on the release of Kathy Boudin. [5]
^ Van Derbeken and Lagos. Ex-militants charged in S.F. police officer's '71 slaying at station, San Francisco Chronicle (January 23, 2007)
^ Ex-militants charged in S.F. police officer's '71 slaying at station (via SFGate)
^ Black Liberation Army tied to 1971 slaying (via USA Today)
^ 8 arrested in 1971 cop-killing tied to Black Panthers (via Los Angeles Times)
^ 2nd guilty plea in 1971 killing of S.F. officer (via SFGate)
^ Fulton Co. District Attorney Report, [6]
^ CourtTV Crime Library, Ambush: The Brinks Robbery of 1981. [7]
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Liberation_Army"
* “Workers of The World Unite, You Have Nothing To Lose But Your Chains”-The Struggle For Trotsky's Fourth (Communist) International-From The Archives- Honor The Vietnamese Trotskyist Leader Ta Thu Thau
Markin comment:
Recently, 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 by Venezuelan caudillo, Hugo Chavez, I got to thinking a little bit more on the subject. Moreover, it must be something in the air (maybe caused by these global climatic changes) because I have also seen recent commentary on the need to go back to something that looks very much like Karl Marx’s one-size-fits-all First International. Of course, 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) is 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.
**********
Ta Thu Thau
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ta Thu Thau Tạ Thu Thâu (May 6, 1906–September 1945) was a Vietnamese Trotskyist and the leader of the Fourth International in Vietnam.
Contents [hide]
1 Early life
2 Political career
3 Assassination
4 Sources
5 See also
6 External links
[edit] Early life
Ta Thu Thau was born in a small hamlet in Tan Binh, 17 km (11 mi) south of Long Xuyen, the capital of An Giang Province in Southern Vietnam. His family were poor and leading a semi-peasant lifestyle. His father was an itinerant village carpenter and when his family was established in Long Xuyen, Ta Thu Thau went to primary school, and by working as a servant during holiday periods was able to continue his studies further. He was a brilliant student who went to France for university studies in 1927. Like many of his generation he lived a time when Vietnamese revolutionary nationalism was passing over to Marxism and communism.
[edit] Political career
Arrested during a protest demonstration against the execution of the Yen Bay rebels in front of the Elysee Palace on 22 May 1930, he was arrested and expelled back to Vietnam. Several left opposition groups were formed - the Communist League in Western Saigon in May 1931, Left Opposition and Indochinese Communism. These groups united and Ta Thu Thau was acknowledged as the most notable leader of the Trotskyists in Vietnam. In 1932 the French Colonial authorities arrested many members of the Stalinist Indochinese Communist Party and the Trotskyists. All left-wing activity in Indochina was clandestine.
However, in 1933 the Saigon Trotskyists and Stalinists formed an electoral bloc for the elections to the Saigon Municipal Council. The joint 'workers slate' was successful and the Trotskyists Tran Van Thach and Stalinist Nguyen Van Tao scored the highest votes. Though struck down by the Colonial authorities, this success indicated the growing popularity of the revolutionary groups. The other main activity of the united front was the publication of the legal newspaper La Lutte (newspaper). The united front split in 1937 over the issue of the 'popular front' policy of the Comintern and under pressure from the Stalinist Comintern via the French Communist Party.
La Lutte became an openly Trotskyist paper and in 1939, the Trotskyist candidates, Ta Thu Thau, Tran Van Thach and Phan Van Hum scored 80% of the vote, defeating three constitutionalists, two Stalinists and numerous independents. The Indochinese Communist Party vote in this election was one per cent. The Saigon Stalinists split, and so did the Trotskyists. When the Hitler-Stalin Pact was signed in the summer of 1939, the French authorities declared the Communist Party illegal and in Indochina, all the Communists and the Trotskyists leaders were rounded up. The revolutionary movement was decimated. With more support from farmers, the Stalinists managed to continue their underground activity in the countryside and began rebuild. The Trotskyists, reliant on working-class support in the cities, were virtually eliminated as a political force. Ta Thu Thau was arrested and incarcerated in Poulo-Condore during the war.
[edit] Assassination
After the end of World War II, Ta Thu Thau reconstituted the 'La Lutte' ('The Struggle') group and became the foremost leader of Vietnamese Trotskyism, but in the events of the August Revolution of 1945, and under the impact of the re-establishment of French colonial rule and repression from the Communist led Viet Minh, his political current lost any significant influence. Ta Thu Thau, along with other prominent Trotskyists and nationalists, was assassinated by the Viet Minh in 1945.
[edit] Sources
Richardson, A.(Ed.) (2003) The Revolution Defamed: A documentary history of Vietnamese Trotskyism, London: Socialist Platform Ltd.
Hemery, D. (1974) Révolutionnaires Vietnamiens et Pouvoir Colonial en Indochine: Communistes, trotskystes, nationalistes à Saigon de 1932 à 1937,Paris: François Maspero.
Hammer, E. (1954) The Struggle for Indochina, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
I. Milton Sacks, 'Marxism in Vietnam' [Chapter 4] in Trager, F.(1959) Marxism in South-East Asia, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Anh Van and Jacqueline Roussel (1947) National Movements and Class Struggle in Vietnam, London: New Park Publications [English translation 1987].
Bà Phuong-Lan[Bui-The-My](1974) Nhà Cách Mang:Ta Thu Thâu, Saigon: Nhà Sách KHAI-TRĺ [in Vietnamese].
Ngo Van (1995) Revolutionaries they could not break: The fight for the Fourth international in Indochina 1930-1945, London: Index Books.
Huynh kim Khánh (1982) Vietnamese Communism 1925-1945, London: Cornell University Press.
[edit] See also
Trotskyism
Vietnamese Trotskyism
International Communist League (Vietnam)
Stalinism
[edit] External links
A Short biographical article by Ngo Van Xuyet
An article on La Lutte
Loren Gouldner on Ngo Van and the trotskyist movement in the 1930s
Recently, 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 by Venezuelan caudillo, Hugo Chavez, I got to thinking a little bit more on the subject. Moreover, it must be something in the air (maybe caused by these global climatic changes) because I have also seen recent commentary on the need to go back to something that looks very much like Karl Marx’s one-size-fits-all First International. Of course, 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) is 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.
**********
Ta Thu Thau
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ta Thu Thau Tạ Thu Thâu (May 6, 1906–September 1945) was a Vietnamese Trotskyist and the leader of the Fourth International in Vietnam.
Contents [hide]
1 Early life
2 Political career
3 Assassination
4 Sources
5 See also
6 External links
[edit] Early life
Ta Thu Thau was born in a small hamlet in Tan Binh, 17 km (11 mi) south of Long Xuyen, the capital of An Giang Province in Southern Vietnam. His family were poor and leading a semi-peasant lifestyle. His father was an itinerant village carpenter and when his family was established in Long Xuyen, Ta Thu Thau went to primary school, and by working as a servant during holiday periods was able to continue his studies further. He was a brilliant student who went to France for university studies in 1927. Like many of his generation he lived a time when Vietnamese revolutionary nationalism was passing over to Marxism and communism.
[edit] Political career
Arrested during a protest demonstration against the execution of the Yen Bay rebels in front of the Elysee Palace on 22 May 1930, he was arrested and expelled back to Vietnam. Several left opposition groups were formed - the Communist League in Western Saigon in May 1931, Left Opposition and Indochinese Communism. These groups united and Ta Thu Thau was acknowledged as the most notable leader of the Trotskyists in Vietnam. In 1932 the French Colonial authorities arrested many members of the Stalinist Indochinese Communist Party and the Trotskyists. All left-wing activity in Indochina was clandestine.
However, in 1933 the Saigon Trotskyists and Stalinists formed an electoral bloc for the elections to the Saigon Municipal Council. The joint 'workers slate' was successful and the Trotskyists Tran Van Thach and Stalinist Nguyen Van Tao scored the highest votes. Though struck down by the Colonial authorities, this success indicated the growing popularity of the revolutionary groups. The other main activity of the united front was the publication of the legal newspaper La Lutte (newspaper). The united front split in 1937 over the issue of the 'popular front' policy of the Comintern and under pressure from the Stalinist Comintern via the French Communist Party.
La Lutte became an openly Trotskyist paper and in 1939, the Trotskyist candidates, Ta Thu Thau, Tran Van Thach and Phan Van Hum scored 80% of the vote, defeating three constitutionalists, two Stalinists and numerous independents. The Indochinese Communist Party vote in this election was one per cent. The Saigon Stalinists split, and so did the Trotskyists. When the Hitler-Stalin Pact was signed in the summer of 1939, the French authorities declared the Communist Party illegal and in Indochina, all the Communists and the Trotskyists leaders were rounded up. The revolutionary movement was decimated. With more support from farmers, the Stalinists managed to continue their underground activity in the countryside and began rebuild. The Trotskyists, reliant on working-class support in the cities, were virtually eliminated as a political force. Ta Thu Thau was arrested and incarcerated in Poulo-Condore during the war.
[edit] Assassination
After the end of World War II, Ta Thu Thau reconstituted the 'La Lutte' ('The Struggle') group and became the foremost leader of Vietnamese Trotskyism, but in the events of the August Revolution of 1945, and under the impact of the re-establishment of French colonial rule and repression from the Communist led Viet Minh, his political current lost any significant influence. Ta Thu Thau, along with other prominent Trotskyists and nationalists, was assassinated by the Viet Minh in 1945.
[edit] Sources
Richardson, A.(Ed.) (2003) The Revolution Defamed: A documentary history of Vietnamese Trotskyism, London: Socialist Platform Ltd.
Hemery, D. (1974) Révolutionnaires Vietnamiens et Pouvoir Colonial en Indochine: Communistes, trotskystes, nationalistes à Saigon de 1932 à 1937,Paris: François Maspero.
Hammer, E. (1954) The Struggle for Indochina, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
I. Milton Sacks, 'Marxism in Vietnam' [Chapter 4] in Trager, F.(1959) Marxism in South-East Asia, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Anh Van and Jacqueline Roussel (1947) National Movements and Class Struggle in Vietnam, London: New Park Publications [English translation 1987].
Bà Phuong-Lan[Bui-The-My](1974) Nhà Cách Mang:Ta Thu Thâu, Saigon: Nhà Sách KHAI-TRĺ [in Vietnamese].
Ngo Van (1995) Revolutionaries they could not break: The fight for the Fourth international in Indochina 1930-1945, London: Index Books.
Huynh kim Khánh (1982) Vietnamese Communism 1925-1945, London: Cornell University Press.
[edit] See also
Trotskyism
Vietnamese Trotskyism
International Communist League (Vietnam)
Stalinism
[edit] External links
A Short biographical article by Ngo Van Xuyet
An article on La Lutte
Loren Gouldner on Ngo Van and the trotskyist movement in the 1930s
* From Wikipedia-"The Vietnam Veterans Against The War (VVAW)"
Markin comment:
As veterans prepare to lead an action in Washington, D.C. on December 16, 2010 against the madness of the Afgahnistan War a look back at earlier veterans actions is in order.
Vietnam Veterans Against the War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) is a tax-exempt non-profit organization and corporation, originally created to oppose the Vietnam War. VVAW describes itself as a national veterans' organization that campaigns for peace, justice, and the rights of all United States military veterans. It publishes a twice-yearly newsletter The Veteran, previously published more frequently as 1st Casualty (1971-1972) and then as Winter Soldier (1973-1975). VVAW considers itself as "anti-war," although not in the pacifistic sense. Membership varied greatly, from almost 25,000 veterans during the height of the war to fewer than a couple thousand in subsequent decades. While the member veterans were a small fraction of the millions that served between 1965-75, the VVAW is widely considered to be among the most influential anti-war organizations of that era.
Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Notable VVAW sponsored events
2.1 Operation RAW
2.2 Winter Soldier Investigation
2.3 Dewey Canyon III - Washington, D.C., April 1971
2.4 Walter Reed Memorial Service
2.5 Operation POW
2.6 Statue of Liberty occupations
3 Kansas City meeting
4 Post Vietnam War activities
5 Similarly-named different group
6 Source footnotes
7 Further reading
8 Films
9 See also
10 External links
[edit] History
VVAW was founded by six Vietnam war veterans, including Jan "Barry" Crumb, Mark Donnelly, and David Braum, in New York City in June, 1967 after they marched together in the April 15, 1967 Spring Mobilization to End the War anti-war demonstration with over 400,000 other protesters. After talking to members of the Veterans for Peace group at that march, Barry discovered there was no organization representing Vietnam veterans.[1]
The VVAW's website summarizes its history, in part indicating that:
“ Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Inc. (VVAW) is a national veterans' organization that was founded in New York City in 1967 after six Vietnam vets marched together in a peace demonstration. It was organized to voice the growing opposition among returning servicemen and women to the still-raging war in Indochina...[2] ”
According to the organization itself, VVAW organized rap groups for veterans in 1970, the predecessor to readjustment counseling at modern Vet Centers. Their website goes on to indicate that they helped draft legislation for education and job programs, and assisted veterans with post-war health care through the VA hospital system, including assisting victims of Agent Orange and other chemical agents. The VVAW advocated amnesty for war resisters.[2]
The fluctuating membership size of this organization has been a point of some confusion, with some sources claiming it peaked at over 20,000 and others claiming it never exceeded several thousand. Several historic events would serve to fuel the organization's rapid growth as well as its decline in membership. The organization remained small until late 1969 when it gained several hundred new members.[3] With the Nixon administration's decision to invade Cambodia and the Kent State shootings in 1970, VVAW's visibility increased, as did their membership, from 1,500 to almost 5000.[4] Publicity from VVAW-sponsored events continued to spur membership growth past 8,500 by the first month of 1971, and thousands more flocked to the organization after Playboy Magazine donated a full-page VVAW ad in its February edition.[5] An FBI informant within the organization notes in March, 1971 that membership had grown from 1,500 to over 12,000 in the past four months.[6] The national televised coverage of VVAW's week-long April, 1971 protest in Washington, DC, and smaller protests in subsequent months continued to increase their notoriety. By 1971, the group had grown to 20,000 members.[7] The organization itself claims a peak membership of over 30,000.[2] Including non-veterans, VVAW had "roughly 50,000" members.[8] By 1972, negotiations at the Paris peace talks were in full swing, signaling the beginning of the end of the war as well as the end of VVAW's primary mission. Membership in the organization diminished as the leadership scrambled to broaden its purpose. Membership requirements were relaxed, and political differences arose as new members fought with old about which direction the VVAW should take. The organization had dwindled to just several thousand members by 1973.[9] With internal struggle still threatening to tear the group apart, 2,000 members demonstrated in Washington in July 1974, demanding universal amnesty for draft resisters and deserters, and universal discharge with benefits for all Vietnam veterans.[10]
Historian Andrew E. Hunt concluded, "Detractors have always cited numbers when criticizing VVAW. At the pinnacle of VVAW's success in 1972, membership rolls listed almost twenty-five thousand card carriers, or fewer than 1 percent of all eligible Vietnam era veterans... By emphasizing the low percentage of Vietnam veterans who paid dues to VVAW, opponents have sought to dismiss the significance and impact of the organization."[11]
[edit] Notable VVAW sponsored events
[edit] Operation RAW
During the Labor Day weekend of September 4-7, 1970, Operation RAW ("Rapid American Withdrawal") took place. It was a three day protest march from Morristown, NJ, to Valley Forge State Park by over 200 veterans. They were joined by members of "Nurses for Peace" and other peace groups. Dressed in combat fatigues and carrying toy weapons, the march was designed to dramatize a Vietnam-type search and destroy mission to the Middle America they passed through. Upon entering each town along the march, sweeps were made, prisoners taken and interrogated, property seized and homes cleared with the assistance of previously planted "guerrilla theater" actors portraying civilians. The 86 mile long march culminated in a four hour rally at Valley Forge that over 1,500 people attended. The honorary commander during this event was retired Army Brigadier General Hugh B. Hester. Sponsors included Senators George McGovern and Edmund Muskie, Rep. John Conyers, Paul O'Dwyer, Mark Lane, and Donald Sutherland. Scheduled speakers were John Kerry, Joe Kennedy, Rev. James Bevel, Mark Lane, Jane Fonda, and Sutherland. Congressman Allard Lowenstein, Mike Lerner, and Army First Lt. Louis Font also spoke.[12]
[edit] Winter Soldier Investigation
Main article: Winter Soldier Investigation
In January 1971, VVAW sponsored The Winter Soldier Investigation to gather and present testimony from soldiers about war crimes being committed in Southeast Asia and demonstrate they were committed as a result of American war policies. Intended as a public event, it was boycotted by much of the mainstream media, although the Detroit Free Press covered it daily and immediately began investigating what was being said. No records of fraudulent participants or fraudulent testimony were produced.[13]
Veterans applying for participation in the investigation were asked if they witnessed or participated in a list of transgressions, including search and destroy missions, crop destruction, and POW mistreatment.[14]
This event was estimated to have cost the VVAW $50,000–$75,000.[15] It was financially supported by the fund-raising efforts of several celebrity peace activists, with actress Jane Fonda soliciting over $10,000 in donations at 54 college campuses for the VVAW.[16] Winter Soldier Investigation testimonies were read into the Congressional Record by Senator Hatfield. In 1972, VVAW continued antiwar protests, and released Winter Soldier, a 16mm black-and-white documentary film showing participants giving testimony at the 1971 hearing, as well as footage of the Dewey Canyon III week of protest events. This film is currently on limited distribution and is now available on DVD.
[edit] Dewey Canyon III - Washington, D.C., April 1971
This peaceful anti-war protest organized by VVAW took its name from two short military invasions of Laos by US and South Vietnamese forces. Dubbed "Operation Dewey Canyon III," it took place in Washington, D.C, April 19 through April 23, 1971. It was referred to by the participants as "a limited incursion into the country of Congress." The level of media publicity and Vietnam veteran participation at the Dewey Canyon week of protest events far exceeded the Winter Soldier Investigation and any previous VVAW protest event.[17][18]
Led by Gold Star Mothers (mothers of soldiers killed in war), more than 1,100 veterans marched across the Lincoln Memorial Bridge to the Arlington Cemetery gate, just beneath the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. A memorial service for their peers was conducted by Reverend Jackson H. Day, who had just a few days earlier resigned his military chaplainship. In addition to his passages of scripture and citations of poetry was a personal statement, including the following:
“ Maybe there are some others here like me--who wanted desperately to believe that what we were doing was acceptable, who hung on the words of "revolutionary development" and "winning the hearts and minds of the people." We had been told that on the balance the war was a good thing and we tried to make it a good thing; all of us can tell of somebody who helped out an orphanage, or of men like one sergeant who adopted a crippled Vietnamese child; and even at My Lai the grief of one of the survivors was mixed with bewilderment as he told a reporter, "I just don't understand it ... always before, the Americans brought medicine and candy." I believe there is something in all of us that would wave a flag for the dream of an America that brings medicine and candy, but we are gathered here today, waving no flags, in the ruins of that dream. Some of you saw right away the evil of what was going on; others of us one by one, adding and re-adding the balance sheet of what was happening and what could possibly be accomplished finally saw that no goal could be so laudable, or defense so necessary, as to justify what we have visited upon the people of Indochina.[19] ”
The Gold Star Mothers and a few others approached the cemetery gate to enter and lay wreaths, but the gate had been closed and locked upon word of their impending arrival. They placed the wreaths instead along the gate, and peacefully departed.[18]
The march re-formed and continued to the Capitol, with Congressman Pete McCloskey joining the procession en route. McCloskey and fellow Representatives Bella Abzug, Donald Edwards, Shirley Chisholm, Edmund Muskie and Ogden Reid addressed the large crowd in a show of support. VVAW members defied a Justice Department-ordered injunction that they not camp on The Mall and set up camp anyway. Later that day, the District Court of Appeals lifted the injunction. Some members personally visited their Congressmen to lobby against the U.S. participation in the war. They presented Congress with their 16-point suggested resolution for ending the war in Vietnam.[17][20]
On Tuesday, April 20, 200 veterans listened to hearings by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on proposals to end the war. Other veterans, still angry at the insult to the Gold Star Mothers when they were refused entry to Arlington National Cemetery the previous day, marched back to the front gate. After initial refusal of entry, the veterans were finally allowed in. Veterans performed guerrilla theater on the Capitol steps, re-enacting combat scenes and search and destroy missions from Vietnam. Later that evening, Democratic Senators Claiborne Pell and Philip Hart held a fund-raising party for the veterans. During the party it was announced that Chief Justice Warren Burger of the United States Supreme Court had reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the injunction. The veterans were given until 4:30 the following afternoon to break camp and leave the National Mall. This was the fastest reversal of an Appeals Court decision in the Supreme Court's history.[21]
On Wednesday, April 21, more than 50 veterans marched to The Pentagon and attempted to surrender and turn themselves in as war criminals. A Pentagon representative took their names and then turned them away. More veterans continued to meet with and lobby their representatives in Congress. Senator Ted Kennedy spent the day speaking with the veterans. The guerrilla theater re-enactments were moved to the steps of the Justice Department. After a close vote by the veterans, they decided to remain where they were. Many of the veterans were prepared to be arrested for continuing to camp on the National Mall, but none were arrested. Several of the patrolling park police officers reassured the veterans that arrests were not going to be made, despite orders to do so. Headlines the following day read, "VETS OVERRULE SUPREME COURT."[21][22]
On Thursday, April 22, a large group of veterans demonstrated on the steps of the Supreme Court, and demanded to know why the Supreme Court had not ruled on the constitutionality of the war in Vietnam. The veterans sang "God Bless America" and 110 were arrested for disturbing the peace, and were later released. John Kerry, as VVAW spokesman, testified against the war for 2 hours in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee before a packed room of observers and media.[23] The veterans continued lobbying on Capitol Hill all day. A Washington District Court judge angrily dissolved his injunction order, rebuking the Justice Department lawyers for requesting the court order and then not enforcing it. Veterans staged a candlelight march around the White House, while a huge American flag was carried upside down in the historic international signal of distress.[24]
On Friday, April 23, more than 800 veterans, one by one, tossed their medals, ribbons, discharge papers and other war mementos on the steps of the Capitol, rejecting the Vietnam war and the significance of those awards. Several hearings in Congress were held that week regarding atrocities committed in Vietnam and the media's inaccurate coverage of the war. There were also hearings on proposals to end the United States' participation in the war. The vets planted a tree on the mall as part of a ceremony symbolizing the veterans' wish to preserve life and the environment.[25]
Senators George McGovern and Mark Hatfield helped arrange at least $50,000 in fundraising during preparations for Dewey Canyon III. The VVAW paid $94,000 for an ad to advertise this event in the April 11, 1971 New York Times.[21]
[edit] Walter Reed Memorial Service
In May 1971, the VVAW and former Army chaplain Reverend Jackson Day conducted a service for veterans at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Injured and disabled veterans who were inpatients there were brought into the chapel in wheelchairs. The service included time for individual prayers or public confession, and many veterans took the floor to recount things they had done or seen for which they felt guilt or anger. This was the last service performed by Jackson Day for almost two decades.[26]
[edit] Operation POW
Operation POW, organized by the VVAW in Massachusetts, got its name from the group's concern that Americans were prisoners of the Vietnam War, as well as to honor American POWs held captive by North Vietnam. The event sought to tie antiwar activism to patriotic themes. Over the 1971 Memorial Day weekend, veterans and other participants marched from Concord, Massachusetts to a rally on Boston Common. The plan was to invoke the spirit of the American Revolution and Paul Revere by spending successive nights at the sites of the Battle of Lexington and Concord and the Battle of Bunker Hill, culminating in a Memorial Day rally with a public reading of the United States Declaration of Independence.
The event organizers requested permission in advance to camp overnight on the historic Lexington, Massachusetts Green, but were refused by the town Board of Selectmen. On the day of the marchers' arrival in Lexington, an emergency town meeting was held. The Selectmen, citing a town bylaw, insisted that the demonstrators must vacate the Green by 10:00 p.m. The VVAW and town citizens that supported them decided instead to camp on the village green. At 2:30 a.m. on May 30, local and state police awoke and arrested 441 demonstrators for trespassing. All were given the Miranda warning and were taken away on school buses to spend the night at the Lexington Public Works Garage. Julian Soshnick, a Lexington resident and charismatic lawyer of Boston Strangler fame, was among several attorneys that volunteered to represent the demonstrators. He worked out a deal with friend, colleague, and Concord Court Judge, John Forte. The protesters later paid a $5 fine each and were released. The mass arrests caused a community backlash and eventually gave positive coverage to the VVAW.[27][28][29]
[edit] Statue of Liberty occupations
On December 26, 1971, fifteen VVAW activists barricaded and occupied the Statue of Liberty for two days in a successful attempt to bring attention to the antiwar cause. Simultaneous protests took place across the country, such as at the historic Betsy Ross house in Philadelphia (for 45 minutes) and Travis Air Force Base in California (for 12 hours). Other VVAW members in California also briefly occupied the Saigon Government consulate in San Francisco. VVAW occupied the Statue of Liberty a second time in 1976 to bring renewed attention to veteran issues.[
As veterans prepare to lead an action in Washington, D.C. on December 16, 2010 against the madness of the Afgahnistan War a look back at earlier veterans actions is in order.
Vietnam Veterans Against the War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) is a tax-exempt non-profit organization and corporation, originally created to oppose the Vietnam War. VVAW describes itself as a national veterans' organization that campaigns for peace, justice, and the rights of all United States military veterans. It publishes a twice-yearly newsletter The Veteran, previously published more frequently as 1st Casualty (1971-1972) and then as Winter Soldier (1973-1975). VVAW considers itself as "anti-war," although not in the pacifistic sense. Membership varied greatly, from almost 25,000 veterans during the height of the war to fewer than a couple thousand in subsequent decades. While the member veterans were a small fraction of the millions that served between 1965-75, the VVAW is widely considered to be among the most influential anti-war organizations of that era.
Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Notable VVAW sponsored events
2.1 Operation RAW
2.2 Winter Soldier Investigation
2.3 Dewey Canyon III - Washington, D.C., April 1971
2.4 Walter Reed Memorial Service
2.5 Operation POW
2.6 Statue of Liberty occupations
3 Kansas City meeting
4 Post Vietnam War activities
5 Similarly-named different group
6 Source footnotes
7 Further reading
8 Films
9 See also
10 External links
[edit] History
VVAW was founded by six Vietnam war veterans, including Jan "Barry" Crumb, Mark Donnelly, and David Braum, in New York City in June, 1967 after they marched together in the April 15, 1967 Spring Mobilization to End the War anti-war demonstration with over 400,000 other protesters. After talking to members of the Veterans for Peace group at that march, Barry discovered there was no organization representing Vietnam veterans.[1]
The VVAW's website summarizes its history, in part indicating that:
“ Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Inc. (VVAW) is a national veterans' organization that was founded in New York City in 1967 after six Vietnam vets marched together in a peace demonstration. It was organized to voice the growing opposition among returning servicemen and women to the still-raging war in Indochina...[2] ”
According to the organization itself, VVAW organized rap groups for veterans in 1970, the predecessor to readjustment counseling at modern Vet Centers. Their website goes on to indicate that they helped draft legislation for education and job programs, and assisted veterans with post-war health care through the VA hospital system, including assisting victims of Agent Orange and other chemical agents. The VVAW advocated amnesty for war resisters.[2]
The fluctuating membership size of this organization has been a point of some confusion, with some sources claiming it peaked at over 20,000 and others claiming it never exceeded several thousand. Several historic events would serve to fuel the organization's rapid growth as well as its decline in membership. The organization remained small until late 1969 when it gained several hundred new members.[3] With the Nixon administration's decision to invade Cambodia and the Kent State shootings in 1970, VVAW's visibility increased, as did their membership, from 1,500 to almost 5000.[4] Publicity from VVAW-sponsored events continued to spur membership growth past 8,500 by the first month of 1971, and thousands more flocked to the organization after Playboy Magazine donated a full-page VVAW ad in its February edition.[5] An FBI informant within the organization notes in March, 1971 that membership had grown from 1,500 to over 12,000 in the past four months.[6] The national televised coverage of VVAW's week-long April, 1971 protest in Washington, DC, and smaller protests in subsequent months continued to increase their notoriety. By 1971, the group had grown to 20,000 members.[7] The organization itself claims a peak membership of over 30,000.[2] Including non-veterans, VVAW had "roughly 50,000" members.[8] By 1972, negotiations at the Paris peace talks were in full swing, signaling the beginning of the end of the war as well as the end of VVAW's primary mission. Membership in the organization diminished as the leadership scrambled to broaden its purpose. Membership requirements were relaxed, and political differences arose as new members fought with old about which direction the VVAW should take. The organization had dwindled to just several thousand members by 1973.[9] With internal struggle still threatening to tear the group apart, 2,000 members demonstrated in Washington in July 1974, demanding universal amnesty for draft resisters and deserters, and universal discharge with benefits for all Vietnam veterans.[10]
Historian Andrew E. Hunt concluded, "Detractors have always cited numbers when criticizing VVAW. At the pinnacle of VVAW's success in 1972, membership rolls listed almost twenty-five thousand card carriers, or fewer than 1 percent of all eligible Vietnam era veterans... By emphasizing the low percentage of Vietnam veterans who paid dues to VVAW, opponents have sought to dismiss the significance and impact of the organization."[11]
[edit] Notable VVAW sponsored events
[edit] Operation RAW
During the Labor Day weekend of September 4-7, 1970, Operation RAW ("Rapid American Withdrawal") took place. It was a three day protest march from Morristown, NJ, to Valley Forge State Park by over 200 veterans. They were joined by members of "Nurses for Peace" and other peace groups. Dressed in combat fatigues and carrying toy weapons, the march was designed to dramatize a Vietnam-type search and destroy mission to the Middle America they passed through. Upon entering each town along the march, sweeps were made, prisoners taken and interrogated, property seized and homes cleared with the assistance of previously planted "guerrilla theater" actors portraying civilians. The 86 mile long march culminated in a four hour rally at Valley Forge that over 1,500 people attended. The honorary commander during this event was retired Army Brigadier General Hugh B. Hester. Sponsors included Senators George McGovern and Edmund Muskie, Rep. John Conyers, Paul O'Dwyer, Mark Lane, and Donald Sutherland. Scheduled speakers were John Kerry, Joe Kennedy, Rev. James Bevel, Mark Lane, Jane Fonda, and Sutherland. Congressman Allard Lowenstein, Mike Lerner, and Army First Lt. Louis Font also spoke.[12]
[edit] Winter Soldier Investigation
Main article: Winter Soldier Investigation
In January 1971, VVAW sponsored The Winter Soldier Investigation to gather and present testimony from soldiers about war crimes being committed in Southeast Asia and demonstrate they were committed as a result of American war policies. Intended as a public event, it was boycotted by much of the mainstream media, although the Detroit Free Press covered it daily and immediately began investigating what was being said. No records of fraudulent participants or fraudulent testimony were produced.[13]
Veterans applying for participation in the investigation were asked if they witnessed or participated in a list of transgressions, including search and destroy missions, crop destruction, and POW mistreatment.[14]
This event was estimated to have cost the VVAW $50,000–$75,000.[15] It was financially supported by the fund-raising efforts of several celebrity peace activists, with actress Jane Fonda soliciting over $10,000 in donations at 54 college campuses for the VVAW.[16] Winter Soldier Investigation testimonies were read into the Congressional Record by Senator Hatfield. In 1972, VVAW continued antiwar protests, and released Winter Soldier, a 16mm black-and-white documentary film showing participants giving testimony at the 1971 hearing, as well as footage of the Dewey Canyon III week of protest events. This film is currently on limited distribution and is now available on DVD.
[edit] Dewey Canyon III - Washington, D.C., April 1971
This peaceful anti-war protest organized by VVAW took its name from two short military invasions of Laos by US and South Vietnamese forces. Dubbed "Operation Dewey Canyon III," it took place in Washington, D.C, April 19 through April 23, 1971. It was referred to by the participants as "a limited incursion into the country of Congress." The level of media publicity and Vietnam veteran participation at the Dewey Canyon week of protest events far exceeded the Winter Soldier Investigation and any previous VVAW protest event.[17][18]
Led by Gold Star Mothers (mothers of soldiers killed in war), more than 1,100 veterans marched across the Lincoln Memorial Bridge to the Arlington Cemetery gate, just beneath the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. A memorial service for their peers was conducted by Reverend Jackson H. Day, who had just a few days earlier resigned his military chaplainship. In addition to his passages of scripture and citations of poetry was a personal statement, including the following:
“ Maybe there are some others here like me--who wanted desperately to believe that what we were doing was acceptable, who hung on the words of "revolutionary development" and "winning the hearts and minds of the people." We had been told that on the balance the war was a good thing and we tried to make it a good thing; all of us can tell of somebody who helped out an orphanage, or of men like one sergeant who adopted a crippled Vietnamese child; and even at My Lai the grief of one of the survivors was mixed with bewilderment as he told a reporter, "I just don't understand it ... always before, the Americans brought medicine and candy." I believe there is something in all of us that would wave a flag for the dream of an America that brings medicine and candy, but we are gathered here today, waving no flags, in the ruins of that dream. Some of you saw right away the evil of what was going on; others of us one by one, adding and re-adding the balance sheet of what was happening and what could possibly be accomplished finally saw that no goal could be so laudable, or defense so necessary, as to justify what we have visited upon the people of Indochina.[19] ”
The Gold Star Mothers and a few others approached the cemetery gate to enter and lay wreaths, but the gate had been closed and locked upon word of their impending arrival. They placed the wreaths instead along the gate, and peacefully departed.[18]
The march re-formed and continued to the Capitol, with Congressman Pete McCloskey joining the procession en route. McCloskey and fellow Representatives Bella Abzug, Donald Edwards, Shirley Chisholm, Edmund Muskie and Ogden Reid addressed the large crowd in a show of support. VVAW members defied a Justice Department-ordered injunction that they not camp on The Mall and set up camp anyway. Later that day, the District Court of Appeals lifted the injunction. Some members personally visited their Congressmen to lobby against the U.S. participation in the war. They presented Congress with their 16-point suggested resolution for ending the war in Vietnam.[17][20]
On Tuesday, April 20, 200 veterans listened to hearings by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on proposals to end the war. Other veterans, still angry at the insult to the Gold Star Mothers when they were refused entry to Arlington National Cemetery the previous day, marched back to the front gate. After initial refusal of entry, the veterans were finally allowed in. Veterans performed guerrilla theater on the Capitol steps, re-enacting combat scenes and search and destroy missions from Vietnam. Later that evening, Democratic Senators Claiborne Pell and Philip Hart held a fund-raising party for the veterans. During the party it was announced that Chief Justice Warren Burger of the United States Supreme Court had reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the injunction. The veterans were given until 4:30 the following afternoon to break camp and leave the National Mall. This was the fastest reversal of an Appeals Court decision in the Supreme Court's history.[21]
On Wednesday, April 21, more than 50 veterans marched to The Pentagon and attempted to surrender and turn themselves in as war criminals. A Pentagon representative took their names and then turned them away. More veterans continued to meet with and lobby their representatives in Congress. Senator Ted Kennedy spent the day speaking with the veterans. The guerrilla theater re-enactments were moved to the steps of the Justice Department. After a close vote by the veterans, they decided to remain where they were. Many of the veterans were prepared to be arrested for continuing to camp on the National Mall, but none were arrested. Several of the patrolling park police officers reassured the veterans that arrests were not going to be made, despite orders to do so. Headlines the following day read, "VETS OVERRULE SUPREME COURT."[21][22]
On Thursday, April 22, a large group of veterans demonstrated on the steps of the Supreme Court, and demanded to know why the Supreme Court had not ruled on the constitutionality of the war in Vietnam. The veterans sang "God Bless America" and 110 were arrested for disturbing the peace, and were later released. John Kerry, as VVAW spokesman, testified against the war for 2 hours in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee before a packed room of observers and media.[23] The veterans continued lobbying on Capitol Hill all day. A Washington District Court judge angrily dissolved his injunction order, rebuking the Justice Department lawyers for requesting the court order and then not enforcing it. Veterans staged a candlelight march around the White House, while a huge American flag was carried upside down in the historic international signal of distress.[24]
On Friday, April 23, more than 800 veterans, one by one, tossed their medals, ribbons, discharge papers and other war mementos on the steps of the Capitol, rejecting the Vietnam war and the significance of those awards. Several hearings in Congress were held that week regarding atrocities committed in Vietnam and the media's inaccurate coverage of the war. There were also hearings on proposals to end the United States' participation in the war. The vets planted a tree on the mall as part of a ceremony symbolizing the veterans' wish to preserve life and the environment.[25]
Senators George McGovern and Mark Hatfield helped arrange at least $50,000 in fundraising during preparations for Dewey Canyon III. The VVAW paid $94,000 for an ad to advertise this event in the April 11, 1971 New York Times.[21]
[edit] Walter Reed Memorial Service
In May 1971, the VVAW and former Army chaplain Reverend Jackson Day conducted a service for veterans at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Injured and disabled veterans who were inpatients there were brought into the chapel in wheelchairs. The service included time for individual prayers or public confession, and many veterans took the floor to recount things they had done or seen for which they felt guilt or anger. This was the last service performed by Jackson Day for almost two decades.[26]
[edit] Operation POW
Operation POW, organized by the VVAW in Massachusetts, got its name from the group's concern that Americans were prisoners of the Vietnam War, as well as to honor American POWs held captive by North Vietnam. The event sought to tie antiwar activism to patriotic themes. Over the 1971 Memorial Day weekend, veterans and other participants marched from Concord, Massachusetts to a rally on Boston Common. The plan was to invoke the spirit of the American Revolution and Paul Revere by spending successive nights at the sites of the Battle of Lexington and Concord and the Battle of Bunker Hill, culminating in a Memorial Day rally with a public reading of the United States Declaration of Independence.
The event organizers requested permission in advance to camp overnight on the historic Lexington, Massachusetts Green, but were refused by the town Board of Selectmen. On the day of the marchers' arrival in Lexington, an emergency town meeting was held. The Selectmen, citing a town bylaw, insisted that the demonstrators must vacate the Green by 10:00 p.m. The VVAW and town citizens that supported them decided instead to camp on the village green. At 2:30 a.m. on May 30, local and state police awoke and arrested 441 demonstrators for trespassing. All were given the Miranda warning and were taken away on school buses to spend the night at the Lexington Public Works Garage. Julian Soshnick, a Lexington resident and charismatic lawyer of Boston Strangler fame, was among several attorneys that volunteered to represent the demonstrators. He worked out a deal with friend, colleague, and Concord Court Judge, John Forte. The protesters later paid a $5 fine each and were released. The mass arrests caused a community backlash and eventually gave positive coverage to the VVAW.[27][28][29]
[edit] Statue of Liberty occupations
On December 26, 1971, fifteen VVAW activists barricaded and occupied the Statue of Liberty for two days in a successful attempt to bring attention to the antiwar cause. Simultaneous protests took place across the country, such as at the historic Betsy Ross house in Philadelphia (for 45 minutes) and Travis Air Force Base in California (for 12 hours). Other VVAW members in California also briefly occupied the Saigon Government consulate in San Francisco. VVAW occupied the Statue of Liberty a second time in 1976 to bring renewed attention to veteran issues.[
From The "Black Is Back" Website
Join us in DC on Nov. 13 as we march!
The Black Is Back Coalition for Social Justice, Peace and Reparations has had a good year since its first rally and march on the White House, November, 2009. “We proved that a critical mass of Black left activists and organizations was prepared to rebuild independent, anti-imperialist Black politics.” Now, as “the economic depression gripping our people deepens, and a cascade of crises loom for the nation and the world,” Black Is Back prepares for another year of struggle to reverse the “mass suffering and defeat” brought on by Wall Street and its servants in both major political parties.” Renew the struggle. Rally and march with BiB.
“Obama’s hold on Black America is visibly cracking, as the stark facts of his administration’s servility to Wall Street and the Pentagon – and his transparent contempt for African Americans – slowly overcome stubborn walls of denial.”
When the Black Is Back Coalition for Social Justice, Peace and Reparations marched on the White House last November 7, we were less than two months old. The event was an act of birth, a collective gasping for air in the suffocating environment of mindless Obama-ism that had enveloped our communities. One year after the election that brought so many of our people to joyous tears, the political path of the First Black President (FBP) was set – unmistakably and irrevocably – on the same course as his white Republican predecessor: ever expanding theaters of war and constantly shrinking human horizons. Wall Street drove his economic policy, and a Bush holdover and former CIA chief was at the helm of war policy. Obama was in charge of making the people disbelieve their eyes and ears, so that the great Finance Capitalist Continuity might…continue.
For conscious Black Americans – that is, the distinct minority of Blacks that were not still drunk on ObamaL’aid – there could no longer be any illusion that a President Obama might be more publicly friendly, if not something resembling brotherly, to the 40 million African-descended people that were his most fervent supporters. “A rising tide lifts all boats,” Obama brusquely informed a BET reporter on April 29, 2009, signaling that Blacks could expect nothing from the White House in terms of redress of historical grievances, or for the disproportionate harm they had endured in two 21st century recessions. It was a command to shut up. Be content to live vicariously through me, the FBP, here at the pinnacle of power.
A few of us were fairly bursting with I-told-you-sos. Obama’s rightward trajectory had been easily calculable back in 2003 when, as a candidate for the Democratic U.S. senatorial nomination, the Illinois state senator was vetted by the Democratic Leadership Council, the party’s corporate bagman. Thus certified as an asset of the rich, he went forth to amass the biggest pile of corporate campaign cash in U.S. history ($500 million-plus) – which he would later repay to Wall Street at a rate of around $25,000 to $1 ($12-14 trillion) in the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.
“The political path of the First Black President (FBP) was set – unmistakably and irrevocably – on the same course as his white Republican predecessor: ever expanding theaters of war and constantly shrinking human horizons.”
But even those of us who years before had discerned Obama’s general trajectory were knocked breathless by his rush to confirm our worst fears. After rescuing Bush’s bank bailout in October 2008, then pausing to win the November election, the president-elect filled his cabinet with thieves and warmongers and announced that Social Security and other “entitlements” would be “on the table” for cutting in his first term, while maintaining a strict silence as Israel slaughtered 1,500 Palestinians. Immediately upon inauguration, he began huddling with insurance and drug company executives, Republicans – everybody except the politicians, activists and professionals that represented the 60-plus percent of the public (and huge majorities of Democrats) that favored some form of single-payer health care. Many months later, the result was an insurance plan that locks the corporations into the system, thereby preventing America’s entrance into the civilized world of health care for the foreseeable future.
After signing the biggest war budget in history, the one formulated under his predecessor, Obama struck out on his aggressive own to ensure the next war budget would be even larger. Af-Pak became a single theater of conflict. Yemen and Somalia anchored Obama’s wars on both the African and Asian sides of the Gulf Aden. The U.S. Africa Command, AFRICOM, spread its militarizing tentacles across continent, while the president preached that corruption, not neocolonialism and wars for foreign dominance of resources – six million dead in Congo, alone! – was Africa’s biggest problem.
The coup de grace – the point at which every Black progressive with a shred of integrity should have broken with the FBP – came in April 2009, when Obama sabotaged the second World Conference Against Racism, in Geneva, Switzerland, just as George Bush had sabotaged the first World Conference Against Racism, in Durban, South Africa, in 2001. Nothing better demonstrated the continuity of racist rule in the imperial United States, and the absolute inanity of Black allegiance to Obama, the war-escalating corporate operative and great friend of Israel.
“The president-elect filled his cabinet with thieves and warmongers and announced that Social Security and other ‘entitlements’ would be ‘on the table’ for cutting in his first term.”
Seven months later, 250 Black Is Backers rallied at Washington’s Malcolm X Park and then marched down Washington’s 14th St. NW to the White House. We had proven, at the very least, that a critical mass of Black left activists and organizations was prepared to rebuild independent, anti-imperialist Black politics, and that we could function as a healthy coalition encompassing various ideologies. In the next year the Black Is Back Coalition saw significant growth in numbers, reach and capability. We have also built relations of solidarity and mutual respect with non-Black strugglers for social justice and peace.
In that same period, the economic depression gripping our people has deepened, and a cascade of crises loom for the nation and the world – crises that flow inevitably and at quickening pace from the steady unraveling of finance capitalist rule. Honest and sincere friends of humanity have no choice but to resist as the Lords of Capital attempt to appropriate and devour everything of value on the planet. It becomes ever more clear that none of the world’s most critical problems can be solved until the stranglehold of U.S. imperialism and the finance capitalist class it serves, is removed. The potential for solidarity in the world is based on this common threat and clear villain. (Although it must also be said that the demise of U.S. imperialism and finance capitalist hegemony does not guarantee solutions.)
Internally, Obama’s hold on Black America is visibly cracking, as the stark facts of his administration’s servility to Wall Street and the Pentagon – and his transparent contempt for African Americans – slowly overcome stubborn walls of denial. The previously unthinkable – that the Black man in the White House is actively hostile to Black interests – invades the resistant consciousness of more and more Black people, every day. The Black Is Back Coalition is primarily an organization of fighters, but our very existence also has therapeutic value to the millions of recovering Black Obamites that are waking up, albeit unevenly, to his treacheries and failures. This is yet another reason for our obligation to grow: as the Obama illusion crumbles, our people must be afforded access to independent, progressive modes of struggle and resistance, or risk a disastrous collapse of Black morale.
“As the Obama illusion crumbles, our people must be afforded access to independent, progressive modes of struggle and resistance.”
The Obama phenomenon was not wholly created on Wall Street. Black America – whose peoplehood Obama denied in his 2004 National Democratic Conventional debut – was massively receptive to his corporate marketing, a receptivity based on an ancient African American stream of political thought that sought mobility and security through the positioning of Black faces in as many high places as possible. This stream of thought, to which most of the Black misleadership class subscribe, is inherently accommodationist, avoiding calls for fundamental social transformation outside the realm of race. It measures Black progress by the visible number of Black notables, regardless of who has made these Blacks worthy of note.
In Obama, proponents of this brand of accommodationism found an elevator to their version of Nirvana – a fast, and unexpected, ride to the very top of the world, one that would somehow elevate all Blacks through some vicarious voodoo.
They got what they wished for, and the wishful edifice is now collapsing all around us. Having achieved their wildest dream – the ascent of the FBP – there is nowhere else for them to go, nothing else to say. The ancient stream of accommodation and Black face-counting has nothing more to offer, but the disastrous Obama experience of mass Black suffering and defeat. Add to this the ignominious failure of, not just the traditional Black misleadership class, but most of the Black Left, to demand anything of substance from Obama or his party.
The Black misleaders are politically bankrupt, at an historical dead end. The only alternative is the other, ancient Black stream of political thought and action, rooted in self-determinationism, respect for all the people’s of mankind, a love of peace and a willingness to fight for it. The Black Is Back Coalition is a conscious effort to gather these forces, and move forward. Join us in DC, on November 13th.
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford (at) BlackAgendaReport.com.
For more information on the November 13 march and rally, call the Black Is Back Coalition at 202.320.5542, or email info (at) blackisbackcoalition.org.
See also:
http://BlackisBackCoalition.org
The Black Is Back Coalition for Social Justice, Peace and Reparations has had a good year since its first rally and march on the White House, November, 2009. “We proved that a critical mass of Black left activists and organizations was prepared to rebuild independent, anti-imperialist Black politics.” Now, as “the economic depression gripping our people deepens, and a cascade of crises loom for the nation and the world,” Black Is Back prepares for another year of struggle to reverse the “mass suffering and defeat” brought on by Wall Street and its servants in both major political parties.” Renew the struggle. Rally and march with BiB.
“Obama’s hold on Black America is visibly cracking, as the stark facts of his administration’s servility to Wall Street and the Pentagon – and his transparent contempt for African Americans – slowly overcome stubborn walls of denial.”
When the Black Is Back Coalition for Social Justice, Peace and Reparations marched on the White House last November 7, we were less than two months old. The event was an act of birth, a collective gasping for air in the suffocating environment of mindless Obama-ism that had enveloped our communities. One year after the election that brought so many of our people to joyous tears, the political path of the First Black President (FBP) was set – unmistakably and irrevocably – on the same course as his white Republican predecessor: ever expanding theaters of war and constantly shrinking human horizons. Wall Street drove his economic policy, and a Bush holdover and former CIA chief was at the helm of war policy. Obama was in charge of making the people disbelieve their eyes and ears, so that the great Finance Capitalist Continuity might…continue.
For conscious Black Americans – that is, the distinct minority of Blacks that were not still drunk on ObamaL’aid – there could no longer be any illusion that a President Obama might be more publicly friendly, if not something resembling brotherly, to the 40 million African-descended people that were his most fervent supporters. “A rising tide lifts all boats,” Obama brusquely informed a BET reporter on April 29, 2009, signaling that Blacks could expect nothing from the White House in terms of redress of historical grievances, or for the disproportionate harm they had endured in two 21st century recessions. It was a command to shut up. Be content to live vicariously through me, the FBP, here at the pinnacle of power.
A few of us were fairly bursting with I-told-you-sos. Obama’s rightward trajectory had been easily calculable back in 2003 when, as a candidate for the Democratic U.S. senatorial nomination, the Illinois state senator was vetted by the Democratic Leadership Council, the party’s corporate bagman. Thus certified as an asset of the rich, he went forth to amass the biggest pile of corporate campaign cash in U.S. history ($500 million-plus) – which he would later repay to Wall Street at a rate of around $25,000 to $1 ($12-14 trillion) in the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.
“The political path of the First Black President (FBP) was set – unmistakably and irrevocably – on the same course as his white Republican predecessor: ever expanding theaters of war and constantly shrinking human horizons.”
But even those of us who years before had discerned Obama’s general trajectory were knocked breathless by his rush to confirm our worst fears. After rescuing Bush’s bank bailout in October 2008, then pausing to win the November election, the president-elect filled his cabinet with thieves and warmongers and announced that Social Security and other “entitlements” would be “on the table” for cutting in his first term, while maintaining a strict silence as Israel slaughtered 1,500 Palestinians. Immediately upon inauguration, he began huddling with insurance and drug company executives, Republicans – everybody except the politicians, activists and professionals that represented the 60-plus percent of the public (and huge majorities of Democrats) that favored some form of single-payer health care. Many months later, the result was an insurance plan that locks the corporations into the system, thereby preventing America’s entrance into the civilized world of health care for the foreseeable future.
After signing the biggest war budget in history, the one formulated under his predecessor, Obama struck out on his aggressive own to ensure the next war budget would be even larger. Af-Pak became a single theater of conflict. Yemen and Somalia anchored Obama’s wars on both the African and Asian sides of the Gulf Aden. The U.S. Africa Command, AFRICOM, spread its militarizing tentacles across continent, while the president preached that corruption, not neocolonialism and wars for foreign dominance of resources – six million dead in Congo, alone! – was Africa’s biggest problem.
The coup de grace – the point at which every Black progressive with a shred of integrity should have broken with the FBP – came in April 2009, when Obama sabotaged the second World Conference Against Racism, in Geneva, Switzerland, just as George Bush had sabotaged the first World Conference Against Racism, in Durban, South Africa, in 2001. Nothing better demonstrated the continuity of racist rule in the imperial United States, and the absolute inanity of Black allegiance to Obama, the war-escalating corporate operative and great friend of Israel.
“The president-elect filled his cabinet with thieves and warmongers and announced that Social Security and other ‘entitlements’ would be ‘on the table’ for cutting in his first term.”
Seven months later, 250 Black Is Backers rallied at Washington’s Malcolm X Park and then marched down Washington’s 14th St. NW to the White House. We had proven, at the very least, that a critical mass of Black left activists and organizations was prepared to rebuild independent, anti-imperialist Black politics, and that we could function as a healthy coalition encompassing various ideologies. In the next year the Black Is Back Coalition saw significant growth in numbers, reach and capability. We have also built relations of solidarity and mutual respect with non-Black strugglers for social justice and peace.
In that same period, the economic depression gripping our people has deepened, and a cascade of crises loom for the nation and the world – crises that flow inevitably and at quickening pace from the steady unraveling of finance capitalist rule. Honest and sincere friends of humanity have no choice but to resist as the Lords of Capital attempt to appropriate and devour everything of value on the planet. It becomes ever more clear that none of the world’s most critical problems can be solved until the stranglehold of U.S. imperialism and the finance capitalist class it serves, is removed. The potential for solidarity in the world is based on this common threat and clear villain. (Although it must also be said that the demise of U.S. imperialism and finance capitalist hegemony does not guarantee solutions.)
Internally, Obama’s hold on Black America is visibly cracking, as the stark facts of his administration’s servility to Wall Street and the Pentagon – and his transparent contempt for African Americans – slowly overcome stubborn walls of denial. The previously unthinkable – that the Black man in the White House is actively hostile to Black interests – invades the resistant consciousness of more and more Black people, every day. The Black Is Back Coalition is primarily an organization of fighters, but our very existence also has therapeutic value to the millions of recovering Black Obamites that are waking up, albeit unevenly, to his treacheries and failures. This is yet another reason for our obligation to grow: as the Obama illusion crumbles, our people must be afforded access to independent, progressive modes of struggle and resistance, or risk a disastrous collapse of Black morale.
“As the Obama illusion crumbles, our people must be afforded access to independent, progressive modes of struggle and resistance.”
The Obama phenomenon was not wholly created on Wall Street. Black America – whose peoplehood Obama denied in his 2004 National Democratic Conventional debut – was massively receptive to his corporate marketing, a receptivity based on an ancient African American stream of political thought that sought mobility and security through the positioning of Black faces in as many high places as possible. This stream of thought, to which most of the Black misleadership class subscribe, is inherently accommodationist, avoiding calls for fundamental social transformation outside the realm of race. It measures Black progress by the visible number of Black notables, regardless of who has made these Blacks worthy of note.
In Obama, proponents of this brand of accommodationism found an elevator to their version of Nirvana – a fast, and unexpected, ride to the very top of the world, one that would somehow elevate all Blacks through some vicarious voodoo.
They got what they wished for, and the wishful edifice is now collapsing all around us. Having achieved their wildest dream – the ascent of the FBP – there is nowhere else for them to go, nothing else to say. The ancient stream of accommodation and Black face-counting has nothing more to offer, but the disastrous Obama experience of mass Black suffering and defeat. Add to this the ignominious failure of, not just the traditional Black misleadership class, but most of the Black Left, to demand anything of substance from Obama or his party.
The Black misleaders are politically bankrupt, at an historical dead end. The only alternative is the other, ancient Black stream of political thought and action, rooted in self-determinationism, respect for all the people’s of mankind, a love of peace and a willingness to fight for it. The Black Is Back Coalition is a conscious effort to gather these forces, and move forward. Join us in DC, on November 13th.
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford (at) BlackAgendaReport.com.
For more information on the November 13 march and rally, call the Black Is Back Coalition at 202.320.5542, or email info (at) blackisbackcoalition.org.
See also:
http://BlackisBackCoalition.org
**Blessed Are The Whisteblowers- Hands Off Wikileaks!
Click on the headline to link to an Associated Press article on the arrest of master whistleblower and Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange.
Markin comment:
This one is tricky for leftists in separating out the parts. We appreciate, deeply appreciate, the work of Wikileaks in exposing the insanity of the Afghanistan War and also for providing us amusing, if embarrassing, moments in the lives of the international diplomatic corps and of their duplicities. We have always called for open diplomacy, at least since the early days of the Russian revolution in 1917 when the Bolsheviks, on taking state power, blew open the democratic pretensions of the Entente by publishing the “understandings” between the various partners, including Russia, to divide up the spoils of war if victorious against the Central powers. We also have hailed Daniel Ellsberg’s expose of the criminality of the Vietnam War in his Pentagon Papers. And the other, too few, whistleblowers, known and unknown, who help keep civilization from being totally overwhelmed by the power-mad imperialists. As for Julian Assange’s personal dilemma on the charges of sexual misconduct that is a separate question, although from the look of it right now something is very fishy. In any case work the work of Wikileaks needs to go on unimpeded. Naturally the events of the past few weeks by various governments have us all looking over our shoulders in order to make us afraid to speak out against the plentiful inequities of the world, and that is how the imperialists want it. The hell with that. Hands Off Wikileaks!
Markin comment:
This one is tricky for leftists in separating out the parts. We appreciate, deeply appreciate, the work of Wikileaks in exposing the insanity of the Afghanistan War and also for providing us amusing, if embarrassing, moments in the lives of the international diplomatic corps and of their duplicities. We have always called for open diplomacy, at least since the early days of the Russian revolution in 1917 when the Bolsheviks, on taking state power, blew open the democratic pretensions of the Entente by publishing the “understandings” between the various partners, including Russia, to divide up the spoils of war if victorious against the Central powers. We also have hailed Daniel Ellsberg’s expose of the criminality of the Vietnam War in his Pentagon Papers. And the other, too few, whistleblowers, known and unknown, who help keep civilization from being totally overwhelmed by the power-mad imperialists. As for Julian Assange’s personal dilemma on the charges of sexual misconduct that is a separate question, although from the look of it right now something is very fishy. In any case work the work of Wikileaks needs to go on unimpeded. Naturally the events of the past few weeks by various governments have us all looking over our shoulders in order to make us afraid to speak out against the plentiful inequities of the world, and that is how the imperialists want it. The hell with that. Hands Off Wikileaks!
Monday, December 06, 2010
**A Look At The Historic Evolution Of The Bourgeois Nuclear Family- “When Fathers Ruled”-A Book Review
Book Review
When Fathers Ruled: Family Life in Reformation Europe, Steven Ozment, Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Those bourgeois ideologues and others who have defended the notion of the immutable nature of the family have always shrieked to the heavens about the irrationality of the goals of the international socialist movement, especially its communist wing, in it efforts to replace the bourgeois nuclear family structure prevalent in most of Western society since the 1500s. At least since the Paris Commune in the 19th century, hell, since the Anabaptist Commune at Munster
A critical concept in the arsenal of the defenders of the bourgeois nuclear family is that this structure is somehow the most satisfactory basis to build society on, and by extension, that it is somehow the only form that evolved through history that makes sense. We know, or should know now, with the tremendous increases in academic research that all kinds of family forms from the polygamous to extended kin to nuclear have formed the basic unit of society in the over 10,000 year history of human social organization that we know enough about to judge. That is what makes Ozment’s book so refreshing. He investigates the changes that occurred in the way families faced the world as the bourgeois ethos came to dominate continental Europe at the time of the Protestant Reformation and knocks down that theory flat. .
Although, admittedly, the data available from that period is in some respects scanty nevertheless through chapbooks, self-help books and sermons from the pulpit Ozment has made some reasonable generalizations about the newly emerging burgher class that started to take family life and family culture seriously. Along the way he looks at the changes in the formalities of the marriage contract from it previous essentially common law customary origins to a more formal public pronouncement; the liberation of important segments of women from cloistered life as a result of breakdown of religious institutions (nunneries and the like) in the wake of the Protestant Reformation; and the breakdown of the old religious concept of celibacy as having some inherent virtue over marriage. He also looks at the “new” way that husbands treated their wives; she still subordinate to he but with recognized duties and, more importantly, recognized rights by law and by the emerging ethos; and, given the more formal nature of the marriage vow the more formal nature of divorce (and the greater obstacles to being granted it). Finally, Ozment, although recognizing that fathers “ruled” also traces changes in the way fathers related to their offspring in such matters as seeing to their health, their education and their discipline. There was then, as now, a brisk trade in self-help (and just plain help, please, help) books by authors from Erasmus to Martin Luther down to the local church pastor.
Special note: There has been a trend in modern academic research, and an important trend a couple of decades ago when this book was written, centered on the notion that since life, was, as Thomas Hobbes put it in the 17th century, nasty, short and brutish, that the so-called modern notion of child-centeredness was absent and that somehow because of high rates of mortality and other adverse factors that loving and caring for children did not drive parental concerns. Of course nature was a darker force in those days, and there was plenty to tremble about in the harshness of life so that one could speculate that child love would be in short supply but that assumption, as Professor Ozment notes, will not stand closer scrutiny. And so we come full circle, at least for my purposes. Why? Well go back to the start of this review where I noted that the socialist movement has been accused of essentially the same thing as those early bourgeois fathers and families - not loving children. By exposing children to alternative social, healthy, and caring forms under socialism and making the whole of society responsible collectively however we will put paid to that notion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)