Click on title to link to an important Karl Liebknecht article addressed to the youth, "Militarism and Anti-Militarism".
Showing posts with label the main enemeny is at home. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the main enemeny is at home. Show all posts
Friday, January 11, 2019
Monday, August 13, 2012
From The Pen Of American Communist Party Founder And Trotskyist Leader James P. Cannon-The American Socialist Workers Party In World War II
Click on the headline to link to the James P. Cannon Internet Archives.
*************
Markin comment on James P. Cannon and the early American Communist Party from the American Left History blog:
If you are interested in the history of the American Left or are a militant trying to understand some of the past mistakes of our history and want to know some of the problems that confronted the early American Communist Party and some of the key personalities, including James Cannon, who formed that party this book is for you.
At the beginning of the 21st century after the demise of the Soviet Union and the apparent ‘death of communism’ it may seem fantastic and utopian to today’s militants that early in the 20th century many anarchist, socialist, syndicalist and other working class militants of this country coalesced to form an American Communist Party. For the most part, these militants honestly did so in order to organize an American Socialist Revolution patterned on and influenced by the Russian October Revolution of 1917. James P. Cannon represents one of the important individuals and faction leaders in that effort and was in the thick of the battle as a central leader of the Party in this period. Whatever his political mistakes at the time, or later, one could certainly use such a militant leader today. His mistakes were the mistakes of a man looking for a revolutionary path.
For those not familiar with this period a helpful introduction by the editors gives an analysis of the important fights which occurred inside the party. That overview highlights some of the now more obscure personalities (a helpful biographical glossary is provided), where they stood on the issues and insights into the significance of the crucial early fights in the party. These include questions which are still relevant today; a legal vs. an underground party; the proper attitude toward parliamentary politics; support to third party bourgeois candidates; trade union policy; class war defense as well as how to rein in the intense internal struggle of the various factions for organizational control of the party. This makes it somewhat easier for those not well-versed in the intricacies of the political disputes which wracked the early American party to understand how these questions tended to pull it in on itself. In many ways, given the undisputed rise of American imperialism in the immediate aftermath of World War I, this is a story of the ‘dog days’ of the party. Unfortunately, that rise combined with the international ramifications of the internal dispute in the Russian Communist Party and in the Communist International shipwrecked the party as a revolutionary party toward the end of this period.
In the introduction the editors motivate the purpose for the publication of the book by stating the Cannon was the finest Communist leader that America had ever produced. This an intriguing question. The editors trace their political lineage back to Cannon’s leadership of the early Communist Party and later after his expulsion to the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party so their perspective is obvious. What does the documentation provided here show? I would argue that the period under study represented Cannon’s apprenticeship. Although the hothouse politics of the early party clarified some of the issues of revolutionary strategy for him I believe that it was not until he linked up with Trotsky in the 1930’s that he became the kind of leader who could lead a revolution. Of course, since Cannon never got a serious opportunity to lead revolutionary struggles here this is mainly reduced to speculation on my part. Later books written by him make the case better. One thing is sure- in his prime he had the instincts to want to lead a revolution.
As an addition to the historical record of this period this book is a very good companion to the two-volume set by Theodore Draper - The Roots of American Communism and Soviet Russia and American Communism- the definitive study on the early history of the American Communist Party. It is also a useful companion to Cannon’s own The First Ten Years of American Communism (click see all my reviews for reviews of all of these books). I would add that this is something of a labor of love on the part of the editors. This book was published at a time when the demise of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe was in full swing and anything related to Communist studies was deeply discounted. Nevertheless, for better or worse, the American Communist Party (and its offshoots) needs to be studied as an ultimately flawed example of a party that failed in its mission to create a radical version of society in America. Now is the time to study this history.
**********
The American Socialist Workers Party In World War II
If you are interested in the history of the American Left or are a militant trying to understand some of the past lessons of our history concerning the socialist response to imperialist war this book is for you. This book is part of a continuing series of the writings of James P. Cannon that was published by the organization he founded, the Socialist Workers Party, in the late 1970’s shortly after his death in 1974. Look in this space for other related reviews of this series on this important American Communist.
In the introduction the editors motivate the purpose for the publication of the book by stating the Cannon was the finest Communist leader that America had ever produced. This an intriguing question. The editors trace their political lineage back to Cannon’s leadership of the early Communist Party and later after his expulsion to the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party so their perspective is obvious. What does the documentation provided here show? This certainly is the period of Cannon’s political maturation after a long journeymanship working with Trotsky. The period under discussion started with his leadership of the fight against those who no longer wanted to defend the gains of the Russian Revolution despite the Stalinist degeneration of that revolution. He won his spurs in that fight and in his struggle to orient the party toward World War II. One thing is sure- in his prime which includes this period Cannon had the instincts to want to lead a revolution and had the evident capacity to do so.
As I write this review we are in the midst of commemerrating the 3rd Anniversary of the start of the American invasion of Iraq. As I have argued elsewhere in this space militants must support the call for immediate United States and Allied forces withdrawal from that war-torn country. More drastic action is needed, much more, over the long haul including a change in government but that demand is the minimum basis for action today. If you want to find a more profound response initiated by revolutionary socialists to World War II the Cannon’s writing here will assist you. I draw your attention to three aspects of policy which highlight this book; the historic socialist anti-war policy; the ambiguous Proletarian Military Policy of the Socialist Workers Party; and, revolutionary socialist defense policy against governmental persecution and suppression.
Historically, at least in peace time, most socialist tendencies before World War I had a formal policy against the war policies and military buildup. At the start of World War I most European socialist parties capitulated to their respective imperialist state’s war aims that are rightly understood as a betrayal of that policy. The Russian Bolshevik Party led by Lenin and preciously few other European parties and individuals upheld the Marxist policy against war and militarism. Moreover, one of the most enduring lessons of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917 was that the only way to successfully fight against imperialist war aims and stop war is to overthrow the capitalist system of your own country. As developed during World War I that understanding of socialist policy had two prongs. First, socialists must not vote for or otherwise support the war aims of their own imperialist state. Second, in order to end war and bring in the prospect of a socialist organization of society dedicated to ending war one must actively seek to turn the imperialist war into a civil war. This is the perspective the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party, led by James P. Cannon, operated from prior to and during World War II. Thus, they operated within an orthodox Leninist revolutionary perspective. They did this forthrightly and paid the price for it with the imprisonment of its leaders, including Cannon, and virtual suppression of its newspaper. These were severe blows to that small party.
Although the Socialist Workers Party honorably upheld the revolutionary socialist position on imperialist war during this period that party pursued what can only be considered an ambiguous policy that has come down in history as the Proletarian Military Policy. In this perspective the organization was influenced by Trotsky’s theses on permanent war and total militarism. That policy had two parts when it was elaborated just prior to American participation in World War II. One was trade union control of worker military training in case of conscription and the other was control of worker-officer training. The fundamental flaw in this policy is that it contradicts the Marxist understanding of the state which is that in the final analysis the state is an armed body of men (women) in the service of the ruling class. To call for such controls is either utopian or opportunism and blunted the other orthodox actions that proved the worth of the party. Yes, oppose conscription. Yes, oppose the war budget. Yes, sent your youthful cadre into the army when drafted to influence working class and minority youth. No, to this scheme.
As a result of their open and defiant opposition to Roosevelt’s war aims the leadership of the Socialist Workers was indicted before the opening of United States involvement in World War II. Ultimately most of those indicted were convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. This is the price revolutionary must know in their bones they will have to pay for such fundamental opposition. All honor to those courageous individuals. The Socialist Workers Party in response to this governmental persecution created a broad based defense organization to both raise funds and call attention to the plight of their comrades. This was both appropriate and useful. Moreover, the organization properly used the trial as a forum on socialism. This is also a proper response to such persecutions by the government. Cannon has some interesting things his experiences in the legal vs. illegal party debate and the proper tone to take during wartime to protect your legal status when you oppose the government. If you oppose the United States occupation in Iraq read this book. Before we are done you and I may need to use some of the lessons drawn from this source.
*************
Markin comment on James P. Cannon and the early American Communist Party from the American Left History blog:
If you are interested in the history of the American Left or are a militant trying to understand some of the past mistakes of our history and want to know some of the problems that confronted the early American Communist Party and some of the key personalities, including James Cannon, who formed that party this book is for you.
At the beginning of the 21st century after the demise of the Soviet Union and the apparent ‘death of communism’ it may seem fantastic and utopian to today’s militants that early in the 20th century many anarchist, socialist, syndicalist and other working class militants of this country coalesced to form an American Communist Party. For the most part, these militants honestly did so in order to organize an American Socialist Revolution patterned on and influenced by the Russian October Revolution of 1917. James P. Cannon represents one of the important individuals and faction leaders in that effort and was in the thick of the battle as a central leader of the Party in this period. Whatever his political mistakes at the time, or later, one could certainly use such a militant leader today. His mistakes were the mistakes of a man looking for a revolutionary path.
For those not familiar with this period a helpful introduction by the editors gives an analysis of the important fights which occurred inside the party. That overview highlights some of the now more obscure personalities (a helpful biographical glossary is provided), where they stood on the issues and insights into the significance of the crucial early fights in the party. These include questions which are still relevant today; a legal vs. an underground party; the proper attitude toward parliamentary politics; support to third party bourgeois candidates; trade union policy; class war defense as well as how to rein in the intense internal struggle of the various factions for organizational control of the party. This makes it somewhat easier for those not well-versed in the intricacies of the political disputes which wracked the early American party to understand how these questions tended to pull it in on itself. In many ways, given the undisputed rise of American imperialism in the immediate aftermath of World War I, this is a story of the ‘dog days’ of the party. Unfortunately, that rise combined with the international ramifications of the internal dispute in the Russian Communist Party and in the Communist International shipwrecked the party as a revolutionary party toward the end of this period.
In the introduction the editors motivate the purpose for the publication of the book by stating the Cannon was the finest Communist leader that America had ever produced. This an intriguing question. The editors trace their political lineage back to Cannon’s leadership of the early Communist Party and later after his expulsion to the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party so their perspective is obvious. What does the documentation provided here show? I would argue that the period under study represented Cannon’s apprenticeship. Although the hothouse politics of the early party clarified some of the issues of revolutionary strategy for him I believe that it was not until he linked up with Trotsky in the 1930’s that he became the kind of leader who could lead a revolution. Of course, since Cannon never got a serious opportunity to lead revolutionary struggles here this is mainly reduced to speculation on my part. Later books written by him make the case better. One thing is sure- in his prime he had the instincts to want to lead a revolution.
As an addition to the historical record of this period this book is a very good companion to the two-volume set by Theodore Draper - The Roots of American Communism and Soviet Russia and American Communism- the definitive study on the early history of the American Communist Party. It is also a useful companion to Cannon’s own The First Ten Years of American Communism (click see all my reviews for reviews of all of these books). I would add that this is something of a labor of love on the part of the editors. This book was published at a time when the demise of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe was in full swing and anything related to Communist studies was deeply discounted. Nevertheless, for better or worse, the American Communist Party (and its offshoots) needs to be studied as an ultimately flawed example of a party that failed in its mission to create a radical version of society in America. Now is the time to study this history.
**********
The American Socialist Workers Party In World War II
If you are interested in the history of the American Left or are a militant trying to understand some of the past lessons of our history concerning the socialist response to imperialist war this book is for you. This book is part of a continuing series of the writings of James P. Cannon that was published by the organization he founded, the Socialist Workers Party, in the late 1970’s shortly after his death in 1974. Look in this space for other related reviews of this series on this important American Communist.
In the introduction the editors motivate the purpose for the publication of the book by stating the Cannon was the finest Communist leader that America had ever produced. This an intriguing question. The editors trace their political lineage back to Cannon’s leadership of the early Communist Party and later after his expulsion to the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party so their perspective is obvious. What does the documentation provided here show? This certainly is the period of Cannon’s political maturation after a long journeymanship working with Trotsky. The period under discussion started with his leadership of the fight against those who no longer wanted to defend the gains of the Russian Revolution despite the Stalinist degeneration of that revolution. He won his spurs in that fight and in his struggle to orient the party toward World War II. One thing is sure- in his prime which includes this period Cannon had the instincts to want to lead a revolution and had the evident capacity to do so.
As I write this review we are in the midst of commemerrating the 3rd Anniversary of the start of the American invasion of Iraq. As I have argued elsewhere in this space militants must support the call for immediate United States and Allied forces withdrawal from that war-torn country. More drastic action is needed, much more, over the long haul including a change in government but that demand is the minimum basis for action today. If you want to find a more profound response initiated by revolutionary socialists to World War II the Cannon’s writing here will assist you. I draw your attention to three aspects of policy which highlight this book; the historic socialist anti-war policy; the ambiguous Proletarian Military Policy of the Socialist Workers Party; and, revolutionary socialist defense policy against governmental persecution and suppression.
Historically, at least in peace time, most socialist tendencies before World War I had a formal policy against the war policies and military buildup. At the start of World War I most European socialist parties capitulated to their respective imperialist state’s war aims that are rightly understood as a betrayal of that policy. The Russian Bolshevik Party led by Lenin and preciously few other European parties and individuals upheld the Marxist policy against war and militarism. Moreover, one of the most enduring lessons of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917 was that the only way to successfully fight against imperialist war aims and stop war is to overthrow the capitalist system of your own country. As developed during World War I that understanding of socialist policy had two prongs. First, socialists must not vote for or otherwise support the war aims of their own imperialist state. Second, in order to end war and bring in the prospect of a socialist organization of society dedicated to ending war one must actively seek to turn the imperialist war into a civil war. This is the perspective the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party, led by James P. Cannon, operated from prior to and during World War II. Thus, they operated within an orthodox Leninist revolutionary perspective. They did this forthrightly and paid the price for it with the imprisonment of its leaders, including Cannon, and virtual suppression of its newspaper. These were severe blows to that small party.
Although the Socialist Workers Party honorably upheld the revolutionary socialist position on imperialist war during this period that party pursued what can only be considered an ambiguous policy that has come down in history as the Proletarian Military Policy. In this perspective the organization was influenced by Trotsky’s theses on permanent war and total militarism. That policy had two parts when it was elaborated just prior to American participation in World War II. One was trade union control of worker military training in case of conscription and the other was control of worker-officer training. The fundamental flaw in this policy is that it contradicts the Marxist understanding of the state which is that in the final analysis the state is an armed body of men (women) in the service of the ruling class. To call for such controls is either utopian or opportunism and blunted the other orthodox actions that proved the worth of the party. Yes, oppose conscription. Yes, oppose the war budget. Yes, sent your youthful cadre into the army when drafted to influence working class and minority youth. No, to this scheme.
As a result of their open and defiant opposition to Roosevelt’s war aims the leadership of the Socialist Workers was indicted before the opening of United States involvement in World War II. Ultimately most of those indicted were convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. This is the price revolutionary must know in their bones they will have to pay for such fundamental opposition. All honor to those courageous individuals. The Socialist Workers Party in response to this governmental persecution created a broad based defense organization to both raise funds and call attention to the plight of their comrades. This was both appropriate and useful. Moreover, the organization properly used the trial as a forum on socialism. This is also a proper response to such persecutions by the government. Cannon has some interesting things his experiences in the legal vs. illegal party debate and the proper tone to take during wartime to protect your legal status when you oppose the government. If you oppose the United States occupation in Iraq read this book. Before we are done you and I may need to use some of the lessons drawn from this source.
Friday, January 14, 2011
From The Lenin Internet Archives- Lenin And The Fight Against Imperialist War (1914-1917)-The “Peace” Slogan Appraised(1915)
Markin comment:
It would seem almost unnecessary to comment on Lenin’s Bolshevik positions on imperialist war, as exemplified by his analysis of the war that he actually had to fight against, World War I. Those positions reflected his understanding that with that war the nature of capitalism had changed, definitively, from a progressive step for humankind to just a squalid, never-ending struggle among “thieves” for control of the world’s resources. It would have seemed almost unnecessary to mention this, that is, for earlier leftist generations who were familiar with his various slogans centrally-“the main enemy is at home” (adapted from German revolutionary Karl Liebknecht-“not one penny, not one man for the imperialist war”- “turn the guns the other way” (toward your own rulers)-and, specific to Bolsheviks- “fight for a new workers international, the Third International” (to replace the bankrupt Second International).
Now, especially after the past several anti-war rallies that I have attended, I am not sure who among the attendees is familiar with his work. With all the pacifist, stop war in general, peace now, let all men and women be brothers and sisters rhetoric ringing in my ears I have to assume not. More importantly, I do not see such slogans (or anything close to them) emblazoned on any banners lately. Thus, in a month when we of the international communist movement honor Lenin anyway (along with the aforementioned Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, the Rose of the revolution) this series will try to familiarize those who seek a better struggle against imperialist war than is being presented now with “red” anti-war positions.
*******
V. I. Lenin
The “Peace” Slogan Appraised
Written: Written in July–August 1915
Published: First published in the magazine Proletarskaya Revolutsia No. 5 (28), 1924. Published according to the manuscript.
Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, [197[4]], Moscow, Volume 21, pages 287-289.
Translated:
Transcription\Markup: D. Walters and R. Cymbala
Public Domain: Lenin Internet Archive 2002 (2005). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.
Other Formats: Text • README
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its issue of June 27, 1915, the Vienna Arbeiter-Zeitwig, central organ of the Austrian Social-Democrats, cites a very instructive declaration contained in the German governmental Norddeutsche Aligemeine Zeitung.
The declaration deals with an article by one of the best known (and vilest) opportunists of the “Social-Democratic.” Party of Germany named Quarck, who said inter alia:
“We German Social-Democrats and our Austrian comrades have repeatedly declared ourselves ready to establish contacts (with the British and French Social-Democrats) for the purpose of beginning peace talks. The German Imperial Government know of this, and have not placed the slightest obstacle in our way.”
Nationalliberale Korrespondenz, a German national-liberal paper, has said that the concluding words permit of a double interpretation. The first is that the government have put no obstacles in the way of “international political action” by the Social-Democrats, insofar as it does not transgress the limits of legality and “is not dangerous to the State”. This, the paper says, is perfectly intelligible from the angle of “political freedom”.
The second interpretation is that the German Government “at least tacitly approve of the Social-Democratic internationalist peace propaganda, and even consider it a suitable means of laying down the initial basis for exploring the possibility of peace”.
The national-liberal paper naturally considers this latter interpretation out of the question. In this it has the official support of the government newspaper, which goes on to say that “the government have nothing in common with internationalist peace propaganda and have authorised neither Social-Democratic nor any other intermediaries to conduct that propaganda”.
An edifying farce, is it not? Will anybody believe that the German Government, who have forbidden Vorwärts to write about the class struggle, have introduced harsh military laws against popular meetings and veritable “military slavery” for the proletariat—that this government have, out of sheer liberalism, “put no obstacles” in the way of Messrs. Quarck and Südekum, or that they are not in constant communication with the latter gentlemen?
Is it not a thousand times more likely that Quarck inadvertently told the truth (namely, that the peace propaganda was started by the German Social-Democrats when they had reached a direct or indirect understanding with their government), and that he was “officially refuted” only for the purpose of concealing the truth.
This is a lesson to those phrase-lovers who, like Trotsky (see No. 105 of Nashe Slovo), defend—in opposition to us—the peace slogan, alleging among other things that “all Left-wingers” have united for the purpose of “action” under this very slogan! The Junker government have now demonstrated the correctness of our Berne resolution (Sotsial-Demokrat No. 40), which says that the propaganda of peace “unaccompanied by a call for revolutionary mass action” can only “sow illusions” and “turn the proletariat into a plaything in the hands of the secret diplomacy of the belligerent countries”.[1]
This has been literally proved!
In a few years diplomatic history will prove that there was an understanding, direct or indirect, between the opportunists and the governments on peace palaver and this, not in Germany alone! Diplomacy may conceal such things, but murder will out!
When the Lefts began to unite under the peace slogan, this deserved encouragement, provided it was the first step in protest against the chauvinists, in the same fashion as the Gaponade was the Russian worker’s first timid protest against the tsar. But since the Lefts are even now confining themselves to this slogan (slogans are the business of intelligent political leaders), they are shoddy Lefts, there is consequently not a grain of “action” in their resolutions, and they are consequently a plaything in the hands of the Sudekums, Quarcks, Sembats, Hyndmans, Joffres, and Hindenburgs.
Anyone who fails to understand this even today, when the peace slogan ("unaccompanied by a call for revolutionary mass action") has been prostituted by the Vienna Conference[2] of Bernstein, Kautsky and Co. with the Scheidernanns (the German Vorstand, their Executive), is simply an unwitting participant in the social-chauvinist humbugging of the people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
[1] See p. 163 of this volume.—Ed.
[2] The reference is to the Conference of Socialists of Germany and Austria-Hungary, held in Vianna in April 1915. The Conference approved of the social-chauvinist stand taken by the leadership of the German and Austrian socialist parties, wich justified the war and stated, in their resolutions, that this did not run counter to proletarian unity and to the workers’ international solidarity in the struggle for peace.
It would seem almost unnecessary to comment on Lenin’s Bolshevik positions on imperialist war, as exemplified by his analysis of the war that he actually had to fight against, World War I. Those positions reflected his understanding that with that war the nature of capitalism had changed, definitively, from a progressive step for humankind to just a squalid, never-ending struggle among “thieves” for control of the world’s resources. It would have seemed almost unnecessary to mention this, that is, for earlier leftist generations who were familiar with his various slogans centrally-“the main enemy is at home” (adapted from German revolutionary Karl Liebknecht-“not one penny, not one man for the imperialist war”- “turn the guns the other way” (toward your own rulers)-and, specific to Bolsheviks- “fight for a new workers international, the Third International” (to replace the bankrupt Second International).
Now, especially after the past several anti-war rallies that I have attended, I am not sure who among the attendees is familiar with his work. With all the pacifist, stop war in general, peace now, let all men and women be brothers and sisters rhetoric ringing in my ears I have to assume not. More importantly, I do not see such slogans (or anything close to them) emblazoned on any banners lately. Thus, in a month when we of the international communist movement honor Lenin anyway (along with the aforementioned Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, the Rose of the revolution) this series will try to familiarize those who seek a better struggle against imperialist war than is being presented now with “red” anti-war positions.
*******
V. I. Lenin
The “Peace” Slogan Appraised
Written: Written in July–August 1915
Published: First published in the magazine Proletarskaya Revolutsia No. 5 (28), 1924. Published according to the manuscript.
Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, [197[4]], Moscow, Volume 21, pages 287-289.
Translated:
Transcription\Markup: D. Walters and R. Cymbala
Public Domain: Lenin Internet Archive 2002 (2005). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.
Other Formats: Text • README
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its issue of June 27, 1915, the Vienna Arbeiter-Zeitwig, central organ of the Austrian Social-Democrats, cites a very instructive declaration contained in the German governmental Norddeutsche Aligemeine Zeitung.
The declaration deals with an article by one of the best known (and vilest) opportunists of the “Social-Democratic.” Party of Germany named Quarck, who said inter alia:
“We German Social-Democrats and our Austrian comrades have repeatedly declared ourselves ready to establish contacts (with the British and French Social-Democrats) for the purpose of beginning peace talks. The German Imperial Government know of this, and have not placed the slightest obstacle in our way.”
Nationalliberale Korrespondenz, a German national-liberal paper, has said that the concluding words permit of a double interpretation. The first is that the government have put no obstacles in the way of “international political action” by the Social-Democrats, insofar as it does not transgress the limits of legality and “is not dangerous to the State”. This, the paper says, is perfectly intelligible from the angle of “political freedom”.
The second interpretation is that the German Government “at least tacitly approve of the Social-Democratic internationalist peace propaganda, and even consider it a suitable means of laying down the initial basis for exploring the possibility of peace”.
The national-liberal paper naturally considers this latter interpretation out of the question. In this it has the official support of the government newspaper, which goes on to say that “the government have nothing in common with internationalist peace propaganda and have authorised neither Social-Democratic nor any other intermediaries to conduct that propaganda”.
An edifying farce, is it not? Will anybody believe that the German Government, who have forbidden Vorwärts to write about the class struggle, have introduced harsh military laws against popular meetings and veritable “military slavery” for the proletariat—that this government have, out of sheer liberalism, “put no obstacles” in the way of Messrs. Quarck and Südekum, or that they are not in constant communication with the latter gentlemen?
Is it not a thousand times more likely that Quarck inadvertently told the truth (namely, that the peace propaganda was started by the German Social-Democrats when they had reached a direct or indirect understanding with their government), and that he was “officially refuted” only for the purpose of concealing the truth.
This is a lesson to those phrase-lovers who, like Trotsky (see No. 105 of Nashe Slovo), defend—in opposition to us—the peace slogan, alleging among other things that “all Left-wingers” have united for the purpose of “action” under this very slogan! The Junker government have now demonstrated the correctness of our Berne resolution (Sotsial-Demokrat No. 40), which says that the propaganda of peace “unaccompanied by a call for revolutionary mass action” can only “sow illusions” and “turn the proletariat into a plaything in the hands of the secret diplomacy of the belligerent countries”.[1]
This has been literally proved!
In a few years diplomatic history will prove that there was an understanding, direct or indirect, between the opportunists and the governments on peace palaver and this, not in Germany alone! Diplomacy may conceal such things, but murder will out!
When the Lefts began to unite under the peace slogan, this deserved encouragement, provided it was the first step in protest against the chauvinists, in the same fashion as the Gaponade was the Russian worker’s first timid protest against the tsar. But since the Lefts are even now confining themselves to this slogan (slogans are the business of intelligent political leaders), they are shoddy Lefts, there is consequently not a grain of “action” in their resolutions, and they are consequently a plaything in the hands of the Sudekums, Quarcks, Sembats, Hyndmans, Joffres, and Hindenburgs.
Anyone who fails to understand this even today, when the peace slogan ("unaccompanied by a call for revolutionary mass action") has been prostituted by the Vienna Conference[2] of Bernstein, Kautsky and Co. with the Scheidernanns (the German Vorstand, their Executive), is simply an unwitting participant in the social-chauvinist humbugging of the people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
[1] See p. 163 of this volume.—Ed.
[2] The reference is to the Conference of Socialists of Germany and Austria-Hungary, held in Vianna in April 1915. The Conference approved of the social-chauvinist stand taken by the leadership of the German and Austrian socialist parties, wich justified the war and stated, in their resolutions, that this did not run counter to proletarian unity and to the workers’ international solidarity in the struggle for peace.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
*Northampton (Ma.) City Council Passes Afghan & Iraq Anti-War Resolution
Click on the headline to link to an Associated Press article detailing Northampton's adoption of an anti-war resolution.
Markin comment:
This little news item about a small Massachusetts town’s adoption of an anti-war resolution against Obama’s, yes, Obama’s Afghan and Iraq wars would usually slip by my radar except Northampton is one of those little enclaves that harbor all manner of old time radicals, old New Leftists, feminists, etc. who moved out of the big cities in the 1970s and 1980s looking for the bucolic life while also remaining in the orbit of academia (there are several colleges in the area). Other similar places(non-exclusive list) include Cambridge, Ann Arbor, Berkeley, Seattle, Madison (Wis.), Austin (Tex.).
The import of this action is more about the first, tentative, local parliamentary rumblings from the left, the left that supported Barack Obama in 2008 based on his anti-Iraq position (among other things). Now Mr. Obama finds himself in the company of more well-known war criminals like Lyndon Johnson and the Bushes, father and son on the receiving end of anti-war resolutions. Nice company.
Resolutions like this are fine, mainly, as one small aspect of anti-war policy, but I should like to remind all anti-warriors that the real fight on passing such resolutions is around avoiding the vague sentiments reportedly expressed here and a real anti-imperialist position of immediate, unconditional withdrawal of all American/Allied Troops from Afghanistan, Iraq (and the world come to think of it). And then push on from there in our anti-war opposition.
******
In their own words:
Northampton Organizers Summarize "Bring Our War Dollars Home" Campaign
Submitted by ujpadmin on Thu, 10/07/2010 - 10:31am.
by Carl Moos and Sally Weiss
Northampton is a city of about 30,000 in western Massachusetts. It is governed by a Mayor and a nine-member City Council.
This campaign to Bring Our War Dollars Home was led by Dr. Martha Nathan with the help of many members of the Alliance for Peace and Justice of Western Mass.
Petitioning: We heard about the “Bring Our War Dollars Home” campaign which was started in 2009 by Bruce Gagnon in Maine. From the website of the National Priorities Project (www.nationalpriorities.org), we extracted the dollar cost of the war for our small city (which was easily done with the sophisticated software that NPP has set up). Then in April we were able to draft a resolution based on the original one from Maine and took it as a petition to the streets, the farmers’ markets, even at the town dump. We were impressed by the eagerness of many citizens to add their signatures as a way to express their chagrin with the war. When we had 300 signatures, we approached some friendly members of the City Council, who agreed to sponsor the measure in the Council. It was introduced at a mid-June Council meeting, and we mobilized many of our supporters to speak in the “public comment period” of the meeting, including veterans from IVAW and VFP, some of whom had served in Iraq or Afghanistan and spoke against the wars. Some other local military personnel spoke against our resolution. The City Council decided to refer it to three committees of the Council and to call for a Public Forum on the question.
Throughout the entire period, we continued the petition drive, finally ending with about 1,250 names. The campaign was further fueled by our writing op-eds and letters to the editor in the local daily paper. Contrary opinions appeared as well. The newspaper lent editorial space, not taking sides but in support of the community engaging with such a vital topic as war, peace, and the expenditure of the taxes of local citizens.
Public Forum: The forum was one of the best outcomes of the campaign. It was chaired by the mayor; a lot of citizens spoke. Many facets of what is a controversial idea – curtailing money for an ongoing war – were aired. It became a true community dialogue. We supporters of the resolution were in the majority in the audience, but the mayor insisted on dissenters being given a respectful hearing. The newspaper gave good coverage of the Public Forum, and it was broadcast by community TV and our local low-power radio station.
City Council Action: It was time for the voting in City Council. The three committees had reported back (two pro and one con). There were a couple of delays due to absences of key Council members. We kept on coming to Council meetings, bringing in more petitions, and using the public comment period. Responding to concerns expressed at the Public Forum and in consultation with us, two Councilors amended the Resolution to add explicit language calling for bringing the troops home as well as the dollars, and adding concerns about respect for soldiers and veterans’ care. The first Council vote on the final amended resolution came in at 6-2-1; the required second and final vote will occur on October 7. The Mayor and the Council will then be instructed to deliver the War Dollars Resolution to our members of Congress: Sens. John Kerry and Scott Brown, and Rep. Richard Neal (MA-2). [The City Council resolution is attached - Ed.]
Community Follow-up: A call for a more informal and extended discussion format was called for by several speakers at the Public Forum. Our Alliance took up that call. Two intimate meetings between two members of the peace community and a few veterans’ families – an exquisitely delicate dialogue – have occurred and will continue.
Regional Outreach: Members of our Alliance for Peace and Justice who live in nearby cities and towns of western Massachusetts are rewriting the petitions and beginning to gather signatures. It is heartening that other calls will go out to Bring Our War Dollars Home. We are happy for this chance to explain the War Dollars campaign through the national networking of UFPJ and PDA.
Lessons learned: It was a long campaign, with ups and downs. We needed to be in it for the long haul because it consumed five months of steadfast organizing.
Using the remarkably easy system of the National Priorities Project (www.nationalpriorities.org) to determine the cost of war over these last nine years for each locality was essential to defining “the war dollars”.
Talking to anti-war veterans and getting their engagement in the process was vital.
Contacting and lobbying members of the City Council in advance was important to getting them engaged and knowledgeable about the campaign and therefore to the ultimate success of the measure. Diligent efforts were needed as well to get so much coverage in the local press.
Whether we won or lost the final vote, a key valuable outcome of the effort was the prolonged time of having the question of our war dollars before the public, getting many people thinking and talking with their family, friends, colleagues, and neighbors, and therefore being willing to participate in the Public Forum.
-- Submitted by Sally Weiss and Carl Moos, members of the Alliance for Peace and Justice of Western Mass., and of the End the War and Occupation “IOT” of Progressive Democrats of America
Markin comment:
This little news item about a small Massachusetts town’s adoption of an anti-war resolution against Obama’s, yes, Obama’s Afghan and Iraq wars would usually slip by my radar except Northampton is one of those little enclaves that harbor all manner of old time radicals, old New Leftists, feminists, etc. who moved out of the big cities in the 1970s and 1980s looking for the bucolic life while also remaining in the orbit of academia (there are several colleges in the area). Other similar places(non-exclusive list) include Cambridge, Ann Arbor, Berkeley, Seattle, Madison (Wis.), Austin (Tex.).
The import of this action is more about the first, tentative, local parliamentary rumblings from the left, the left that supported Barack Obama in 2008 based on his anti-Iraq position (among other things). Now Mr. Obama finds himself in the company of more well-known war criminals like Lyndon Johnson and the Bushes, father and son on the receiving end of anti-war resolutions. Nice company.
Resolutions like this are fine, mainly, as one small aspect of anti-war policy, but I should like to remind all anti-warriors that the real fight on passing such resolutions is around avoiding the vague sentiments reportedly expressed here and a real anti-imperialist position of immediate, unconditional withdrawal of all American/Allied Troops from Afghanistan, Iraq (and the world come to think of it). And then push on from there in our anti-war opposition.
******
In their own words:
Northampton Organizers Summarize "Bring Our War Dollars Home" Campaign
Submitted by ujpadmin on Thu, 10/07/2010 - 10:31am.
by Carl Moos and Sally Weiss
Northampton is a city of about 30,000 in western Massachusetts. It is governed by a Mayor and a nine-member City Council.
This campaign to Bring Our War Dollars Home was led by Dr. Martha Nathan with the help of many members of the Alliance for Peace and Justice of Western Mass.
Petitioning: We heard about the “Bring Our War Dollars Home” campaign which was started in 2009 by Bruce Gagnon in Maine. From the website of the National Priorities Project (www.nationalpriorities.org), we extracted the dollar cost of the war for our small city (which was easily done with the sophisticated software that NPP has set up). Then in April we were able to draft a resolution based on the original one from Maine and took it as a petition to the streets, the farmers’ markets, even at the town dump. We were impressed by the eagerness of many citizens to add their signatures as a way to express their chagrin with the war. When we had 300 signatures, we approached some friendly members of the City Council, who agreed to sponsor the measure in the Council. It was introduced at a mid-June Council meeting, and we mobilized many of our supporters to speak in the “public comment period” of the meeting, including veterans from IVAW and VFP, some of whom had served in Iraq or Afghanistan and spoke against the wars. Some other local military personnel spoke against our resolution. The City Council decided to refer it to three committees of the Council and to call for a Public Forum on the question.
Throughout the entire period, we continued the petition drive, finally ending with about 1,250 names. The campaign was further fueled by our writing op-eds and letters to the editor in the local daily paper. Contrary opinions appeared as well. The newspaper lent editorial space, not taking sides but in support of the community engaging with such a vital topic as war, peace, and the expenditure of the taxes of local citizens.
Public Forum: The forum was one of the best outcomes of the campaign. It was chaired by the mayor; a lot of citizens spoke. Many facets of what is a controversial idea – curtailing money for an ongoing war – were aired. It became a true community dialogue. We supporters of the resolution were in the majority in the audience, but the mayor insisted on dissenters being given a respectful hearing. The newspaper gave good coverage of the Public Forum, and it was broadcast by community TV and our local low-power radio station.
City Council Action: It was time for the voting in City Council. The three committees had reported back (two pro and one con). There were a couple of delays due to absences of key Council members. We kept on coming to Council meetings, bringing in more petitions, and using the public comment period. Responding to concerns expressed at the Public Forum and in consultation with us, two Councilors amended the Resolution to add explicit language calling for bringing the troops home as well as the dollars, and adding concerns about respect for soldiers and veterans’ care. The first Council vote on the final amended resolution came in at 6-2-1; the required second and final vote will occur on October 7. The Mayor and the Council will then be instructed to deliver the War Dollars Resolution to our members of Congress: Sens. John Kerry and Scott Brown, and Rep. Richard Neal (MA-2). [The City Council resolution is attached - Ed.]
Community Follow-up: A call for a more informal and extended discussion format was called for by several speakers at the Public Forum. Our Alliance took up that call. Two intimate meetings between two members of the peace community and a few veterans’ families – an exquisitely delicate dialogue – have occurred and will continue.
Regional Outreach: Members of our Alliance for Peace and Justice who live in nearby cities and towns of western Massachusetts are rewriting the petitions and beginning to gather signatures. It is heartening that other calls will go out to Bring Our War Dollars Home. We are happy for this chance to explain the War Dollars campaign through the national networking of UFPJ and PDA.
Lessons learned: It was a long campaign, with ups and downs. We needed to be in it for the long haul because it consumed five months of steadfast organizing.
Using the remarkably easy system of the National Priorities Project (www.nationalpriorities.org) to determine the cost of war over these last nine years for each locality was essential to defining “the war dollars”.
Talking to anti-war veterans and getting their engagement in the process was vital.
Contacting and lobbying members of the City Council in advance was important to getting them engaged and knowledgeable about the campaign and therefore to the ultimate success of the measure. Diligent efforts were needed as well to get so much coverage in the local press.
Whether we won or lost the final vote, a key valuable outcome of the effort was the prolonged time of having the question of our war dollars before the public, getting many people thinking and talking with their family, friends, colleagues, and neighbors, and therefore being willing to participate in the Public Forum.
-- Submitted by Sally Weiss and Carl Moos, members of the Alliance for Peace and Justice of Western Mass., and of the End the War and Occupation “IOT” of Progressive Democrats of America
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)