From The Marxist Archives -The Revolutionary History Journal-With the Masses, Against the Stream-French Trotskyism in the Second World War

...the question of the right revolutionary response to imperialist war, and whatever else they were (vehicles for colonial liberation struggles, etc.) WWI and WWII were such wars, was developed by Lenin and the Bolsheviks during World War I. 

That position of revolutionary defeatism for your imperialist homeland however has been a tough nut to crack no more so that during WWII when the long knives were very sharp  and it was easy to become defensist for the losing imperialist side like in France during the Occupation.  As recent wars like the American occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have shown it is relatively easy (hell even bourgeois politician have fed at that trough) to oppose your side in the  wars aims it pursues it is another to call for its defeat as the lesser evil in the class struggle. Yet as the Bolshevik example showed there is not much wiggly room on this question to drive the struggle forward.   

 

 

Click below to link to the Revolutionary History Journal index.

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/revhist/backissu.htm

Peter Paul Markin comment on this series:

This is an excellent documentary source for today’s leftist militants to “discover” the work of our forebears, particularly the bewildering myriad of tendencies which have historically flown under the flag of the great Russian revolutionary, Leon Trotsky and his Fourth International, whether one agrees with their programs or not. But also other laborite, semi-anarchist, ant-Stalinist and just plain garden-variety old school social democrat groupings and individual pro-socialist proponents.

Some, maybe most of the material presented here, cast as weak-kneed programs for struggle in many cases tend to be anti-Leninist as screened through the Stalinist monstrosities and/or support groups and individuals who have no intention of making a revolution. Or in the case of examining past revolutionary efforts either declare that no revolutionary possibilities existed (most notably Germany in 1923) or alibi, there is no other word for it, those who failed to make a revolution when it was possible.

 

The Spanish Civil War can serve as something of litmus test for this latter proposition, most infamously around attitudes toward the Party Of Marxist Unification's (POUM) role in not keeping step with revolutionary developments there, especially the Barcelona days in 1937 and by acting as political lawyers for every non-revolutionary impulse of those forebears. While we all honor the memory of the POUM militants, according to even Trotsky the most honest band of militants in Spain then, and decry the murder of their leader, Andreas Nin, by the bloody Stalinists they were rudderless in the storm of revolution. But those present political disagreements do not negate the value of researching the POUM’s (and others) work, work moreover done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.

Finally, I place some material in this space which may be of interest to the radical public that I do not necessarily agree with or support. Off hand, as I have mentioned before, I think it would be easier, infinitely easier, to fight for the socialist revolution straight up than some of the “remedies” provided by the commentators in these entries from the Revolutionary History journal in which they have post hoc attempted to rehabilitate some pretty hoary politics and politicians, most notably August Thalheimer and Paul Levy of the early post Liebknecht-Luxemburg German Communist Party. But part of that struggle for the socialist revolution is to sort out the “real” stuff from the fluff as we struggle for that more just world that animates our efforts. So read, learn, and try to figure out the
wheat from the chaff. 
******** 

Ian H. Birchall

With the Masses, Against the Stream-French Trotskyism in the Second World War

Revolutionary History, Vol.1, No.4, Winter 1988-89. Used by permission.

The following piece, an extended review of two French works on the history of Trotskyism in that country during the war, was written in 1981 by Ian Birchall of the Socialist Workers Party for his Party’s theoretical quarterly International Socialism. It was not published at the time, apparently because it was considered somewhat esoteric. The article is thus an attempt to make known some of the material available in French and to attempt some sort of analysis from the standpoint of the SWP.

The Editorial Board of Revolutionary History is very pleased to publish this article. We have no doubt that it will engender considerable disagreement and hope that those who have differences with Comrade Birchall on some of’ the points that he raises will take them up in their own journals or will write to us.

---

For Marxists, the Second World War remains an unsolved enigma. Yet it is one which continues to haunt us. The world we live in today is still, to a large extent, that of the ‘spheres of influence’ carved out by the victorious powers. And as our own crisis deepens, the poisonous doctrines of Nazism and Fascism swim once more to the surface. In fighting them we have quite legitimately mobilised the traditions of anti-Fascism. Yet it is necessary to be aware that those traditions are deeply rooted in the ideology of an imperialist war.

There can be no simple formula to resolve the enigma. The dangers of uncritical support for the Allied cause and of capitulation to the worst varieties of nationalism are all too apparent in the grotesque record of the Stalinist parties. Yet to argue that it made no difference whether or not Hitler was victorious is to collapse into the unrealistic sectarianism of the Comintern’s Third Period. The Allies did demolish Fascism (except in Spain and Portugal), and in some countries at least their victory did restore the rights of political and trade union organisation. Yet they did so at the price of – and in large measure in order to achieve – the strangling of a potential revolution.
The enigma may be illuminated, if not solved, by examining how those revolutionaries who lived – and died – during the war elaborated their line. The case in France, where one of the strongest Trotskyist currents in Europe had to fight for four years against the Gestapo and the Stalinists in order to maintain independent proletarian politics, is of particular interest. Two recent books have made available much of the documentation on this period. [1]
The Trotskyist movement entered the war armed with a theoretical perspective developed by Trotsky in the extensive writings of his final year, notably the Manifesto of the Fourth International on the Imperialist War and the Proletarian World Revolution of May 1940, written by Trotsky himself. When compared with the confusion and opportunism emanating from the reformist and Stalinist parties, Trotsky’s analyses were lucid and principled. They were, however, to prove wrong on a number of key questions.
Essentially, Trotsky believed the coming war would produce a cataclysmic upheaval in the world order. The political regime in Russia, he claimed, would ‘not survive the war’. [2] And in the West the consequences would be equally catastrophic:
‘All countries will come out of the war so ruined that the standard of living for the workers will be thrown back a hundred years. Reformist unions are possible only under the regime of bourgeois democracy. But the first to be vanquished in the war will be the thoroughly rotten democracy. In its definitive downfall it will drag with it all the workers’ organisations which serve as its support. Capitalist reaction will destroy them ruthlessly. [3]
In such a perspective there was no place for reformist politics. The Comintern was ‘already a corpse’ and the Second International was being ‘killed by the present war for the second time and, one must think, this time forever’. [4] Trotsky was even confident enough to name names:

Attlee and Pollitt, Blum and Thorez work in the same harness. In case of war the last remaining distinctions between them will vanish. All of them, together with bourgeois society as a whole, will be crushed under the wheel of history. [5]

By 1946 Attlee and Blum became Prime Ministers, Thorez headed France’s largest political party, and even Pollitt had seen his party achieve greater size and influence than at any time before or since.

The predictions had political implications. If reformism was, in effect, already dead, then the politics of the United Front, of slowly winning reformist mist workers away from their organisations by patient engagement in struggles for limited objectives, had no meaning. Socialism or barbarism was the immediate choice, and the Fourth International, whose sections at best counted their membership in hundreds, had to win millions within the space of a few years. The situation invited a search for short-cuts, in particular the pseudo-magic of ‘transitional demands’.
Trotsky sharply rejected any notion of taking sides in the war:

By his victories and bestialities, Hitler provokes naturally the sharp hatred of workers the world over. But between this legitimate hatred of workers and the helping of his weaker but less reactionary enemies is an unbridgeable gulf. The victory of the imperialists of Great Britain and France would not be less frightful for the ultimate fate of mankind than that of Hitler and Mussolini. Bourgeois democracy cannot be saved. By helping their bourgeoisie against foreign Fascism, the workers would only accelerate the victory of Fascism in their own country. The task posed by history is not to support one part of the imperialist system against another but to make an end of the system as a whole. [6]

Just as in 1914, Trotsky was urging his followers to swim against the stream. In doing so, he cut through the ideological claptrap of the ‘democracies’ opposed to Hitler. What he failed to do was to offer any real indication of a strategy which would enable the tiny Trotskyist current to relate to the broad anti-Fascist movement that would emerge in occupied Europe. [7]

At the start of the war French Trotskyism was in a state of some disarray. Entry into the PSOP and the subsequent disintegration of that party had left the movement deeply divided, [8] and the rapid military collapse of France followed by the German occupation left militants dispersed and disoriented. However, clandestine organisation and publication were fairly rapidly resumed, and four groupings emerged. Firstly, the pre-war Parti Ouvrier Internationaliste (POI), which had been deeply divided by entry into the PSOP, regrouped; initially it did not resume its title of party, but, recognising its modest potential, took the name of French Committees for the Fourth. At the end of 1942 it again adopted the name POI. This grouping was probably the largest, yet its membership was only about three to four hundred, almost all under the age of 25. [9] It had a clandestine printing press in the cellar of a suburban villa near Paris, and its paper La Verité appeared regularly. [10]
Militants of the pre-war Parti Communiste Internationaliste came together to form the Comité Communiste Internationaliste pour la construction de la IVe Internationale (CCI), which published the paper La Seule Voie. This was a tighter-knit group, more orientated to theory, which only very gradually developed an agitational practice.
Thirdly there was the Octobre group, which had evolved out of the pre-war Abondanciste movement, and developed towards Trotskyist positions. And finally there was the Lutte de Classes group which had broken from the rest of the French Trotskyist movement in 1940, primarily over its insistence on tighter organisational forms.
Early in 1944 the POI, CCI and Octobre groups agreed to unite into a single organisation, the Parti Communiste Internationaliste (PCI), which became the French section of the Fourth International. Only the Lutte de Classes group stood aside from the reunification – it was the forerunner of the Lutte Ouvrière grouping of today.

Difficulties

Working illegally under a repressive regime, the French Trotskyists had the greatest difficulties in obtaining reliable information on which to base a world analysis. Contacts with other sections of the International were tenuous and fraught with danger. The French Trotskyists always put the possibility of a German revolution at the centre of their perspective; but reliable information from Germany was hard to come by, and they seem to have greatly overestimated the indications of opposition in that country.

In this context, it is hardly surprising that all the groupings clung tenaciously to Trotsky’s 1940 analyses. As late as February 1944 the European Conference of the FI predicted that reformism would try to save capitalism again but would fail in the face of the absolute inability of capitalism to offer the slightest conciliating reform and in the face of the irresistible upsurge of the masses’. [11]
The Lutte de Classes grouping essentially shared this prospective, writing in May 1943:

In fact European capitalism cannot live on after this war without lowering the standard of living to its furthest limit and establishing a dictatorial political order. Longer and deeper economic crises than all those we have hitherto known, massive and permanent unemployment, low wages, rising prices, political slavery, these are the post-war perspectives if we permit capitalism a further spell of life. [12]

As for the CCI, they insisted as late as November 1943 that the reality of the American intervention in the war was, despite appearances, to oppose Russia rather than Germany:

The United States wants to preserve Hitler as a counter-revolutionary gendarme in Europe for as long as it will take them to overcome the resistance of the Stalinist bureaucracy, whose existence does not allow them the freedom of manoeuvre they need against the European revolution. [13]

The POI’s position was that revolutionaries could not simply ignore this upsurge of opposition, however nationalist it might be. Their position was confirmed by a resolution of the European Secretariat of the FI in December 1943:

Faced with the partly spontaneous character of the partisan movement, an expression of the open and inevitable revolt of broad layers of working people against German imperialism and against the order and the state of the native bourgeoisie who in their eyes are responsible for their poverty and suffering, the Bolshevik-Leninists are obliged to take into account this will to struggle on the part of the masses and to try, despite the many dangers deriving from the nationalist forms that this struggle assumes, to orient it towards class aims. [14]

This analysis of progressive nationalism echoes an earlier statement of the European Secretariat from 1942:

The national movement of the masses, far from having strictly nationalist roots, goes deep into one of the most fundamental contradictions of the capitalist system in the imperialist epoch; it is above all the manifestation in the form of nationalism of the radicalisation of the petit-bourgeoisie, a new expression of the revolt of the middle classes against big finance capital. [15]

In 1941 the POI had gone so far as to find in ‘the Gaullism of the workers, peasants and petit-bourgeoisie something basically healthy which means the will to fight to free the country from the Hitlerite yoke and to re-establish democratic freedoms and social gains’. [16] But by 1942 La Verité made it clear there could be no question of Popular Frontism:

Unity can be established this very day in the struggle for wages, for food supplies, against deportations to Germany. But it cannot and must not be established around a programme which once more subordinates the working class to the bourgeoisie. It must on the contrary open the way to the struggle of the working class for power. [17]

The POI, then, was ambiguous and less than consistent in its attitude to nationalism. But, in a sense, this was an academic question. For although some tentative links were made with Jean Moulin in early 1943, the POI never actually entered the Resistance movement; the question of its relation to nationalism remained on the level of propaganda. [18] And even if they had entered, it is unlikely they would have had any significant impact, given their size in relation to that of the PCF. The Insurgie group, made up of former members of the Pivertist PSOP, who did join the Resistance in order to push it towards a revolutionary line, appear to have had no impact. [19]

The other tendencies, above all the Lutte de Classes group, were highly critical of the POI’s alleged concessions to nationalism; but they do not seem to have evolved any alternative strategy for intervening in the movement.
One practical question on which the French Trotskyists were able to do limited but significant work was fraternisation with occupying Germany soldiers. They were not, of course, the only people to do so. In terms of sheer quantity the PCF distributed far more propaganda aimed at German troops. But what they produced fell within the normal framework of military propaganda aimed at demoralising enemy forces. It was within the framework of these analyses that the French Trotskyists had to face the practical question of how to relate to the growing Resistance movement. The harsh conditions imposed by the occupiers, and the imposition of forced labour and deportation, drove thousands upon thousands of people into active opposition. From 1941 onwards the movement was dominated by two tendencies, Gaullism and the French Communist Party (PCF), and the latter often outdid the former in terms of crude nationalism; their slogan was ‘chacun son boche’ (let everyone kill a Hun).

Testimony

For the POI, on the other hand, the question of the German Revolution was central to their perspective; German workers in uniform were to be perceived, not as an object of a military tactic, but as part of the subject of revolutionary change.

La Verité reported, perhaps over optimistically, on instances of discontent and mutiny in the German ranks. A paper aimed at German soldiers, Arbeiter und Soldat (Worker and Soldier), was produced by a young German Trotskyist, Paul Widelin, and distributed in Paris and especially in Brest. [20]
Such work is a testimony to the courage and dedication of those involved, but its actual effectiveness seems to have been limited. However, the political line which led to this work ensured that the Trotskyists clearly demarcated themselves from the political line of the PCF, which supported and organised acts of individual violence against members of the occupying forces. The Trotskyists opposed this, in terms of classical Leninist opposition to terrorism as well as because of their perspective towards the German proletariat. As La Verité put it:

The terrorist act creates a barrier between French workers and German soldiers, but no victory is possible without unity between them. [21]

The potential of the fraternisation policy is shown by the ferocity of the repression exercised against it. In 1943 the Gestapo discovered a meeting in Brest and seventeen German soldiers and a French Trotskyist, Robert Cruau, were shot. In July 1944 Widelin was arrested by the Gestapo, tortured and left for dead; he was found and taken to hospital, but the Gestapo discovered him and this time succeeded in killing him.

By 1944 there were a number of cases of desertions and mutinies in the German occupying army – Angers, Correze, Beziers, Dijon, etc. In many cases, however, the soldiers in question were not in fact Germans, but soldiers of other nationalities – Tartars, Georgians and so on – who had been integrated into the army of occupation.
On balance, we can say that the Trotskyist strategy of fraternisation was politically correct, but that the hopes of a significant response were very over-optimistic. The key factor, which both confirmed the validity of the perspective and prevented its success, was the determination of the United States that Hitler should be crushed militarily and that there should be no question of a popular anti-Hitler rising in Germany which could threaten the security of capitalist domination of occupied Europe. Hence the publication of the Morgenthau Plan, which declared the intention to reduce Germany to the level of an agricultural country, and the Allied insistence on unconditional surrender. Though this may have prolonged the war, it effectively stifled any revolt in the German army or working class. [22] Given the relation of forces, there was little or nothing the revolutionary left could do to alter this situation.
The other question which helped define the French Trotskyists’ attitude to the war was, of course, the characterisation of the Russian state. Here ‘orthodox Trotskyism’ was unchallenged. (At the first Congress of the PCI in 1944 one delegate argued that Russia was imperialist, and then left to join the Council Communists.) Theoretically, this was a serious defect; but in practice the consequences were not so grave, since the movement still held firmly to Trotsky’s contention that the best way to defend Russia was to strengthen the international working class and advance the cause of world revolution. The tendency to abstract the ‘defence of the Soviet Union’ from a revolutionary context and to glorify the Red Army as an agency of Socialist expansion still lay in the future. But the analysis of Russian society as essentially unstable did undoubtedly reinforce the tendency to develop a cataclysmic perspective of events at the end of the war. In January 1944 the European Conference of the FI declared:

The war, making contradictions of the Russian economy intolerably acute, has inescapably struck the hour for the liquidation of the Russian bureaucracy. [23]

But, although in retrospect we might wish to clarify certain aspects of their analysis, the real problem for French Trotskyism in the Second World War was not the political perspective; it was the ability to influence events. With a real implantation they might well have been effective; but the movement entered the war with no such implantation, and ended it little better off.

The key question, therefore, was their relation to the mass of workers still under the influence of reformist ideas. And here their continued adherence to Trotsky’s perspectives of 1940 was to prove disastrous. The French Trotskyists remained convinced that there could be no post-war revival of bourgeois democracy, and hence no political space for reformism. Commenting on the impact of the dissolution of the Comintern in 1943, La Verité declared:

These are only the first echoes of the crisis which will soon sweep away Stalinism as an ideology foreign to the proletariat. [24]

Meanwhile, of course, the PCF, working inside the Resistance on the basis of essentially nationalist politics, was growing rapidly. And, since the new recruits were being won to an openly nationalist and reformist programme, there could be no hope that they would be disillusioned by their leaders and seek an alternative to the left.
 

Economic

A central problem was therefore the relation of the economic struggle to political struggle. Undoubtedly the working class bore the heaviest burden during the occupation – wage-freeze, anti-strike laws, unemployment and longer hours. From 1942 workers were deported to work in Germany. And the fightback that came often started around economic rather than immediate political issues. The miners’ strike of May 1941, the first major struggle against the occupiers, began with demands for money, bread and soup. Strikes continued during the occupation, and despite the fact that employers could draw on support from the German military authorities, some struggles were won.

Important efforts were made to work within the industrial milieu. By 1944 Trotskyist papers had appeared for a number of industrial groups – firefighters, railway workers, miners, telephonists – though most of them were short lived. But the tendency to seek shortcuts was illustrated by the decision, in 1943, of the CCI to ‘industrialise’ all its student members – several of whom succeeded in creating small factory groups. The Lutte de Classes group gave priority to factory organisation.
Yet despite the determination shown by the militants, the task of industrial implantation presented enormous problems. On the one hand was the danger of simply submerging oneself into the day-today economic struggles. In July 1944 the PCI internal bulletin reported on the success of the members in Nantes in producing a workers’ paper Front Ouvrier. This had taken up local grievances – for example poor conditions in a factory canteen – and had become very popular among the workers, who enthusiastically helped to distribute it. Yet the paper failed to draw out a clear political line; as a result many workers believed that the paper was produced by the PCF. [25]
Yet on the other hand militants of a tiny organisation found it difficult to integrate with their fellow-workers; as an article in the POI internal bulletin from April 1943 puts it:

Our comrades don’t go to the canteen with their workmates because they have too many other things to do, and they’re wrong. They change address frequently and local contacts suffer as a result. This tends to make Bolshevik-Leninists a sort of social category which is alien to the others, and having only rare and difficult points of contact with the others. [26]

Moreover, for quite a long time the Trotskyists seem to have neglected, under the conditions of illegality, the question of trade union work. Only in 1944 did the PCI move to a position of stressing the fight inside the unions. The PCF, on the other hand, had not only built the CGT in clandestinity, but also worked inside the pro-Vichy official unions. [27] It was this work that undoubtedly gave the PCF the implantation that enabled it to carry out its non-revolutionary line in 1944-45.

Isolation made serious application of the United Front tactic difficult. The strategy of the ‘front ouvrier’ (workers’ front) adopted at the beginning of 1944 aimed to regroup revolutionary workers into workers’ groups as a first step towards the establishment of workers’ committees. [28] In practice such a strategy was both too ambitious and too late.
Early in 1944, the PCF decided to build armed groups of workers in the factories (patriotic workers’ militias). Initially La Verité denounced these as a ‘nationalist trap’, and it was only towards the end of May that the line changed and the PCI called on workers to ‘join the militias in your factories, whatever label they have, and make them into effective workers’ militias’. [29] Once again, this was too late for effective United Front work.
In August 1944, at the moment of the liberation of Paris the PCI issued an appeal for a United Front with the PCF and the Socialist Party. Needless to say, no reply was ever received; without any prior preparation in terms of United Front at the base, the mass reformist parties could afford to treat the Trotskyists with contempt. [30]
It is, of course, a frequent phenomenon for small groupings to make their own weakness into a virtue; and the French Trotskyist movement was no exception. The worst offender in this respect was the grouping around La Seule Voie. This argued right up until 1943 that the key task was not to work among the masses, but rather to form a disciplined and theoretically trained cadre which would eventually be able to take advantage of a changed situation. Against this the POI grouping insisted that a cadre could be trained and a party built only through the experience of involvement in the mass struggle. [31]
In retrospect the 1944 fusion of the POI and the CCI may be seen as less than the major step forward which it appeared to offer at the time. If the POI had carried on with its own more open orientation, instead of compromising with the much more unhealthy sectarian elements in the CCI [32], it might have had more chance of taking advantage of the situation that opened up in 1944. The pursuit or ‘Trotskyist unity’ meant that much time and energy was diverted into internal debate and negotiation.
The Normandy landings in June 1944 opened up a new social dynamic. For the Lutte de Classes group nothing had changed; it refused to seek the right to publish legally and its paper continued to appear as a clandestine publication, arguing:

Today the bourgeoisie is trying to manoeuvre the Fourth International movement in France by granting permission to appear legally to a paper which claims to belong to the movement. We denounce this manoeuvre, and we also denounce the compromise of those who believe that they can really fight against imperialist war with the authorisation and under the control of bourgeois censorship. [33]

The PCI’s line in La Verité was rather more sensitive to the possibilities of the new situation:

The PCI says to workers: you’ve had enough of the war; you want to be really liberated; trust no-one but your own class. Don’t trust Eisenhower. Get organised today in militias, stay grouped in your own factory which is your bastion; don’t let yourself be mobilised in the army of liberation; prepare for a new June 1936: you must elect your factory committee, your soviet, to free yourself from your proletarian slavery. [34]

To put this line into practice was quite another matter. Workers’ committees were set up in many places; and if the PCF had a tight grip in many cases, militants of the PCI took the initiative or played leading roles in a number of cases. Often, however, they did so on the basis of personal credibility rather than as representatives of a distinct political current; certainly they were quite unable to challenge the PCF’s grip on the majority of the class. [35]

On the contrary, the reformist forces were able effectively to stifle the voice of the POI; La Verité was persistently, under PCF pressure, refused permission to appear legally. The novelist Andre Malraux and Gaston Deferre (who recently served in Mitterrand’s cabinet) were among those who conspired at this suppression of press freedom. [36]
From now on the movement was downhill. While immediate seizure of power was unlikely in 1944, a rising tide of struggle might have produced a revolutionary situation within two or three years. Instead, the PCF co-opted and tamed the movement. The Trotskyist movement retained a certain degree of influence up to the time of the Renault strike in 1947, before falling apart in a series of debilitating internal disputes. [37]
The story of French Trotskyism in the Second World War is, despite the enormous courage and determination of those involved, one of failure. To ask whether that failure was inevitable can only be an exercise in idle speculation. What we can learn from that experience is, firstly, the possibility of fighting for principled internationalism even against enormous odds; and secondly the danger, even in the deepest crisis, of underestimating the power of reformism.

Ian Birchall

Notes

1. J. Pluet-Despatin, Les Trotskystes et la Guerre 1940-1944, Paris 1980; Y. Craipeau, Contre Vents et Marees, Paris, 1977. Pluet-Despatin’s work is essentially academic in tone, based on the laborious attempt to reassemble what remain of the clandestine publications of the period. Craipeau was a leading figure of the French Trotskyist movement until 1947. His work gains from the insights of personal experience, but often seems to be written as a justification of Craipeau’s positions against those of his political opponents.

2. L. Trotsky, On the Eve of World War II, Writings of Leon Trotsky 1939-40, New York 1973, p.18.

3. L. Trotsky, Manifesto of the Fourth International on the Imperialist War and the Proletarian World Revolution, ibid., p.213. Trotsky’s positions caused problems for some of his more dogmatic followers in the post-war period. Thus James P. Cannon wrote: ‘We disagree with some people who carelessly think the war is over ... The war is not over, and the revolution which we said would issue from the war in Europe is not taken off the agenda’. (The Militant, 17 November 1945) There is, of course, a bizarre logic to Cannon’s comments; since the Second World War there have been over a hundred local or civil wars; virtually every one of them can be traced back to unresolved conflicts stemming from the Second World War. Trotsky was right to see that the war would solve nothing; wrong in failing to see that the system would find new ways of patching itself up for a comparatively long period.

4. L. Trotsky, Stalin – Hitler’s Quartermaster, op. cit., p.80 and Manifesto ..., ibid., p.208.

5. L. Trotsky, Progressive Paralysis, ibid., p.43.

6. L. Trotsky, Manifesto ..., ibid., p.221.

7. Trotsky further muddied the waters by his advocacy that the American SWP should pursue what came to be known as the Proletarian Military Policy. Trotsky’s argument was that the SWP should not oppose conscription. ‘We are absolutely in favour of compulsory military training and in the same way for conscription. Conscription? Yes. By the bourgeois state’! No.’ (On Conscription, ibid., p.321) ‘We will defend the United States with a workers’ army, with workers’ officers, with a workers government, etc.’ (American Problems, ibid., p.333) What such a demand could mean on the part of a tiny group like the SWP is quite unclear. It presents an unrealisable and hence abstract alternative, which in practice leads to a capitulation to the Roosevelt government’s war effort. Equally lamentable are some of the arguments that Trotsky used to defend his position: ‘The Institute of Public Opinion established that over 70 per cent of workers are in favour of conscription ... We place ourselves on the same ground as the 70 per cent of the workers.’ (How to Really Defend Democracy, ibid., p345) A revolutionary policy based on opinion polls would lead to some strange conclusions. ‘Conscription under workers’ control’ has no more merit than the call for ‘incomes policy under workers’ control’ hawked in some Trotskyist circles a few decades later.

8. Cf. I. Birchall, Too Much. Too Little. Too Late, International Socialism 2/13.

9. Y. Craipeau, op. cit., p.93.

10. For the sake of simplicity, this group will be referred to as the POI throughout.

11. Pluet-Despatin. op. cit., p.160.

12. ibid., p.139.

13. ibid., p.120.

14. Craipeau, op. cit.. p.203.

15. Pluet-Despatin. op. cit., pp.86-7.

16. ibid., p.84.

17. Craipeau, op. cit., pp.112-3.

18. ibid., p.181.

19. ibid. p.205.

20. Cf. ibid., pp.129-30. By the nature of things, few copies of such publications survived, and there seems to be a doubt as to how many issues of Arbeiter und Soldat appeared.

21. La Verité, 15 March 1942: Craipeau. op. cit., p.120.

22. For a confirmation of this analysis from a source which can scarcely be suspected of Trotskyism, cf. Chester Wilmot, The Struggle for Europe, London 1959, p.632: ‘By coupling the Morgenthau Plan with the demand for “Unconditional Surrender” Goebbels convinced the mass of the German people that their only hope of saving the Fatherland and themselves lay in giving unconditional obedience to the Führer and unconditional resistance to their enemies ... the underground opposition, crippled and disrupted by the purge which followed the ill-fated attentat of 20 July, was powerless.’

23. Craipeau, op. cit., p250.

24. La Verité; 30 July 1943: Craipeau. op. cit., p.209.

25. ibid., p.260.

26. Pluet-Despatin, op. cit., p.145.

27. ibid., pp.192-3.

28. Craipeau, op. cit., p.251.

29. ibid., pp.268-70.

30. Pluet-Despatin, op. cit., pp.200-2.

31. Cf Craipeau, op. cit.. pp 147-8 Pluet-Despatin. op. cit.. ppIO9. 131-3.

32. One of the leading members of the CCI was Pierre Lambert, who today leads the rightist-sectarian OCI.

33. Lutte de Classes, 19 September 1944, quoted by Y. Craipeau, La Liberation Confisquée, Paris 1978, p.104.

34. La Verité, 22 June 1944: Craipeau, op. cit., p.19.

35. ibid., pp.41-4, 53-7.

36. ibid., pp.105-7.

37. Cf. Duncan Hallas, Fourth International in Decline, International Socialism 1/60.

---

Revolutionary History, Vol.1, No.4, Winter 1988-89

Editor: Al Richardson
Deputy Editors: Ted Crawford and Mike Howgate
Business Manager: Barry Buitekant
Production and Design Manager: Paul Flewers
Editorial Board: John Archer, David Bruce, William Cazenave, Keith Hassell, Ravi Jamieson, George Leslie, Sam Levy, Jon Lewis, Charles Pottins, Jim Ring, Bruce Robinson and Ernest Rogers.

ISSN 0953-2382

Copyright © 1989 Socialist Platform, BCM 7646, London WC1N 3XX
Typeset by Junius Publications Ltd (TU), BCM JPLtd, London WC1N 3XX
Printed by Dot Press Ltd (TU), Folly Bridge Workshops, Thames Street, Oxford, OX1 ISU

HONOR THE THREE L’S-LENIN, LUXEMBURG, LIEBKNECHT-Honor The Historic Leader Of The German Spartacists-Karl Liebknecht   

    

 

EVERY JANUARY WE HONOR LENIN OF RUSSIA, ROSA LUXEMBURG OF POLAND, AND KARL LIEBKNECHT OF GERMANY AS THREE LEADERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL WORKING CLASS MOVEMENT.

Karl Liebknecht Thumbnail Biography

The son of Wilhelm Liebknecht, one of the founders of the SPD, Karl Liebknecht trained to be a lawyer and defended many Social Democrats in political trials. He was also a leading figure in the socialist youth movement and thus became a leading figure in the struggle against militarism.

As a deputy in the Reichstag he was one of the first SPD representatives to break party discipline and vote against war credits in December 1914. He became a figurehead for the struggle against the war. His opposition was so successful that his parliamentary immunity was removed and he was imprisoned.

Freed by the November revolution he immediately threw himself into the struggle and became with Rosa Luxemburg one of the founders of the new Communist Party (KPD). Along with Luxemburg he was murdered by military officers with the tacit approval of the leaders of the SPD after the suppression of the so-called “Spartacist Uprising” in January 1919.

**************
Markin comment:

Karl Liebknecht- A Model Anti-Warrior

This comment was written in 2006 but the main points hold true today:

I recently (2006) received a comment from someone whom I took earnestly to be perplexed by a section of a commentary that I had written where I stated that the minimum necessary for any anti-war politician was to vote against the Iraq war budget in a principled manner. Not the way former Democratic presidential candidate Massachusetts Senator John Kerry’s (and others) dipsy-doodled votes for and against various war budgetary requests in 2004. And certainly not the other variations on this theme performed recently by aspiring Democratic presidential candidates Senators Obama and Clinton in the lead-up to 2008. Nor, for that matter, the way of those who oppose the Iraq war budget but have no problems if those funds were diverted to wars in Afghanistan, Iran , North Korea, China or their favorite ‘evil state’ of the month. What really drew the commenter up short was that I stated this was only the beginning political wisdom and then proceeded to explain that even that would not be enough to render the politician political support if his or her other politics were weak.  The commenter then plaintively begged me to describe what politician would qualify for such support. Although I have noted elsewhere that some politicians, Democratic Congressman James McGovern of Massachusetts and presidential candidate Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich stand out from the pack, the real anti-war hero on principle we should look at is long dead-Karl Liebknecht, the German Social-Democratic leader from World War I. Wherever anyone fights against unjust wars Liebknecht’s spirit hovers over those efforts.  

…I do not believe we are lacking in physical courage. What has declined is political courage, and this seems in irreversible decline on the part of parliamentary politicians. That said, I want to finish up with a woefully inadequate political appreciation of Karl Liebknecht, member of the German Social Democratic faction in the Reichstag in the early 1900’s. Karl was also a son of Wilhelm Liebknecht, friend of Karl Marx and founder of the German Social Democratic Party in the 1860’s. On August 4, 1914, at the start of World War I the German Social Democratic Party voted YES on the war budget of the Kaiser against all its previous historic positions on German militarism. This vote was rightly seen as a betrayal of socialist principles. Due to a policy of parliamentary solidarity Karl Liebknecht also voted for this budget, or at least felt he had to go along with his faction. Shortly thereafter, he broke ranks and voted NO against the war appropriations. As pointed out below Karl Liebknecht did much more than that to oppose the German side in the First World War. THAT, MY FRIENDS, IS THE KIND OF POLITICAN I CAN SUPPORT. AS FOR THE REST- HOLD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE.

One of the problems with being the son of a famous politician is that as founder of the early German Social Democratic Party Wilhelm Liebknecht's son much was expected of Karl, especially on the question of leading the German working class against German militarism. Wilhelm had done a prison term (with August Bebel) for opposition to the Franco-Prussian War. As for Karl I have always admired that famous picture of him walking across the Potsdam Plaza in uniform, subject to imprisonment after loss of his parliamentary immunity, with briefcase under arm ready to go in and do battle with the parliamentary cretins of the Social Democratic Party over support for the war budget. (THIS PICTURE CAN BE GOOGLED) That is the kind of leadership cadre we desperately need now. REMEMBER HIS FAMOUS SLOGANS- "HE MAIN ENEMY IS AT HOME’-‘NOT ONE PENNY, NOT ONE PERSON (updated by writer) FOR THE WAR." Wilhelm would have been proud.

 

 

 

***The Life And Times Of Michael Philip Marlin-The Long Gone Daddy 

 

From The Pen Of Frank Jackman-with kudos to Raymond Chandler

 

Those who have been following this series about the exploits of the famous Ocean City (located just south of Los Angeles then now incorporated into the county) private detective Michael Philip Marlin (hereafter just Marlin the way everybody when he became famous after the Galton case out on the coast) and his contemporaries in the private detection business like Freddy Vance, Charles Nicolas (okay, okay Clara too), Sam Archer, Miles Spade, Johnny Spain, know that he related many of these stories to his son, Tyrone Fallon, in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Tyrone later, in the 1970s, related these stories to the journalist who uncovered the relationship , Joshua Lawrence Breslin, a friend of my boyhood friend, Peter Paul Markin, who in turn related them to me over several weeks in the late 1980s. Despite that circuitous route I believe that I have been faithful to what Marlin presented to his son. In any case I take full responsibility for what follows.        

*******

Michael Philip Marlin was not a generous man. He would always say that the economics of the shaky private investigation business precluded him from generosity unlike public coppers who had a steady paycheck, maybe took a kick-back or two, were on some mobsters payroll or just cadges coffee and crullers, and could look forward to some dough in retirement too. He had given all that up and gladly after three years on the force, the Los Angeles Police Department, working out of the D.A.’s office as a special investigator. Jesus the stuff that went on there, but that was for another time but let’s just say for now when anybody from the judicial establishment, from the judges and D.A.’s on down is around hold onto your wallets, hold on tight.

Marlin decided for his own health and welfare that if he was going to get shot at, take a punch, or get called on the carpet for anything it would be on his own terms. And so he had survived developing his code of honor, his attitude toward women, and his toughness on the fly. Generosity was not included in that mix. He always expected to be paid, paid in full, for any job that he did if for no other reason than to pay the always pressing rent over in the Lawlor Building where he had his office. Occasionally he might take it out in trade when some frail with a hard luck story didn’t get what she was looking for from his services and had no dough to pay but one way or another he got his pound of flesh. (Tyrone said Marlin said to him “no pun intended” and blushed a little at the reference to a fourteen- year old boy but Tyrone was hip to all that even then.) That is what made the Ellsworth case exceptional. He never made a nickel on that one, never wanted to make a nickel once the case got to him. And the hell of it was that it did not involve a dame, or only on the side a dame.   

What it involved was an old prospector, a guy, Jerimiah Hanks, who had hit the mother- lode in about 1890 and had been living off the fat of that discovery ever since over in a mansion in Bayview City. Marlin had heard of him, heard what a wild man he had been in his younger days, wild with his fists, with the booze, and with the dames after he struck it rich. But that had been a long while back and Marlin had been surprised when he was summoned to the Hanks estate for some work. Barney Sims, a copper that he had worked back in the D.A.’s office had put in a good word for him when Hanks’ secretary sought some help on a personal matter and it was outside police purview.        

So one bright sunny afternoon Marlin found himself in the study of

Jerimiah Hanks cooling his heels while the old bird told him of his needs. Told him after offering him cigars and high- shelf brandy. What was on Hanks’ mind was that his daughter’s husband had flown the coop leaving no forwarding address, that was the daughter’s second husband Danny Shea not her first one by whom she had one son. On hearing this Marlin started heading for the door saying that he did not do divorce work (part of that worked- out code of honor) and would pass. Hanks’ laughed and said he would not pay good money to bring a guy back just so his sulky daughter could divorce him.  

Hanks thought Danny had done the right thing in any case. No, what he wanted was to make sure he was okay, did not need anything.  That got to Marlin a little, Hanks, a guy who had seen it all, done it all, reaching out to someone like Danny Shea who from all appearances was cut from the same cloth, an errant son that the old man never had. Hanks’ had been cursed  (his expression) with two wild and wayward daughters, one already in the grave after being killed in an automobile accident along that long lonely stretch of the Pacific Coast Highway just south of Bayview City after ramming her vehicle into an embankment at an estimated ninety miles an hour. (Marlin vaguely remembered the incident and knew that stretch was dangerous at 35 MPH.) A subsequent private autopsy, kept hushed so hushed that even Barney Sims was unaware of it, revealed that she had more booze and cocaine in her system than most men could endure. While the old man’s hard luck story finally won him over Marlin still collected a one thousand dollar retainer from Hanks’ secretary before he left the mansion to begin searching for one Danny Shea.  

People, people who know nothing of private detection, or pubic detection for that matter, think it is easy, easy like finding money on the ground to find someone who does not want to be found even with all the modern conveniences of scientific techniques. Marlin knew different, knew that if you wanted to go underground you could spent ten years, maybe more, without drawing attention if you were careful. In other words long after anybody was going to pay for the search or long after the coppers put the case in the cold files.   

That seemed to be the way the case was heading after a first run through. First Danny’s putative wife, Hanks’ daughter Lauren, once he interviewed her was clueless about where her long gone daddy husband might be. Moreover it appeared that she was drowning herself in a sea of booze not worrying about his whereabouts. Upon further investigation he found out that she was drowning those sorrows in the company of Lex Lyons, the mobster who owned the exclusive watering hole, the Club Pacifica, and she was making no display of worrying about who or what anybody might think about it.          

Once Marlin coped to that information the first place he headed was to see his old friend, the ex-mobster Lenny Lawrence (ex because Marlin had been instrumental in closing down his operation and causing him to spend a nickel up in Folsom. Or almost a nickel since he was also instrumental in getting him paroled early as well) who knew everything that was knowable around town when it came to hard guys, and to where to look for disappeared guys. Lenny came up empty, empty as hell on this one because the clamp was set in stone on this one which meant only one thing Lex Lyons was doing his sweet honey Lauren Hanks some kind of turn. What she was doing for him, aside from lapping up his high-shelf liquor supply, you can figure out yourself. She was a looker although Marlin could tell that her dissipation would lead to some early wrinkles and tummy tucks.        

Still Marlin, every few days, would swing by the Hanks mansion to report on his lack of progress. Each time he showed up he would find the old man eager to hear any scrap of news and became sullen and remote upon hearing that no new leads were forthcoming. It tore Marlin to see the old reprobate fall down like that and after a while he spaced out his non-reports to avoid that look.

Then one day Lenny called him up and told him he had some news, maybe a lead and to meet him the next day at the Café Alhambra over on Wiltshire in Los Angeles. The meet never happened because that night Lenny met his maker, met his maker face down out on Mulholland Drive with two slugs from a .38 special through his heart. Nobody saw, hear, or dreamed of seeing anything. Nada. The next day’s mail however brought a short note from Lenny. Apparently he had stumbled onto something about Lex, and Lex’s wife. He thought his time might be short so he sent the note as backup. The note said follow the wife, the wife was the connection between Danny and Lex. Thanks Lenny, RIP.

And that information solved the case, well not exactly solved it but brought the mystery of Danny’s disappearance to an end. See this Lex’s wife, Moira, Moira nee Murphy, was an old flame of Danny’s from back in the old neighborhood up in Irishtown in Frisco who grabbed onto Lex as the next best thing when Danny flew the coop on her a few years before. She still carried the torch for him, and as it turned out he for her once his ill-advised marriage to Lauren weighed him down.

What nobody knew, knew except a few confederates, was that Moira too had flown the coop from Lex. They had assumed (and Lex too so yes they assumed) that they had fled together maybe north, maybe south down to dirt cheap bracero Mexico. If you wanted to get good and lost Mexico, if you could stand the gaff, and those hungry eyes that seemed to see right through you Mexico was your best bet.  Marlin tried to run down all the leads, the few leads that he could put together but after about six months came up empty. He couldn’t take any more of the old man’s dough and in fact returned most of it except expenses. That was a first.  

Well Marlin had not exactly come up empty. That was just for public consumption and to signal Danny and Moira wherever they were that the heat was off. He basically bamboozled the old man with the story that Danny was okay, and didn’t need dough. The old man seemed to accept that and a sly smile came to his face (he would die a couple of months later seemingly content with whatever had happened).      

Here’s the real story. Lenny had learned more than he put in that note. He had figured out that Danny and Moira had been pushed together by Lex, and Lauren, after Lex figured that with Danny out of the way he could “retire” into the Hanks estate by making time with Lauren. One night, one foggy night if that matters, Marlin met Lauren outside the Club Alhambra and she made a deal with him. Twenty-five thousand and an occasional toss under the silky sheets with her (she had her man figured, like she had with most men, booze-battled or not) to “stop” looking for Danny and the dame (her term). For services rendered she called it. Marlin as much as he needed the dough turned her down, it flew against his code, or something like that.  Danny and Moira in any case were never found.     

[What’s wrong with this picture? Weren’t you paying attention at the beginning? Marlin was not a generous man, couldn’t be in his profession given its ups and downs. That was just what he told Tyrone when he was young and Tyrone found out the real stuff only later. It came out later, later after Lex had died in a hail of bullets. Died right in front of the portico of the Hanks mansion, killed by some guys from back East with scores to settle as they tried to take over Lex’s West Coast operations. What came out was that Marlin did accept Lauren’s deal, accepted it with both hands, accepted the whole thing. In fact he was in her bedroom under those silky sheets with one Lauren Hanks when Lex met his untimely death. Yes Marlin was a piece of work, a real piece of work. Always got his pound of flesh, no pun intended.]  

***The Roots Is The Toots- The Music That Got Them Through The Great Depression And World War II…

  

… yes, they had had their minute, their lovely minute, their minute in time, in the time of her time, a time when frankly she thought that she would never find love, not find it anywhere. He had come into the café all brash, all beautiful, all beautiful not handsome, a fistful of decorations on his dress uniform that told her, told any citizen, that he had seen hard battle, done his duty, seemingly more, done it honorably, and had survived without boast. But there he was for all the world to see, for her to see as she brought him a glass of water and a menu. He said he was ready to order even before she had put the menu down, “the house special, please, ma’am.” She said Delores, not ma’am and something in the way she said it gave him some courage to ask more about her as she waited on him. He kind of lingered until he asked her if she would accompany him around town, make his time before leaving go easier. She hesitated, almost said no, and then when a certain hurt look came over him she switched and said to herself “why not”.        

And he didn’t make a false move all three days they were together. He took her to a show, they had some dinner, and walked for what seemed like hours talking about this and that along the Charles River, almost up to Harvard University and then back toward the Back Bay. Then the moment of truth, would she stay with him that night at the Park Plaza. By then she knew in advance that she would say yes, and so she did. They made love, got up, walked around the town, downtown, took a subway ride to Harvard Square, and came back and made love again. And so they spent their three days, her lovely three days, and when she saw him off at the South Station trains they kissed, shook hands, and parted. That was the nature of the times in the time of her time. And for a time, a long time thereafter she would sometimes walk that Charles River route from the first night and get a little wistful…       

HONOR THE THREE L’S-LENIN, LUXEMBURG, LIEBKNECHT-Honor An Historic Leader Of The American Labor Movement-“Big Bill Haywood  

 

 

 

 EVERY JANUARY WE HONOR LENIN OF RUSSIA, ROSA LUXEMBURG OF POLAND, AND KARL LIEBKNECHT OF GERMANY AS THREE LEADERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL WORKING CLASS MOVEMENT. DURING THE MONTH WE ALSO HONOR OTHER HISTORIC LEADERS AS WELL ON THIS SITE.

Book Review

Big Bill Haywood, Melvyn Dubofsky, Manchester University Press, Manchester England, 1987

If you are sitting around today wondering, as I occasionally do, what a modern day radical labor leader should look like then one need go no further than to observe the career, warts and all, of the legendary Bill Haywood. To previous generations of radicals that name would draw an automatic response. Today’s radicals, and others interested in social solutions to the pressing problems that have been bestowed on us by the continuation of the capitalist mode of production, may not be familiar with the man and his program for working class power. Professor Dubofsky’s little biographical sketch is thus just the cure for those who need a primer on this hero of the working class.

The good professor goes into some detail, despite limited accessibility, about Haywood’s early life out in the Western United States in the late 19th century. Those hard scrabble experiences made a huge imprint on the young Haywood as he tramped from mining camp to mining camp and tried to make ends mean, any way he could. Haywood, moreover, is the perfect example of the fact that working class political consciousness is not innate but gained through the hard experiences of life under the capitalist system. Thus, Haywood moved from itinerant miner to become a leading member of the Western Federation of Miners (WFM) and moved leftward along the political spectrum along the way. Not a small part in that was due to his trial on trumped up charges in Idaho for murder as part of a labor crackdown against the WFM by the mine owners and their political allies there.

As virtually all working class militants did at the turn of the 20th century, Big Bill became involved with the early American socialist movement and followed the lead of the sainted Eugene V. Debs. As part of the ferment of labor agitation during this period the organization that Haywood is most closely associated with was formed-The Industrial Workers of the World (hereafter IWW, also known as Wobblies). This organization- part union, part political party- was the most radical expression (far more radical than the rather tepid socialist organizations) of the American labor movement in the period before World War I.

The bulk of Professor Dubofsky’s book centers, as it should, on Haywood’s exploits as a leader of the IWW. Big Bill’s ups and downs mirrored the ups and downs of the organization. The professor goes into the various labor fights that Haywood led highlighted by the great 1912 Lawrence strike (of bread and roses fame), the various free speech fights but also the draconian Wilsonian policy toward the IWW after America declared war in 1917. That governmental policy essentially crushed the IWW as a mass working class organization. Moreover, as a leader Haywood personally felt the full wrath of the capitalist government. Facing extended jail time Haywood eventually fled to the young Soviet republic where he died in lonely exile in 1928.

The professor adequately tackles the problem of the political and moral consequences of that escape to Russia for the IWW and to his still imprisoned comrades so I will not address it here. However, there are two points noted by Dubofsky that warrant comment. First, he notes that Big Bill was a first rate organizer in both the WFM and the IWW. Those of us who are Marxists sometimes tend to place more emphasis of the fact that labor leaders need to be “tribunes of the people” that we sometimes neglect the important “trade union secretary” part of the formula. Haywood seems to have had it all. Secondly, Haywood’s and the IWW’s experience with government repression during World War I, repeated in the “Red Scare” experience of the 1950’s against Communists and then later against the Black Panthers in the 1960’s should be etched into the brain of every militant today. When the deal goes down the capitalists and their hangers-on will do anything to keep their system. Anything. That said, read this Haywood primer. It is an important contribution to the study of American labor history.

Exonerate Edward Snowden Unconditionally!

by Stephen Lendman

It's long past time to stop Obama's war on whistleblowers. It's time to hold him accountable for waging it.

Whistleblowing is a national imperative. Exposing government wrongdoing is essential. Responsible parties must be punished.

Whistleblowers deserve praise, not prosecution. Snowden is a world hero. He connected important dots for millions. 

Lots more vital information awaits revealing. Everyone needs to know. The NSA operates lawlessly. It's a power unto itself. It's an out-of-control agency.

Global spying is espionage. It's stealing other countries' secrets. It's doing so for political and economic advantage. It's not about keeping us safe. 

Domestic spying has nothing to do with national security. It's for control. It's transformed America more than ever into a police state.

NSA works jointly with CIA, FBI and other rogue US spy agencies. They're waging war on freedom. They want it entirely eliminated. 

They're complicit with corrupt politicians, bureaucrats and corporate bosses. They want what no one should tolerate. 

They want America more dystopian than ever. It's already unfit to live in. They want worse conditions for millions.

Hundreds of Snowdens are needed. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Whistleblowers need to be heard, not silenced.

The Government Accountability Project (GAP) calls them anyone "who discloses information that (he or she) reasonably believes is evidence of illegality, gross waste or fraud, mismanagement, abuse of power, general wrongdoing, or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety." 

"Typically, whistleblowers speak out to parties that can influence and rectify the situation." 

"These parties include the media, organizational managers, hotlines, or Congressional members/staff, to name a few."

Sibel Edmonds founded the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC). She did so to aid "national security whistleblowers through a variety of methods."

Today is the most perilous time in world history. America is waging war on humanity. Bipartisan complicity created a homeland police state apparatus. Obama heads it.

Fundamental freedoms are targeted for elimination. Government wrongdoing is worse than ever. Exposing it is essential. It's a national imperative.

Whistleblowers with vital information need to reveal it. The 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act protects federal employees who report misconduct. Federal agencies are prohibited from retaliating against those who do so.

Whistleblowers are obligated to report law or regulatory violations, gross mismanagement, waste, fraud and/or abuse, or acts endangering public health or safety.

The Office of Special Council is empowered to investigate whistleblower complaints. The Merit Systems Protection Board adjudicates them.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is the only judicial body authorized to hear whistleblower case appeals. 

Since the Whistleblower Protection Act's 1994 revision, it ruled on over 200 cases. Only three times did whistleblowers prevail. It's high time they got full legal protection.

At least 18 federal statutes protect private sector whistleblowers. They fall woefully short. Whatever corporations want they get.

On November 27, 2012, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA) was enacted. It protects government employees from reprisal for:

• disclosing misconduct;

• revealing it to co-workers or supervisors;

• disclosing policy decision consequences; or

• doing any or all of the above in relation to their position or duties.

It doesn't matter. Obama targeted more whistleblowers than all his predecessors combined. He does so on fake national security grounds. 

He does it to harden police state ruthlessness. It's long past time to challenge him. It's vital to hold him accountable. It's essential to stop what can't be tolerated.

Snowden committed no crimes. He acted responsibly. He's wrongfully charged with espionage. He's accused of violating 1917 Espionage Act provisions. 

It's a long ago outdated WW I relic. It has no relevancy today. It belongs in history's dustbin. It belonged there decades ago. It should be declared null and void. 

Snowden is wrongfully charged with:

• "Theft of Government Property

• Unauthorized Communication of National Defense Information (and)

• Willful Communication of Classified Intelligence Information to an Unauthorized Person."

These and similar charges reflect police state injustice. Challenging it is vital. Exonerating Snowden is a good beginning. 

London Guardian editors agree. On January 1, they headlined "Showden affair: the case for a pardon," saying:

"(T)hrough journalists, in the absence of meaningful, reliable democratic oversight, (he gave) people enough knowledge about the nature of modern intelligence-gathering to allow an informed debate."

It's "actively happening." Federal District Court of the District of Columbia Judge Richard Leon called NSA spying unconstitutional. It's "almost Orwellian, he said.

"I cannot imagine a more 'indiscriminate' and 'arbitrary' invasion than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval," he explained

"Surely, such a program infringes on 'that degree of privacy' that the founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment." 

It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Mass NSA surveillance does it writ large.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) defends vital digital rights. It called 2013 "a principled fight against global mass surveillance."

Spying on ordinary people is lawless, it said. "Secret laws are wrong." Digital and telecommunication spying are "as much 'surveillance' as a person peeping through a window."

No one's privacy should be compromised. On December 18, the UN General Assembly unanimously adopted the first resolution on the privacy rights. 

It's called "The right to privacy in the digital age." It's a step in the right direction. It ordered a human rights analysis of digital surveillance law.

In 2014, EFF promised to keep working "for a new era of private and secure digital communications."

Congress is obstructing justice. State courts and legislatures are acting on their own. They're doing so to protect electronic privacy.

Last summer, the Massachusetts Judicial Court ruled that vehicle passengers have a right to be free from persistent GPS monitoring.

Montana and Maine passed laws requiring police to have warrants before using electronic tracking devices.

Texas enacted similar legislation. Perhaps other states will follow. Wisconsin is considering privacy protection. 

A pending measure prohibits police from tracking cell phone communications without warrant permission.

Montana lawmakers plan amending the state constitution. Doing so would protect digital privacy. When Congress refuses to act responsibly, it's up to states to do so instead. 

It's the best chance for transformative change. If enough states act, it's hard stopping a national trend. Congress may be forced to go along. Anything is possible with enough commitment.

Guardian editors said:

"Parliamentarians, presidents, digital engineers, academics, lawyers and civil rights activists around the world have begun a wide-ranging and intense discussion."

At issue is challenging unjustifiable spying. Snowden can't come home. He's forced to remain abroad. Unjustifiable prosecution awaits him if he returns. Conviction is rubber-stamp certain.

"It is difficult to imagine Mr. Obama giving Mr. Snowden the pardon he deserves," said Guardian editors. Talk circulated about possible amnesty in return for all documents he has.

Why would he return what he feels vital to expose? Why should lawbreaking be concealed? 

Why should rogue NSA officials be allowed to continue operating lawlessly? Why should Snowden face prosecution for exposing wrongdoing?

Why should it be for doing the right thing? Former CIA director James Woolsey wants his head. He called for "hang(ing) by his neck until he is dead."

Woolsey is one of many unindicted US war criminals. He's responsible for too many high crimes to ignore. He's not alone. Washington is infested with criminals. Gangster states operate this way.

Snowden's case seems headed for Supreme Court debate. It's stacked with right-wing extremists. It's hard imagining them ruling fairly.

Guardian editors remain hopeful, saying:

If they say Snowden "did, indeed, raise serious matters of public  importance which were previously hidden (or worse, dishonestly concealed), is it then conceivable that he could be treated as a traitor or common felon?"

Wrongdoing is essential to expose. Whistleblowing is a noble tradition. Free speech is too important to compromise.

Snowden deserves praise, not prosecution. So do others acting responsibly the same way. Courageous acts need to be encouraged.

Ending whistleblower prosecutions is a good place to start. 

Exonerating Snowden would set a precedent. Perhaps Bradley Manning might follow.

Doing the right thing is more important then ever. So is enforcing rule of law principles.

Jamel Jaffer is ACLU deputy legal director. On December 19, he headlined "End His Prosecution," saying:

"Edward Snowden has made our democracy stronger. He should be praised, not prosecuted."

He revealed information everyone needs to know. Without it, "we wouldn't be having (an) extraordinary debate about the proper scope of the government's surveillance powers."

We have state legislatures addressing privacy rights. We have the General Assembly doing it. 

We got Judge Leon's ruling. Give credit where it's deserved. Snowden shook the system. It needs transformative change.

"Would it be better if all (he revealed) remained secret," asked Jaffer? Would it be better if ordinary people knew nothing?

Snowden strengthened America. He performed "an immense public service." Charging him "under the Espionage Act is a travesty," said Jaffer.

Efforts should encourage other Snowdens to go public. They should  do so to alert Americans that "an agency meant to protect them has become a threat...instead."

Exposing government wrongdoing is essential. Imagine it becoming a national trend.

Imagine it forcing elected and appointed public officials to obey rule of law principles. Imagine America changing for the better. 

Imagine what so far never happened. Now is more important than ever to change things. There's not a moment to waste.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 

His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

http://www.dailycensored.com/exonerate-edward-showden-unconditionally/

Bob Feldman : A People's History of Egypt, Part 12, Section 2, 1947-1948

The movement to democratize Egypt: Except for their religious beliefs, Jews shared lifestyles with those of Muslim background.

Jewish home in Egypt. Image from BBC Watch.

By Bob Feldman | The Rag Blog | January 6, 2014

[With all the dramatic activity in Egypt, Bob Feldman's Rag Blog "people's history" series, "The Movement to Democratize Egypt," could not be more timely. Also see Feldman's "Hidden History of Texas" series on The Rag Blog.]

Prior to the Zionist movement’s establishment of the State of Israel on Palestinian land in 1948 and subsequent eviction of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs from Palestine during the late 1940s, between 65,000 and 80,000 Egyptians of Jewish religious background lived in Egypt. Around 64 percent of Egyptians of Jewish background lived in Cairo and around 32 percent lived in Alexandria, according to the Egyptian census of 1947.

Before the establishment of Israel, Egyptian Jews “attained an inordinately high number of respectable positions in finance, commerce, industry and the professions” in post-World War II Egyptian society, according to Selma Botman’s The Rise of Egyptian Communism, 1939-1970. As the Encyclopedia Judaica recalled:

In 1947 most Egyptian Jews (59%) were merchants, and the rest were employed in industry (18%), administration, and public services (11%). The economic situation of Egyptian Jewry was relatively good; there were several multi-millionaires, a phenomenon unusual in other Jewish communities of the Middle East…There were no restrictions on accepting Jews in government or foreign schools.

And in addition to the relatively prosperous Egyptians of Jewish religious background who lived in Cairo prior to the establishment of the State of Israel in Palestine, there were also “many poor Jews living in the Haret al-Ya Hud section of Cairo who were completely indistinguishable from their Muslim counterparts” in Egypt.

And, “with the exception of their adherence to religious belief, they ate, spoke, dressed, and lived in virtually identical ways” as the Egyptians of Islamic religious background, according to The Rise of Egyptian Communism, 1939-1970.

Zionism was considered an alien ideology to most Egyptian Jews.

So, not surprisingly, although only about 20 percent of the people of Jewish religious background who lived in Egypt were officially considered Egyptian citizens in 1947, “Zionism was generally an alien ideology to most Egyptian Jews,” prior to 1947, according to The Rise of Egyptian Communism, 1939-1970; and the Jewish League to Combat Zionism (al-Rabita al-Tsrailiyya li Muk afahat al-Sahyuniyya), founded in the mid-1940s by an Egyptian named Marcel Israel, included Egyptian “leftists and communists alike,” according to the same book.

Egypt’s mid-1940s Jewish League to Combat Zionism had the following four objectives, according to The Rise of Egyptian Communism, 1939-1970: 1. “working against Zionism;” 2. “strengthening ties between Egyptian Jews and the Egyptian people in the struggle for independence;” 3. “lessen[ing] the gap between Jews and Arabs in Palestine;” and 4. “solving the problem of the Wandering Jew.”

But since the Egyptian monarchical regime’s prime minister in 1947, al-Nuqrashi, was being backed by some Egyptian Jews who were sympathetic to the Zionist movement (and who also wished to discourage Egyptians of Islamic and Jewish religious backgrounds from uniting in opposition to UK special influence in Egypt), al-Nuqrashi suppressed the Jewish League to Combat Zionism in 1947.

Yet when the United Nations voted to partition Palestine -- despite the objections of most people then living in Palestine and other Arab counties and many rank-and-file members of Egypt’s Democratic Movement for National Liberation [DMNL] -- the leftist DMNL group’s leadership -- like the Soviet Union -- endorsed the partition plan.

But in its al-Jamahir party newspaper, the DMNL also clarified its late 1947 unpopular political stance on the issue of Palestine’s partition in the following way:

We do not want to take Palestine away from the Arabs and give it to the Jews but we want to take it away from imperialism and give it to the Arabs and Jews…Then will begin the long struggle for rapprochement between Arab and Jewish states…

[Bob Feldman is an East Coast-based writer-activist and a former member of the Columbia SDS Steering Committee of the late 1960s. Read more articles by Bob Feldman on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog