Saturday, June 30, 2012

From The Archives Of The American And International Left -Marxism and the state: an exchange:The State: A Marxist Programme and Transitional Demands

Click on the headline to link to the International Bolshevik Tendency website.
Markin comment:

This archival issue of the International Bolshevik Tendency journal may be of some historical interest for old "new leftists,” perhaps, as well as for younger militants interested in various cultural and social questions that intersect the class struggle. Or for those just interested in a Marxist position on a series of social and political questions that are thrust upon us by the vagaries of bourgeois society. I will be posting more such articles from the back issues of Spartacist and other periodicals from other leftist organizations, past and present, periodically throughout the year.
***********
Mirrored from www.socialistparty.org.uk/pamphlets/state2006/1.htm on Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:20:38 GMT
(Edited to view outside CWI's frameset)

Marxism and the state: an exchange:The State: A Marxist Programme and Transitional Demands

Lynn Walsh

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE SOCIALIST TRANSFORMATION OF SOCIETY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surely, asks Michael, our aim is "the establishment of working class power… a revolution to create a workers' state". The bourgeois state must be "broken up, smashed, and replaced by a new workers' state," with the formation of workers' militias, local soviets and factory committees. In the midst of a revolution, of course, like Russia in 1917 or Spain in 1936, such basic aims might provide some guidance for the drawing up of a revolutionary action programme. A situation of dual power, with a struggle for power between the capitalists and the working class, and the threat of bourgeois reaction, would undoubtedly pose the question of a struggle for power. Even in a revolutionary situation, however, a Marxist programme has to go beyond generalities of smashing the state and establishing workers' power. In 1917 Lenin and Trotsky put forward concrete demands as the situation developed, to expose and undermine the role of the Provisional Government and to strengthen the position of the workers' and peasants' soviets. In relation to Spain in 1936, Trotsky advocated concrete demands that would expose the role of the Popular Front government and prepare the working class for a struggle to take power into its own hands.

But that was clearly not the position in Britain (or in other advanced capitalist countries) in the 1980s (the period mainly referred to by Michael). Parliamentary forms of rule were the norm in the post-war period, and the consciousness of the working class, including its politically advanced layers, was that, while gains could be made through industrial struggle, political change would be achieved through the election of governments based on the traditional labour or social-democratic parties (or in some countries the reformist communist parties). Our task was to expose the bourgeois limits of these reformist parties, to show the impossibility of achieving socialism through gradual, step-by-step changes in the economy and the state. The political influence of the mass reformist parties over big sections of the working class was an objective fact, and would only be undermined by a combination of events – through workers' experience of reformist governments – and the subjective factor – the intervention of Marxist ideas and policies.

Through our publications, meetings, interventions, etc, we conducted a political struggle against reformism and Stalinism. However, theory and propaganda reaches only a relatively small, politicised layer, except in exceptional periods of intensified class struggle. Reaching broader layers requires a programme, and the key task during the period to which Michael mainly refers was to popularise the idea of a socialist programme. The key planks are the nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy, a plan of production, and workers' control and management of industry. Moreover, we always stressed that such measures would have to be extended on an international basis.

By themselves, of course, such measures would not add up to a socialist society. But they pointed to the social foundations on which the working class could proceed to build a socialist society. Our programme presented the case for "the socialist transformation of society" – a popularised form of 'socialist revolution'. We use this formulation to avoid the crude association between 'revolution' and 'violence' always falsely made by apologists of capitalism. A successful socialist transformation can be carried through only on the basis of the support of the overwhelming majority of the working class, with the support of other layers, through the most radical forms of democracy. On that basis, provided a socialist government takes decisive measures on the basis of mobilising the working class, it would be possible to carry though a peaceful change of society. Any threat of violence would come, not from a popular socialist government, but from forces seeking to restore their monopoly of wealth, power and privilege by mobilising a reaction against the democratic majority.

Until the end of the 1980s, we worked within the Labour Party, because of its dominant position as the vehicle for working-class politics. With the process of bourgeoisification of the Labour Party in the late 1980s, and the emptying out of its working-class rank and file, we turned away from Labour and have since campaigned independently as Militant Labour and subsequently as the Socialist Party. In the earlier period, however, the majority of workers, including left workers, looked to Labour governments for improvements and socialist change. That was the existing consciousness. For this to be undermined, workers had to go through the experience of successive Labour governments. During the 1970s and 1980s, we therefore posed the question to the Labour leaders: If you really want to defend workers' interest, if you claim to be advancing towards socialism, carry through a programme that will take economic control out of the hands of big business. Nationalise the "commanding heights" of the economy and introduce workers' control and management. The idea of an Enabling Act was put forward to cut through the reformist argument that it would be too complicated, and take too long, to get extensive nationalisation measures through parliament. It was precisely the idea of short-circuiting the parliamentary 'checks and balances' designed to impede any radical change.

Contrary to Michael's claim, we never based ourselves on the idea that a socialist programme (in the popularised form we outlined) could be carried through using existing parliamentary procedures. Regarding nationalisation: "Such a step, backed up by the power of the labour movement outside parliament, would allow the introduction of a socialist and democratic plan of production to be worked out and implemented by committees of trade unions, the shop stewards, housewives and small businessmen. With the new technology that is on hand… it would be possible both to cut the working day and enormously simplify the tasks of the working class in the supervision and control of the state." (The Role of the State, Peter Taaffe – in The State: A Warning to the Labour Movement, p32) Even a superficial review of our material on this question would show that we warned that big business would inevitably attempt to sabotage socialist measures and we always raised the need for a mobilisation of the working class to provide mass support for any anti-capitalist measures carried out by a Labour government. We raised the need for a transformation of state institutions from top to bottom, taking them out of the hands of servants of the ruling class and placing them under the control of elected representatives of the working class. Our programme put demands on the Labour leaders, who were seen by most politicised workers as their representatives in government, but our approach was not based on an electoralist strategy.

The experience of Chile in 1970-73, to take the best known example, was repeatedly used to show the need for a root-and-branch transformation of the state. In the case of Chile, a revolutionary situation was opened up by the election of the popular front government under Allende (which included the Socialist Party, the Communist Party and the bourgeois Radical Party). It had a radical programme, which included some nationalisation measures (of the copper industry, for instance), but fell far short of a programme of socialist transformation. Political developments of this type, with the election of left parties to government on the basis of mass radicalisation of the workers, are a typical scenario for the development of revolutionary crisis in capitalist countries with a parliamentary form of rule. In such a situation, Marxists have to advance a programme that relates concretely to the role of a 'socialist' (popular front) government and to the necessary tasks posed before the working class. In Chile between 1970-73, bald calls on the lines of 'down with the Allende government', 'smash the state' and 'for a workers' government' would have been be completely inadequate.

We advocated that Marxists in Chile should call on the Allende government to take decisive control of the economy through nationalisation of the copper mines and basic industries, while supporting the poor peasants in carrying through a radical land reform. We also called for decisive measures against the developing counter-revolution, led by the tops of the military, the big landlords and capitalists. We warned that it was a fatal mistake on the part of Allende to try to buy off the military reaction by promoting the military tops to more powerful positions and increasing the pay of the officer class. While calling on Allende to take bold socialist measures, we advocated the organisation of the workers from below, with the strengthening of factory committees and the 'cordones', effectively local soviet-type organisations. We also advocated the democratisation of the armed forces, with the purging of reactionary officers and control of the armed forces being placed in the hands of committees of soldiers, sailors and airmen. When it was clear that the reactionary forces were preparing for a counter-revolutionary coup, we called for the arming of the working class to defend itself against a bloody reaction.

There was no question, moreover, of our treating these developments as if they were a purely Chilean development. "The lessons of Chile, written in the blood of more than 50,000 martyred workers, is a warning to the labour movement here." (The State…, p28)

The same article (and there were many other articles elsewhere) rejected the theory of the leaders of the Communist Parties of France, Italy and Spain (the so-called 'Euro-communist' trend) used to justify the approach of the Socialist and Communist Party leaders in Chile under the Allende government. "However, it would be fatal to pretend, as the Communist Party leaders and the reformist left of the Labour Party do, that 'the democratisation of the state' will be sufficient in itself to guarantee the British working class and a Labour government against the fate which befell their Chilean brothers and sisters. Piecemeal measures will neither satisfy the working class nor the middle class, but will inflame the opposition of the capitalists – and, moreover, give them the time and opportunity to strike a decisive blow against the labour movement. This would above all be the case when attempts are made to 'democratise' their state. The capitalists would take this as a signal – particularly if the army is touched – to prepare to crush the labour movement." (The State…, pp31-32)

Again: "The lesson of Chile, where in 1973 the Popular Unity government of Salvador Allende was overthrown and the workers' movement crushed by Pinochet's bloody counter-revolution, must be taken as a serious warning to the British as well as to the world labour movement. Chile underlies the fatal consequences of taking half measures which provoke a reaction from the ruling class while failing to give the working class decisive control of the economy and the state. In particular, the lessons of the Allende government's fundamentally mistaken policies towards the state's armed bodies of men must be absorbed by the British labour movement." (Introduction – The State…, pp9-10)

The example of Chile was repeatedly used in our material to demonstrate the impossibility of a reformist 'parliamentary road to socialism' in Britain or elsewhere. However, the situation in Chile in 1970-73 was not the same as in Britain in the early 1980s. In Chile it was necessary to call for the arming of the workers to defend themselves and past democratic and social gains from the threatening counter-revolution.

Is Michael seriously suggesting that we should have been calling for workers' militias and the arming of the proletariat in Britain in the 1980s – or today, for that matter? Such demands do not correspond to the situation today in Britain or most other countries, and they do not correspond to the current consciousness of even the advanced layers of workers.

Marxists have to study the history of such demands and the vital role they play in the appropriate conditions – where there is a revolutionary or pre-revolutionary situation in which the working class is threatened by a bloody reaction. But to raise today the slogans of 'smashing the state' and 'arming the workers' would not win workers to socialism or prepare them to carry through a change in society. On the contrary, such methods, if adopted by organisations with any real influence among workers, would alienate workers and play into the hands of our class enemies.

Our main task today is to win support for the idea of a socialist society, for a socialist transformation carried through under the leadership of the working class. There is no question of our abandoning our long-term aims. But in order to build mass support for socialism we have to present our programme in a popular form that will get a response from workers. While advocating a socialist transformation of society, we have to struggle for partial and transitional demands, for the basic interests and needs of working people.

Michael focuses much of his criticism on our position on the police, referring in particular to several articles published in Militant in 1981. He considers that our position on the police is based on "reformist methodology" and reflects "congealed illusions" in the possibility of "establish[ing] a workers' state through electoral activity". Our mistake, according to Michael, was in not putting forward our full programme based on the idea that the capitalist state "must be broken up, smashed, and replaced by a new workers' state". Instead, our intervention in the events of 1981 was primarily based on immediate, democratic demands on the police put forward in a transitional way.

Michael quotes from Militant articles first published in 1981 at the time of the riots in Brixton, Toxteth, Bristol, and several other British cities. They were also reprinted in 1983 in the Militant pamphlet, 'The State: A Warning to the Labour Movement'.

The three articles on the police quoted were a small part of the material we produced in relation to the riots, which were really uprisings of some of the poorest inner-city areas. The economic and social decay of these areas, aggravated by the slump after 1980 (intensified by the policies of the Thatcher government) created the conditions for the upheaval. However, it was the aggressive and provocative methods used by the police that provided the trigger, and we continually emphasised the responsibility of the police at the time (see the section on 'The Riots' in 'The Rise of Militant', by Peter Taaffe, pp163-166).

Young people, both black and white, were to the forefront of these events, and right from the start supporters of Militant (the predecessor of the Socialist Party) were present to help organise the defence of the areas from further police attacks and (as opposed to merely 'rioting') to win young people to socialist ideas.

We called for an end of police harassment and for the disbanding of the Special Patrol Group, the most aggressive section of the police at that time. We related the role of the police to the social situation. Our key demands were: "An urgent labour movement enquiry, step up the fight for socialist solutions to the social and economic crisis underlying the explosion [and for an] enquiry into the police." (Militant 548, 17 April 1981)

We stressed the need for the young people of the area and the wider community to organise to defend themselves against police harassment and a clampdown on the areas through prosecutions and vicious prison sentences in the aftermath of the upheavals. We set up the Labour Committee for the Defence of Brixton, which played an important part in exposing the role of the police, defending those facing charges, and calling mass meetings at which our policies were put forward.

Among our policies were the demand for a thorough-going enquiry into the police (going beyond the limits of the slow-moving Scarman enquiry set up by the Thatcher government) and measures to establish democratic checks on the police through elected committees involving labour-movement representatives.

Michael considers such demands to be irredeemably reformist. Nowhere, however, does he say what demands he thinks we should have been putting forward. From what he writes we can only conclude that he would have been advocating demands on the following lines: Smash the state! Fight the police! Form workers' militias!

Such slogans might be appropriate in a revolutionary or at least an immediate pre-revolutionary situation, when conditions were ripening for a mass movement of the workers to take power into their own hands. Even then, slogans on the state would have to be formulated much more skilfully and concretely than suggested by Michael. Lenin and Trotsky frequently explained the need for a 'defensive' approach, in the sense of putting the responsibility for revolutionary action (e.g. forming workers' militias or disbanding capitalist bodies) on state aggression or counter-revolutionary violence by auxiliaries of the ruling class (such as fascist bands).

Would Michael argue that there was a revolutionary or even a pre-revolutionary situation in Britain in 1981, even in some of the inner-city areas in which there were upheavals? For a few days, the clashes on the streets between the police and local residents, especially the youth, had some features of an insurrection. But the clashes involved a minority of the communities affected (though there was wide sympathy for action on common grievances). They were not organised, but a spontaneous outburst of anger, and the level of political consciousness was low, though a section of young people were quickly being radicalised and were responsive to socialist ideas.

Moreover, it would be absurd to argue that there was a pre-revolutionary situation in Britain as a whole. The working class suffered a setback as a result of the defeat of the Labour government in 1979. The Wilson-Callaghan government had introduced monetarist economic polices and launched attacks on workers' living standards, especially low-paid local authority workers. That had produced the 'winter of discontent' in 1979, a wave of public-sector strikes. In the absence of a mass alternative on the left, however, Labour's defeat brought Thatcher to power and the assault on the working-class rights and living standards was redoubled. There was a bitter struggle of print workers on The Times, and other mainly defensive battles. There were many important workers' struggles in which we intervened, but it would be completely fanciful to describe the situation on Britain at that time as pre-revolutionary.

In our publications and discussions we explained the Marxist theory of the state and our programme for the socialist transformation of society. This was done then, as it is now, on the lines of the 'What is the State?' section of the 'What is Marxism?' pack quoted by Michael. Many discussions were based on Lenin's 'State and Revolution' and other Marxist classics (e.g. Engels' Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State).

But for our intervention on the streets of Brixton, Totexth, Bristol, etc, we needed a programme of immediate demands that corresponded to the situation and pointed in a transitional way towards a socialist transformation. Calls to 'Smash the capitalist state! For a new workers' state' would have got no echo. We would have been very isolated – suffering severe 'social ostracism' – in a situation in which we were in fact able, with a correct approach to demands and slogans, to win a layer of youth to our ranks and get a favourable response for socialist ideas among a much wider layer.

Some of the 'front-line' youth might well have welcomed the idea of an armed militia – but not necessarily for progressive political motives. Had a 'militia' emerged at that point, it would not have been a democratic defence organisation responsible to democratic workers' organisations. There was neither the level of consciousness nor organisation necessary for the formation of a defence force. Any call for an armed defence force would have been far in advance of the consciousness of even the most politicised sections of organised workers.

Democratic control of the police

However, there was widespread condemnation of the police for the aggressive, paramilitary methods they had been using, especially the provocative 'stop and search' tactic aimed mainly against black youth. At the same time, in areas like Brixton and Toxteth people wanted something done about the high levels of crime, especially violent, drug-related crime, which blighted their lives. There was a broad demand for accountability and control of the police. To have called for the abolition of the police, however, without the realistic possibility of alternative workers' organisations to protect the community, would have been a serious mistake.

The Thatcher government responded to the broad public mood of criticism of the police with the Scarman Enquiry. Lord Scarman's report confirmed that a section of the police had been systematically harassing black youth. He recommended reforms in police practices, but naturally wanted to ensure that they were implemented within the framework of capitalist institutions and legal procedures. For a time, the police adopted more low profile methods in inner-city areas, though the Scarman reforms did not prevent them from assuming emergency powers and acting as a paramilitary force against the miners during their titanic strike of 1984-85, a strike that had many features of a civil war in the coalfields.

In 1981, however, we raised demands for control of the police that went far beyond anything proposed by Scarman. The key element of our demands was democratic control by local government police committees – elected bodies involving the working class through representatives from trade unions, community organisations, etc. We demanded that elected police committees should have the power to appoint and dismiss chief constables and senior officers, and would be responsible for 'operational questions', that is, day-to-day policing policies. Police committees should ensure a genuinely independent complaints' procedure, and should be responsible for weeding out any racist elements or fascist sympathisers within the police. We called for the abolition of the Special Patrol Group and other similar units, as well as the abolition of the Special Branch and destruction of police files and computer records not connected with criminal investigations.

Local authority police committees, such as the Greater London Council committee, had become quite prominent in the period before the riots. They played a progressive role in opening up the police to greater public scrutiny, exposing their worst methods, and trying to assert some influence over policing priorities or policies. (The recent sycophantic comments of Ken Livingstone on the head of the Metropolitan police, in spite of the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell and the outrageous Forest Gate raid, are an indication of how far the political situation regarding the police and civil rights has been set back since the 1980s.) However, they were ultimately toothless bodies that had no power to assert any effective control over police policies or day-to-day operations.

Our demand was for bodies that would reflect organised pressure from the working class, pressure that would be used to check police activities and impose limits on their methods. The degree to which the police would be checked would depend on sustained organised pressure from the working class through elected, representative bodies. Of course, the ruling class (and their political representatives, including Labour leaders) were bitterly opposed to any such development, which they regarded as a potential encroachment on the prerogatives of the bourgeois state.

In opposing any steps to democratise control of the police, police chiefs, supported by many Tory and Labour leaders, argued that increased democratic accountability would subject the police to 'political control': "They try to perpetuate the myth, important for gaining public acceptance of their role in the past, that the police are an arm of a 'neutral' state. They are, according to this view, 'above' politics and sectional interests, and ultimately answerable to the equally 'neutral' and 'independent' judiciary." (The Police, Lynn Walsh – in The State…, p52)

To answer this line of argument we related some of the history of the police in Britain, particularly in relation to the development of watch committees. In the nineteenth century, "the control of the watch committees [over the police] was absolute". (TA Crichley, History of the Police in England and Wales) Our approach is: Regarding the police, things were different in the past and they can be different in the future. There was no question, as Michael asserts, of arguing that there had been an "organic development of police accountability" and that this should be extended by the working class. Our references made it clear that past 'democratic accountability' of the police was to the bourgeois ruling class, and our demands were to challenge capitalist control on the basis of working-class struggle.

Our line of argument was: If democratic control of the police was good enough for them (i.e. the bourgeoisie) why is it regarded as taboo now? Of course, it is a rhetorical question, we know the answer. But we cannot assume that everybody automatically sees through the ideological arguments used by the bourgeoisie to legitimise their class role. Michael seems to assume that it is all self-evident. There is no need for this kind of argument. Experience shows, however, that such arguments – combined with action – are vital to changing consciousness.

"In the past, before the working class had emerged as an independent political force, the spokesmen of big business and the middle class insisted that the police were democratically accountable. Now, the labour movement, which represents the overwhelming majority in society, must demand that democratic accountability is extended to cover this force which, it is claimed, exists to protect the interests of the public." (The State…, p54)

Reform and revolution

We were putting forward democratic demands, but demands that go to the heart of the role of the police as an instrument of the bourgeois state and raise the need for the working class to defend its own interests in the current battle over the role of the police. Were we (as some will no doubt argue) pandering to the current consciousness of the working class and failing to defend the Marxist programme on the state?

On the police, we were putting forward immediate, democratic demands, which are always part of a transitional programme. They corresponded to the consciousness of the advanced layers of the working class, who wanted a democratic check on the police. The setting up of democratic police committees cannot be ruled out in a future period of heightened class struggle. Whether they will be achieved, how far they will go, will be determined by the strength of working-class struggle. An element of democratic accountability over the police would help create more favourable conditions for working-class struggle. But such an element of 'workers' control' could not last indefinitely. Either the workers would move forward to a socialist transformation of society, or the ruling class would move to destroy the elements of democratic control.

The concession of elected police committees under pressure from the working class would be a progressive development. However, if this gave rise to illusions that, as Michael puts it, the police are "an isolated entity which can become removed, or extracted, from the clutches of the bourgeois state through working-class control of local watch committees" that would be a negative development.

During the 1918 German revolution (as noted in the section on the police in The State: A Warning to the Labour Movement, pp46-47) the Berlin police were in fact "extracted from the clutches of the capitalist state", and the revolutionary workers appointed Emil Eichorn, a leader of the Independent Social Democrats, as police chief. This was a positive step, so far as it went, but could only be a very temporary situation. The failure of the workers to consolidate power through new proletarian organs of state power meant that the Berlin police, together with other 'revolutionised' institutions, succumbed to the bloody counter-revolution (for which the right-wing Social Democratic leaders provided a political cover).

With regard to democratic police committees (or a new form of watch committees), we clearly warned against any illusion in the step by step reform of the police or other state bodies into socialist institutions:

"If the working class is to preserve the economic gains and the democratic rights that it has wrested from the capitalists in the past, it must carry through the socialist transformation of society. Past gains cannot be preserved indefinitely within the rotten framework of a crisis-ridden capitalism. In transforming society, it is utopian to think that the existing apparatus of the capitalist state can be taken over and adapted by the working class. In a fundamental change of society, all the existing institutions of the state will be shattered and replaced by new organs of power under the democratic control of the working class. While basing itself on the perspective of the socialist transformation of society, however, the labour movement must advance a programme which includes policies which come to grips with the immediate problems posed by the role of the police." (The State…, pp53-54)

Michael quotes this passage. But how (he asks) can we, on the one side, advocate democratic police committees while, on the other, warn that the police cannot be reformed into a worker-friendly institution? He sees this as a "contradiction [that] is too great to ignore".

But it is no more contradictory than demanding any other reform under capitalism. Reforms can be won through struggle, but we warn that they will not be lasting gains under capitalism. In the field of democratic rights do we not defend the right to jury trial, legal aid, procedural safeguards for defendants, and so on? Clearly, such legal rights do not guarantee real 'justice', which is impossible on a juridical plane without a deeper social justice, which is impossible in capitalist society. But it would be absurd to argue that such legal and civil rights are of no consequence for the working class. Such rights have been won, clawed back by the bourgeoisie, re-established for a period, and so on. Demands for social reforms and democratic rights will always remain an important part of our transitional programme. Legal and civil rights, like the right to vote, freedom of political association, etc, create more favourable conditions for working-class struggle. Demands for democratic control of the police are no different, in principle, from demands for other democratic rights. Doesn't the demand for universal suffrage, for instance, reinforce the illusion that an elected parliament can control the executive of the capitalist state?

The demands that we put forward on the police in 1981 corresponded to the situation in Britain at that time. Since then, the situation has obviously changed in many respects, especially since the 9/11 attacks in the US which have provided the political pretext for an enormous strengthening of the powers of the state and a broad clawing back of legal and democratic rights conceded in the past. The methodology of our programme remains the same, but we naturally have to take account of recent changes. But it would be a fatal mistake to abandon a programme of transitional demands in relation to the state, the police, etc, in favour of bald denunciations of the 'repressive capitalist state' and calls for 'workers' power'. This is all the more important given the general setback to working-class consciousness in the period since the collapse of Stalinism. There will be many struggles to recoup past gains that have been lost in the recent period. As we have always done, we will link our immediate and transitional demands to the need for the socialist transformation of society.

The formal or 'logical' contradiction between, on the one side, demands for reforms and, on the other, spelling out the need for a socialist transformation of society reflects the very real contradiction between the objective need for socialism and the immaturity of the consciousness and organisation of the working class.

Trotsky commented on this issue during a discussion on the Transitional Programme in 1938. One issue that came up at that time was the Ludlow Amendment, a constitutional amendment moved in the US Congress which would have required a popular referendum before the US could go to war. The leadership of the US Socialist Workers Party (the US section of the Fourth International) opposed support for the Ludlow Amendment on the grounds that it would promote pacifist and democratic illusions. Trotsky disagreed, and his comments are relevant to the issue of democratic demands in general.

This is a rather long excerpt from Trotsky's comment, but it is worth quoting in full because it illuminates the issue of democratic rights:

"The [SWP] NC declaration states that the war cannot be stopped by a referendum. That is absolutely correct. This assertion is a part of our general attitude toward war, as an inevitable development of capitalism, and that we cannot change the nature of capitalism or abolish it by democratic means. A referendum is a democratic means, but no more and no less. In refuting the illusions of democracy we don't renounce this democracy so long as we are incapable of replacing that democracy by the institution of a workers' state. In principle I absolutely do not see any argument which can force us to change our general attitude toward democracy in this case of a referendum. But we should use this means as we use presidential elections, or the election in St Paul [Minnesota]; we fight energetically for our programme.


"We say: The Ludlow referendum, like other democratic means, can't stop the criminal activities of the sixty families, who are incomparably stronger than all democratic institutions. This does not mean that I renounce democratic institutions, or the fight for the referendum, or the fight to give American citizens of the age of eighteen the right to vote. I would be in favour of our initiating a fight on this; people of eighteen are sufficiently mature to be exploited, and thus to vote. But that's only parenthetical.

"Now naturally it would be better if we could immediately mobilise the workers and the poor farmers to overthrow democracy and replace it with the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the only means of avoiding imperialist wars. But we can't do it.

"We see that large masses of people are looking toward democratic means to stop the war. There are two sides to this: one is totally progressive, that is, the will of the masses to stop the war of the imperialists, the lack of confidence in their own representatives. They say: Yes, we sent people to parliament [Congress], but we wish to check them in this important question, which means life and death to millions and millions of Americans. That is a thoroughly progressive step. But with this they connect illusions that they can achieve this aim only by this measure. We criticise this illusion. The NC declaration is entirely correct in criticising this illusion. When pacifism comes from the masses it is a progressive tendency, with illusions. We can dissipate the illusions not by a priori decisions but during common action.

"… The situation is now different-it is not a revolutionary situation. But the question can become decisive. The referendum is not our programme, but it's a clear step forward; the masses show that they wish to control their Washington representatives. We say: It's a progressive step that you wish to control your representatives. But you have illusions and we will criticise them. At the same time we will help you realise your programme. The sponsor of the programme will betray you as the SRs [Social Revolutionaries] betrayed the Russian peasants."
(The Transitional Programme for Socialist Revolution, Pathfinder 1977, pp114-117)

A bourgeois cop is a bourgeois cop?

One of the demands we put forward in the Militant in 1981 (and the 1983 pamphlet) was for "The right of the police to an independent, democratic trade union organisation to defend their interests as workers." In Michael's view, however, "it is a mistake to view the police in general as 'workers in uniform' who should be treated like any other worker". The role of the police in the 1984 miners' strike, he argues, confirms the position of our 'What is Marxism?' pack, that "the police, together with the army, constitute the central 'body of armed people' which is at the centre of the state apparatus. They are the first line of defence against anything which disturbs the public order of capitalism."

As on other issues, Michael can see only one side of the issue: the reactionary, repressive role of the police as an instrument of state repression. They undoubtedly played an aggressive, repressive role during the 1984 miners' strike. The miners, as well as other sections of militant workers, certainly did not regard the police as 'any other workers'. They organised to counter police tactics, and took them on in massive confrontations, notably the battle of Orgreave. Similarly, in the 1972 miners' strikes, the flying pickets countered the police and defeated them at the famous 'battle of Saltley gates' (where miners' pickets and other workers blockaded the Midlands' coal depot). Support for trade union rights for the police ranks (or for the army ranks, for that matter) does not for a moment cloud our analysis of the role of the police and army as part of the state apparatus, or undermine the recognition of the need to organise against police or military repression.

This is only one side of the question, however. The other side of a revolutionary policy (which Michael, with his characteristic black-and-white approach, fails to see) is a policy of making a political appeal to the ranks of the police and the army and supporting their democratic rights, including the right to organise in a trade union. Anything that weakens the authoritarian control of the state over the ranks of the police (and the army) and brings their ranks, or even a section of their ranks, nearer to the workers' movement, helps create more favourable conditions of struggle for the working class.

But Trotsky rejected this approach, exclaims Michael! He proves this by an experiment. Searching an internet Trotsky archive with the word 'policeman', he came up with the following quote: "The worker who becomes a policeman in the service of the capitalist state is a bourgeois cop, not a worker." This quote comes from Trotsky's article, 'What Next? Vital Questions for the German Proletariat', written in 1932. Having googled this quote from the internet, Michael appears to think that Trotsky's comment is the last word on the matter. If he conducted further searches on the context of Trotsky's comment and the situation in Germany in 1932, Michael doesn't bother to relate them to the issue under discussion. In fact, Michael generally appears to believe that demands, slogans, etc, are eternal, and that we should uphold them without concerning ourselves about changing conditions.

The situation in 1932 in Germany was not the same as in Britain in 1981 or today. Only a year before Hitler seized power, there was already an intense struggle between the forces of revolution and counter-revolution. Because of the failure of the working class to carry through a successful revolution, Germany was ruled by a series of bonapartist regimes (under chancellors BrĂ¼ning, von Papen, and von Scheicher), who relied on reactionary sections of the military and the fascists to smash the workers' movement.

In the passage from which the "bourgeois cop" sentence is taken, Trotsky is arguing against the 'parliamentary cretinism' of the Social Democratic leaders. They argued that because the German army was controlled by the president of the German republic, they would not allow Hitler to come to power. Trotsky, in particular, was arguing against the wishful thinking that, because the police were originally recruited from among social-democratic workers, they would prevent the fascists from coming to power: "Consciousness is determined by environment, even in this instance." A "worker who becomes a policeman in the service of the capitalist state is a bourgeois cop not a worker. Of late years, these policemen have had to do much more fighting with revolutionary workers than with Nazi students. Such training does not fail to leave its effects."

There was a pre-revolutionary situation in Germany, which (apart from the need for a revolutionary party politically armed with a Marxist programme) posed the need for workers to arm themselves, to form workers' militias, to counter the fascist onslaught. It was absolute cretinism to appeal to the government, the chancellor, etc, to protect the working class against the fascists.

"I think that Trotsky was right," says Michael. But it would only be in a world of pure abstraction that we could ignore the differences between Germany in 1932 and Britain, or for that matter France, or Germany, etc, today.

There is no question of our material arguing that, if trade union rights were conceded to the police or the army, it would be sufficient to counter the danger posed by the state to the workers' movement: "… it would be fatal to pretend, as the Communist Party leaders and the reformist left of the Labour Party do, that 'the democratisation of the state' will be sufficient in itself to guarantee the British working class and a Labour government against the fate which befell their Chilean brothers and sisters". (The State…, p31)

The state should not remain untouchable, as right-wing Labour leaders have always argued. "On the contrary, measures to make the state more accountable to the labour movement must be stepped up. But the limits of such measures must be understood by the labour movement. The capitalists will never permit their state to be 'gradually' taken away from them. Experience has shown that only a decisive change of society can eliminate the danger of reaction and allow the 'democratisation of the state machine' to be carried through to a conclusion with the establishment of a new state, controlled and managed by working people." (The State…, pp31-32)

The pamphlet gives many examples of episodes of radicalisation of sections of the police in Britain and elsewhere. In Britain, there were police strikes in 1918 and 1919 during the post-first world war crisis. Between 1970 and 1977, a series of police pay disputes, together with the general political climate, brought a radicalisation of some sections of the police. At the Police Federation conference in 1977, a young Metropolitan constable said: "We're no different from other workers. We may wear funny clothes and do society's dirty work for them. But we come from the same stock as other workers. (Boos) We have only our labour power to sell, not capital." (The State…, p45) This speaker clearly belonged to a small minority, but the fact that such a class-conscious attitude could be expressed by even one delegate was significant. Would Michael argue that Marxists should ignore such trends, regarding the ranks of the police as 'one reactionary mass' regardless of actual conditions or the mood within the police?

During the May events of 1968 in France, the mood of the police (in contrast to the paramilitary riot police, the CRS) was affected by the mass general strike movement. Representatives of the police "tacitly let it be known that operations against workers could not only cause a grave crisis of confidence within their ranks but also the possibility of what would in effect be a police mutiny". (Beyond the Limits of the Law, Tom Bowden) The logic of Michael's position is that the advanced workers should ignore such developments, and pass over the possibility of winning sections of the police over to the side of the workers, or at least neutralising a section of the forces of the state.

In fact, Michael makes no comments on these and other episodes related in the pamphlet, demonstrating the completely abstract character of his approach to the issue of the police.

The Communist Manifesto and Marx's Demands

The problem is that Michael does not understand the Marxist idea of a programme. He is only really happy with declarations of "the fundamental principles of Marxism". "The existing bourgeois state… must be broken up, smashed, and replaced by a new workers' state." Anything less is "confusion, dissimulation, and ultimately betrayal". Michael criticises all our immediate demands as part of "a more limited reformist agenda" or "elements of an outright reformist strategy".

What is noticeable, however, is that Michael himself nowhere suggests any immediate demands that might relate to existing consciousness and provide a bridge to revolutionary aims. Marxists, he says, should not seek popularity or be afraid of being socially ostracised. It is our "responsibility to maintain the link in the chain of revolutionary continuity by developing and charting a path towards socialism armed with the distilled lessons of past class struggles. We must stand firmly on the tradition based upon the historical legacies of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, for if we deviate from the latter then we will inevitably recede into empiricism and the eternal present." So how, may we ask Michael, will our party "engage with, and intersect, the existing consciousness of workers" in order to change it? He offers us no guidance at all.

An important part of the historical legacy of Marx and Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, is the understanding of the role of a programme in providing a bridge between existing consciousness and revolutionary objectives. In the course of their activity, they drew up various programmes, some corresponding to relatively quiet periods of class struggle and some for revolutionary situations. All of them were based on the understanding that mass consciousness lags behind social reality. In periods of social quiescence, class consciousness, even of the advanced layers of workers, may develop very slowly. Under the impact of social crisis and intensified class struggle, it can develop very rapidly. But the 'subjective factor', the involvement of a conscious revolutionary leadership, especially in the form of a mass revolutionary party, is a vital catalyst in the process. Moreover, a programme which encapsulates the vital political tasks facing the working class and at the same time engages with existing conditions and consciousness is an indispensable instrument of intervention for a revolutionary party. A Marxist programme is not merely a declaration of fundamental principles. According to circumstances, a programme has to fulfil a variety of theoretical, programmatic and immediate tasks.

Let's consider a well-known example. In February 1848, Marx and Engels published (under the banner of the Communist League) the most famous programme of all, the Manifesto of the Communist Party, just before the outbreak of the revolutions that swept Europe in that year (www.socialistparty.org.uk/manifesto/). Clearly, the Manifesto was in many ways a declaration of fundamental principles and political objectives. It brilliantly sketched out a theoretical analysis of capitalist society and a perspective for socialist transformation under the leadership of the proletariat. But it also included a number or democratic, immediate and transitional demands.

"The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the immediate aims of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement." (Manifesto, Chapter 4) The Manifesto (Chapter 2) puts forward ten demands, calling for an end to landlordism and progressive taxation of wealthy property owners; for a national bank with a state monopoly of credit and the extension of state industries; and for free public transport and education. The aim of these demands is "to raise the working proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy".

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e. of the proletariat organised as the ruling class…"

Undoubtedly, the Manifesto sets out fundamental aims, even suggesting some of the features of a future communist society. When the revolutionary wave broke out, however, Marx and Engels wrote another programmatic document, published by the Committee of the Communist League in March 1848. Published as a leaflet and reprinted in many radical newspapers throughout Germany, the 'Demands of the Communist Party in Germany' was at the time much more widely read than the Manifesto.

The 'Demands' constituted an immediate programme, a political weapon for the intervention of the Communist League in the developing revolutionary movement. The seventeen demands corresponded to the situation then unfolding, where the relatively weak German working class was playing a key role in the struggle for a bourgeois-democratic revolution. The Demands called for the unification of Germany under universal suffrage, and the universal arming of the people. Demands 6 to 9 were aimed at the abolition of landlordism. Like the Manifesto, the Demands call for free public transport, and progressive taxation of the wealthy. Demand 10 is for a state bank to "make it possible to regulate the credit system in the interests of the people as a whole" and "undermine the dominion of the big financial magnates". Point 16 calls for "national workshops", in effect a transitional demand that would in practice challenge the basis of capitalism: "The state guarantees a livelihood to all workers and provides for those who are incapacitated for work."

Unlike the Manifesto, however, the Demands do not call (apart from the public ownership of all transport) for the extension of state industries. There is no mention of aiming "to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class" or of wresting "all capital from the bourgeoisie" or of centralising "all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e. of the proletariat organised as the ruling class…" The aim of the Demands, set out in the concluding paragraph, is summed up in this way: "It is in the interest of the German proletariat, the petty bourgeoisie and the small peasants to support these demands with all possible energy. Only by the realisation of these demands will the millions in Germany, who have hitherto been exploited by a handful of persons and whom the exploiters would like to keep in further subjection, win the rights and attain to that power to which they are entitled as the producers of all wealth."

The Demands were focused on the immediate task of strengthening the struggle for a bourgeois-democratic parliamentary republic in Germany, by exerting the maximum working-class pressure on the radical petit-bourgeois democrats. Despite its class limitations, a parliamentary republic was the form of government that would provide the most favourable conditions for the working class to strengthen its forces and struggle for socialism.

Were Marx and Engels, in putting forward a more limited programme in the Demands than set out in the Manifesto, guilty of dissimulation and pretence? Were they spreading illusions in bourgeois democracy? Isn't this the logic of Michael's position?

But, of course, Marx and Engels were putting forward of programme of demands that corresponded to the immediate situation of an unfolding revolution and to the consciousness of the most radical sections of the mass movement. The Demands form an action programme, a platform for intervention in a mass movement. The Demands are much more limited than the Communist Manifesto. But this did not mean for a minute that Marx and Engels had abandoned the ideas of the Manifesto, or postponed fighting for communist aims to the distant future. They did not have the idea of 'stages', later adopted by Stalinist leaders, according to which the proletariat had to accept the limits of the bourgeois-democratic revolution until it was completed, and only then proceed to socialist tasks. Nor did they have the position later adopted by social-democratic leaders (criticised by Trotsky in the Transitional Programme) of a maximum and minimum programme, independent of each other: a minimum programme of reforms achievable within the framework of capitalism and a maximum of socialism in the distant future.

In 1848 the Demands and the Manifesto complemented each other. During the course of the revolution, Marx and Engels never ceased to criticise the radical bourgeois democrats from the standpoint of the ideas set out in the Manifesto. They quickly moved from a position of critical support of the radical bourgeois democrats to a position of remorseless criticism of their political cowardice and treachery towards the working class and poor peasantry. From the outbreak of revolution through to the end, they advocated the ideological and organisational independence of the working class. The German workers, wrote Marx and Engels, must not be "misled for a single moment by the hypocritical phrases of the democratic party into refraining from the independent organisation of the party of the proletariat. Their battle cry must be: The Revolution in Permanence!" (Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, March 1850)

The working class should not allow the radical bourgeois democrats to consolidate power solely in the interests of the bourgeoisie, but prepare for the workers to set up their own revolutionary workers' governments (in the form of "municipal councils" or "workers' committees") alongside and in opposition to bourgeois-democratic governments. (This was the germ of the theory of permanent revolution later developed by Trotsky on the eve of the 1905 revolution in Russia.) The policies of the Communist League went far beyond anything in the Demands of March 1848 and were more concrete than those set out in the Manifesto. Formally, there are many 'inconsistencies' between the Manifesto, the Demands, and Marx and Engels' statements during 1848-1850. But demands and tactics – the evolving programme of the League - were developed by Marx and Engels in response to events – not according to some abstract, logical schema of the kind Michael seems to favour.

A bridge to existing consciousness

The Communist Manifesto and the Demands set out the tasks of the proletariat in a period of bourgeois revolutions. Trotsky's 'Transitional Programme', written in 1938, sets out the tasks for the period of the "death agony of capitalism", with a life and death struggle between fascism and communism and the approach of a new world war. Like the Manifesto, the Transitional Programme is based on a concrete, theoretical analysis of the period. It is based on a perspective.

The programme contains immediate demands, that is, for reforms, democratic rights, etc. "Indefatigably, [the Fourth International] defends the democratic rights and social conquests of the workers… within the framework of… [a] revolutionary perspective." But the key demands are transitional demands. For example, the demand for a "sliding scale of wages and hours" (to achieve full employment and a living wage for all workers) could not be fully implemented within the framework of crisis-ridden capitalism. The demand implies a socialist society, without spelling it out.

Discussing the Transitional Programme with US comrades, Trotsky commented that "if we present the whole socialist system it will appear to the average American as utopian, as something from Europe. We present it [in the form of a sliding scale of wages and hours] as a solution to this crisis which must assure their right to eat, drink and live in decent apartments. It is the program of socialism, but in a very popular form."

A programme is not a compilation of fundamental principles. The essential elements of a programme for socialist transformation have to be presented in a way that relates to the actual consciousness of different layers of workers. Trotsky recognised that the way a programme is presented to workers is very important. "We must combine psychology and pedagogy, build the bridge to their minds." Trotsky could never be accused of being afraid of standing out, when necessary, in defending revolutionary principles, even if it meant being isolated for a period. But he would never have willingly accepted the 'social ostracism' that Michael appears to welcome.

"… some demands," commented Trotsky in discussions on the Transitional Programme, "appear very opportunistic – because they are adapted to the actual mentality of the workers… other demands appear too revolutionary – because they reflect more the objective situation than the actual mentality of the workers."

Moreover, Trotsky pointed out that the Transitional Programme was incomplete: "… the end of the programme is not complete, because we don't speak here about the social revolution, about the seizure of power by insurrection, the transformation of capitalist society into the dictatorship [of the proletariat], the dictatorship into the socialist society. This brings the reader only to the doorstep. It is a programme for action from today until the beginning of the socialist revolution. And from the practical point of view what is now most important is how can we guide the different strata of the proletariat in the direction of the socialist revolution."

In other words, it stops short of what Michael advocates, a programme for smashing the bourgeois state and the establishment of a workers' state, a programme for an uprising and seizure of power. To have satisfied Michael, the Transitional Programme would have had to incorporate a new, updated version of Lenin's April Theses (The Tasks of the Proletariat in the Present Revolution – www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/apr/04.htm). Produced as the Russian revolution moved from its bourgeois phase to a "second stage, which must place power in the hands of the proletariat and the poorest sections of the peasants", the Theses called for the seizure of power by the soviets of workers and peasants, the formation of a workers' republic, and control by the soviets of social production and distribution.

Clearly, the Transitional Programme of 1938 was written when there was a pre-revolutionary situation in a number of key capitalist countries, not in the middle of a deepening revolution. But by stopping short of the question of seizing power, 'leaving it till later', was Trotsky not falling into "confusion" and "dissimulation"? That is the logic of Michael's method of argument.

Michael says he recognises the need for our demands "to engage with, and intersect, the existing consciousness of workers if we are ever going to change it". The approach he advocates, however, is that we should be raising general theoretical formulas, abstract demands, such as "smash the state". Nowhere in his critique of our position, which he represents in an extremely one-sided way (to say the least), does he propose any immediate, democratic or transitional demands that would "engage with existing consciousness". He shows no recognition of the need for a flexible transitional programme that corresponds to different periods and different situations. If we were to adopt his approach, we would be doomed to political isolation – in a period that is actually becoming more and more favourable to winning workers and young people to socialist ideas. Adherence to abstract formulas might allow individuals or small groups to comment on events – and level doctrinaire criticisms of those who do engage in struggles. But the method to which Michael has now unfortunately turned will never provide a bridge between the programme of revolution and wide layers of workers and young people. If he follows this line, Michael will certainly be in no danger of becoming a populist – but, more importantly, he will not be an effective Marxist either.

From The Archives Of The American And International Left -Spartacist Number 5, November -December 1965

Click on the headline to link to the journal issue described above via the International Bolshevik Tendency website by clicking on Marxist Archives and then Spartacist issues 1-30. Yes,I know two clicks means you really, really want to read this stuff. And guess what, you do.

Markin comment:

This archival issue of the Spartacist journal may be of some historical interest for old "new leftists,” perhaps, as well as for younger militants interested in various cultural and social questions that intersect the class struggle. Or for those just interested in a Marxist position on a series of social and political questions that are thrust upon us by the vagaries of bourgeois society. I will be posting more such articles from the back issues of Spartacist and other periodicals from other leftist organizations, past and present, periodically throughout the year.

From The Archives Of The American And International Left -Spartacist Number 4, May-June 1965

Click on the headline to link to the journal issue described above via the International Bolshevik Tendency website by clicking on Marxist Archives and then Spartacist issues 1-30. Yes,I know two clicks means you really, really want to read this stuff. And guess what, you do.

Markin comment:

This archival issue of the Spartacist journal may be of some historical interest for old "new leftists,” perhaps, as well as for younger militants interested in various cultural and social questions that intersect the class struggle. Or for those just interested in a Marxist position on a series of social and political questions that are thrust upon us by the vagaries of bourgeois society. I will be posting more such articles from the back issues of Spartacist and other periodicals from other leftist organizations, past and present, periodically throughout the year.

From The Archives Of The American And International Left -Spartacist Number 3, January-Febuary 1965

Click on the headline to link to the journal issue described above via the International Bolshevik Tendency website by clicking on Marxist Archives and then Spartacist issues 1-30. Yes,I know two clicks means you really, really want to read this stuff. And guess what, you do.

Markin comment:

This archival issue of the Spartacist journal may be of some historical interest for old "new leftists,” perhaps, as well as for younger militants interested in various cultural and social questions that intersect the class struggle. Or for those just interested in a Marxist position on a series of social and political questions that are thrust upon us by the vagaries of bourgeois society. I will be posting more such articles from the back issues of Spartacist and other periodicals from other leftist organizations, past and present, periodically throughout the year.

Out In The 1966 Olde Saco Night-Josh Breslin Comes Of Age In The Age Of The Byrds' “Eight Miles High”- A CD Review

Click on the headline to link to a YouTube film clip of the classic acid rock group, The Byrds, performing Eight Miles High.

Eight miles high and when you touch down
You’ll find that it’s stranger than known
Signs in the street that say where you’re going
Are somewhere just being their own

Nowhere is there warmth to be found
Among those afraid of losing their ground
Rain gray town known for it’s sound
In places small faces unbound

Round the squares huddled in storms
Some laughing some just shapeless forms
Sidewalk scenes and black limousines
Some living some standing alone

CD Review

The Beat Goes On: 1966, various artists, Time-Life Music, 1988

“Josh, are you coming with me to the Sea ‘n’ Surf Club over in Old Orchard Beach Friday night so we can dance and have some fun? They have got the Ramrods playing and I want to hear their cover of Eight Miles High again,” Lola LaBlanc whispered in Josh Breslin’s ear one Wednesday afternoon, one Olde Saco high school afternoon. Of course one Lola LaBlanc (French-Canadian, like Josh on his mother’s, and like half the town before the mills starting heading south), whom one Josh Breslin had more than a passing interest in, especially some variant of the whispered “have some fun” interest in, did not explain in any way how two, not twenty-one looking sixteen (almost seventeen, okay, but still young) teenagers, were going to get into the security conscious Sea ‘n’ Surf Club in order to have that fun.

Have fun without IDs, without connections, without anything except maybe Lola’s rather nice shape (and toothy smile). But there were a million Lola shapes around when you thought about it and the guys at the door probably had more, uh, “dates” (or promises of dates) than they could possible use. Nevertheless Josh said simply, “Yes”, and left it at that, at Lola that. Because when Lola wanted something, although heaven and hell might tumble to the ground, she was going to get it. So, Josh, no stranger to previous Lola “have fun,” figured to take the ride.

Of course in the year 1966 Lola wants, hell, any teenager ready to break out of the bounds of knee –jerk grind high school wants, included copping some dope to insure Friday night fun. The usual drill was that Lola would score some weed from some Portland connection (or maybe a Kittery across from the Portsmouth shipyard Navy sailor connection), they would get a little high and Lola would be ready to drive those guys at the front door of the club crazy, crazy enough to let her pass. Of course, the part Josh didn’t know (or want to know) was that whispered promise of a “date” to grease the way.

Moreover when Lola got dressed up to the nines, something tight and sexy, put on some misty ancient primordial drive fragrance and rubbed right up against a guy, well, that was Lola wants in a nutshell. But using her magic to get into see The Ramrods with all kinds of tight and sexy dressed to the nines competition from real twenty-one year old women with a little more experience in the wants satisfied department was going to be a different proposition.

Josh could never figure why, every once in a while, Lola came up to him and whispered in his ear, and forced him to say yes to anything she asked for. Maybe it was for old time’s sake since they had been middle school sweethearts and although it had not lasted long once both realized that this was not a match made in heaven (or what passes for middle school understanding of such a situation). But maybe it was just Lola trying to keep her hooks into small hokey town Olde Saco’s kind of first “hippie” to see what was what on that scene.

That is how it had had happened the first time they had gone to see The Ramrods in Old Orchard, had gotten high as kites on some weed Josh had scored in Boston one weekend (and grapevine Lola had heard about and whispered in his ear), they had bopped the dance, and afterward gone to “watch the submarine races” at the beach (a localism but you can figure it out, boy, girl, high, dope high, hot, and kind of loose, get it. And no submarines seen anywhere in the area since about 1942, get it).

Come Friday night and Josh picks up Lola in his father’s old Buick (no problem since Lola never was a car magnet girl). After doing the normal come in and get her, say hi to the folks, they finally got under way to Old Orchard. Along the way Lola casually stated, “Josh, I didn’t get weed for us tonight, tonight I have some good mescaline. I have never tried it but my sailor boy says it’s mild, mild compared to LSD, and is just great for grooving on music, especially for The Ramrods. I got a couple of extra tabs for the guys at the door. We are going to do it up before we go, okay?” Josh, feinting sophistication in matters of drugs said “Sure” although he had never tried anything more heavy than weed. Take the ride, he thought.

Like I said what Lola wants Lola gets and Josh and she take their tabs. Moreover the new trick, mescaline, got them into the club without any problems (although Josh thought he heard a date go with it but that was just Lola). About a half hour later Josh is “grooving” (and Lola too) as The Ramrods start their version of the yellow brick road magical mystery tour with a ripping set, featuring Eight Miles High. Josh (and as later described to him by Lola) is nothing but flash colors, strobe light visions, and distorted shapes.

Groovy. Too groovy to stay in the hot, hepped up club after a while. So like couples have done ten thousand times before in ten thousand locales they went down to the beach to cool off. Cool off watching submarine races (I don’t have to explain that again, right) but mostly giggling, and goofing. And that, my friends, is how one Josh Breslin and one Lola LaBlanc came of age in the 1960s psychedelic high night.

From The Pen Of Joshua Lawrence Breslin- When Harry Smith Ruled The Whole Wide World- Folk World That Is

Click on the headline to link to a YouTube film clip of the Memphis Jug Band performing in the Harry Smith 1920s night.

Joshua Lawrence Breslin comment:

Back the 1960s folk revival minute my old friend, socialist propagandist and amateur folk revival archivist Peter Paul Markin, was a real piece of work. I will never forget the conversation on the subject of folk music, the early stuff, on one of the first nights after I had met him. (It was really a Pee-Pee monologue. By the way in those days he was known under the moniker of Be-Bop Benny so don’t let him know I am calling him Pee-Pee here.) I had just met him and the rest of the motley crew of Captain Crunch’s merry prankster yellow brick road bus at a park up on Russian Hill in San Francisco in the summer of love, 1967 version, after I had hitchhiked my way across the country from my Olde Saco, Maine hometown.

He, in a hail of bong fire (figure it out for yourselves what we were doing), started going on and on about this guy Harry Smith, kind of a screwy guy when all was said and done, who almost single-handedly created the better parts of the American Folk Songbook. I, just out of high school, just bumming around looking for some adventure, and mainly just getting away from squaresville Olde Saco, was just barely “on the bus” with Bob Dylan and his electric folk stuff so, at the time , and for a long time after this Pee-Pee’s raving was just so much air.

But one thing about Pee-Pee and his obsessions, he doesn’t give up easily. Every once in a while, usually after some bong fire hit, he would return to the subject in little snippets. Like did I realize that the Jim Kweskin Jug Band (I was crazy for Maria Muldaur) played a lot of stuff that the Memphis Jug Band played in the 1920s. Or that the real way to understand that old lonesome and distressing mountain music brought from the old country (the British Isles old country, just to keep things straight) and planted in Appalachia was to listen to Clarence Ashley or Buell Kazee render their versions of songs such as East Virginia. Or that guys like Uncle Dave Mason, and guys like that, worked the carny, vaudeville, back alley circuit honing their skills before live audiences. Or that non-electric juke joints, church Sunday, and plantation prisons were keys to understanding the way black music evolved into blues, jazz, hip-hop, rap and so on.

Basically old Pee-Pee spoon fed me in little doses (knowing my attention span for non- electric acid-etched rock was minimal in those days) the great expanse of the American folk songbook. As time went on that funny old guy with eclectic tastes, Harry Smith (and, additionally the Lomaxes, father and son, and the Seegers, father and sons, help fill it out), started to look no so eccentric. So when my time came to listen to Harry’s now famous Anthology of American Folk Music they had to practically pry me from the CD player before I wore it out playing the eighty-odd songs repeatedly. Ya, that old Pee-Pee was sure a real piece of work

Stop The Boston MBTA Fare Hikes-They Say "Fare Hike" We Say FARE STRIKE! -JULY 1ST, 2012

FARE STRIKE!

The object of a fare strike is to convince the MBTA that they are going to lose more money because of the fare strike than they are going to gain by raising the fare or cutting service. This is entirely possible if enough people participate.

The only way the MBTA will respond to our needs is if we can put real pressure on them—if we can disrupt business as usual. We have the power to do this. One third of MBTA's budget comes from fares. They depend on us as riders to pay fares, and as workers to collect fares. When riders refuse to pay, and workers refuse to; collect, that will really hit them where it hurts.

We can get where we need to go, have a free ride, and 'put pressure on them at the same time. If this happened on a large scale, they would move quickly to reverse the fare hikes.

Get on the bus anyway you can. Go in the front door or the back door, whatever feels right to you. Don't cause a scene. Just don't pay. Or, start a conversation with the driver and your fellow riders, and together decide to participate in the strike.

Whatever you do, be polite to the driver. They are not the enemy. They have a very difficult and stressful job. Fare hikes, service cuts, and layoffs make their job more difficult. Many, if not most, of the drivers are sympathetic to our efforts.

TOGETHER, RIDERS AND DRIVERS UNITED, WE CAN WIN!

How do we build a fare strike? Get in touch!

BOSTON FARE STRIKE

What is Boston Fare Strike? We're a coalition of Boston-area organizations and individuals that came together this Spring to meet the July 1st fare hikes with a fare strike. We see this action as a first step in a long-term struggle to not only defend our public transit, but to improve and expand it to better serve the people of Boston and the surrounding environment.

Join the struggle!

Email: BostonFareStrike@rilhip.net

Website: bostonfarestrike.tumblr.com

Find us on Facebook

Read more about the MBTA hikes here: http://
mbta.com/about the mbta/?id=23567

No Fare Hikes!

No Service

No Layoffs!

They Say "Fare Hike" We Say FARE STRIKE! -JULY 1ST, 2012-

*****************
FARE HIKE?

On July 1st, the MBTA will raise fares 23%. That means your bus trip will go from $1.25 to $1.50, your subway fare from $1.70 to $2.00, and Bus-Subway combo monthly passes from $59 to $70. This increase is not to fund better service, cleaner facilities, more seating, or even more jobs. It's to knock $33 million off of the MBTA's $185 million debt.

MBTA's debt is from years of mismanagement, bad decisions by the politicians, and a recession caused by big banks. But the MBTA is asking us who have the least to spare-working people, students, immigrants, unemployed, and other members of the working class—to reach deeper into our pockets.

This is just the beginning. While "The T's yearly operating budget is millions of dollars in the red," according to NECN's Eileen Curran, "the long-term debt is in the billions." That means that
July's hikes are only a glimpse of what we can expect down the road. MBTA employees, who escaped this round of cuts mostly unscathed, will likely face major layoffs and benefits cuts next year in addition to future fare hikes. Public transportation should be defended and *expanded* to create jobs, help working people, and benefit the environment. How can the people of Boston stop these cuts and defend our transit system and our jobs in the long term? We must build power and strength together. Riders and workers must band together to launch a fare strike on July 1st!

Dublin in 2003 the bus drivers union called a fare tree as part of an ongoing fight against privatization on the city's bus system.

In 1998, a fare strike in LA organized by the LA Bus Riders Unions not only stopped a fare strike, but pressured LA into buying more buses to reduce crowding.

In some French cities, organized rare evasion became so common, it was more expensive to pay the police to watch all the metros and buses than to just make transport free which is what then happened in a number of cities*

In Italy, fare strike widespread and sucessfully stopped fare increases all over the country.

1993: in San Francisco a fare evasion cam­paign pressured the city to bring
back transfers which they did.

This Spring, Occupy Wall Street and TWU in New York chained exit doors open during rush hour, giving thousands of com­muters a free ride.

In Greece, transportation hikes were stopped through a massive non-pay­ment of fares while uniting with demands of transit workers.

There are successful, ongoing fare evasion campaigns in Stockholm, Gothenburg and Helsinki

Friday, June 29, 2012

From The Pen Of Joshua Lawrence Breslin -Franny Leclerc’s War- “If I Didn’t Care”

Click on the headline to link to a YouTube film clip of The Inkspots performing I’ll Get By.

Joshua Lawrence Breslin comment:

She, Francine Lorraine Leclerc, Franny she to everybody in Old Saco, that is up in Maine, thank you, ever since she could remember, was in no hurry, a conscious no hurry, to get down to the War Ration Office to get her monthly sugar, flour, butter (really oleomargarine), and this and that before it closed on this first day of June, year two of our war, 1943. And the reason that Miss Leclerc was in no hurry was that hurry, or no hurry, she would have to wait in that seemingly endless line for half the afternoon for her goods, such as they were.

So moseying down the street around closing time was just as good as that eternal, infernal waiting, listening to Mrs. La Croix talking about how her Jimmy was saving the world single-handedly from the Japs, or, ditto, Mrs. LĂ©vesque on her Jimmy on the European front. Secretly she wished that either, or both Jimmies, could do that herculean task but she knew, knew from her own Jimmy, Jimmy LeBlanc, in his every other day letters that there was no end to the war in sight. Even with everything rationed, or supposed to be.

But let us back up just a bit because there is more to Franny’s peevishness than meets the eye. See Franny was lonesome as hell, and she used that word without blushing to describe her condition to her shocked Jimmy’s Mrs. LeBlanc. Ya, she had the Jimmy (LeBlanc, reason for the last name usage to follow) blues bad for the almost year and a half that he had been gone. Naturally, no saving of the world Jimmy like a ton of LeBlancs and others with French surnames in town had enlisted about two days after Pearl Harbor just to do his “bit” as he said.

Here was Franny’s dilemma though. How was a pretty girl, very pretty if you asked half the breathing boys, hell, grown married men (and maybe some that didn’t breathe so good until a fresh breeze nineteen year old woman looking like Betty Grable and smelling, well, smelling of promises and gardens, edenic or not, came sashaying came pass on Main Street or on the boardwalk over at Old Orchard Beach) to stay true blue when she didn’t know if her boy was coming back, or if he would be wanting her to be waiting when he got back. She had heard stories from Papa Leclerc (her grandfather) about the last war and what it did to guys, guys who asked their girls to wait and then just took off when they hit New York and were never heard from after that. She knew her Jimmy though and when such thoughts passed her day she just keep thinking of their song, If I Didn’t Care.

Funny, she really hated the song, hated it from the very beginning before Jimmy left for boot camp and they decided they just needed a “their song” to keep up morale. Her morale. Truth is she didn’t want him to go, he had a good job down at MacAdams Textile Mill and if he had wanted to he could have been deferred as a war industry guy. But not Jimmy, Jimmy LeBlanc, and his need to do his “bit.” And truth too that is what she found, well, attractive about him although she still hated the song, hated it from the first. But she had promised Jimmy that when she got lonely, or tired, that she would play it. She did, hating it every time. And there were times she had to play it more than a properly waiting for her Jimmy girl should have had to.

And that is where the other Jimmies, LaCroix and LĂ©vesque, came in. Saving the Pacific Rim or European civilization may have been their forte but neither boy (hell, they were only twenty) had enlisted right after Pearl but waited until they were drafted. And while they were patiently waiting they tried to steal, each in turn and separately, Miss Frances Leclerc’s affections away from Jimmy LaCroix. And both lads, given the times and the possibilities, used the same route to carry out their dastardly work. The Friday night dance night at the Surfside Club in Old Orchard Beach.

See Franny and Jimmy (Leblanc, just in case you drifted off) had agreed, or Jimmy had surrendered on the point, that bound to be lonely Franny, after a hard week’s work down at the Portsmouth Naval Yard (doing her own “bit” for the war effort) was entitled to let some steam off dancing the night away. Dancing to the be-bop music of the cover band, Jimmy Jacques and His Band, who played the Dorseys (Tommy and Jimmy), Artie Shaw, Glen Miller, and the rest of the big band gangs. Of course dancing in those days was cheek to cheek or close to it so naturally guys were lining up (and mainly getting turned down) to have a spin with Miss Leclerc (and that maddening sway perfume).

One late fall Friday night up stepped one James LaCroix, all handsome, a little drunk, and a little fresh but just enough fresh to spark the interest of a lonely pining away girl. Franny let him get to first base, but no further. That night she spent about half the left-over of the night playing If I Didn’t Care up in her room. And then one Friday night a couple of months later another handsome, eager, if somewhat shy Jimmy LĂ©vesque got under her skin and took her for a whirl in his car (father’s car, complete with rationed gas) down to the lovers’ lane at Olde Saco Beach (down by the jetty all quiet and isolated except for an early lobster boat making ready for the day’s run) and got to second base with her, no further. She stopped counting the number of times she played “their song” that night and the next day.

So you can see why one Francine Lorraine Leclerc was in no rush, no rush at all, to get to that War Ration Office much before closing.

From The Pen Of Joshua Lawrence Breslin- Visions Of Jewell -With Bob Dylan’s “Visions Of Johanna” In Mind

Click on the headline to link to a YouTube film clip of Bob Dylan performing Visions Of Johanna

CD Review

Biograph, Bob Dylan, 3 CD set, Columbia Records, 1985

The other day my old socialist propagandist and gadfly 1960s folk revival commentator friend, Peter Paul Markin, regaled me with some stories about his early experiences following the musical ups and downs of the well-known singer-songwriter from that period, Bob Dylan. The strangest story revolved around Mr. Dylan’s performance at the 1965 Newport (R.I.) Folk Festival, then the premier showcase for virtually anything that could reasonably be called folk or roots music, and having the plug, literally (at least that is the way Pee-Pee told it, although there is a wealth of disputed oral testimony on the subject), pulled on him by one iconic folk legend singer-songwriter Pete Seeger. Why? Apparently the “big tent” of American roots music did not include what has now become known in library CD collections as rather tame folk-rock, or rock-folk. Stuff done with mad amped electric guitar (and other electric instruments) rather than pure traditional acoustic instruments. So much wind as far as I can tell.

Needless to say such a story from back in the day, back in Pee-Pee day sounded bizarre to this writer who came by his Dylan aficionado-hood in the post-plug period (although when we when over the details again later the old arch-Stalinist fellow-traveler strong arm artist Seeger probably was capable of that kind of “soft” bureaucratic music hatchet job). That is those of us from the later edge of the generation of ‘68 who didn’t grow into Dylan singing Kumbaya or Chimes Of Freedom but rather the acid-etched period of the Blonde On Blonde album and stuff like Visions of Johanna. Just that few years made the different. Of course when Pee-Pee and I met on Captain Crunch’s merry prankster yellow brick road bus up on Russian Hill in San Francisco in the late summer of love, 1967 version, all such plugged, unplugged, distinctions were ancient archival history as we “dug” such beauties as Highway 61 Revisted, the above-mentioned Blonde on Blonde, and Bringing It All Back Home without Seeger-ish interference. Just pass the pipe, please.

All this memory stuff though can be kind of tricky for an old man, old men, chattering in back porch Olde Saco face the ocean shoreline spots talking of this or that 1960s glory days memories, and unintended evocations. And evocation is really what drives this little screed. Evocations, or rather visions of Jewell, brought on by an untimely reference to Dylan’s own Visions of Johanna.

See that was our song, our summer of love, 1966 version, song. Jewell DeFarge and me, she of one thousand generations of French-Canadian American fragile beauty creation (okay, maybe I am a little high on the number but no instant beauty stuff). She of our hot Olde Saco High junior year getting ready to take on all comers to find our place in the sun, not the nasty Pee-Pee political place where you were doomed from the start, but starry night in heaven place. Hell, how can I explain it now to make sense? Maybe I will just take a step back describe it in light detail and be done with it, and done with visions too. Maybe.

Truth, in those days, those 1960s days, when I imagined girls (young women) I only thought of Botticelli Renaissance women like I saw down in Boston a bunch of times while hanging around Boston Common and you could hardly walk about ten feet before running in some young woman who a few centuries before would have been proud to model for old Botticelli. You know all airy, and thoughts of butterflies. Some loose garment, a sarong thing, going this way and that, long flowing angel hair, also going this way and that, no make-up but a twice-look beauty anyway, maybe some flowers in her hair, and at peace with herself. Or the look.

Enter Jewell DeFarge, all swirls, butterflies, and magic. And all secret eyes, secret blue eyes that spoke of transport, and less of desire, sexual desire, although that too was present, than elysian fields and midday walks. Strangely, well, maybe not so strangely, we met at the Olde Saco Beach one hot June day. She seeking shade and solitude, shade from the hot sun that would wreak havoc on that Botticelli skin, and solitude because she, like I, wanted to break-out of the common Olde Saco dream of finishing high school, getting some textile mill job or something like that, finding some guy to marriage and turning into our parents. She spoke of candles, burning incense, some reefer madnesses (we had both admitted to taking a few hits of anonymous offered reefer), and cloudless days. She spoke to me.

And so we spent our time together, our summer of love, our ocean swirl, our midday sun bonnet-protected walks, our solitude not speaking, our solitude speaking, and our break-out fever. And we spoke of cloud dreams, of ancient caves to live in, of some thatched peasant hut to live in, of simple seaside desires, and end of desire. But mainly we spoke in softness, in butterfly swirls, in sea spray mists, in cloudless cloudy skies, and, and, but enough. Let’s just call it visions of Jewell, and let’s just call it come September and she was gone, that Botticelli smile, that hair furious in the wind gone. And fifty years later the mystery behind that smile still haunts recalled dreams.
*************
Visions Of Johanna by Bob Dylan

Lyrics

Ain’t it just like the night to play tricks when you’re tryin' to be so quiet?
We sit here stranded, though we’re all doin’ our best to deny it
And Louise holds a handful of rain, temptin’ you to defy it
Lights flicker from the opposite loft
In this room the heat pipes just cough

The country music station plays soft
But there’s nothing, really nothing to turn off
Just Louise and her lover so entwined
And these visions of Johanna that conquer my mind
In the empty lot where the ladies play blindman’s bluff with the key chain
And the all-night girls they whisper of escapades out on the “D” train

We can hear the night watchman click his flashlight
Ask himself if it’s him or them that’s really insane
Louise, she’s all right, she’s just near
She’s delicate and seems like the mirror
But she just makes it all too concise and too clear
That Johanna’s not here

The ghost of ’lectricity howls in the bones of her face
Where these visions of Johanna have now taken my place
Now, little boy lost, he takes himself so seriously
He brags of his misery, he likes to live dangerously
And when bringing her name up
He speaks of a farewell kiss to me

He’s sure got a lotta gall to be so useless and all
Muttering small talk at the wall while I’m in the hall
How can I explain?
Oh, it’s so hard to get on
And these visions of Johanna, they kept me up past the dawn
Inside the museums, Infinity goes up on trial

Voices echo this is what salvation must be like after a while
But Mona Lisa musta had the highway blues
You can tell by the way she smiles
See the primitive wallflower freeze
When the jelly-faced women all sneeze
Hear the one with the mustache say, “Jeeze
I can’t find my knees”

Oh, jewels and binoculars hang from the head of the mule
But these visions of Johanna, they make it all seem so cruel
The peddler now speaks to the countess who’s pretending to care for him
Sayin’, “Name me someone that’s not a parasite and I’ll go out and say a prayer for him”
But like Louise always says
“Ya can’t look at much, can ya man?”
As she, herself, prepares for him

And Madonna, she still has not showed
We see this empty cage now corrode
Where her cape of the stage once had flowed
The fiddler, he now steps to the road

He writes ev’rything’s been returned which was owed
On the back of the fish truck that loads
While my conscience explodes
The harmonicas play the skeleton keys and the rain
And these visions of Johanna are now all that remain

Copyright © 1966 by Dwarf Music; renewed 1994 by Dwarf Music

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Songs to While Away The Time By- Bob Dylan’s (Via The Carter Family) “The Girl On The Greenbriar Shore”

Click on the headline to link to a YouTube film clip of The Carter Family performing The Girl From The Greenbriar Shore.

Song lyrics to Girl On The Greenbriar Shore:

'Twas in the year of '92,
In the merry month of June,
I left my mother and a home so dear
For the girl I loved on the greenbriar shore

My mother dear, she came to me
And said 'Oh son, don't go, '
'Don't leave your mother and a home so dear
To trust a girl on the greenbriar shore '

But I was young and reckless too,
And I craved a reckless life
I left my mother with a broken heart
And I choosed that girl to be m' wife

Her hair was dark and curly too
And her loving eyes were blue;
Her cheeks were like the red red rose
The girl I loved on the greenbriar shore

The years rolled on and the months rolled by
She left me all alone
Now I remember what mother said
Never trust a girl on the greenbriar shore




Joshua Lawrence Breslin comment:

My old friend Peter Paul Markin (always known as Pee-Pee and not that odd-ball Peter Paul thing like some old time yankee Brahmin was getting ready to crash on his damn Irish-driven head and he needed their two name protection) recently sent me some old Bob Dylan bootleg stuff (christ, who knows what numbers in the series. It will take eons to unravel all the out-takes, remakes, fakes, flakes, and just plain thefts that guy has in his storage vaults that will keep the dwindling number of aficionados going on and on for many years after his demise). That grab bag included his version (really a few changed words and hence prima facie evidence for that theft comment) of The Carter Family’s The Girl From The Greenbriar Shore (which they probably stole from some poor Saturday night hay barn gee down in the hills and hollas of Kentuck, or those environs).

Listening to the lyrics of that song though reminded me of my own green briar girl, my crazy head over heels, run away from home, run away from everything for, Dorothy Donnelly. Let me tell you about it if you have a minute, and maybe a tear. No, forget the tear I went into that thing with my eyes open, wide open. Just listen, okay.

I grew to young manhood up in Olde Saco, that’s in Maine, shoreline Maine, ocean-fronted Maine, down by the shore and everything is alright southern Maine around Portland. I also, for you that know (or knew) the demographics of that neck of the woods, grew to that young manhood despite the surname in a serious French- Canadian American (F.A.s, hereafter) household and neighborhood, you know, the people that made the textile and paper mills run up there before times got tough, real tough right after the war (World War II). Part of that francophone upbringing was an incredible devotion by my mother to the church, the Gallic Roman Catholic Church, for the unknowing. And he passed on that intense devotion on to her children, including me. But it also included, since I was the only boy and the presumptive man of the house if anything happened to my father, kind of coddled, ma coddled. Don’t leave your mother in the lurch sonny boy coddled. And plenty of my high school friends were too.

Part of that coddle was that I would not “leave the faith,” would not leave Olde Saco (really not leave Breslin home), and get this, not marry outside of the French-Canadian community (no heathen Irish or English especially) after I graduated from high school. Yes, mother, yes, mother dear.

Then I met Dorothy Donnelly, jesus, did I meet Dorothy Donnelly. The summer of my junior year in high school I was working a lifeguard job at Point Of Pines over at the far end of Olde Saco Beach where all the heathens gathered (Ma talk) for their summer of fun and frolic. (The F-A’s, local slang, especially those vacationing from Quebec gathered down near the pier, amusement park, bars, and shops.) Now my guard post, all authority and tan, all red swimsuit and safety pak, was down toward the jetty that swung out toward the Saco River where the lobster boats worked the inner seas. In a little cove, just a little sliver of land really, most of the younger girls (young women if you insist, but chicks, really in the terminology of the day), the younger heathen women hung out looking, well, girls, young women, or chicks, looking beautiful especially to one non-heathen F-A (in red trunks).

One day I spied this girl, this real fox, although from a distant she looked, well F-A, kind of slender, long brown hair, nice legs, and no bosom, ya, definitely F.A. What’s more she was looking at me, well, kind of, I found out later. I waved at her and she waved back and then I walked toward her. Oops, definitely not F.A., no way F.A. but still with everything else I just mentioned, except I forgot to say that hair was more reddish than brown, and I forgot to say that come hither smile she gave me every time I asked her a question. Irish, Irish to the core, no question.

Naturally any sixteen year old guy, F.A. attached to Ma or not, was going to work his magic on such a fox and see what happens. Of course all bug-eyed I did not pick up on the fact that she (1) was staying with an aunt because of some “vague” problems with her family back home in Marshfield down in Irish Riviera Massachusetts and (2), she had a “kind of ” boyfriend back home. So I plunged ahead and asked her for a date, she said yes, and we were off. Off to Seal Rock a couple of nights later in her aunt’s car. Now for the uninformed Seal Rock (not its real name) is named that because that is where every local “hot” couple went to “watch the submarine races,” a local term for, hell you know, doing it, the thing, sex, whatever that might turn into and “seal” the deed with names chiseled on the rock. (You know, by the way, as well as I do, or you should, there have been no submarine races off Seal Rock since about 1942 when somebody though they saw a German U-Boat offshore and all hell broke when it turned out to be some maiden voyage thing for some sub from the Bath Irons Works, chirst)

Well it didn’t take long to go crazy over Dorothy, about another week. And she seemed wild about me too, or gave that impression. One night, one deep Seal Rock night she said, flat out, “Let’s go over to New Hampshire and get married (sixteen, actually younger, I think was the legal age to get married then there).” I was so perfume-whipped, so long reddish hair whipped, so nice legs whipped, so, you know, whipped, that I said yes. Let me go home and get my stuff and we would be off. When I went to get my stuff Ma (really meme, okay) was there, looking furious.

Somehow she had received information for unnamed sources ( I still marvel at that ma grapevine the F.A. mothers, hell, maybe all mothers, had when errant sons and daughters were involved) that I was seen with a heathen girl (jesus I am embarrassed to even say that now) and what about it, and don’t lie. Well I didn’t, or rather just a little. I said Dorothy was half-French on her mother’s side like me. No soap, no dice, no go. Heathen. Then she gave a classic twenty minute, maybe longer, screed about heathens. Finally she was done, or just ran out of hot day steam. I left without saying anything about where I was going, or anything. Ya, it was one of those Ma days that you all know about.


I went out the door, got into the car, and we headed over to Dorothy’s aunt’s place. As we entered the aunt’s drive-way I saw another car parked there. Some 1959 great two-toned Chevy that every guy at school was drooling over. And in that car was a tall guy, maybe eighteen, maybe nineteen, who called Dorothy over to him. I noticed that he was holding Dorothy’s hand kind of tight, like he was trying to lead her somewhere. And she wasn’t really resisting so much as kind of pouting, girl not getting her way pouting. I went up to this tall guy and asked what the hell (I think I used that exact word) was he doing to my girl. He laughed, laughed out loud, "Your girl? Dorothy and I have been married for the past three months. That’s why her parents sent her up here to her aunt’s place. I’m bringing her home to set up house now that I am eighteen.” Bang went my brain. And with my mouth open, wide open they roared off in his car.

Just so you know I in my three marriages (counting the present one) I never married “in the faith,” I never married a girl from the F.A. community and I never married a girl from Olde Saco. And maybe, just maybe, it wasn’t to spite Ma but to honor of Dorothy Donnelly. See every time I see that old worn out guard tower at Point of Pines or see those initials J.B. and D.D. carved inside a crude heart on the face of Seal Rock I think ruefully of that summer and her.

From The Pen Of Joshua Lawrence Breslin- Before Bo Diddley Put The Rock In Rock And Roll-Way Before- A CD Review (Of Sorts)

Click on the headline to link to a YouTube film clip of the Memphis Jug Band (with a special guest) performing their classic Kokomo.

CD Review

Before The Blues; The Early American Black Music Scene –Classic Recordings from the 1920s and 1930s, Volume Two, various artists, Yazoo Records, 1996

Recently in reviewing a Masters Of Blues compilation composes of many of the greats from the R&B era like Ruth Brown, Louis Jordan, and Llyod Price, the era just before my generation of ‘68s childhood mid-1950s great rock and roll jail breakout I posed the question of who, or what Bo, Diddley (or your favorite for the honor) listening to before he put the rock in rock and roll. Today I take that same notion and step back one more generation to the great, mostly black, musical influences of the 1920s and 1930s. And pose that same question. Who did Big Joe Turner have his ear turned to when he put the rhythm into R&B.

This Jazz Age, this first serious generation of record buyers and radio listeners, was filled with all kind of wanna-bes searching for that right sound that would carry them to success. Needless to say the music had to reach down to those who could not afford concerts, musical halls or the Paul Whitman Band at the country club. So the music had to reach anyway it could (most interestingly in the primitive instruments, and great sound, of the various jug and sheik bands of the era) those hard-working five and one half sweat- shop workers, those hot Delta sun cotton plantation workers, and the others seeking refuge on a Saturday at the local juke joint, the local barn dance or the local lodge hall rented out for the occasion.

And the music had to touch that religious chord too, because sure as hell come Sunday morning, drunk or sober, there was payment due for Saturday nights brawls, fist fights, deep sea diving, etc. Repent sinner. So the two strands had to mesh, barrelhouse and storefront church. And the selections here from Frank Stokes, Eck Robertson, the Memphis Jug Band. Charley Patton, Blind Willie Johnson give great examples of those two strands. And you can feel that first blush wave forming that would, after World War II, get electrified, get jumped up, and get R&Bed (ouch). Then, of course, comes you know what. And if you don’t just think Bo.

#YO SOY 132

#YO SOY 132


Un movimiento importante en Mexico actualmente es la lucha contra el fraude electoral, la represion policial y la corrupcion endemica. Este movimiento comenzo cuando 131 estudiantes de la Universidad Iberoamericana rechaza la presencia de Pena Nieto. Ahora han comenzado a tofnar medidas para impedir la eleccion el 1 de julio del presente ano y de ser robados por un regimen criminal. Su movimiento ha llegado a ser conocido como "Yo Soy 132." Yo Soy 132 ha emitido una solicitud para estudiantes internacionales y otros activistas en el mundo a manifestarse en solidaridad con ellos. Es su esperanza que el llamar la atencion internacional sobre la corrupcion electoral de Mexico, puede ayudar a asegurar una eleccion justa.
Su peticion fue publicada en YouTube y puede servista en: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSiuTmYihWQ&feature=
Occupy Boston invita a todas las organizaciones e individuos que apoyan esta causa a unirse a nuestra manifestacion de solidaridad con "#Yo Soy 132" frente al consulado mexicano en Boston el 29 de junio, 4-6 PM.

For information or to get involved contact the following: YoSoy132BostonSolidarity page on Facebook or histheman(o)qma il.com.

SHOW OF SOLIDARITY WITH MEXICAN STUDENTS PROTESTING ELECTION FRAUD AND STATE VIOLENCE, JUNE 29™, 4-6 PM AT THE MEXICAN CONSULATE, 20 PARK PLAZA, BOSTON

SHOW OF SOLIDARITY WITH MEXICAN STUDENTS PROTESTING ELECTION FRAUD AND STATE VIOLENCE, JUNE 29™, 4-6 PM AT THE MEXICAN CONSULATE, 20 PARK PLAZA, BOSTON

#YO SOY 132

A major movement in Mexico is presently fighting against election fraud, police repression, and endemic corruption. This movement began when 131 students began to take action to prevent the July 1st election from being stolen by a criminal regime; their movement has come to be known as "Yo Soy 132." Yo Soy 132 has issued a request for international students and other activists globally to demonstrate in solidarity with them in the run up to the Mexican election on July 1st. It is their hope that calling international attention to Mexico's electoral corruption they may help to ensure a fair election. Their appeal was issued on youtube and may be seen at: http://www.voutube.com/watch?v=kSjuTmYihWQ&feature=share

Occupy Boston invites all organizations and individuals who support this cause to join our demonstration of solidarity with Yo Soy 132 outside the Mexican consulate in Boston on June 29th, 4-6 PM.

For information or to get involved contact the following:

YoSoy132BostonSolidarity page on Facebook or histheman@qmail.com.

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

From The Pen Of Joshua Lawrence Breslin-Before Bo Diddley Put The Rock In Rock And Roll- A CD Review (Kind Of)

Click on the headline to link to a YouTube film clip of Ruth Brown holding forth in the be-bop 1950s R&B night.

CD Review

The Blues Masters: The Essential Blues Collection: Volume 11-More Jump Blues, various artists including Ruth Brown, Rhino Records, 1993

Recently in reviewing (sort of, this kind of review is not my forte) a Norman Blake CD, Whiskey Before Breakfast, I noted that as a kid I was very averse to listening to that mountain music stuff since it was my father’s hillbilly Appalachia home of hills and hollows music (after all I was growing up in “big time” city boy Olde Saco up in Maine). The other kind of music around my 1950s growing up absurd house was “their” music, my parents coming through the great depression of the1930s and surviving (and she waiting, waiting on pins and needles for his safe return) music, jump, jitterbug, R&B,call it what you may.

Not exactly the rock and roll that I was enthralled with. No Bo Diddley, Chuck Berry, Elvis, Jerry Lee and the like to stir the blood. But every once in a while I would catch some riff that sounded like it might get to rock, but then faded just short. And the album under review, The Blues Masters: More Jump Blues, is filled with just such work. Of course, a little later when I caught the blues bug in the early 1960s all this music, this quintessential R&B, made great sense in in combination with rockabilly as the genesis of rock and roll. But back then it was just my parents’ music. You know, square.

So when somebody, anybody, asks you the question-“Who put the rock in rock and roll?”- you can automatically answer Bo Diddley (or your favorite choice). But if asked who put the bug in old Bo’s ear then just tell them that the likes of Louis Jordan, Ruth Brown, Big Joe Turner, LaVern Baker, Big Maybell (who I actually first heard in the early 1960s late at night listening to “The Big Bopper Blues Blast” out of some dark of mega-watt radio station in Chicago), Lloyd Price and Wynonie Harris and the others compiled on this CD and you can be smart, very smart.

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Vamos a redoblar nuestros esfuerzos para salvar privado Bradley Manning-Que todas las Plaza de la Ciudad A Bradley Manning Plaza De Boston a nosotros Berkeley

Markin comentario:

El caso de Bradley Manning privado se encamina hacia un juicio otoño. Aquellos de nosotros que apoyan su causa, debemos redoblar nuestros esfuerzos para asegurar su libertad. Para los Ăºltimos meses ha habido una vigilia semanal en el Ă¡rea metropolitana de Boston frente a la Plaza de Davis Redline MBTA parada (rebautizada Plaza de Bradley Manning para la duraciĂ³n de la vigilia) en Somerville de 1:00-14:00 los viernes. Esta vigilia tiene, por decir lo menos, ha sido muy poca asistencia. Tenemos que construir con mĂ¡s seguidores presentes. Por favor, Ăºnase a nosotros cuando pueda. O mejor aĂºn si usted no puede unirse a nosotros iniciar una vigilia de apoyo Bradley Manning la semana en algĂºn lugar en su ciudad ya sea en el Ă¡rea de Boston o Berkeley. Y por favor, firmen la peticiĂ³n para su liberaciĂ³n. He puesto enlaces a la red de Manning y Manning sitio web de la plaza de abajo.

Bradley Manning Support Network
http://www.bradleymanning.org/~~V

Manning Plaza de pĂ¡gina web
http://freemanz.com/2012/01/20/somerville_paper_photo-bradmanningsquare/bradleymanningsquare-2011_01_13/

Los siguientes son comentarios que se han centrado en los Ăºltimos tiempos para conseguir apoyo para la causa Bradley Manning.
Veteranos por la Paz se yergue en la solidaridad y la defensa de los soldado Bradley Manning.

Nosotros, los del movimiento anti-guerra no pudieron hacer mucho para afectar el gobierno de Bush-Obama Irak calendario guerra, pero podemos salvar uno de los héroes de esa guerra, Bradley Manning.

Estoy en solidaridad con las supuestas acciones de soldado Bradley Manning en sacar a la luz, sĂ³lo un poco de luz, algunos de los nefastos hechos relacionados con la guerra de este gobierno, el gobierno de Bush y Obama. Si lo hiciera tales actos no son delito. NingĂºn crimen en absoluto en mis ojos o en los ojos de la gran mayorĂ­a de la gente que conoce del caso y de su importancia como un acto individual de resistencia a las injustas y bĂ¡rbaras encabezadas por Estados Unidos las guerras en Irak y AfganistĂ¡n. Duermo un poco de sombra mĂ¡s fĂ¡cil en estos dĂ­as a sabiendas de que Manning podrĂ­a haber expuesto lo que todos sabĂ­an, o debĂ­an haber sabido, la guerra de Irak y de las justificaciones de la guerra afgana se basaba en un castillo de naipes. El imperialismo estadounidense pistolero castillo de naipes, pero las tarjetas, sin embargo.

Estoy de pie en solidaridad con el soldado Bradley Manning, porque estoy indignado por el trato dado a Manning, presumiblemente un hombre inocente, por un gobierno que afirma a sĂ­ misma como un "faro" del mundo civilizado. Bradley Manning se habĂ­a celebrado en la solidaridad en Quantico y otras localidades de mĂ¡s de 500 dĂ­as, y ha sido detenido sin juicio durante mucho mĂ¡s tiempo, ya que el gobierno y sus fuerzas armadas tratan de pegar un caso juntos. Los militares y sus secuaces en el Departamento de Justicia, se han vuelto mĂ¡s tortuosa, aunque no mĂ¡s inteligente desde que era un soldado en la mira mĂ¡s de cuarenta años.

Estas son razones mĂ¡s que suficientes para estar en solidaridad con el soldado Manning y lo serĂ¡ hasta el dĂ­a en que es liberado por sus carceleros. Y voy a seguir para estar en solidaridad con el soldado Manning orgullosos hasta ese gran dĂ­a.

La retirada inmediata e incondicional de todas las tropas estadounidenses / Allied y mercenarios de AfganistĂ¡n! Manos Fuera de IrĂ¡n! GuĂ­as gratuitas de Bradley Manning ahora!

Let’s Redouble Our Efforts To Save Private Bradley Manning-Make Every Town Square A Bradley Manning Square From Boston To Berkeley-Join Us In Davis Square, Somerville Every Friday-1:00-2:00 PM [Note: Beginning July 4th The Vigil Will Be Every Wednesday From 4:00-5:00 PM]

Click on the headline to link to a the Private Bradley Manning Petition website page.

Markin comment:

The Private Bradley Manning case is headed toward a late fall/early winter trial. Those of us who support his cause should redouble our efforts to secure his freedom. For the past several months there has been a weekly vigil in Greater Boston across from the Davis Square Redline MBTA stop (renamed Bradley Manning Square for the vigil’s duration) in Somerville from 1:00-2:00 PM on Fridays. This vigil has, to say the least, been very sparsely attended. We need to build it up with more supporters present. Please join us when you can. Or better yet if you can’t join us start a Support Bradley Manning weekly vigil in some location in your town whether it is in the Boston area or Berkeley. And please sign the petition for his release. I have placed links to the Manning Network and Manning Square website below.

Bradley Manning Support Network

http://www.bradleymanning.org/

Manning Square website

http://freemanz.com/2012/01/20/somerville_paper_photo-bradmanningsquare/bradleymanningsquare-2011_01_13/

The following are remarks that I have been focusing on of late to build support for Bradley Manning’s cause.

Veterans for Peace proudly stands in solidarity with, and defense of, Private Bradley Manning.

We of the anti-war movement were not able to do much to affect the Bush- Obama Iraq War timetable but we can save the one hero of that war, Bradley Manning.

I stand in solidarity with the alleged actions of Private Bradley Manning in bringing to light, just a little light, some of the nefarious war-related doings of this government, under Bush and Obama. If he did such acts they are no crime. No crime at all in my eyes or in the eyes of the vast majority of people who know of the case and of its importance as an individual act of resistance to the unjust and barbaric American-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I sleep just a shade bit easier these days knowing that Private Manning may have exposed what we all knew, or should have known- the Iraq war and the Afghan war justifications rested on a house of cards. American imperialism’s gun-toting house of cards, but cards nevertheless.

I am standing in solidarity with Private Bradley Manning because I am outraged by the treatment meted out to Private Manning, presumably an innocent man, by a government who alleges itself to be some “beacon” of the civilized world. Bradley Manning had been held in solidarity at Quantico and other locales for over 500 days, and has been held without trial for much longer, as the government and its military try to glue a case together. The military, and its henchmen in the Justice Department, have gotten more devious although not smarter since I was a soldier in their crosshairs over forty years ago.

These are more than sufficient reasons to stand in solidarity with Private Manning and will be until the day he is freed by his jailers. And I will continue to stand in proud solidarity with Private Manning until that great day.

Immediate Unconditional Withdrawal of All U.S./Allied Troops And Mercenaries From Afghanistan! Hands Off Iran! Free Bradley Manning Now!

************
"God knows what happens now. Hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms...

I want people to see the truth... because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public."

—online chat attributed to Army RFC Bradley Manning

Accused Wikileaks Whistleblower Bradley Manning,

a 23-year-old US Army intelligence analyst, is accused of sharing a video of the killing of civilians— including two Reuters journalists—by a US helicopter in Baghdad, Iraq with the Wikileaks website.

He is also charged with blowing the whistle on the Afghan War Diary, the Iraq War Logs, and revealing US diplomatic cables. In short, he's been charged with telling us the truth.

The video and documents have illuminated the true number and cause of civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, human rights abuses by U.S.-funded contractors and foreign militaries, and the role that spying and brines play in international diplomacy.

Half of every edition of The New York Times has cited one or more of these documents during the past year. The leaks have caused Amnesty International to hail Wikileaks for catalyzing the democratic middle eastern revolutions and changing journalism forever.

What happens now is up to YOU!

Never before in U.S. history has someone been charged with "Aiding the enemy through indirect means" by making information public.

A massive; popular outpouring of support for Bradley Manning is needed to save his life.

We are at a turning point in our nation's history. Will we as a public demand greater transparency and accountability from pur elected leaders? Will we be governed by fear and secrecy? Will we accept endless war fought with our tax dollars? Or, will we demand the right to know the truth—the real foundation of democracy.

Here are some actions you should take now to support Bradley:

» Visitwww.standwithbrad.org to sign the petition. Then join our photo petition at iam.bradleymanning.org

» Join our facebook page, savebradley,
to receive campaign updates, and follow SaveBradley on twitter

» Visitwww.bradleymanning.org and
download our Organizer Toolkit to learn howyou can educate community members, gain media attention, and donate toward Bradley's defense.

The People Have the Right to Know...

Visit wvwv.braclleymaiiniiig.org to learn howyou can take action!

************
What did WikiLeaks reveal?
.
"In no case shall information be classified... in order to: conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency... or prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security."

—Executive Order 13526, Sec. 7.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations

"Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is this awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest."

—Robert Gates, Unites States Secretary of Defense

PFC Bradley Manning is a US Army intelligence specialist who is accused of releasing classified information to WikiLeaks, an organization that he allegedly understood would release portions of the information to news organizations and ultimately to the public.

Was the information that PFC Manning is accused of leaking classified for our protection and national security, as government officials contend? Or do the revelations provide the American public with information that we should have had access to in the first place? Just

what are these revelations? Below are some key facts that PFC Manning is accused of making public.

There is an official policy to ignore torture in Iraq.

The "Iraq War Logs" published by WikiLeaks revealed that thousands of reports of prisoner abuse and torture had been filed against the Iraqi Security Forces. Medical evidence detailed how prisoners had been whipped with heavy cables across the feet, hung from ceiling hooks, suffered holes being bored into their legs with electric drills, urinated upon, and sexually assaulted. These logs also revealed the existence of "Frago 242,"an order implemented in 2004 not to investigate allegations of abuse against the. Iraqi government This order is a direct violation of the UN Convention Against Torture, which was ratified by the United States in 1994. The Convention prohibits the Armed Forces from transferring a detainee to other countries "where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture." According to the State Department's own reports, the U.S. government was already aware that the Iraqi Security Forces engaged in torture (1).

U.S. officials were told to cover up evidence of child abuse by contractors in Afghanistan.

U.S. defense contractors were brought under much tighter supervision after leaked diplomatic cables revealed that they had been complicit in child trafficking activities. DynCorp — a powerful defense contracting firm that claims almost $2 billion per year in revenue from U.S. tax dollars — threw a party for Afghan security recruits featuring boys purchased from child traffickers for entertainment. DynCorp had already faced human trafficking charges before this incident took place. According to the cables, Afghan Interior minister HanifAtmar urged the assistant US ambassadorto"quash"the story.These revelations have been a driving factor behind recent calls for the removal of all U.S. defense contractors from Afghanistan (2).

Guantanamo prison has held mostly innocent people and low-level operatives.

The Guantanamo Files describe how detainees were arrested based on what the New York Times referred to as highly subjective evidence. For example, some poor farmers were captured after they were found wearing a common watch or a jacket that was the same as those also worn by Al Queda operatives. How quickly innocent prisoners were released was heavily dependent on their country of origin. Because the evidence collected against Guantanamo prisoners is not permissible in U.S. courts, the U.S. State Department has offered millions of dollars to other countries to take and try our prisoners. According to a U.S. diplomatic cable written on April 17, 2009, the Association for the Dignity of Spanish Prisoners requested that the National Court indict six former U.S. officials for creating a legal framework that allegedly permitted torture against five Spanish prisoners. However,"Senator Mel Martinez... met Acting FM [Foreign Minister] AngelLossada... on April 15. Martinez... -underscored that the prosecutions would not be understood or accepted in the U.S. and would have an enormous impact on the bilateral relationship"(3).

There is an official tally of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even though the Bush and Obama Administrations maintained publicly that there was no official count of civilian casualties, the Iraq and Afghanistan War Logs showed that this claim was false. Between 2004 and 2009, the U.S. government counted a total of 109,000 deaths in Iraq, with 66,081 classified as non-combatants. This means that for every Iraqi death that is classified as a combatant, two innocent men, women or children are also killed (4),

FOOTNOTES:

(1)Alex Spillius, "Wikileaks: Iraq War Logs show US ignored torture allega-
tions,"Telegraph, October 22,2010. http://www.telegrapti.co.uk/news/
woridnews/middleeast/iraq/8082223/WiMleab-lraq-War-Logs-show-US-
ignored-torture-allegations.html.

(2)foreign contractors hired Afghan 'dancing boys; WikiLeaks cable
reveals'guanJian.co.uk, December 2,2010, http://www.guardian.co.tik/
world/2010/dec/02/foreign-contractors-hired-dancing-boys

(3) Scott Shane and Benjamin Weiser.The Guatanamo Files: Judging De­tainees'Risk, Often With Rawed Evidence'New York Times, April 24,2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/2S/world/guantanamo-files-flawed-evidence-for-assessing-risk.html;'US embassy cables: Don't pursue Guantanamo criminal case, says Spanish attorney general'guardian.co.uk, December 1,2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776.

(4) Iraq War Logs Reveal 15,000 Previously Unlisted Civilian Deaths,' guard-ian.co.uk, October 22,2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/won'd/2010/ oct/22/true-civilian-body-count-iraq