*Those Who Fought For Our Communist Future Are Kindred Spirits- Honor The German Spartacist Fighters of 1919

Click on the title to link to a "Wikipedia" entry for the Spartacist Uprising of 1919.

Markin comment:

These Spartacists are the comrades-in-arms of our beloved rose of the revolution, Rosa Luxemburg, and revolutionary militant, Karl Liebknecht.

very January, as readers of this blog are now, hopefully, familiar with the international communist movement honors the 3 Ls-Lenin, Luxemburg and Leibknecht, fallen leaders of the early 20th century communist movement who died in this month (and whose untimely deaths left a huge, irreplaceable gap in the international leadership of that time). January is thus a time for us to reflect on the roots of our movement and those who brought us along this far. In order to give a fuller measure of honor to our fallen forbears this January, and in future Januarys, this space will honor others who have contributed in some way to the struggle for our communist future. That future classless society, however, will be the true memorial to their sacrifices.

Note on inclusion: As in other series on this site (“Labor’s Untold Story”, “Leaders Of The Bolshevik Revolution”, etc.) this year’s honorees do not exhaust the list of every possible communist worthy of the name. Nor, in fact, is the list limited to Bolshevik-style communists. There will be names included from other traditions (like anarchism, social democracy, the Diggers, Levellers, Jacobins, etc.) whose efforts contributed to the international struggle. Also, as was true of previous series this year’s efforts are no more than an introduction to these heroes of the class struggle. Future years will see more detailed information on each entry, particularly about many of the lesser known figures. Better yet, the reader can pick up the ball and run with it if he or she has more knowledge about the particular exploits of some communist militant, or to include a missing one.

A Victory For The Right To Bear Arms

Commentary

Sometimes it is actually fun to watch the maneuverings of the Justices of the United States Supreme Court as they form their various majority opinions (when they can avoid those plurality opinions where every justice who can put pen to paper gives a concurring opinion). Today’s, Thursday June 26, 2008, big decision is really big as this court has held that the Second Amendment to the Constitution concerning the right to bear arms means more than provision of well- regulated militia by the state and entails the individual right to bear arms. The specifics of the case involved overturning Washington, D.C.'s extremely restrictive handgun laws (and upholding the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals' previous holding overturning those laws). Justice Scalia, author of the majority decision (who by a fortunate quirk of fate as far as this decision goes never got past the legal decisions of 1791 in law school), is our ‘friend’ here. Along with ‘friends’ Roberts, Alito. Thomas and swing voter Kennedy.

They say that politics makes strange bedfellows and that is true on this issue. Of course we are also keeping company with the likes of the National Rifle Association but so be it. While they all have their own axes to grind here is what concerns us. We support, unlike the august Supreme Court Justices, the right to revolution just like our forbears did. That is why this decision is legally, at least, important to us. But as a practical matter here is the skinny- we do not want the cops, crazies and criminals to be armed while we are defenseless. No way. Enough said.

The Second Amendment- The Right To Revolution

COMMENTARY

A few weeks ago the United States Supreme Court decided to take a case, to be heard in the spring of 2008, involving the question of interpretation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Despite the continuing overwhelming proliferation of guns and other armament in individual hands in this country the question of the meaning of the ambiguously phrased amendment has not faced much federal litigation in the lower courts and very, very seldom at the Supremes, the last case being heard in the late 1930’s over machine guns. The issue to be decided, if it is, is whether the amendment confers an individual right to bear arms, with or without restrictions, or whether it is a collective right to security by the maintenance of armed forces, in this case, citizen militias. The early betting is that the conservative court will hold that the right is individual but that like other amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as those that guarantee free speech and assembly, the government has the right to make reasonable restrictions on that right. Thus a whole new field of litigation will be opened up until somewhere down the road there is settled law on the issue.


That this issue was helped along through the judicial pipeline by the well greased efforts of a right wing businessman who wanted to test the waters only adds intrigue the question and demonstrates once again the proposition that when it comes to American justice you better have good lawyers and plenty of ready cash. Despite the source of the case’s origin, despite the probable outcome of the case and despite the ravings of the National Rifle Association and other gun aficiados socialists would welcome a legal interpretation that establishes an individual right to bear arms. However, like many issues that are not necessarily of our own making we have our own distinct rationale for our position. We see the issue in the context of the right to revolution. As the case develops I will have additional commentary from this angle as the arguments are heard and the decision made next year.