Stop The Wars -Stop The Desecration Of Mother Earth
Friday, October 17, 2014
| ||||||||||
|
Wednesday, Oct 15, 2014 01:12 PM EDT
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/15/old_men_clamoring_for_war_why_pressure_for_isis_escalation_is_rising/?source=newsletter
Old men clamoring for war: Why pressure for ISIS escalation is rising
More old guys are clamoring for ground troops. Here's how to ensure that Obama isn't *allowed* to change his mind
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/15/old_men_clamoring_for_war_why_pressure_for_isis_escalation_is_rising/?source=newsletter
BOMBING
AND BIGOTRY:
The
Wars Abroad, the Wars at Home
Martin
Luther King: “The
bombs that are falling [overseas] are exploding in our cities”
in Ferguson, Boston, Syria, Iraq...
Profiling and militarization are not the answer.
Saturday,
October 18
NU4J
COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS STREET FAIR
12-4pm
- Our friends at New England United for Justice have invited DPP to participate
in their event on Tilman St. in Dorchester and DPPers will have a table and the
leaflet at the left (this is the latest version). Please come!
Tuesday,
October 21
DPP
Standout at Ashmont T Station
4-6pm
– Please join us! We’ll have the same flyer, making the connection between the
new US war in Syria/Iraq and the violence and repression in our own
neighborhoods.
OLD
MEN CLAMORING FOR WAR:
Why
pressure for ISIS escalation is rising
…the public is
gradually coming around to the idea of deploying their neighbors’ sons’ boots to
the ground. A new NBC/WSJ poll shows that “forty-one percent of respondents
believe both troops on the ground and airstrikes are necessary for the mission
against ISIS, versus 35 percent who think it should be
restricted to airstrikes.” In September, NBC/WSJ showed 40 percent for airstrikes only and 34 percent
for airstrikes and neighbors’ sons on the ground. Or is it more like neighbors’
grandsons? The seven-point increase in those also wanting U.S. ground troops has
been fueled mostly by groups that make up the GOP base. More self-described
Republicans (up 14 points), men over 50 years old (up 18), white men (up 17) and
seniors (up 10) now advocate for troops on the ground in the fight against the
terror group. There’s been virtually no change since September among Democrats,
young people, and white women. More
OBAMA
CONFRONTS SLIPPERY SLOPE AGAINST ISIS
As
airpower has failed to dislodge the extremists from the Syrian border town of
Ain al-Arab or halt their offensive in Iraq, Obama’s appeals for strategic
patience are being challenged by some U.S. military and
intelligence officers and diplomats who say more needs to be done. Obama has
declined to consider sending American forces for ground-combat roles in Iraq,
despite recent warnings from Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of State John Kerry and senior intelligence officials
that continued reliance on limited airstrikes and training is inadequate to
achieve his goal of degrading and destroying ISIS, according to three officials
active in planning and executing the administration’s strategy… Dempsey said
Thursday on CNN that it’s possible he will ask for a small number of U.S. troops
in Iraq to accompany Iraqi combat units to help identify targets for airstrikes.
Dempsey hasn’t ruled out the possibility of asking Obama for combat forces if
circumstances require it, and the general said he recently ordered Army Apache
attack helicopters into action to prevent jihadists from moving against Baghdad
airport. More
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||
Beheadings, Bombings & BulletsMedea Benjamin on our New Wars in Syria and Iraq
Wednesday,
October 22, 2014, 7:00 pm
Harvard Science Center D • 1 Oxford St, Cambridge • Harvard T  How should we respond to the new US war in Iraq and Syria and the dangers this war may unleash in our violent world?
The U.S. attacks on Syria
launched Sept. 22 are a disastrous setback for peace, for the rule of law, and
for sound U.S. foreign policy. Why did the US launch them, how can we stop
them, and what are the nonviolent alternatives we should advocate?
How do we build on the convergence of peace, social justice and climate groups that created the gigantic climate march in New York on September 21?
This new emergency in the
Middle East drives home once again the need for the climate movement, the peace
movement, and the movements for social and racial justice to create a mass
movement around the inter-related crisis of climate, peace, vast social
inequality and democracy.
No one is better
qualified to address these questions than Medea Benjamin (who, it just so
happens, has recently returned from her trip to Iran)
Medea Benjamin is a cofounder
of both CODEPINK and the international human rights organization Global
Exchange, and a member of national Peace Action's advisory board. Benjamin is
the author of eight books. Her latest book is Drone Warfare: Killing by
Remote Control, and she has been campaigning to stop the use of killer
drones. Her work for justice in Israel/Palestine includes taking numerous
delegations to Gaza after the 2008 Israeli invasion, organizing the Gaza Freedom
March in 2010, participating in the Freedom Flotillas. New York
Newsday describes her as "one of America's most committed -- and most
effective -- fighters for human rights".
Don’t miss
this opportunity at this especially dangerous moment to hear this leading
thinker and activist for peace and social justice.
Sponsored by the Harvard
Palestine Solidarity Committee and Harvard Students for a Just Foreign
Policy
Endorsed by United for
Justice with Peace and Massachusetts Peace Action
Additional Boston Area Talks by Medea
Benjamin
Tuesday, Oct. 21, 12:00-
1:30pm - Northeastern University, 310 Renaissance Park - College of Social
Sciences & Humanities - lunch provided
Tuesday, Oct. 21, 7:00 pm -
Wellesley College - panel with Catia Confortini and Eric Wasileski
Wednesday, Oct. 22, noon -
Boston College, details TBA
Wednesday, Oct. 22, 4:00 pm -
Suffolk University - Sawyer Library, 3d floor, Poetry Center. - Govt and
Communications/Journalism Depts.
Thursday, Oct. 23, noon -
Clark University, University Center, Grace Conference Room - Activists
United
Thursday, Oct. 23, 4:00 pm
(tentative time) - Brandeis University, location TBA - Student Peace
Alliance
For
Details on additional events: 617-354-2169, info@masspeaceaction.org
Join Massachusetts Peace Action - or renew your membership today! Dues are $40/year for an individual, $65 for a family, or $10 for student/unemployed/low income. Members vote for leadership and endorsements, receive newsletters and discounts on event admissions. Donate now and you will be a member in good standing through December 2015! Your financial support makes this work possible!  Massachusetts Peace Action, 11 Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02138 617-354-2169 • info@masspeaceaction.org • Follow us on Facebook or Twitter Click here to unsubscribe | |||||
On The 155th Anniversary Of The
Heroic Captain John Brown-Led Fight For Black Liberation At Harper’s Ferry-Josh Breslin’s Dream
From The Pen Of Frank Jackman
I remember a few years ago my friend and I, Josh Breslin, from the old working- class neighborhoods of North Adamsville, a town south of Boston, were discussing the historical events that helped form our political understandings back in the early 1960 since we were, and are, both political men driven by historical examples as much as by the minutia of organizing principles. And while we diverged on many of the influences since then as we have a fair degree of differences on the way to change the world we both agreed whole-heartedly that one of our early heroes was old Captain John Brown and his heroic efforts with his small integrated band of men at Harper’s Ferry. As we discussed the matter more fully we found we were hard pressed to explain what first captured our attention and would have not had the political sense then to call Brown’s actions heroic we both understood that what he did was necessary.
See, coming up a in mainly Irish working-class neighborhood we were always aware, made particularly aware by grandfathers who had kindred over there in those days, of that heroic struggle in Easter 1916 that was the precursor to the long sought national liberation of Ireland from the bloody British. So when we first studied, or heard about John Brown we instinctively saw that same kind of struggle. Both of us also agreed that we had had very strong feelings about the wrongness of slavery, a wretched system going back to Pharaoh’s time if not before, although Josh was more ambivalent about the fate of black people after Civil War freedom than I was since there was in his household a stronger current of anti-black feeling around the civil rights work down south in those days than in mine. (Strangely my father, who was nothing but a corn liquor, fast car good old boy from down in Kentucky was more sympathetic to that struggle that Josh’s Irish grandfather whom Josh could never get to call black people anything better than “nigras.” Jesus.)
A couple of week after that conversation Josh called me up from California one night where he was attending a professional conference near San Jose and told me that he forgot to tell me about what he called a “dream” he had had as a kid about his admiration for John Brown. Of course that “dream” stuff was just Josh’s way of saying that he had sketched out a few thoughts that he wanted to share with me (and which will undoubtedly find their into a commentary or review or something because very little of Josh’s “dream” stuff fails to go to ink or cyberspace). Some of it is now hazy in my mind since the hour was late here in the East, and some of it probably was really based on stuff we had learned later about the Brown expedition like how Boston Brahmins and high abolitionists like George Stearns secretly funded the operation or Brown’s attempts to get Fredrick Douglass and Harriet Tubman on board (neither name which we would have known very much about then), and some of was probably a little goofy since it involved Josh in some hero worship. Since he will inevitably write something on his own he can make any corrections himself. Know this though whenever I hear the name John Brown mentioned lately I think about Josh’s telephone call and about how the “old man” has held our esteem for so long. Here is what I jotted down, edited of course, after that conversation:
From The Pen Of Frank Jackman
I remember a few years ago my friend and I, Josh Breslin, from the old working- class neighborhoods of North Adamsville, a town south of Boston, were discussing the historical events that helped form our political understandings back in the early 1960 since we were, and are, both political men driven by historical examples as much as by the minutia of organizing principles. And while we diverged on many of the influences since then as we have a fair degree of differences on the way to change the world we both agreed whole-heartedly that one of our early heroes was old Captain John Brown and his heroic efforts with his small integrated band of men at Harper’s Ferry. As we discussed the matter more fully we found we were hard pressed to explain what first captured our attention and would have not had the political sense then to call Brown’s actions heroic we both understood that what he did was necessary.
See, coming up a in mainly Irish working-class neighborhood we were always aware, made particularly aware by grandfathers who had kindred over there in those days, of that heroic struggle in Easter 1916 that was the precursor to the long sought national liberation of Ireland from the bloody British. So when we first studied, or heard about John Brown we instinctively saw that same kind of struggle. Both of us also agreed that we had had very strong feelings about the wrongness of slavery, a wretched system going back to Pharaoh’s time if not before, although Josh was more ambivalent about the fate of black people after Civil War freedom than I was since there was in his household a stronger current of anti-black feeling around the civil rights work down south in those days than in mine. (Strangely my father, who was nothing but a corn liquor, fast car good old boy from down in Kentucky was more sympathetic to that struggle that Josh’s Irish grandfather whom Josh could never get to call black people anything better than “nigras.” Jesus.)
A couple of week after that conversation Josh called me up from California one night where he was attending a professional conference near San Jose and told me that he forgot to tell me about what he called a “dream” he had had as a kid about his admiration for John Brown. Of course that “dream” stuff was just Josh’s way of saying that he had sketched out a few thoughts that he wanted to share with me (and which will undoubtedly find their into a commentary or review or something because very little of Josh’s “dream” stuff fails to go to ink or cyberspace). Some of it is now hazy in my mind since the hour was late here in the East, and some of it probably was really based on stuff we had learned later about the Brown expedition like how Boston Brahmins and high abolitionists like George Stearns secretly funded the operation or Brown’s attempts to get Fredrick Douglass and Harriet Tubman on board (neither name which we would have known very much about then), and some of was probably a little goofy since it involved Josh in some hero worship. Since he will inevitably write something on his own he can make any corrections himself. Know this though whenever I hear the name John Brown mentioned lately I think about Josh’s telephone call and about how the “old man” has held our esteem for so long. Here is what I jotted down, edited of course, after that conversation:
From fairly early in my youth I knew the name John Brown and
was swept up by the romance surrounding his exploits at Harper’s Ferry. I would
say that was in about the sixth grade when I went to the library and read about
Abraham Lincoln before he became president and how he didn’t like what John
Brown did because he knew that that action was going to drive the South crazy
and upset the delicate balance that was holding the Union together. Frank
though thinks it was the seventh grade when we were learning about the slavery
issues as part of the 100th anniversary of the start of the American
Civil War and his name came up as a “wild man” out of some Jehovah Calvinist
burning bush dream who was single-handedly trying to abolish slavery with that
uprising. Was ready to “light the spark” to put out the terrible scourge of
slavery. That slavery business, if you can believe this really bothered both of
us, especially when we went to a museum that showed the treatment of slaves and
the implements used to enforce that condition down South. And I remember one
time going to the Museum of Fine Arts and saw how old Pharaoh used his slaves
to build those damn pyramids to immortalize himself.
I think I am right thought about when I first heard about
the “old man” because I know I loved Lincoln, loved to read about him, loved
that back then we celebrated his birthday, February 12th, and we got
the day off from school. Loved that Lincoln was basically forced at the governmental
level to implement Brown’s program to root out slavery once the deal went down
and was merciless about its extermination once he got “religion” on the matter.
Of course neither I nor Frank would have articulated our thought that way then
but we knew “Massa Lincoln” was on the right side of the angels in his work as
much as he hated to burn down the South in the process. But there was no other
way to get the damn issue resolved and I think that is what he learned from the
Captain whether he gave credit to the man or not. By the way this I do know
while we celebrated Lincoln’s birthday in the North as the great emancipator
and Union-saver Frank once told me a story about one of his cousins down south
and how when he mentioned that he had Lincoln’s birthday off that cousin said “we
don’t celebrate that man’s birthday
down here, “ in such a way that Frank began to understand that maybe the Civil
War was not over.)
I knew other stuff back then too which added to my feel for
the Brown legend. For example, I knew that the great anthem of the Civil War -The Battle Hymn of the Republic- had a
prior existence as John Brown’s Body,
a tribute to John Brown and that Union soldiers marched to that song as they
bravely headed south. Funny but back then I was totally unaware of the role of
the Massachusetts 54th Regiment, the first black regiment raised
although with white officers when Father Abraham gave the word, whose survivors
and replacements marched into Charleston, South Carolina, the heart and soul of
the Confederacy, after the bloody Civil War to the tune of John Brown’s Body. That must have been a righteous day. Not so
righteous though and reflecting a very narrow view of history that we were
taught back then kind of fudging the very serious differences back in Civil War
times even in high abolitionist Boston was not knowing thing number one about
Augustus Saint-Gauden’s commemorative frieze honoring the men of the 54th
right across from the State House which I passed frequently when I went on to Boston
Common.
I was then, however, other than aware of the general
narrative of Brown’s exploits and a couple of songs and poems neither familiar
with the import of his exploits for the black liberation struggle nor knew much
about the specifics of the politics of the various tendencies in the ante
bellum struggle against slavery of which he represented the extreme activist
left-wing. I certainly knew nothing then of Brown’s (and his sons) prior
military exploits in the Kansas ‘proxy’ wars against the expansion of slavery.
Later study filled in some of those gaps and has only strengthened my strong
bond with his memory. Know this, as I reach the age at which John Brown was
executed I still retain my youthful admiration for him. In the context of the
turmoil of the times he was the most courageous and audacious revolutionary in
the struggle for the abolition of slavery in America. Some 150 years after his
death I am proud to stand in the tradition of John Brown. [And I am too,
brother!]
If one understands the ongoing nature, from his early youth,
of John Brown’s commitment to the active struggle against slavery, the scourge
of the American Republic in the first half of the 19th century, one can only
conclude that he was indeed a man on a mission. As various biographies point
out Brown took every opportunity to fight against slavery including early
service as an agent of the Underground Railroad spiriting escaped slaves
northward, participation as an extreme radical in all the key anti-slavery
propaganda battles of the time as well as challenging other anti-slavery
elements to be more militant and in the 1850’s, arms in hand, fighting in the
‘proxy’ wars in Kansas and, of course, the culmination of his life- the raid on
Harper’s Ferry. Those exploits alone render absurd a very convenient myth by those
who supported slavery or turned a blind eye to it and their latter-day
apologists for the institution about his so-called ‘madness’. This is a
political man and to these eyes a very worthy one.
For those who like their political heroes ‘pure’, frankly,
it is better to look elsewhere than the life of John Brown. Like them without
warts and with a discernible thrust from early adulthood that leads to some
heroic action. His personal and family life as a failed rural capitalist would
hardly lead one to think that this man was to become a key historical figure in
any struggle, much less the great struggle against slavery. Some of his actions
in Kansas (concerning allegations of the murder of some pro-slavery elements
under his direction) have also clouded his image. However if one looks at
Kansas as the start of the Civil War then all the horrible possibilities under
the heat of battle mitigate some of that incident although not excusing it
anymore that we would today with American soldiers in places like Afghanistan and
Iraq busting down doors and shooting first. However, when the deal went down in
the late 1850’s and it was apparent for all to see that there was no other way
to end slavery than a fight to the death-John Brown rose to the occasion. And
did not cry about it. And did not expect others to cry about it. Call him a
‘monomaniac’ if you like but even a slight acquaintance with great historical
figures shows that they all have this ‘disease’- that is why they make the
history books. No, the ‘madness’ argument will not do.
Whether or not John Brown knew that his military strategy
for the Harper’s Ferry raid would, in the short term, be defeated is a matter
of dispute. Reams of paper have been spent proving the military foolhardiness
of his scheme at Harper’s Ferry. Brown’s plan, however, was essentially a
combination of slave revolt modeled after the Maroon experiences in Haiti, Nat
Turner’s earlier Virginia slave rebellion and rural guerilla warfare of the
‘third world’ type that we have become more familiar with since that time. 150
years later this strategy does not look so foolhardy in an America of the
1850’s that had no real standing army, fairly weak lines of communications,
virtually uninhabited mountains to flee to and the North at their backs. The
execution of the plan is another matter. Brown seemingly made about every
mistake in the book in that regard. However, this is missing the essential
political point that militant action not continuing parliamentary maneuvering
advocated by other abolitionists had become necessary. A few more fighting abolitionists,
including Frederick Douglass, and better propaganda work among freedman with
connections to the plantations would not have hurt the chances for success at
Harper’s Ferry.
What is not in dispute is that Brown considered himself a
true Calvinist “avenging angel” in the struggle against slavery and more
importantly acted on that belief. (Strange, or maybe not so strange now, both
Frank and I who grew up upright Roman Catholics gravitated toward those
photographs of Brown with his long unkempt beard as some latter day Jehovah and
I remember Frank had a photo on the wall in his room with just such a
photograph from I think a detail of the big mural in the State House in
Kansas.) In short Brown was committed to bring justice to the black
masses. This is why his exploits and memory stay alive after over 150 years. It
is possible that if Brown did not have this, by 19th century standards as well
as our own, old-fashioned Calvinist sense of pre-determination that he would
not have been capable of militant action. Certainly other anti-slavery elements
never came close to his militancy, including the key Transcendentalist movement
led by Emerson and Thoreau and the Concord ‘crowd’ who supported Brown and kept
his memory alive in hard times. In their eyes he had the heroic manner of the
Old Testament prophet. This old time prophet animating spirit is not one that
animates modern revolutionaries and so it is hard to understand today the
depths of his religious convictions on his actions but they were understood, if
not fully appreciated, by others in those days. It is better today to look at
Brown more politically through his hero (and mine, as well) Oliver Cromwell-a
combination of Calvinist avenger and militant warrior. Yes, I can get behind
that picture of him.
By all accounts Brown and his small integrated band of
brothers fought bravely and coolly against great odds. Ten of Brown's men were
killed including two of his sons. Five were captured, tried and executed,
including Brown. He prophetic words upon
the scaffold about purging the evil of slavery in blood proved too true. But
that demeanor in the face of defeat was very appealing to me back then. I have learned since that these results, the
imprisonments or executions are almost inevitable when one takes up a
revolutionary struggle against the old order if one is not victorious. One need
only think of, for example, the fate of the defenders of the Paris Commune in
1871 when that experience was crushed in blood after heroic resistance. One can
fault Brown on this or that tactical maneuver. Nevertheless he and the others
bore themselves bravely in defeat. As we are all too painfully familiar with
now there are defeats of the oppressed that lead nowhere. One thinks of the
defeat of the German Revolution in the 1920’s. There other defeats that
galvanize others into action. This is how Brown’s actions should be measured by
history.
Militarily defeated at Harpers Ferry, Brown's political
mission to destroy slavery by force of arms nevertheless continued to galvanize
important elements in the North at the expense of the pacifistic non-resistant
Garrisonian political program for struggle against slavery. Many writers on
Brown who reduce his actions to that of a ‘madman’ still cannot believe that
his road proved more appropriate to end slavery than either non-resistance or
gradualism. That alone makes short shrift of such theories. Historians and
others have also misinterpreted later events such as the Bolshevik strategy
that led to Russian Revolution in October 1917. More recently, we saw this same
incomprehension concerning the victory of the Vietnamese against overwhelming
American military superiority. Needless to say, all these events continue to be
revised by some historians to take the sting out of there proper political
implications.
From a modern prospective Brown’s strategy for black
liberation, even if the abolitionist goal he aspired to was immediately
successful reached the outer limits within the confines of capitalism. Brown’s
actions were meant to make black people free. Beyond that goal he had no
program except the Chatham Charter which seems to have replicated the American
constitution but with racial and gender equality as a cornerstone.
Unfortunately the Civil War did not provide fundamental economic and political
freedom. Moreover, the Civil War, the defeat of Radical Reconstruction, the
reign of ‘Jim Crow’ and the subsequent waves of black migration to the cities
changed the character of black oppression in the U.S. from Brown’s time.
Nevertheless, we can stand proudly in the revolutionary tradition of John Brown,
and of his friend Frederick Douglass.
I used to fervently believe that if Douglass had come on
board as Brown had urged the chances for success would have been greater, at
least more blacks (mostly free blacks and not plantation blacks for obvious
reasons) and more radical whites who could have been mobilized as a result of
all of the events of the 1850s especially the struggle against the Fugitive
Slave Act and the struggle against the imposition of slavery in Kansas. Now I
am not so sure that Douglass’ acceptance would have qualitatively changed the
outcome. He went on to do yeoman’s work during the Civil War articulating the
left black perspective and organizing those black regiments that shifted the
outcome of the war at a decisive point. In any case honor the memory of old
Captain John Brown and his heroic band at Harper’s Ferry.
From The Pages Of The Communist International- In Honor Of The 95th Anniversary Of The Founding Of The Communist International (1919) -Desperately Seeking Revolutionary Intellectuals-Now, And Then
http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/index.htm
Desperately Seeking Revolutionary Intellectuals-Now, And Then
Commentary
No, this is not a Personals section ad, although it qualifies as a Help Wanted ad in a sense. On a number of occasions over past several years, in reviewing books especially those by James P. Cannon the founder of The Socialist Workers Party in America, I have mentioned that building off of the work of the classical Marxists, including that of Marx and Engels themselves, and later that of Lenin and Trotsky the critical problem before the international working class in the early part of the 20th century was the question of creating a revolutionary leadership to lead imminent uprisings. Armed with Lenin’s work on the theory of the imperialist nature of the epoch and the party question and Trotsky’s on the questions of permanent revolution and revolutionary timing the tasks for revolutionaries were more than adequately defined.
The conclusion that I drew from that observation was that the revolutionary socialist movement was not as desperately in need of theoreticians and intellectuals as previously (although having them is always a good thing). It needed leaders steeped in those theories and with a capacity to lead revolutions. We needed a few good day-to-day practical leaders to lead the fight for state power.
In that regard I have always held up, for the early part of the 20th century, the name Karl Liebknecht the martyred German Communist co-leader (along with Rosa Luxemburg) of the aborted Spartacist uprising of 1919 as such an example. In contrast the subsequent leadership of the German Communists in the 1920’s Paul Levi, Henrich Brandler and Ernest Thaelmann did not meet those qualifications. For later periods I have held up the name James P. Cannon, founder of the American Socialist Workers Party (to name only the organization that he was most closely associated with), as a model. That basically carries us to somewhere around the middle of the 20th century. Since I have spend a fair amount of time lately going back to try to draw the lessons of our movement I have also had occasion to think, or rather to rethink my original argument on the need for revolutionary intellectuals. That position stands in need of some amendment now.
Let’s be clear here about our needs. The traditional Marxist idea that in order to break the logjam impeding humankind’s development the international working class must rule is still on the historic agenda. The Leninist notions that, since the early part of the 20th century, we have been in the imperialist era and that a ‘hard’ cadre revolutionary party is necessary to take state power are also in play. Moreover, the Trotskyist understanding that in countries of belated development the working class is the only agency objectively capable of leading those societies to the tasks traditionally associated with the bourgeois revolution continues to hold true. That said, we are seriously in need of revolutionary intellectuals who can bring these understandings into the 21st century.
It is almost a political truism that each generation will find its own ways to cope with the political tasks that confront it. The international working class movement is no exception in that regard. Moreover, although the general outlines of Marxist theory mentioned above hold true such tasks as the updating of the theory of imperialism to take into account the qualitative leap in its globalization is necessary (as is, as an adjunct to that, the significance of the gigantic increases in the size of the ‘third world’ proletariat). Also in need of freshening up is work on the contours of revolutionary political organization in the age of high speed communications, the increased weight that non-working class specific questions play in world politics (the national question, religion, special racial and gender oppressions) and various other tasks that earlier generations had taken for granted or had not needed to consider. All this moreover has to be done in a political environment that sees Marxism, communism, even garden variety reform socialism as failed experiments. To address all the foregoing issues is where my call for a new crop of revolutionary intellectuals comes from.
Since the mid- 20th century we have had no lack of practical revolutionary leaders of one sort or another - one thinks of Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and even Mao in his less rabid moments. We have witnessed any number of national liberation struggles, a few attempts at political revolution against Stalinism, a few military victories against imperialism, notably the Vietnamese struggle. But mainly this has been an epoch of defeats for the international working class. Moreover, we have not even come close to developing theoretical leaders of the statue of Lenin or Trotsky.
As a case in point, recently I made some commentary about the theory of student power in the 1960’s and its eventual refutation by the May 1968 General Strike lead by the working class in France. One of the leading lights for the idea that students were the ‘new’ working class or a ‘new’ vanguard was one Ernest Mandel. Mandel held himself out to be an orthodox Marxist (and Trotskyist, to boot) but that did not stop him from, periodically, perhaps daily, changing the focus of his work away from the idea of the centrality of the working class in social struggle an ideas that goes back to the days of Marx himself.
And Mandel, a brilliant well-spoken erudite scholar probably was not the worst of the lot. The problem is that he was the problem with his impressionistic theories based on , frankly, opportunistic impulses. Another example, from that same period, was the idea of Professor Regis Debray ( in the service of Fidel at the time ) that guerrilla foci out in the hills were the way forward ( a codification of the experience of the Cuban Revolution for which many subjective revolutionary paid dearly with their lives). Or the anti-Marxist Maoist notion that the countryside would defeat the cities that flamed the imagination of many Western radicals in the late 1960’s. I could go on with more examples but they only lead to one conclusion- we are, among other things, in a theoretical trough. This, my friends, is why today I have my Help Wanted sign out. Any takers?
BOOK REVIEW
‘LEFT-WING’ COMMUNISM-AN INFANTILE DISORDER, V.I. LENIN, UNIVERSITY PRESS OF THE PACIFIC, CALIFORNIA, 2001
An underlying premise of the Lenin-led Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917 was that success there would be the first episode in a world-wide socialist revolution. While a specific timetable was not placed on the order of the day the early Bolshevik leaders, principally Lenin and Trotsky, both assumed that those events would occur in the immediate post-World War I period, or shortly thereafter. Alas, such was not the case, although not from lack of trying on the part of an internationalist-minded section of the Bolshevik leadership.
Another underlying premise, developed by the Leninists as part of their opposition to the imperialist First World War, was the need for a new revolutionary labor international to replace the compromised and moribund Socialist International (also known as the Second International) which had turned out to be useless as an instrument for revolution or even of opposition to the European war. The Bolsheviks took that step after seizing power and established the Communist International (also known as the Comintern or Third International) in 1919. As part of the process of arming that international with a revolutionary strategy (and practice) Lenin produced this polemic to address certain confusions, some willful, that had arisen in the European left and also attempted to instill some of the hard-learned lessons of the Russian revolutionary experience in them.
The Russian Revolution, and after it the Comintern in the early heroic days, for the most part, drew the best and most militant layers of the working-class and radical intellectuals to their defense. However, that is not the same as drawing experienced Bolsheviks to that defense. Many militants were anti-parliamentarian or anti-electoral in principle after the sorry experiences with the European social democracy. Others wanted to emulate the old heroic days of the Bolshevik underground party or create a minority, exclusive conspiratorial party.
Still others wanted to abandon the reformist bureaucratically-led trade unions to their then current leaderships, and so on. Lenin’s polemic, and it nothing but a flat-out polemic against all kinds of misconceptions of the Bolshevik experience, cut across these erroneous ideas like a knife. His literary style may not appeal to today’s audience but the political message still has considerable application today. At the time that it was written no less a figure than James P. Cannon, a central leader of the American Communist Party, credited the pamphlet with straightening out that badly confused movement (Indeed, it seems every possible political problem Lenin argued against in that pamphlet had some following in the American Party-in triplicate!). That alone makes it worth a look at.
I would like to highlight one point made by Lenin that has currency for leftists today, particularly American leftists. At the time it was written many (most) of the communist organizations adhering to the Comintern were little more than propaganda groups (including the American party). Lenin suggested one of the ways to break out of that isolation was a tactic of critical support to the still large and influential social-democratic organizations at election time. In his apt expression- to support those organizations "like a rope supports a hanging man".
However, as part of my political experiences in America around election time I have run into any number of ‘socialists’ and ‘communists’ who have turned Lenin’s concept on its head. How? By arguing that militants needed to ‘critically support’ the Democratic Party (who else, right?) as an application of the Leninist criterion for critical support. No, a thousand times no. Lenin’s specific example was the reformist British Labor Party, a party at that time (and to a lesser extent today) solidly based on the trade unions- organizations of the working class and no other. The Democratic Party in America was then, is now, and will always be a capitalist party. Yes, the labor bureaucrats and ordinary workers support it, finance it, drool over it but in no way is it a labor party. That is the class difference which even sincere militants have broken their teeth on for at least the last seventy years. And that, dear reader, is another reason why it worthwhile to take a peek at this book.
Desperately Seeking Revolutionary Intellectuals-Now, And Then
Commentary
No, this is not a Personals section ad, although it qualifies as a Help Wanted ad in a sense. On a number of occasions over past several years, in reviewing books especially those by James P. Cannon the founder of The Socialist Workers Party in America, I have mentioned that building off of the work of the classical Marxists, including that of Marx and Engels themselves, and later that of Lenin and Trotsky the critical problem before the international working class in the early part of the 20th century was the question of creating a revolutionary leadership to lead imminent uprisings. Armed with Lenin’s work on the theory of the imperialist nature of the epoch and the party question and Trotsky’s on the questions of permanent revolution and revolutionary timing the tasks for revolutionaries were more than adequately defined.
The conclusion that I drew from that observation was that the revolutionary socialist movement was not as desperately in need of theoreticians and intellectuals as previously (although having them is always a good thing). It needed leaders steeped in those theories and with a capacity to lead revolutions. We needed a few good day-to-day practical leaders to lead the fight for state power.
In that regard I have always held up, for the early part of the 20th century, the name Karl Liebknecht the martyred German Communist co-leader (along with Rosa Luxemburg) of the aborted Spartacist uprising of 1919 as such an example. In contrast the subsequent leadership of the German Communists in the 1920’s Paul Levi, Henrich Brandler and Ernest Thaelmann did not meet those qualifications. For later periods I have held up the name James P. Cannon, founder of the American Socialist Workers Party (to name only the organization that he was most closely associated with), as a model. That basically carries us to somewhere around the middle of the 20th century. Since I have spend a fair amount of time lately going back to try to draw the lessons of our movement I have also had occasion to think, or rather to rethink my original argument on the need for revolutionary intellectuals. That position stands in need of some amendment now.
Let’s be clear here about our needs. The traditional Marxist idea that in order to break the logjam impeding humankind’s development the international working class must rule is still on the historic agenda. The Leninist notions that, since the early part of the 20th century, we have been in the imperialist era and that a ‘hard’ cadre revolutionary party is necessary to take state power are also in play. Moreover, the Trotskyist understanding that in countries of belated development the working class is the only agency objectively capable of leading those societies to the tasks traditionally associated with the bourgeois revolution continues to hold true. That said, we are seriously in need of revolutionary intellectuals who can bring these understandings into the 21st century.
It is almost a political truism that each generation will find its own ways to cope with the political tasks that confront it. The international working class movement is no exception in that regard. Moreover, although the general outlines of Marxist theory mentioned above hold true such tasks as the updating of the theory of imperialism to take into account the qualitative leap in its globalization is necessary (as is, as an adjunct to that, the significance of the gigantic increases in the size of the ‘third world’ proletariat). Also in need of freshening up is work on the contours of revolutionary political organization in the age of high speed communications, the increased weight that non-working class specific questions play in world politics (the national question, religion, special racial and gender oppressions) and various other tasks that earlier generations had taken for granted or had not needed to consider. All this moreover has to be done in a political environment that sees Marxism, communism, even garden variety reform socialism as failed experiments. To address all the foregoing issues is where my call for a new crop of revolutionary intellectuals comes from.
Since the mid- 20th century we have had no lack of practical revolutionary leaders of one sort or another - one thinks of Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and even Mao in his less rabid moments. We have witnessed any number of national liberation struggles, a few attempts at political revolution against Stalinism, a few military victories against imperialism, notably the Vietnamese struggle. But mainly this has been an epoch of defeats for the international working class. Moreover, we have not even come close to developing theoretical leaders of the statue of Lenin or Trotsky.
As a case in point, recently I made some commentary about the theory of student power in the 1960’s and its eventual refutation by the May 1968 General Strike lead by the working class in France. One of the leading lights for the idea that students were the ‘new’ working class or a ‘new’ vanguard was one Ernest Mandel. Mandel held himself out to be an orthodox Marxist (and Trotskyist, to boot) but that did not stop him from, periodically, perhaps daily, changing the focus of his work away from the idea of the centrality of the working class in social struggle an ideas that goes back to the days of Marx himself.
And Mandel, a brilliant well-spoken erudite scholar probably was not the worst of the lot. The problem is that he was the problem with his impressionistic theories based on , frankly, opportunistic impulses. Another example, from that same period, was the idea of Professor Regis Debray ( in the service of Fidel at the time ) that guerrilla foci out in the hills were the way forward ( a codification of the experience of the Cuban Revolution for which many subjective revolutionary paid dearly with their lives). Or the anti-Marxist Maoist notion that the countryside would defeat the cities that flamed the imagination of many Western radicals in the late 1960’s. I could go on with more examples but they only lead to one conclusion- we are, among other things, in a theoretical trough. This, my friends, is why today I have my Help Wanted sign out. Any takers?
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
President Obama, Pardon Pvt. Manning
We are military veterans, journalists, educators, homemakers, lawyers, students, and citizens.
As an Intelligence Analyst stationed in Iraq, Pvt. Manning had access to some of America’s dirtiest secrets—crimes such as torture, illegal surveillance, and corruption—often committed in our name.
Manning acted on conscience alone, with selfless courage and conviction, and gave these secrets to us, the public.
“I believed that if the general public had access to the information contained within the[Iraq and Afghan War Logs] this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy,”
Manning explained to the military court. “I wanted the American public to know that not everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan were targets that needed to be neutralized, but rather people who were struggling to live in the pressure cooker environment of what we call asymmetric warfare.”
Journalists used these documents to uncover many startling truths. We learned:
• Donald Rumsfeld and General Petraeus helped support torture in Iraq.• Deliberate civilian killings by U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan went unpunished.
• Thousands of civilian casualties were never acknowledged publicly.
• Most Guantanamo detainees were innocent.
For service on behalf of an informed democracy, Manning was sentenced by military judge Colonel Denise Lind to a devastating 35 years in prison.
Government secrecy has grown exponentially during the past decade, but more secrecy does not make us safer when it fosters unaccountability.
Pvt. Manning was convicted of Espionage Act charges for providing WikiLeaks with this information, but the prosecutors noted that they would have done the same had the information been given to The New York Times. Prosecutors did not show that enemies used this information against the US, or that the releases resulted in any casualties.
Pvt. Manning has already been punished, even in violation of military law.
She has been:
• Held in confinement since May 29, 2010.• Subjected to illegal punishment amounting to torture for nearly nine months at Quantico Marine Base, Virginia, in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 13—facts confirmed by both the United Nation’s lead investigator on torture and military judge Col. Lind.
• Denied a speedy trial in violation of UCMJ, Article 10, having been imprisoned for over three years before trial.
• Denied anything resembling a fair trial when prosecutors were allowed to change the charge sheet to match evidence presented, and enter new evidence, after closing arguments.
Pvt. Manning believed you, Mr. President, when you came into office promising the most transparent administration in history, and that you would protect whistle-blowers. We urge you to start upholding those promises, beginning with this American prisoner of conscience.
We urge you to grant Pvt. Manning’s petition for a Presidential Pardon.
FIRST& LAST NAME _____________________________________________________________
STREET ADDRESS _____________________________________________________________
CITY, STATE & ZIP _____________________________________________________________
EMAIL& PHONE _____________________________________________________________
Please return to: For more information: www.privatemanning.org
Private Manning Support Network, c/o Courage to Resist, 484 Lake Park Ave #41, Oakland CA 94610
********
Markin comments:
There is no question that now that her trial, if one can called what took place down in Fort Meade a trial in the summer of 2013 rather than a travesty, that a year after her conviction on twenty plus counts and having received an outrageous thirty-five year sentence essentially for telling us the truth about American atrocities and nefarious actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and wherever else the American government can stick its nose that Chelsea Manning's case has dropped from view. Although she occasionally gets an Op/Ed opportunity and has several legal moves going from action to get the necessary hormonal treatments reflecting her real sexual identity to now preparing the first appeal of her conviction to another military tribunal the popular uproar against her imprisonment has become a hush. While the appeals process may produce some results, perhaps a reduction in sentence, the short way home for her is a presidential pardon right now. I urge everybody to sign on to the Amnesty International petition above to put the pressure on President Barack Obama for clemency.
I attended some of the sessions of Chelsea Manning’s court-martial in the summer of 2013 and am often asked about what she could expect from the various procedures going forward to try to “spring” her from the clutches of the American government, or as I say whenever I get the chance to not leave “our buddy behind” in the time-honored military parlance. I have usually answered depending on what stage her post-conviction case is in that her sentence was draconian by all standards for someone who did not, although they tried to pin this on her, “aid the enemy.” Certainly Judge Lind though she was being lenient with thirty-five years when the government wanted sixty (and originally more before some of the counts were consolidated). The next step was to appeal, really now that I think about it, a pro forma appeal to the commanding general of the Washington, D.C. military district where the trial was held. There were plenty of grounds to reduce the sentence but General Buchanan backed up his trial judge in the winter of 2014. Leaving Chelsea supporters right now with only the prospect of a presidential pardon to fight for as the court appeals are put together which will take some time.
No question since her trial, conviction, and draconian sentence of thirty-five years imposed by a vindictive American government heroic Wiki-leaks whistle-blower Chelsea Manning’s has fallen off the radar. The incessant news cycle which has a short life cycle covered her case sporadically, covered the verdict, covered the sentencing and with some snickers cover her announcement directly after the sentencing that she wanted to live as her true self, a woman. (A fact that her supporters were aware of prior to the announcement but agreed that the issue of her sexual identity should not get mixed up with her heroic actions.) Since then despite occasional public rallies and actions her case had tended, as most political prisoner cases do, to get caught up in the appeals process and that keeps it out of the limelight.
On Sunday October 12th Chelsea Manning was honored and remembered by the Veterans For Peace, Smedley Butler Brigade with a banner calling for her freedom as they marched in the annual Honk parade which goes through Somerville, Ma into Harvard Square for the Octoberfest. The banner drew applause and return shouts of “Free Chelsea.” The Smedley Butler Brigade continues to stand behind our sister. We will not leave her behind. We also urge everybody to sign the Amnesty International on-line petition calling on President Obama to use his constitutional authority to pardon Chelsea Manning
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/usa-one-year-after-her-conviction-chelsea-manning-must-be-released-2014-07-30
I got my start in working with anti-war GIs back in the early 1970s after my own military service was over. After my own service I felt a compelling need to fight the monster from the outside after basically fruitless and difficult efforts inside. That work included helping create a couple of GI coffeehouses near Fort Devens in Massachusetts and down at Fort Dix in New Jersey in order for GIs to have a “friendly” space in which to think through what they wanted to do in relationship to the military.
Some wanted help to apply for the then tough to get discharge for conscientious objection. Tough because once inside the military, at least this was the way things went, the military argued against the depth of the applying soldier’s convictions and tended to dismiss such applications out of hand. Only after a few civil court cases opened up the application process later when the courts ruled that the military was acting arbitrarily and capriciously in rejecting such applications out of hand did things open up a little in that channel. Others wanted to know their rights against what they were told by their officers and NCOs. But most, the great majority, wanted a place, a non-military place, a non-GI club, where they could get away from the smell, taste and macho talk of war.
Although there are still a few places where the remnants of coffeehouses exist like the classic Oleo Strut down at Fort Hood in Texas the wars of the past decade or so had produced no great GI resistance. There are many reasons for this, mainly the kind of volunteer the military accepts but probably a greater factor is that back then was the dominance of the citizen-soldier, the draftee, in stirring things up, stirring things up inside as a reflection of what was going on out on the streets and on the campuses. I still believe that in the final analysis you have to get to the “cannon fodder,” the grunts, the private soldier if you want to stop the incessant war machine. Check out what happened, for example, on Russian the front when the desperate soldiers left the trenches during 1917 after they got fed up with the Czar and the whole mess.
Everyone who has the least bit of sympathy for the anti-war struggles of the past decade should admire what Chelsea Manning has done by her actions releasing that treasure trove of information about American atrocities in Iraq and elsewhere. She has certainly paid the price for her convictions with a draconian sentence. It is hard to judge how history will record any particular heroic action like hers but if the last real case with which her action can be compared with is a guide, Daniel Ellsberg and The Pentagon Papers, she should find an honored spot. Moreover Chelsea did that action while in the military which has its own peculiar justice system. Her action, unlike back in Vietnam War times, when the Army was half in mutiny was one of precious few this time out. Now that I think about she does not have to worry about her honored place in history. It is already assured. But just to be on the safe side let’s fight like hell for her freedom. We will not leave our sister Chelsea behind.
Note that this image is PVT Manning’s preferred photo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)