Le Deuxième Amendement à la Constitution américaine

Le Bolchévik nº 203	Mars 2013

Le Deuxième Amendement à la Constitution américaine

La révolution et le droit de porter des armes

Les archives de Spartacist

Nous reproduisons ci-dessous des extraits traduits d’un article de Spartacist édition anglaise n° 43-44, été 1989.

* * *

Ce n’est pas une nouveauté : les armes à feu ont été inventées pour tuer des gens. Et dans cette société divisée en classes, les citoyens « respectueux des lois » ont été plus d’une fois obligés de se défendre par la violence, y compris contre un pouvoir censé être légalement constitué. A t’on vraiment la mémoire aussi courte ? Rappelons-nous le massacre de Ludlow en 1914 dans le Colorado : 21 personnes, hommes, femmes et enfants, des familles de mineurs en grève, sont morts sous le feu des mitrailleuses actionnées par la milice d’Etat, qui n’était en réalité que l’armée privée de Rockefeller. Mais les travailleurs avaient été armés par l’United Mine Workers, le syndicat des mineurs, et à la grande horreur des patrons un millier de grévistes rendirent coup pour coup et balle pour balle pendant dix jours.

Rappelons-nous aussi le massacre des sidérurgistes de Republic Steel lors de la « Journée du souvenir » en 1937 dans le sud de Chicago. C’était le 30 mai, en plein milieu d’une grève nationale contre les « petites » entreprises sidérurgiques (c’est-à-dire toutes les entreprises à l’exception du trust géant de l’United States Steel Corporation). 1 500 manifestants, principalement des grévistes et leurs familles, défilaient dans une ambiance festive en direction de l’usine Republic Mill. Ils se retrouvèrent face à 200 flics en rangs serrés, et à un brusque tir de barrage de grenades lacrymogènes. Alors que les manifestants rebroussaient chemin et tentaient de s’enfuir, les flics chargèrent matraque en main et ouvrirent le feu. Dix ouvriers furent tués, quarante blessés – tous abattus d’une balle dans le dos. Les matraques des flics firent 101 blessés de plus, dont un enfant de huit ans. Les manifestants avaient été cette fois politiquement désarmés par leurs dirigeants syndicaux, des traîtres qui leur avaient dit qu’il fallait souhaiter la « bienvenue » aux flics envoyés pour maintenir l’ordre par les politiciens du Parti démocrate « ami des travailleurs ».

Nous nous souvenons aussi du massacre de Greensboro en 1979 : cinq militants des droits civiques et activistes syndicaux ont été abattus de sang-froid par des nazis et le Ku Klux Klan. Un informateur du FBI avait conduit ces fascistes sur le lieu du crime et un agent du Bureau fédéral de l’alcool, du tabac et des armes à feu leur avait montré comment utiliser et transporter des fusils semi-automatiques. Il y a aussi Philadelphie sous le maire noir Wilson Goode en 1985 : les flics ont attaqué l’immeuble de la communauté noire MOVE, tirant 10 000 projectiles en l’espace de 90 minutes avec des fusils d’assaut M-16 et des mitrailleuses M-60. Onze Noirs, dont cinq enfants, sont morts dans l’incendie déclenché par une charge d’explosifs C4 fournie par le FBI. Mais bien sûr personne parmi les « bonnes âmes » du lobby opposé aux armes à feu ne demande qu’on retire leurs armes aux flics.

Les libéraux blancs appartenant à la classe moyenne, qui prêchent un pacifisme absolu, habitent des appartements luxueux et des villas cossues où ils sont relativement en sécurité – ils ne s’attendent pas à voir les flics débarquer chez eux. Mais la classe dirigeante ne croit pas au pacifisme et elle prend soin d’armer son Etat jusqu’aux dents. Toute la problématique du contrôle des armes à feu tourne autour de la question : acceptez-vous que cet Etat ait le monopole des armes ? Et la réponse se reflète dans la polarisation croissante de cette société d’un point de vue social et racial. Le cœur de l’Etat, après tout, ce sont des « détachements spéciaux d’hommes armés », comme l’expliquait Lénine en 1917 dans sa brochure l’Etat et la révolution en s’appuyant sur les écrits de Marx et d’Engels. Et ce n’est pas notre Etat, mais celui des capitalistes ; ceux-ci défendent le monopole de l’Etat sur la force armée afin de perpétuer leur domination de classe.

Désarmer le peuple

Toute l’histoire du contrôle des armes à feu, c’est l’histoire des efforts de la classe dirigeante pour désarmer la population, particulièrement dans les périodes de luttes sociales. Pour justifier l’interdiction des armes automatiques, on évoque habituellement des gangsters comme Al Capone, mais cette interdiction n’a jamais empêché les gangsters de se procurer des mitraillettes Thompson, tout comme la pègre d’aujourd’hui a ses Uzi. Plus au fait, l’interdiction des armes automatiques en 1934 fut décidée pendant la récession des années 1930, quand le spectre de la révolution ouvrière hantait Washington (de fait, il y eut cette année-là dans trois villes des grèves générales dont les dirigeants se réclamaient du communisme). La loi fédérale de 1968 sur le contrôle des armes à feu a coïncidé avec le point culminant des révoltes dans les ghettos noirs. Et les tentatives récurrentes pour interdire les armes de poing bon marché, les « calibres spéciaux du samedi soir », ne visent qu’à rendre les armes à feu plus chères, et donc moins facilement accessibles aux classes défavorisées.

* * *

En Europe et en Amérique, c’est la lutte contre des régimes tyranniques, absolutistes et réactionnaires qui a enfanté le principe révolutionnaire du « droit de détenir et de porter des armes ». L’un des premiers actes de la Révolution française fut de saisir les armes et les munitions dans les arsenaux. Et chacun des soulèvements révolutionnaires qui ont suivi s’est accompagné d’actions similaires. Le droit de porter des armes a été codifié par le Deuxième Amendement de la Constitution américaine. Ce à quoi on assiste aujourd’hui, c’est à une offensive contre-révolutionnaire menée par une classe dirigeante décadente contre ces garanties constitutionnelles.

L’histoire révolutionnaire du Deuxième Amendement

Les termes même du Deuxième Amendement (ratifié en 1791), montrent clairement qu’il ne s’agissait pas d’autoriser un sport ou un hobby, mais une milice populaire :

« Une milice bien organisée étant nécessaire à la sécurité d’un Etat libre, il ne pourra être porté atteinte au droit du peuple de détenir et de porter des armes. »

Ce droit constitutionnel ne vise pas la chasse ou le tir sportif ; les révolutionnaires des colonies américaines voulaient que le peuple tout entier soit armé, et ils avaient en tête les armes de guerre – l’équivalent contemporain serait quelque chose comme les AK-47 ; il s’agissait de pouvoir tuer des soldats britanniques et d’écarter la menace, sous quelque forme que ce soit, d’une armée permanente, que les révolutionnaires considéraient à juste titre comme un fléau contre la liberté et la base de la tyrannie. De fait, la Révolution américaine fut déclenchée par les tentatives de l’armée britannique, et en particulier du général Thomas Gage, de forcer les colons à rendre leurs armes. Comme l’explique un article récent de Stephen P. Halbrook :

« La Guerre révolutionnaire fut déclenchée quand des miliciens à l’exercice à Lexington refusèrent de rendre leurs armes. Le récit de la journée du 19 avril 1775, largement diffusé dans le camp américain, commence par cet ordre aboyé par un officier britannique :
« “Dispersez-vous, maudits rebelles – déposez vos armes et dispersez-vous.” »

– American Rifleman, mars 1989

Il y a une continuité entre la guerre civile anglaise, la Révolution américaine et la guerre civile américaine [guerre de Sécession]. La question de l’armée permanente et les tentatives du roi pour lever des impôts destinés à la financer malgré l’opposition du parlement et de la bourgeoisie montante furent des facteurs décisifs dans le déclenchement de la révolution bourgeoise anglaise. Oliver Cromwell décapita le roi en 1649, et la révolution donna naissance à des principes démocratiques qui furent codifiés plusieurs dizaines d’années plus tard dans le Bill of Rights [Déclaration des droits] anglais de 1689, à un moment où la révolution était déjà en phase de reflux, et après une nouvelle tentative de réaction absolutiste sous Jacques II. Comme garantie contre la menace catholique et royaliste, la Déclaration des droits anglaise affirmait « le bien-fondé de leurs anciens droits et libertés », parmi lesquels :

« 6. Que la levée ou le maintien sur pied d’une armée dans le royaume en temps de paix sans le consentement du parlement viole la loi ;
« 7. Que les sujets protestants peuvent posséder des armes appropriées à leur condition pour se défendre, comme la loi les y autorise. »

Ce principe fut réitéré dans les Commentaires sur les lois anglaises rédigés au XVIII^e siècle par Blackstone, et qui sont aujourd’hui encore considérés comme le point de vue bourgeois faisant autorité sur la « Common Law » anglaise [corpus de textes et de jurisprudence qui fondent le droit anglais]. Le Claim of Rights [Proclamation des droits] écossais de 1689 réaffirmait un point identique concernant le droit de porter des armes. Cette déclaration s’appuyait en Ecosse sur l’usage communément accepté de porter des armes. Elle reflétait entre autres le fait que l’on comprenait que ce qui avait souvent fait la différence entre l’indépendance ou l’invasion et la conquête par les Britanniques, c’était la capacité ou non de mobiliser rapidement une force composée de combattants équipés et expérimentés. De plus, la Réforme écossaise avait été confrontée à des tentatives d’imposer l’absolutisme catholique avec le soutien de la France.

Les révolutionnaires américains partirent de la tradition anglaise pour étendre ce droit, à la lumière de leur propre expérience dans la lutte contre la monarchie britannique, quand ils rédigèrent la Constitution en 1787. Lors des congrès organisés dans les différents Etats pour la ratifier, le mot « milice » était compris comme signifiant le peuple en armes, et non une milice « triée sur le volet » comme la Garde nationale actuelle (qui peut être placée sous contrôle du gouvernement fédéral et dont les armes sont entreposées dans des arsenaux contrôlés par le gouvernement). Le droit « de détenir et de porter des armes » était unanimement compris comme un droit individuel. Comme le résumait Patrick Henry, « toute l’affaire est que chaque homme soit armé ».

Comme dans toute société de classes, il y avait des exceptions importantes et catégoriques à ces droits « universels ». Le Deuxième Amendement présumait qu’il s’agissait du droit des protestants blancs anglophones à détenir des armes pour s’en servir contre les Indiens, les esclaves noirs, les envahisseurs espagnols, hollandais et français et, cela va sans dire, contre l’ex-puissance coloniale britannique qui continuait à menacer la jeune république. Aujourd’hui en Afrique du Sud, la population blanche est individuellement lourdement armée afin de préserver son statut privilégié face à la majorité noire. De même, pendant la Révolution anglaise, le droit de porter des armes était dirigé contre les catholiques, qui étaient considérés (souvent à juste titre) comme les représentants de la réaction. Mais ce droit, appliqué en Irlande, fut un instrument d’exploitation accompagnée d’une oppression terrible. Il y avait en Irlande après 1688 une série de mesures anticatholiques, parmi lesquelles l’interdiction pour les catholiques de servir dans l’armée ou de détenir des armes. A la fin du XVIII^e siècle, des milices armées furent levées en Irlande et en Grande-Bretagne. En Irlande, il s’agissait majoritairement de « volontaires » protestants favorables à la lutte pour des réformes. On vota alors une « Arms and Gunpowder Bill » [Loi sur les armes et la poudre] qui obligeait les volontaires à rendre leurs armes. L’aile radicale, inspirée par les révolutions américaine et française, et dirigée par Wolfe Tone, réclamait le suffrage universel et l’abrogation de toutes les lois anticatholiques. La Rébellion irlandaise de 1798 fut la révolution bourgeoise avortée de l’Irlande.

Malgré ces limites au concept de « droits universels », il émanait de la guerre d’Indépendance américaine un esprit démocratique qui eut un impact international ; dans le domaine militaire, cela se voyait dans l’armement en masse de civils qu’on jugeait capables, du fait de leurs convictions idéologiques, de combattre pour leur gouvernement dans le cadre d’unités de guérilla dotés d’une large autonomie. Comme le faisait remarquer Friedrich Engels, lui-même grand soldat (en tant qu’officier héroïque et compétent dans le camp révolutionnaire en 1848) :

« Les soldats des armées européennes, soudées par la contrainte et une discipline sévère, n’étaient pas fiables pour combattre en ordre dispersé, mais en Amérique ces soldats étaient confrontés à une population qui, ignorante de l’ordre serré des soldats de ligne, tirait juste et savait très bien se servir d’un fusil. La nature du terrain les favorisait ; au lieu d’essayer d’exécuter des manœuvres dont ils étaient au début incapables, ils se rabattaient inconsciemment sur une guerre d’escarmouches. C’est pourquoi l’engagement de Lexington et Concord a inauguré une nouvelle époque dans l’histoire de l’infanterie. »

– « Infanterie », article écrit pour The New American Cyclopaedia

L’abolition de l’esclavage par l’armement des esclaves

Mais ce qu’on appelait la démocratie américaine acceptait l’esclavage, inscrit dans la Constitution elle-même. On estimait en général que si les esclaves avaient des fusils, ce serait la fin de l’esclavage. On leur refusait donc ce droit par un artifice juridique, approuvé par la Cour suprême dans son tristement célèbre arrêt Dred Scott de 1857 : « le peuple » voulait seulement dire « les citoyens », et les esclaves noirs ne faisaient pas partie des « citoyens ». Le juge Taney, président de la Cour suprême, faisait remarquer avec horreur que si les Noirs étaient des citoyens, il leur serait reconnu une longue liste de droits, dont le droit « de détenir et de porter des armes partout où ils iraient ».

John Brown faisait partie dans les années 1850 de la petite avant-garde de ceux qui avaient compris que seule la force des armes mettrait fin à l’esclavage, et il devint un martyr prophétique en menant son célèbre coup de main contre l’arsenal fédéral de Harpers Ferry en 1859. Au même moment, Frederick Douglass, ex-esclave, militant abolitionniste et ami intime de Brown, défendait ouvertement le « droit à l’autodéfense » individuelle quand des esclaves en fuite étaient traqués par des hommes de main des esclavagistes, même si cela signifiait « abattre ses poursuivants », comme cela pouvait arriver. « L’esclavage est un système de force brutale », expliquait-il. « Il faut lui opposer ses propres armes. »

La guerre civile éclata et la bourgeoisie du Nord commença en 1862-1863 à désespérer de la possibilité d’écraser militairement la rébellion des esclavagistes contre l’Union. Cela conduisit Lincoln à publier la Proclamation d’émancipation et à accepter de créer des régiments noirs. Douglass se saisit alors de cette occasion historique. « Hommes de couleur, aux armes ! » fut le mot d’ordre avec lequel il fit campagne pour l’engagement de volontaires noirs dans des unités comme le célèbre 54^e régiment du Massachusetts. Et les Noirs ne combattirent pas seulement dans l’armée. Pendant les émeutes racistes contre la conscription qui éclatèrent à New York en 1863, un journal noir de l’époque raconte :

« Les hommes de couleur qui étaient dignes de ce nom s’armèrent et mirent en place des piquets, jour et nuit, déterminés à mourir en défendant leur foyer […]. La plupart des hommes de couleur de Brooklyn qui habitaient encore dans cette ville étaient armés quotidiennement pour leur autodéfense. »

– cité par James McPherson dans The Negro’s Civil War (1965)

Dans la période de la Reconstruction après la guerre civile, le conflit principal dans le Sud opposait les Noirs récemment émancipés qui voulaient exercer le pouvoir politique aux héritiers des gouvernements esclavagistes qui cherchaient à remettre les anciens esclaves « à leur place ». Ce conflit portait sur la possibilité ou non pour les Noirs de posséder des armes. Ceci explique les « codes noirs » réactionnaires qui furent adoptés dans différents Etats sudistes pour essayer d’interdire aux Noirs de posséder des armes à feu. Une loi de l’Etat de Floride de 1865, par exemple, interdisait à « tout Noir » de posséder « des armes à feu ou des munitions d’aucune sorte », sous peine de mise au pilori et de flagellation. Le « Bureau des affranchis » du gouvernement fédéral réagit en diffusant partout des proclamations affirmant notamment que « tous les hommes, sans distinction de couleur, ont le droit de détenir et de porter des armes pour défendre leur foyer, leur famille ou eux-mêmes ». Mais la question allait être décidée par la force militaire : dans les Etats, les milices blanches racistes avaient déjà entrepris, avec l’aide privée du Ku Klux Klan, de désarmer les Noirs, qui avaient pour seule défense leurs propres armes et/ou l’Armée d’occupation de l’Union. Ce qui se passait dans le Sud est bien décrit dans cette lettre citée pendant une séance du Congrès en 1871 :

« Le Ku Klux Klan ouvrit alors le feu sur eux à travers la fenêtre ; une des balles frappa une femme de couleur […] et la blessa gravement au genou. Les hommes de couleur ouvrirent alors le feu sur le Ku Klux Klan et tuèrent leur chef ou capitaine sur place, sur les marches de la maison des hommes de couleur […]. »

Comme dans de nombreux cas similaires, le meneur du Klan s’avéra être « un policier et shérif adjoint ».

En même temps qu’il votait toutes sortes de mesures qui protégeaient les Noirs sur le papier, dont le Quatorzième Amendement à la Constitution qui garantit à tous « l’égale protection des lois », le Congrès trahit la promesse de l’émancipation des Noirs avec le « Compromis de 1877 » qui prévoyait que les troupes de l’Union devaient se retirer du Sud. Parce qu’ils ne pouvaient pas défendre leurs droits par la force des armes, les Noirs se virent dénier tous leurs droits. Il fallut le long et sanglant combat du mouvement des droits civiques, 80 ans plus tard, pour rétablir certains des droits que les Noirs avaient conquis pendant la « Deuxième Révolution américaine » que fut la guerre civile.

Désarmer la population

Karl Marx avait exprimé au XIX^e siècle l’espoir que l’Amérique serait un des rares pays où les travailleurs pourraient prendre le pouvoir de manière plus ou moins pacifique, parce que la classe dirigeante n’avait pratiquement pas d’armée permanente mais se reposait sur les milices. Mais avant la fin du siècle, les Etats-Unis étaient entrés dans le club impérialiste et ils développaient rapidement une armée permanente. Et au fil des ans, les droits énoncés par le Deuxième Amendement, supposé inviolable, ont été de plus en plus limités par des couches successives de lois qui ont transformé la possession d’armes à feu et l’autodéfense armée en privilèges de classe.

L’exemple le plus flagrant est la loi Sullivan de l’Etat de New York, qui rend illégale la possession d’un pistolet pour se défendre si vous ne faites pas partie de la poignée de gens bien introduits qui peuvent obtenir de la police une autorisation de « port d’arme » – des gens comme le magnat de l’immobilier Donald Trump et le propriétaire du New York Times Arthur O. Sulzberger (« Les hommes d’affaires choisissent de porter une arme à feu », New York City Business, 11 mars 1985). Cette loi a été adoptée en 1911, après qu’un ex-veilleur de nuit municipal qui s’estimait victime d’un licenciement abusif eut tiré au revolver sur le maire Hizzoner. Celui-ci survécut, mais cet incident servit de prétexte à des citoyens « éminents » comme John D. Rockefeller junior (celui qui était responsable du massacre de Ludlow) pour lancer une campagne pour le contrôle des armes à feu. Avec le New York Times en première ligne.

* * *

Le tournant : 1848

L’appel à une milice populaire fut adopté par le mouvement prolétarien naissant tandis que la bourgeoisie abandonnait son propre mot d’ordre que « chaque homme soit armé ». Comme l’expliquait Friedrich Engels, les revendications des ouvriers pour l’égalité sociale constituaient « un danger pour l’ordre social établi » :

« Les ouvriers, qui la posaient, étaient encore armés ; pour les bourgeois qui se trouvaient au pouvoir, le désarmement des ouvriers était donc le premier devoir. Aussi après chaque révolution, acquise au prix du sang des ouvriers, éclate une nouvelle lutte, qui se termine par la défaite de ceux-ci. C’est en 1848 que cela arriva pour la première fois. »

– Introduction de 1891 à la Guerre civile en France de Marx

Avec l’entrée en scène du prolétariat en tant qu’acteur indépendant, « le peuple en armes » est devenu une idée archaïque car la population se polarisait selon la classe sociale. 1848 marqua le début du monde moderne qui est encore le nôtre, et la lutte de classe entre la bourgeoisie et le prolétariat est aujourd’hui encore une question non résolue historiquement.

La défaite des révolutions de 1848 en Europe fut suivie d’un bain de sang qui, écrivait Engels, montrait la « folle cruauté » dont la bourgeoisie était capable. « Et pourtant 1848 ne fut encore qu’un jeu d’enfant comparé à la rage de la bourgeoisie de 1871 », quand les ouvriers parisiens se soulevèrent et formèrent la Commune. La Commune prit une décision cruciale le 30 mars 1871 : elle « supprima la conscription et l’armée permanente et proclama la garde nationale, dont tous les citoyens valides devaient faire partie, comme la seule force armée ». A la chute de la Commune, en mai 1871, les troupes du gouvernement français, derrière lesquelles se tenaient les forces encore plus considérables de l’armée prussienne, procédèrent au désarmement de la classe ouvrière, suivi du massacre de 30 000 hommes, femmes et enfants sans défense.

La législation contre la possession des armes et pour le contrôle des armes à feu est étroitement corrélée à la situation sociale. Outre les événements majeurs que furent 1848 et 1871, toute l’histoire de la France depuis 1789 montre comment la classe dirigeante a utilisé le contrôle des armes à feu en fonction des menaces qui pesaient selon elle sur sa domination. Après la restauration de la monarchie en 1816, Louis XVIII chercha à désarmer la population en ordonnant que toutes les armes fussent remises aux autorités. Louis-Philippe en 1834 et Napoléon III en 1858 promulguèrent des lois restreignant l’accès aux armes. Un décret-loi du gouvernement Daladier de 1939 constitue aujourd’hui encore la base de toutes les lois françaises sur le contrôle des armes à feu, et des restrictions supplémentaires furent imposées en 1958, 1960 et 1961, pendant la crise qu’avait provoquée la guerre pour l’indépendance de l’Algérie. Cependant, le souvenir de l’insurrection armée des communards reste vivant dans la classe ouvrière française. Et la Résistance pendant la Deuxième Guerre mondiale, malgré le nationalisme et la collaboration de classes du Parti communiste, n’a pas exactement laissé un héritage pacifiste et anti-armes à feu.

* * *

La Révolution bolchévique

La Révolution bolchévique a été faite par une classe ouvrière armée, conformément à ce que réclamait Lénine :

« En suivant la voie indiquée par l’expérience de la Commune de Paris de 1871 et de la révolution russe de 1905, le prolétariat doit organiser et armer tous les éléments pauvres et exploités de la population, afin qu’eux-mêmes prennent directement en main les organes du pouvoir d’Etat et forment eux-mêmes les institutions de ce pouvoir. »

– « Lettres de loin, Lettre 3, De la milice prolétarienne » (mars 1917)

Les milices ouvrières des Gardes rouges soviétiques combattirent dans les premières batailles de la guerre civile qui s’ensuivit. Comme toutes les milices, les Gardes rouges ne furent pas très efficaces au début, mais dans une guerre la force se mesure toujours relativement à celle de l’ennemi, et chez les blancs le moral était bas. Des miliciens peuvent devenir des combattants professionnels s’ils survivent assez longtemps pour acquérir de l’expérience. Comme l’expliquait en décembre 1921 Léon Trotsky, fondateur de l’Armée rouge, « dans les premiers temps ce sont eux [les blancs] qui nous ont appris à manœuvrer ». Et les soviets eurent finalement le dessus face aux forces combinées de 14 corps expéditionnaires impérialistes et alliés et des Gardes blancs tsaristes.

Les bolchéviks étaient favorables à une milice socialiste « en liaison avec l’abolition des classes », mais ils furent contraints par la lutte contre la contre-révolution de construire une armée permanente. Dans sa préface au cinquième tome de ses écrits militaires (Comment s’arma la révolution, 1921-1923), Trotsky expliquait que le problème était à la source la pauvreté et l’arriération de la Russie, qui faisait que « les casernes rouges constituent un environnement culturel incomparablement plus élevé que celui auquel le soldat de l’Armée rouge est habitué chez lui ». Mais quand Staline, à la tête d’une bureaucratie conservatrice, usurpa le pouvoir politique, il plaça l’armée permanente sur un piédestal, allant jusqu’à singer les grades et les privilèges des armées capitalistes, ce que dénonça Trotsky :

« Mais aucune armée ne peut être plus démocratique que le régime qui la nourrit. Le bureaucratisme, avec sa routine et sa suffisance, ne dérive pas des besoins spéciaux de l’organisation militaire, mais des besoins politiques des dirigeants. »

– la Révolution trahie (1936)

Après avoir restauré la caste des officiers 18 ans après son abolition par la révolution, Staline décapita ensuite l’Armée rouge à la veille de l’invasion hitlérienne.

Alors que planait le spectre d’une nouvelle guerre mondiale, la Quatrième Internationale de Trotsky insistait dans son Programme de transition de 1938 que « le seul désarmement qui puisse prévenir ou arrêter la guerre, c’est le désarmement de la bourgeoisie par les ouvriers. Mais, pour désarmer la bourgeoisie, il faut que les ouvriers eux-mêmes soient armés. » Dans son programme de lutte révolutionnaire contre l’impérialisme et contre la guerre figurait la « substitution à l’armée permanente, c’est-à-dire de caserne, d’une milice populaire en liaison indissoluble avec les usines, les mines, les fermes, etc. » Sa revendication d’une instruction militaire et de l’armement des ouvriers et des paysans sous le contrôle immédiat des comités ouvriers et paysans était accompagnée de l’exigence d’une « indépendance complète des organisations ouvrières à l’égard du contrôle militaire et policier ».

Avoir des fusils n’est pas un talisman magique, mais une population désarmée sera impitoyablement massacrée par cette classe dirigeante cruelle dont l’Etat est armé jusqu’aux dents. Car comme le résumait Karl Marx dans le Capital (1867), « la force est l’accoucheuse de toute vieille société en travail ».

Pardon Private Bradley Manning Stand-Out-Central Square, Cambridge, Wednesdays, 5:00 PM -Update –April 12, 2013

Let’s Redouble Our Efforts To Free Private Bradley Manning-President Obama Pardon Bradley Manning -Make Every Town Square In America (And The World) A Bradley Manning Square From Boston To Berkeley to Berlin-Join Us In Central Square, Cambridge, Ma. For A Stand-Out For Bradley- Wednesdays From 5:00-6:00 PM
********
Plan to come to Fort Meade outside of Washington, D.C. on June 1^st for an international day of solidarity with Bradley before his scheduled June 3^rd trial. If you can’t make it to Fort Meade plan a solidarity event locally in support of this brave whistle-blower.
**********
Stop The Media Blackout of The Bradley Manning Trial

Despite the unprecedented and historic nature of Army whistleblower Bradley Manning’s trial, journalists have thus far been banned from recording the proceedings. Because Americans more commonly get their news through television than from any other media source, this presents a major barrier to the American public staying informed on a trial that will profoundly affect the future of our country.

It’s outrageous that the American public is being denied the right to view the trial of U.S. vs. Bradley Manning. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel was appointed by President Obama to ensure civilian oversight of the U.S. military.

Go To the Bradley Manning Support Network http://www.bradleymanning.org/ and sign the petition to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel demanding that he ensure journalists can record Bradley Manning’s court martial proceedings! When you sign the petition the network e-mail system will send a message on your behalf to the office of Secretary of Defense.

********
Beginning in September 2011, in order to publicize Private Manning’s case locally, there have been weekly stand-outs (as well as other more ad hoc and sporadic events) in various locations in the Greater Boston area starting in Somerville across from the Davis Square Redline MBTA stop on Friday afternoons and later on Wednesdays. Lately this stand-out has been held each week on Wednesdays from 5:00 to 6:00 PM at Central Square, Cambridge, Ma. (small park at the corner of Massachusetts Avenue and Prospect Street just outside the Redline MBTA stop, renamed Manning Square for the duration of the stand-out) in order to continue to broaden our outreach. Join us there in calling for Private Manning’s freedom. President Obama Pardon Private Manning Now!
********
Those who have followed the heroic Wikileaks whistle-blower Private Bradley Manning’s case over the past year or so, since about April 2012 when the pre-trial hearings began in earnest, know that last November the defendant offered to plead guilty to a few lesser included charges in his indictment, basically taking legal and political responsibility for the leaks to WikiLeaks that had been the subject of some of the government’s allegations against him. Without getting into the arcane legal maneuvering on this issue the idea was to cut across the government’s pretty solid case against him being the leaker of information and to have the now scheduled for June trial be focused on the substantive question of whether his actions constituted “material aid to terrorism” and “aiding the enemy” which could subject Private Manning to life in prison. We noted then that we needed to stay with Bradley on this and make sure people know that what he admitted to was that he disclosed information about American military atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan and other diplomatic high crimes and misdemeanors and only that. We also noted that he was, and is, frankly, in trouble, big trouble, and needs our support more than ever. Especially in light of the following:

After enduring nearly three years of detention, at times under torturous conditions, on February 28, 2013 Bradley Manning confessed that he had provided WikiLeakswith a trove of military and diplomatic documents that exposed U.S. imperialist schemes and wartime atrocities. Private Manning’s guilty plea on ten of 22 counts against him could land him in prison for 20 years. A day after Bradley confessed, military prosecutors announced plans to try him on the remaining counts, including “aiding the enemy” and violating the Espionage Act. Trial is expected to begin in early June, now scheduled for June 3^rd.

In exposing the secrecy and lies with which the American government cover their depredations, Bradley Manning performed a great service to workers and oppressed around the world. All who oppose the imperialist barbarity and machinations revealed in the material he provided must join in demanding his immediate freedom. Also crucially important is the defense of Julian Assange against the vendetta by the U.S., Britain and their cohorts, who are attempting to railroad him to prison by one means or another for his role in running WikiLeaks.

In a 35-page statement he read to the military court after entering his plea (written summary available at the Bradley Manning Support Network and an audio transcript as well), Manning told of his journey from nearly being rejected in basic training to becoming an army intelligence analyst. In that capacity he came across mountains of evidence of U.S. duplicity and war crimes. The materials he provided to WikiLeaks included military logs documenting 120,000 civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan and a formal military policy of covering up torture, rape and murder. A quarter-million diplomatic cables address all manner of lethal operations within U.S. client states, from the “drug war” in Mexico to drone strikes in Yemen. He also released files containing assessments of detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. These documents show that the government continued to hold many who, Manning stated, were believed or known to be innocent, as well as “low level foot soldiers that did not have useful intelligence.”

The Pentagon and the Obama Administration declared war against WikiLeaksfollowing the release of a video, now entitled Collateral Murder and widely available, conveyed by Manning, of a 2007 U.S. Apache helicopter airstrike in Iraq that killed at least 12 people, including two Reuters journalists. American forces are then shown firing on a van that pulled up to help the victims. Manning said he was most alarmed by the“bloodlust they appeared to have.” He described how instead of calling for medical attention for a seriously wounded individual trying to crawl to safety, an aerial crew team member “asks for the wounded person to pick up a weapon so that he can have a reason to engage.”

By January 2010, Manning said, he“began to become depressed with the situation that we found ourselves increasingly mired in year after year” and decided to make public many of the documents he had backed up as part of his work as an analyst. Manning first offered the materials to the Washington Post and the New York Times. Not getting anywhere with these pillars of the press establishment, the latter apparently not considering war crimes of its government, as opposed to all manner of foreign state activities, news fit to print in February 2010 he made his first submission to WikiLeaks. He attached a note advising that “this is possibly one of the more significant documents of our time removing the fog of war and revealing the true nature of twenty-first century asymmetric warfare. Have a good day.”

The charge of “aiding the enemy”—i.e., Al Qaeda—is especially ominous. This used to mean things like military sabotage and handing over information on troop movements to a battlefield enemy. In Manning’s case, the prosecution claims that the very act of publicizing U.S. military and diplomatic activities, some of which took place years before, amounted to “indirect” communication with Al Qaeda. Manning told the court that he believed that public access to the information “could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general.” He hoped that this “might cause society to reevaluate the need or even the desire to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the people living in the affected environment every day.” But by the lights of the imperialists’ war on terror, any exposure of their depredations can be construed as support to the “terrorist”enemy, whoever that might be.

The Pentagon intends to call no fewer than 141 witnesses in its show trial, including four people to testify anonymously. One of them, designated as “John Doe,” is believed to be a Navy SEAL who participated in the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. “Doe” is alleged to have grabbed three disks from bin Laden’s Abbottabad, Pakistan, compound on which was stored four files’ worth of the WikiLeaksmaterial provided by Manning.

Nor do charges under the Espionage Act have to have anything to do with actual spying. The law was one of an array of measures adopted to criminalize antiwar activity after U.S. imperialism’s entry into the First World War. It mandated imprisonment for any act deemed to interfere with the recruitment of troops. Among its first and most prominent victims was Socialist Party spokesman Eugene V. Debs, who was jailed for a June 1918 speech at a workers’ rally in Canton, Ohio, where he denounced the war as capitalist slaughter and paid tribute to the leaders of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. Dozens of Industrial Workers of the World organizers were also thrown into prison.

In the early 1970s, the Nixon government tried, unsuccessfully, to use this law to go after Daniel Ellsberg, whose release of the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times shed light on the history of U.S. imperialism’s losing war against the Vietnamese workers and peasants. Obama has happily picked up Nixon’s mantle. Manning’s prosecution will be the sixth time the Obama administration has used the Espionage Act against the source of an unauthorized leak of classified information—more than the combined total under all prior administrations since the law’s enactment in 1917.
*******
The Private Bradley Manning case is headed toward an early summer trial now scheduled for June 2013. The news on his case over the past several months has centered on the many pre-trial motion hearings including recent defense motions to dismiss for lack of speedy trial. Private Manning’s pre-trial confinement is now at over 1000 days and will be over well over 1000 days by the time of trial. That dismissal motion has now been ruled on by Military Judge Lind. On February 26, 2013 she denied the defense’s motion for dismissal, the last serious chance for Bradley Manning to go free before the scheduled June trial. She ruled furthermore that the various delays by the government were inherent in the nature of this case and that the military authorities, except in one short instance, had been diligent in their efforts to move the proceedings along. For those of us with military experience this is a classic, if perverse, case of that old army slogan-“Hurry up, and wait.” This is definitely tough news for Private Manning although perhaps a good appeal point in some future civilian court review.

The defense had contended that the charges should be dismissed because the military by its own statutes (to speak nothing of that funny old constitutional right to a speedy trial guarantee that our plebeian forbears fought tooth and nail for against the bloody British and later made damn sure was included in the Amendments when the founding fathers“forgot” to include it in the main document) should have arraigned Private Manning within 120 days after his arrest. They hemmed and hawed for almost 600 days before deciding on the charges and a court martial. Nobody in the convening authority, as required by those same statutes, pushed the prosecution forward in a timely manner. In fact the court-martial convening authority, in the person of one Colonel Coffman, seemed to have seen his role as mere “yes man” to each of the government’s eight requests for delays without explanation (and without informing the defense in order to take their objection). Apparently the Colonel saw his role as a mere clearing agent for whatever excuse the government gave, mainly endless addition time for clearing various classified documents a process that need not have held up the proceedings. The defense made timely objection to each governmental request to no avail.

Testimony from military authorities at pre-trial hearings in November 2012 about the reasons for the lack of action ranged from the lame to the absurd (mainly negative responses to knowledge about why some additional delays were necessary. One “reason” sticks out as a reason for excusable delay -some officer needed to get his son to a swimming meet and was thus “unavailable” for a couple of days. I didn’t make this up. I don’t have that sense of the absurd. Jesus, a man was rotting in Obama’s jails and they let him rot because of some damn swim meet). The prosecution, obviously, argued that the government has moved might and main to move the case along and had merely waited until all leaked materials had been determined before proceeding. The judge saw it the government’s way and ruled according as noted above.
*******
The defense has also recently pursued a motion for a dismissal of the major charges (espionage/ indirect material aid to terrorists) on the basis of the minimal effect of any leaks on national security issues as against Private Manning’s claim that such knowledge was important to the public square (freedom of information issues important for us as well in order to know about what the hell the government is doing either in front of us, or behind our backs). Last summer witnesses from an alphabet soup list of government agencies (CIA, FBI, NSA, Military Intelligence, etc., etc.) testified that while the information leaked shouldn’t have been leaked that the effect on national security was de minimus. The Secretary of Defense at the time, Leon Panetta, also made a public statement to that effect. The prosecution argued, successfully at the time, that the mere fact of the leak of classified information caused irreparable harm to national security issues and Private Manning’s intent, even if noble, was not at issue.

The recent thrust of the motion to dismiss has centered on the defense’s contention that Private Manning consciously and carefully screened any material in his possession to avoid any conflict with national security and that most of the released material had been over-classified (received higher security level than necessary). Much of the materials leaked, as per those parts published widely in the aftermath of the disclosures by the New York Times and other major outlets, concerned reports of atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan and diplomatic interchanges that reflected poorly on that profession. The Obama government has argued again that the mere fact of leaking was all that mattered. That motion has also not been fully ruled on and is now the subject of prosecution counter- motions and has been a cause for further trial delay.
********
A defense motion for dismissal based on serious allegations of torturous behavior by the military authorities extending far up the chain of command (a three-star Army general, not the normal concern of someone so far up the chain in the matter of discipline for enlisted personal) while Private Manning was first detained in Kuwait and later at the Quantico Marine brig for about a year ending in April 2011 has now been ruled on. In late November and early December Private Manning himself, as well as others including senior military mental health workers, took the stand to detail those abuses over several days. Most important to the defense was the testimony by qualified military mental health professionals citing the constant willful failure of those who held Private Manning in close confinement to listen to, or act, on their recommendations during those periods

Judge Lind, the military judge who has heard all the pre-trial arguments in the case thus far, has essentially ruled unfavorably on that motion to dismiss given the potential life sentence Private Manning faces. As she announced at an early January pre-trial hearing the military acted illegally in some of its actions. While every Bradley Manning supporter should be heartened by the fact that the military judge ruled that he was subject to illegal behavior by the military during his pre-trial confinement her remedy, a 112 days reduction in any future sentence, is a mere slap on the wrist to the military authorities. No dismissal or, alternatively, no appropriate reduction (the asked for ten to one ratio for all his first year or so of illegal close confinement which would take years off any potential sentence) given the seriousness of the illegal behavior as the defense tirelessly argued for. And the result is a heavy-handed deterrent to any future military whistleblowers, who already are under enormous pressures to remain silent as a matter of course while in uniform, and others who seek to put the hard facts of future American military atrocities before the public.
*******
There has been increased media attention by mainstream outlets around the case (including the previously knowingly oblivious New York Times), as well as an important statement in November 2012 by three Nobel Peace Laureates (including Bishop Tutu from South Africa) calling on their fellow laureate, United States President Barack Obama, to free Private Manning from his jails. (Available on the Support Bradley Manning Network website.)
************
On February 23, 2013, the 1000th day of Private Bradley Manning’s pre-trial confinement, an international day of solidarity was observed with over seventy stand-outs and other demonstration held in America and internationally. Bradley Manning and his courageous stand have not been forgotten. Go to the Bradley Manning Support Network for more details about the events of that day. Another international day of solidarity is scheduled for June 1, 2013 at Fort Meade, Maryland and elsewhere just before the scheduled start of his trial on June 3rd. Check the support network for updates on that event as well.
********

6 Ways To Support Heroic Wikileaks Whistle-blower Private Bradley Manning

*Urgent: The government has announced, in the wake of Bradley Manning’s admission of his part in the Wikileaks expose in open court on February 28th, its intention to continue to prosecute him for the major charges of “aiding the enemy” (Espionage Act) and “material aid to terrorism.” Everyone should contact the presiding officer of the court –martial process, General Linnington, at 1-202-685-2807 and tell him to drop those charges. Once Maj. Gen. Linnington’s voicemail box is full – you can also leave a message at the DOD: (703) 571-3343 – press “5″ to leave a comment.*If this mailbox is also full, leave the Department of Defense a written message. Do it today.

*Urgent: The military authorities at Fort Meade, the site of Bradley Manning’s impending June 3^rd court-martial are attempting to limit media coverage of the trial.Go to the Bradley Manning Support Network http://www.bradleymanning.org/and sign the petition to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel demanding that he ensure journalists can record Bradley Manning’s court martial proceedings! When you sign the petition the network e-mail system will send a message on your behalf to the office of Secretary of Defense.

*Come to our stand-out in support of Private Bradley Manning in Central Square, Cambridge, Ma (corner of Massachusetts Avenue and Prospect Street near MBTA Redline station) every Wednesday between 5-6 PM. For other locations in Greater Boston, nationally, and internationally check the Bradley Manning Support Network -http://www.bradleymanning.org/ and for details of the current status of the case and future event updates as well. Also plan to come to Fort Meade outside of Washington, D.C. on June 1^st for an international day of solidarity with Bradley before his scheduled June 3^rd trial. If you can’t make it to Fort Meade plan a solidarity event locally in support of this brave whistle-blower.

*Contribute to the Bradley Manning Defense Fund- as the trial date approaches funds are urgently needed! The government has unlimited financial and personnel resources to prosecute Bradley. And the Obama government is fully using them. We have a fine defense civilian lawyer, David Coombs, many supporters throughout America and the world working hard for Bradley’s freedom, and the truth on our side. Still the hard reality of the American legal system, civilian or military, is that an adequate defense cost serious money. So help out with whatever you can spare. For link go to http://www.bradleymanning.org/

*Sign the online petition at the Bradley Manning Support Network (for link go to http://www.bradleymanning.org/ )to the Secretary of the Army to free Bradley Manning-1000 plus days is enough! The Secretary of the Army stands in the direct chain of command up to the President and can release Private Manning from pre-trial confinement and drop the charges against him at his discretion. For basically any reason that he wishes to-let us say 1000 plus days is enough. Join the over 25,000 supporters in the United States and throughout the world clamoring for Bradley’s well-deserved freedom.

*Call (Comments”202-456-1111), write The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500, e-mail-(http://www.whitehouse.gov’contact/submitquestions-and comments) the White House to demand President Obama pardon Bradley Manning- The presidential power to pardon is granted under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution:

“The President…shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in case of impeachment.”

In federal cases, and military cases are federal cases, the President of the United States can, under authority granted by the U.S. Constitution as stated above, pardon the guilty and the innocent, the convicted and those awaiting trial- former President Nixon and former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, for example among others, received such pardons for their heinous crimes- Now that Bradley Manning has pleaded guilty to some lesser charges and is subject to further prison time (up to 20 years) this pardon campaign is more necessary than ever. Free Bradley Manning! Free the whistleblower!

Stop the media blackout on Bradley Manning’s trial!

digg

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel

Despite the unprecedented and historic nature of Army whistleblower Bradley Manning’s trial, journalists have thus far been banned from recording the proceedings. Because Americans more commonly get their news through television than from any other media source, this presents a major barrier to the American public staying informed on a trial that will profoundly affect the future of our country.

It’s outrageous that the American public is being denied the right to view the trial of U.S. vs. Bradley Manning. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel was appointed by President Obama to ensure civilian oversight of the U.S. military.

Sign our petition demanding that he ensure journalists can record Bradley Manning’s court martial proceedings! When you sign our petition, our e-mail system will send a message on your behalf to the office of Secretary of Defense.

Petition to allow journalists to record Bradley Manning's trial

Read the petition

First Name *

Last Name *

Email *

A message for Sec. of Defense Chuck Hagel:

According to the PEW research institute, Americans get most of their news on television. United States vs. Bradley Manning is one of the most important trials in America today, and covers such fundamental issues as the American public’s right to know what government officials do in our name with our resources, and whether our military is following international human rights law. The judge has determined that most of the proceedings are safe for the public to attend, and so it’s outrageous that journalists are not being allowed to record this historic trial in order that Americans everywhere can stay informed of what happens in the courtroom. As the Presidentially appointed office responsible for civilian oversight of the U.S. military, the Secretary of Defense should take responsibility for ensuring that these proceedings are accorded as high level of public accessibility as befits the historic and unprecedented nature of the proceedings themselves. We therefore call upon Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to act immediately to ensure journalists may use electronic recording in the press room.

[signature]

Please send me weekly 1-pg news on Bradley Manning and the campaign

Sign Now

Share this with your friends:

MORE INFORMATION

It’s a fundamental American principle that the legitimacy of our court system is bolstered through public and media access. This is not unlike how the legitimacy of our government itself relies on remaining accountable first and foremost to the American people who elect its leaders.

President Obama has been a proponent of transparency as fundamental to governmental legitimacy. On May 19, 2011 he said, “In the 21st Century, information is power; the truth cannot be hidden; and the legitimacy of governments will ultimately depend on active and informed citizens.”

As New York Times reporter David Carr wrote last month, the proceedings of US vs. Bradley Manning have been shrouded in a “veil of secrecy.” Neither court documents nor transcripts are being made publicly available until weeks after they are filed, if ever. The first step to improving the fairness and legitimacy of Bradley Manning’s trial would be to allow digital recordings by which journalists, scholars and the public can analyze and evaluate these unprecedented proceedings.

The Bradley Manning Support Network has worked to document the many injustices in the prosecution of three-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee Bradley Manning, including his unlawful pretrial punishment, denial of speedy trial, and the ridiculous charge of “aiding the enemy,” despite any evidence that Bradley’s actions damaged U.S. national security. While we continue advocating for whistleblower Bradley Manning’s rights in all areas, we believe that ensuring full media access to the trial will help immensely in promoting interest in the case among the general American public.

6th Annual New England Socialism Conference with Kshama Sawant

In the face of attacks on social programs, unions and the destruction of the environment, the 99% around the country are gearing up to turn back the tide. Coast to coast, local struggles have and will continue to break out around these assaults on the lives of workers and youth. Now more than ever there exist opportunities for socialists and others on the left to mount political campaigns to challenge the two parties of big business and give a voice to the struggles of the 99%! Come out to the 2013 New En...gland Socialist Conference and discuss how to organize against the system of the 1% in the streets and in the political arena! Featuring the launch of the Seamus Whelan for Boston City Council At-Large campaign. See www.votewhelan.org for more details. Seamus has been endorsed by both Socialist Alternative and the Green-Rainbow Party This is the Boston stop for the Kshama Sawant speaking tour! Kshama received over 20,000 votes as an open socialist running for the Washington State House of Representatives in 2012. Schedule of events: 10am to 10:30am - Registration, Bagels, Coffee, Welcoming 10:30am to 12:15pm - Struggles Against the System of the 1% 12:15pm to 1:15pm - Lunch 1:15pm to 2:30pm - Workshops Defeating the Pipeline: a Green Socialist Solution for the Environment Immigration and the Class Struggle South Africa Rises: Socialism and Internationalism Turning Back the Attack on Labor 2:30 to 4pm-Challenging the Two Parties of Big Business with Kshama Sawant and Seamus Whelan Kshama Sawant, ran as Socialist Alternative candidate for Washington State House, gathering 20,000 votes against her Democratic challenger and State House Speaker Frank Chopp, currently running for Seattle City Council Seamus Whelan, Socialist Alternative member and Massachusetts Nurses Activist currently running an insurgent campaign for Boston workers and youth as a candidate for Boston City Council At-Large. Seamus recently received the endorsement of the Green-Rainbow Party See More

Community Church of Boston

565 Boylston St, Boston, Massachusetts 02116-3601

View Map · Get Directions

***From The May Day 2012 Organizing Archives –May Day 2013 Needs The Same Efforts

Boston's International Workers Day 2013


BMDC International Workers Day Rally
Wednesday, May 1, 2013 at Boston City Hall
Gather at 2PM - Rally at 2:30PM
(Court St. & Cambridge St.)
T stops Government Center (Blue line, Green line)

To download flyer click here. (Please print double-sided)

Other May Day events:

Revere - @ City Hall - gather at 3:pmbegin marching at 3:30 (to Chelsea)
Everett - @ City Hall - gather at 3:pm begin marching at 3:30 (to Chelsea)
Chelsea - @ City Hall - rally a 3:pm (wait for above feeder marches to arrive) will begin marching at 4:30 (to East Boston)
East Boston - @ Central Square - (welcome marchers) Rally at 5:pm

BMDC will join the rally in East Boston immediately following Boston City Hall rally

Supporters: ANSWER Coalition, Boston Anti Authoritarian Movement, Boston Rosa Parks Human Rights Day Committee, Greater Boston Stop the Wars Coalition, Harvard No-Layoffs Campaign, Industrial Workers of the World, Latinos for Social Change, Mass Global Action, Sacco & Vanzetti Commemoration Society, Socialist Alternative, Socialist Party of Boston, Socialist Workers Party, Student Labor Action Movement, USW Local 8751 - Boston School Bus Drivers Union, Worcester Immigrant Coalition, National Immigrant Solidarity Network, Democracy Center - Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridge/Somerville/Arlington United for Justice with Peace, International Socialist Organization, Community Church of Boston

********

All Out May Day 2012: A Day Of International Working Class Solidarity Actions- General Strike Occupy Boston (GSOB)

In late December 2011 the General Assembly (GA) of Occupy Los Angeles, in the aftermath of the stirring and successful November 2nd Oakland General Strike and December 12th West Coast Port Shutdown, issued a call for a national and international general strike centered on immigrant rights, environmental sustainability, a moratorium on foreclosures, an end to the wars, and jobs for all. These and other political issues such as transparency and horizontal democracy that have become associated with the Occupy movement are to be featured in the actions set for May Day 2012.

May Day is the historic international working class holiday that has been celebrated each year in many parts of the world since the time of the Haymarket Martyrs in Chicago in 1886 and the struggle for the eight-hour work day. More recently it has been a time for the hard-pressed immigrant communities here in America to join together in the fight against deportations and other discriminatory aspects of governmental immigration policy.

Some political activists here in Boston, mainly connected with Occupy Boston (OB), decided just after the new year to support that general strike call and formed the General Strike Occupy Boston working group (GSOB). GSOB has met, more or less weekly, since then to plan local May Day actions. The first step in that process was to bring a resolution incorporating the Occupy Los Angeles issues before the GA of Occupy Boston for approval. That resolution was approved by GA OB on January 7, 2012.

********
OB Endorses Call for General Strike

January 8th, 2012• mhacker •

Passed Resolutions No comments The following proposal was passed by the General Assembly on Jan 7, 2012:

Occupy Boston supports the call for an international General Strike on May 1, 2012, for immigrant rights, environmental sustainability, a moratorium on foreclosures, an end to the wars, and jobs for all. We recognize housing, education, health care, LGBT rights and racial equality as human rights; and thus call for the building of a broad coalition that will ensure and promote a democratic standard of living for all peoples.

********
Early discussions within GSOB centered on drawing the lessons of the West Coast actions last fall. Above all what is and what isn’t a general strike. Traditionally a general strike, as witness the recent actions in Greece and other countries, is called by workers’ organizations and/or parties for a specified period of time in order to shut down substantial parts of the capitalist economy over some set of immediate demands. A close analysis of the West Coast actions showed a slightly different model: one based on community pickets of specified industrial targets, downtown mass street actions, and scattered individual and collective acts of solidarity like student support strikes and sick-outs. Additionally, small businesses and other allies were asked to close and did close in solidarity.

That latter model seemed more appropriate to the tasks at hand in Boston given its sparse recent militant labor history and that it is a regional financial, technological and educational hub rather than an industrial center. Thus successful actions in Boston on May Day 2012 will not necessarily exactly follow the long established radical and labor traditions of the West Coast. GSOB discussions have since then reflected that understanding. The focus will be on actions and activities that respond to and reflect the Boston political situation as attempts are made to create, re-create really, an on-going May Day tradition beyond the observance of the day by labor radicals and the immigrant communities.

Over the past several years, starting with the nation-wide actions in 2006, the Latin and other immigrant communities in and around Boston have been celebrating May Day as a day of action on the very pressing problem of immigration status as well as the traditional working-class solidarity holiday. It was no accident that Los Angeles, scene of massive immigration rallies in the past and currently one of the areas facing the brunt of the deportation drives by the Obama administration, would be in the lead to call for national and international actions this year. One of the first steps GSOB took was to try to reach out to the already existing Boston May Day Coalition (BMDC), which has spearheaded the annual marches and rallies in the immigrant communities, in order to learn of their experiences and to coordinate actions. After making such efforts GSOB has joined forces with BMDC in order to coordinate the over-all May Day actions.

Taking a cue from the developing Occupy May Day movement, especially the broader and more inclusive messages coming out of Occupy Wall Street, GSOB has centered its slogans on the theme of “Occupy May First - A Day Without the 99%” in order to highlight the fact that in the capitalist system labor, of one kind or another, has created all the wealth but has not shared in the accumulated profits. Highlighting the increasing economic gap, the endemic political voiceless-ness, and social issues related to race, class, sexual inequality, gender and the myriad other oppressions the vast majority face under capitalism is in keeping with the efforts initiated by Occupy Boston last fall.

On May Day GSOB is calling on working people and their allies to strike, skip work, walk out of school, and refrain from shopping, banking and business in order to implement that general slogan. Working people are encouraged to request the day off, or to call in sick. Small businesses are encouraged to close for the day and join the rest of the 99% in the streets.

For students at all levels GSOB is calling for a walk-out of classes. Further GSOB urges college students to occupy the universities. With a huge student population of over 250,000 in the Boston area no-one-size-fits- all strategy seems appropriate. Each kindergarten, elementary school, middle school, high school, college, graduate school and wayward think tank should plan its own strike actions and, at some point in the day, GSOB suggest, all meet at a central location in downtown Boston.

In the early hours on May 1st working people, students, oppressed minorities and their supporters will converge on the Boston Financial District for a day of direct action to demand an end to corporate rule and a shift of power to the people. The Financial District Block Party will start at 7:00 AM on the corner of Federal Street & Franklin Street in downtown Boston. Banks and corporations are strongly encouraged to close down for the day.

At noon there will be a permit-approved May Day rally at Boston City Hall Plaza jointly sponsored by BMDC and GSOB. Following the rally participants are encouraged to head to East Boston for solidarity marches centered on the immigrant communities that will start at approximately 2:00 PM and move from East Boston, Chelsea, and Revere to Everett for a rally at 4:00 PM. Other activities that afternoon for those who chose not to go to East Boston will be scheduled in and around the downtown area.

That evening, for those who cannot for whatever reasons participate in the daytime actions and any others, there will be a “Funeral March” for the banks forming at 7:00 PM at Copley Square that steps off at 8:00 PM and will march throughout the downtown area.

The GSOB is urging the following slogans for May 1^st- No work. No school. No chores. No shopping. No banking. Let’s show the rulers that we have the power. Let’s show the world what a day without working people and their allies really means. And let’s return to the old traditions of May Day as a day of international solidarity with our working and oppressed sisters and brothers around the world. GSOB says -All Out For May Day 2012 in Boston!

***From The Brothers Under The Bridge Series-Three Soldiers

From The Pen Of Joshua Lawrence Breslin

Note: Strictly speaking this following sketch is not properly part of the Brothers Under The Bridge series that was originally a series of sketches done for the East Bay Eye about forlorn returning Vietnam veterans who could not cope with the “real world,” for almost every reason imaginably, once they got back from ‘Nam and some of them formed a society of sorts, a brotherhood, mainly in Southern California, and mainly in the arroyos, culverts, ravines, riversides, and railroad sidings of that area. More recently Joshua Lawrence Breslin has “cribbed” some newly found notes from his attic to try to recompose more stories that were not published in the East Bay Eye before that publication went out of business. That said, this sketch is based on memory not notes but nevertheless stands in that tradition and rests comfortably within the concept envisioned for the stories in those series. Read on.

*******
Josh Breslin was walking down Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge, in Central Square near Prospect Park just outside the Redline MBTA stop, on a blustery April late afternoon when he heard a voice over a microphone pleading with the passing crowd to pay attention to the case of Army Private Bradley Manning a soldier who had admitted to being the source of some leaks of classified information about reports of American military atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan and other materials to the Wikileaks organization and was being held in long term (over one thousand days )pre-trial confinement pending trial out in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. As he stopped for a moment to listen from some distance away the speaker stated there was a pressing need to do a number of things in support of a man whom he considered the poster person of the almost non-existent anti-war struggle in the spring of 2013. The speaker went on to enumerate the things that supporters could do, things well known to Josh from his own personal political experiences; sign a petition directed to the Secretary of the Army to release Private Manning from confinement; contribute funds to the legal defense; join the stand-out; call some general whose name he did not remember but who was the convening authority for the court-martial Private Manning was facing and tell him to drop the charges; and, something a little unusual in his experience call or write President Barack Obama and ask him to use his constitutional authority to pardon the private.

Josh admitted to himself as he approached the small demonstration more closely (the organizers called it a stand-out but he always, from way back in the 1960s when he had been involved in anti-war work, called everything more than one person a demonstration from force of habit. One person standing by his or herself with a sign, by the way, was termed a vigil in his book) of a handful of Manning supporters that he had not paid as close attention to the case as he should have, or would have in the old days when he had been actively involved in anti-war G.I. coffeehouse work around the East Coast and then later as a journalist when he had picked up an assignment from the editor of the East Bay Eye (Bay Area, California, long since gone) to cover some returning Vietnam veterans who had had a difficult time coping with the “real” world after service in Vietnam and were gathered together in a great hobo migration around the arroyos, rivers, and railroad sidings of Southern California. So he stopped, stopped to pick up some information about Private Manning’s current status, learn about the charges against him, discuss a bit with a woman supporter there his chances of beating the charges against him, sign a petition and leave a small donation (a guilt donation he would later think) and moved on about his business of the day.

Later though, maybe the next day he Goggled the Bradley Manning Support Network website to find out more about the case, and about a soldier who apparently was not too dissimilar in life history to some of the guys he had interviewed back in the day, back in the hellhole dregs of the Vietnam war days. They, like Manning, went in to do their patriotic duty, maybe get an education afterwards on the GI Bill and then move on. Guys who like Private Manning had some real qualms about what they were doing on-the-job and thinking hard about what to do about those qualms, if anything. That got Josh to thinking about a story one of the guys he had met out on the road in the later 1970s, one of the Brothers Under the Bridges brothers who told him a story about his experience, and that of two of his hometown buddies who had signed on to go fight the commies, or defend the country, or whatever back in the mid-1960s when all hell was breaking loose over in Vietnam, and starting to break up here in America too.

That guy, that story had been in the back of Josh’s mind, way in back for a long time, and got triggered by that little Manning demonstration. So this is Ralph’s story, a guy he met over at the Compton encampment after the cops had pushed them out of Westminster. The story of Ralph Lance, and his two friends, Bill Calloway and Sam Price, the story of three guys, three soldiers. In the old days and in his recent revival of the Brothers Under The Bridge series he liked to put each guy’s story under an appropriate sign. He fretted over this one trying to angle it a certain way but in the end he gave up. Simply put there was no other way to put this one but to put it under the sign of three soldiers.

********
Sam Price had received his draft notice from his friends and neighbors at the Nashua, New Hampshire Draft Board first (that friends and neighbors gag was in the heading of his notice and even he chuckled at that one), being a little older than the other two and thus more draft eligible since he, unlike them, had not gone to college, and so he had worked at Joe’s Auto Repair over on East Main Street to kill time before the dime dropped. He would have gone in, gone in like that, enlisted right off if the job hadn’t allowed him to help out his mother a bit with her bills and expenses. Yah, he would have gone in hot to trot as he liked to say, to defend his country against commie rats, against whatever the President said the Russkies and their stodges were up to. He was that kind of guy, a guy like a million other guys who half-listened to what was said officially but that was enough, enough to get his blood up. And so he had no qualms about going in when his number came up in 1966 unlike those damn draft-dodgers and scumbags who were refusing to go defend their country (or worse, were egging guys on, guys like him, to refuse to go, while they hid behind their student deferments, mental or physical infirmities, or some other scam)

Now enter Bill and Ralph, who while they had gone college, had gone up to the University of New Hampshire for a couple of years, had been kind of restless, kind of got caught up in the angst and alienation that was sweeping campuses across the country and were almost as draft eligible as Sam. However whatever else their qualms about the world, about a world they had not created, and had not been asked about they were just as patriotic as their boyhood friend Sam. See although Sam was a year older, he had been kept back in first grade because of illnesses, they had all met up in first grade in Miss Winot’s class (they all loved her, all loved to talk about how nice she was even when they were older) over at North Nashua Elementary School and although they sometimes went their separate ways for periods of time there probably was not a month that went by when they didn’t get together at least to gather at Ricco’s Pizza Parlor and Pool Hall. That was their corner of the world, and they guarded it (with a couple of other guys) with all the effort that every corner boy put into keeping his corner. Moreover, additional glue that bound them together was Sam’s innate cosmic ability with automobiles, with “boss” automobiles to use an expression of the times. And so as they came of age they collectively did their “necking” with girls (and other things) down by the Merrimack River, hit the drive-in movies and restaurants, and did their Saturday night “cruising” on Main Street in one of Sam’s “hot” cars. So their friendships ran deep, ran as deep as friendship could in a 1960s male frosty old mill town. And then Ralph and Bill got their notices too (at slightly different times) from, well you know, their friends and neighbors at their local draft board.

So all three young men, all three friends, were drafted within a period of several months of each other. But that is where the common story ends. And also where their collective story stands as some kind of signpost for all that went on during the Vietnam war period, the drafted kids part, the soldiers part, not the other parts, the free love, drugs, alternative lifestyle parts which drew plenty of ink, but the parts about the guys who actually were called to do their duty, and went. Sam, as already has been suggested, was gung-ho, was ready to rip the commies from limb to limb. So once he got his draft notice he started thinking about his options, his real options, and so instead of bearing, to him, the stigma of having been drafted he enlisted, enlisted as an infantryman (the difference being at that point that being drafted meant a two year service commitment and enlistment three). And Sam turned out to be a hell of a soldier, a natural everybody in his command said (the Big Red One, the 1st Division), did two tours in ‘Nam, like many enlistees, did his fair share of killing, came home, went back to his old job at Joe’s Auto Repair and was last seen by Ralph (or rather Ralph had heard) sitting spending his off-hours at the Veterans of Foreign War Post bar regaling everyone who would listen to his blood and guts war stories. But enough of Sam, we know that story, that ordinary universal soldier story of song, film and book.

Bill’s was a little different, no, a very different story. Bill waited for his draft number to be called and when it did he wound up going to basic training at Fort Dix down in New Jersey. However after about three days, maybe four, once he confronted the reality of what he was expected to do-kill people, kill people that he said he had no quarrel with he got kind of politicized. Kind of politicized, according to Ralph, because while he and Bill had heard plenty about politics while in college they were not political guys. They were not exactly “frat rats” but they were girl crazy, drink crazy, maybe a few joints crazy, and politics, war, poverty or whatever was just like passing air to them. So Bill didn’t know, couldn’t figure out, what to do about his situation. Nobody to talk down in some strange fort before the anti-war bug started getting a hearing in the barracks. No known place to go to find some help to get out. No knowledge that he could file for conscientious objector status or that there was such a thing available then (not likely to be granted anyway to a soldier, a Catholic “just war” resister as he termed himself, and a former corner boy with a few youthful fist fights in his record).

All Bill knew was that he was not going to Vietnam, orders or not. So, as night followed day in 1966 America, when the generals were asking for more and more cannon fodder to reach that “light at the end of the tunnel” in Vietnam Bill got orders for Vietnam as an infantryman- meaning, no question, he was going to be put in a situation where he was damn well going to be killing people, people he had no quarrel with. Ralph was not very specific, had not been privy to the details, but Bill, after evading arrest by the Military Police who were being ordered to escort him under guard to Fort Lewis, Washington and from there to Vietnam. Somehow he got off the base, went AWOL and headed to Boston where through the Quakers he was able to get hold of some anti-war lawyer who told him his options. One option, the one he chose, was to refuse to go and a splash about in it public. He did, and the long and short of it was that he did two years and three months in Allentown down in Pennsylvania and received an undesirable (not dishonorable) discharge. Ralph had heard that Bill had drifted back to school at UNH and was fighting to upgrade his discharge under President Carter’s amnesty program.

As for Ralph, well, Ralph too was drafted ,went to Fort Dix for basic training, and Fort Benning down in Georgia as a mortar man (basically an infantryman but with more firepower). After that he got his order for ‘Nam, and while he had some qualms, some Bill-type qualms, he felt he couldn’t let his country, his town, and especially his parents down and so he went. Went and was stationed up near Pleiku for most of his time, saw more of his share of his killing that he wanted to admit to, or talk about, and had done too much too, also kept vague, and came home, came home quietly and got his honorable discharge. He moved to Boston since he felt he had to shake the dust of Nashua off, got married to a nice college girl from Boston University for a while, got a fairly good job with possibilities of advancement in the newly evolving computer field and things looked up. Then, maybe a couple of years later, the nightmares started, then the drinking started, then the drugs started. His wife divorced him without a murmur from him, he lost his job through chronic absenteeism, and thereafter trying to get a new start he headed west, west to golden dream California. No luck, no luck until he heard about the Westminster encampment of brothers. He had found a home for a while anyway. No, he had not seen Sam or Bill since the old days, and he frankly didn’t want to, not the way he felt then. And hence this story, this story told under the sign of three soldiers.