From The Marxist Archives -The Revolutionary History Journal-The case of Fenner Brockway (1930s Socialist- Britain)

...the Marxist movement has at certain historic moments drawn a multifarious array of adherents, some episodic, other historic like Lenin and Trotsky. Lord Brockway (and the lord was operative here in his political trajectory) did his share to muddle affairs in British left-wing politics in the 1930s. Worse he ran from the defense of a fellow left-winger, Leon Trotsky, was being hounded across the world. Essentially under a death sentence. Brockway had no clue that an injury to one is as injury to all. He was, unfortunately, not alone in that time when the crimes of Stalin needed to be exposed. But alone or in a crowd his name should leave a bad taste in every left-wing militant's mouth.   
 

Click below to link to the Revolutionary History Journal index.

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

Peter Paul Markin comment on this series:

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

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

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

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

The case of Fenner Brockway

Fifty years ago the third and most grotesque of the Moscow trials was staged. Once again the small forces of the Trotskyist movement were mobilised against the mighty propaganda machine of the Kremlin, the communist parties and their venal fellow travellers.

This was to be expected. But to make matters worse, the attempts to refute the allegations made against Trotsky in all of the trials were hampered by those who, whatever their political differences with Trotsky, may have been expected to have defended him against the Stalinists’ slanders. One such character was Fenner (now Lord) Brockway, a leading member of the Independent Labour Party, who refused either to support the Dewey Commission in Mexico or the British Committee for the Defence of Leon Trotsky. His refusal to take a firm stand against the slanders did not, however, spare the ILP’s co-thinkers in Spain, the POUM, from being massacred by the GPU.

The following critique of Brockway’s evasions was written by Hilary Sumner-Boyd under the pen-name of Charles Sumner, and appeared in the July 1937 edition of the British Committee for the Defence of Leon Trotsky’s Information Bulletin. Sumner-Boyd was secretary of the Committee and a leading member of the Marxist League.

At its annual conference in March, the Independent Labour Party passed a resolution on the Moscow trials which stated that “It is imperative that there should be an impartial investigation by representative socialists who have the confidence of the working class”, and that the investigation “should analyse both the detailed evidence given at the trials and the full reply which it is understood Leon Trotsky intends to publish shortly”. It is greatly to be feared that one member of the national council of the ILP at least – Fenner Brockway – has not been loyally carrying out this resolution. The subject at issue, which in the last analysis involves the character of the present government of the Soviet Union and the prospects of the world revolution, is so important, and the instructions of the annual conference of the ILP so clear, that it is necessary to establish the facts definitely in order that the members of the ILP may judge the matter for themselves.
Fenner Brockway’s connection with the proposed enquiry into the Moscow trials has all along been extremely ambiguous. In August, directly after the Zinoviev trial, the New Leader (28 August 1936), of which Brockway is the responsible editor, wrote: “We think it is the duty of the International Working Class Movement to appoint a Commission of Investigation. It should visit Trotsky in Norway, and also ask permission to visit Moscow and examine the evidence given at the trial.” A few months later, however, Brockway refused to sign the Open Letter (Manchester Guardian, Herald, etc., 1 December) appealing for such a Commission of Enquiry, although it bore the signatures of Brailsford, Horrabin and other working class leaders. Brockway has, moreover, consistently refused to have anything to do with the British Trotsky Defence Committee, which exists for the purpose of furthering an investigation of this kind. Apparently Brockway recoiled before the virulent campaign of slander carried on by the Communist Party against all who dared to question the evidence presented at the trials.
Then came the United Front Agreement, the programme of which expressly forbade all criticism of the Soviet Union and the policy of its Government. At this point Brockway's conduct, as it appears, became positively disingenuous. It seemed likely by this time that the efforts of the Committees in various countries, and especially in America, for an investigation into the trials, would be rewarded by the establishment of an International Commission of Enquiry. Brockway hastened to write to Norman Thomas, leader of the Socialist Party of the United States and a member of the American Trotsky Defence Committee, urging that a Commission of Enquiry be established, not to investigate the Moscow trials, but to examine “the role of Trotskyism in the working class movement”. An investigation of the Moscow trials, according to Brockway, would “merely arouse prejudice in Russia and Communist circles”!!! Now at the same time that he was making this preposterous proposal to Thomas, he also wrote to George Novack, secretary of the American Committee, proposing a Commission to enquire “into the charges against Trotsky”. Thus to the Committee officially Brockway makes one proposal, while to Thomas privately he makes a quite different and incompatible one. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that in this case Brockway was playing a double game. (The implications of Brockway’s proposal to Thomas are fully examined in Trotsky’s article which appears in this Bulletin.)
In spite of Brockway’s efforts to draw a red herring across the path, an International Commission of Enquiry was shortly afterwards established. Towards this Commission of Enquiry Brockway has consistently taken up an equivocal and dishonest attitude. He has himself perfectly expressed this in a letter of 9 April to the British Committee, in which he says: “We are prepared to collaborate with the Enquiry, but don’t use the word ‘endorse’ as that would be going too far”. Thus he does not “endorse” the Commission with which he is “collaborating”! This is the most frivolous temporising, unworthy of any serious revolutionary. It is cleat that Brockway is once again taking shelter behind his well-known opportunism: if in the future he thinks it advantageous to come out strongly against the Moscow trials, he can always point to his “collaboration” with the Commission; if, on the other hand, he continues to flirt with the Communist Party, he can declare that he never “endorsed” the Enquiry.
In order to elucidate the position as far as possible, the British Committee on 1 May addressed to Brockway the following questions:

1. Is the ILP and the International Bureau prepared to send a delegate to the Commission? If not, in what concrete forms do these organisations envisage their ‘collaboration’. 2. Are the ILP and the International Bureau prepared to accept the verdict of the Dewey Commission? (An impartial enquiry whose verdict is not unequivocally accepted by the organisations which ‘collaborate’ with it, is of course completely useless.) 3. As part of its ‘collaboration’ is the ILP prepared to give the widest publicity within its power … to the proceedings and the report of the Commission?

For nearly a month no reply was forthcoming. Then on 28 May, Brockway wrote and answered the first two questions in the negative, the third not at all – and at the same time doing his best to maintain his opportunist position by offering to “provide evidence” to the Commission. Except for the testimony of a few individuals like Maxton, Paton and Smith, which has already been given, it is difficult to see what “evidence” the parties adhering to the International Bureau could give. This offer is clearly a sop.
One reason only is offered why the International Bureau is unwilling to support the Commission of Enquiry (which Brockway persists in calling “American” as contrasted with “International”, presumably in order to make it appear less representative, although its personnel is in fact international). The reason given is that ”a disastrous mistake has been made in initiating the enquiry through a committee which describes itself as a ‘Committee for the Defence of Trotsky’” since this will present an “argument to those who condemn Trotsky which it will be impossible effectively to meet”. This contention is at once specious and disingenuous. To begin with, it is untrue that the Commission was initiated by the American Trotsky Defence Committee. The Commission was organised by the co-operative action of all the national Committees for an enquiry into the trials. Such committees exist not only in New York and London, but also in Paris, Antwerp, Prague and other European capitals. Since Brockway attaches so great an importance to the name, we ask him to note that the French Committee is called the Committee for an Enquiry into the Moscow, Trials, while those in Prague and Antwerp are known as Committees for Justice and Truth. In addition to these special committees, the American Socialist Party – affiliated to the Second International – and the Italian-American Anarchists also took an active part in setting up the Commission. When it had been agreed that the enquiry should be held in New York – in order to be within easy reach of the chief witness, Trotsky – the major part of the work of organising the Commission inevitably fell upon the American Committee, aided by the Socialist Party and the Anarchists. The fact that the enquiry is being held in the USA also explains the great preponderance of Americans serving on it, just as the personnel of its sub-commissions in Europe is largely composed of European representatives of working class organisations. Thus Brockway’s assertion that the Commission was initiated by the American Committee is simply false
Even supposing, however, that it were true, the contention that because it is called a committee for the defence of Trotsky it would provide “an argument to those who condemn Trotsky which it would be impossible effectively to meet” is utterly dishonest. In the first place, any commission of enquiry into the Moscow trials, as Brockway himself has pointed out, “will merely arouse prejudice in Russia and Communist circles” – and in all other circles which are willing to condemn Trotsky unheard. Secondly, how could this argument be more effectively met than by the International Bureau and its affiliated parties officially taking part in the enquiry, and thus giving it a still broader and less “partisan” basis? If Brockway and the Executive Committees which he represents were sincere in their desire to “collaborate” with the Commission and to get at the facts behind the trials, this is clearly the course they would have pursued. Thirdly, it is surely irrelevant by whom the Commission is initiated. The guarantee of its impartiality, and the criterion by which the working class movement will judge it, are to be found, first, it its own personnel – and Brockway himself was compelled in the New Leader for 9 April to pay the highest tribute to the unchallengeable probity and passion for justice of the members who had so far been decided upon – second, in the full reports of its public proceedings and examination of evidence, and third in its final summing up and verdict. To judge it on any other grounds is the part of the enemies and not the friends of truth. Finally, the verbal objection to the name “Committee for the Defence of Trotsky” is sheer casuistry. Neither logically nor psychologically does it imply a conviction of Trotsky’s innocence, but only a conviction that he may be innocent – and this is obviously required of any impartial committee. It is an age-old principle of civilised justice that no one is to be adjudged guilty until he has been given the opportunity to state his case before a properly qualified body, that is, before he has had a chance to present his defence. Even those who plead guilty are in civilised countries allowed defending counsel. But Trotsky has pleaded not guilty; and there are those – though apparently Mr Brockway is not one of them – who are not convinced that the case against him was proved beyond reasonable doubt at the Moscow trials, and who are therefore anxious to hear him state his case and to act in his “defence” in order to arrive at whatever may ultimately prove to be the truth.
These considerations are so clear that they cannot have escaped the subtle mind of Fenner Brockway. It is greatly to be regretted that he chose to disregard them and to act in a way that is at best cowardly and at worst dishonest. Now the GPU has transferred its activities to Spain and threatens the life of Brockway’s political allies in the POUM, Brockway has gone to their defence. But if he had come out courageously in support of the investigation into the Moscow trials, and had used his influence to secure for the Commission of Enquiry the support of the ILP and the International Bureau, it is more than possible that the GPU would not have dared, in the face of the indignation of the revolutionary working class, to use in Spain the methods which have brought about the Russian Thermidor.
Charles Sumner

***Out In The 1940s Crime Noir Night –Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall’s “Key Largo”

DVD Review

Key Largo, starring Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, Edward G. Robinson, Lionel Barrymore, and Claire Trevor, Warner Brothers, 1948
“One Johnny Rocco, more or less, in the world is no business of mine.” So says one world-wise, world weary, been-through- the-mill ex-World War II military man, Frank McCloud (played, understatedly, by one cinematic 1940s tough guy, Humphrey Bogart) in the film under review, Key Largo. And he was right, dead right that a single guy , a single guy singed by life’s pitfalls could, would, or should take on one more hoodlum in this wicked old world.

But, of course dead right or not, this would be an exceedingly short film if Frank threw in the towel when he faced one real live Johnny Rocco hoodlum (played to a sleazy tee by serious 1940s gangster-type Edward G. Robinson). Moreover I set up the last paragraph to see if those who follow crime noir in all its glory were paying attention. Crime noir, for the one hundredth time, no, the one thousandth time, is based, for good or evil, on one premise, crime at the end of the day does not pay. And criminals must pay, either forfeiting their lives or doing one to ninety-nine in stir, the can, prison, okay.

And so world-weary, world wary, seen it all Frank McCloud must once more call on the better angel of his nature to eradicate one very live Johnny Rocco. Let’s give a few plot details to flush on this story and see why Frank had to bust up some two-bit racketeer. One Johnny Rocco and his courtly entourage of petty thugs decided to hit Key Largo, specifically the Key Largo Hotel, off-season, maybe to save a little dough on the room rates. No, no, no to make a score off of some counterfeit dough hot off the presses that his old crony Ziggy will pass off as real kale. But see Johnny has a problem because although a few years back he was king of the hill up in the Midwest he has been deported as, if you can believe this, an undesirable alien and has been cooling his heels in anything goes Batista-era Cuba waiting for his big comeback. So this deal, real dough for fake (at a serious discount of course) brings him back to old Estatos Unidos, well, Key Largo which is only a stone’s throw from Cuba.

And everything would have been fine except just then one ex-serviceman, our friend Frank McCloud, who happened to have been the hotel owner’s (played by Lionel Barrymore) killed in action son’s commanding officer in the European Theater, decided to stop by and commiserate on his way to Key West. And everything would have been very fine if a big blow, a hurricane, did not also gum up the works forcing everybody (everybody except the Native Americans left to fend for themselves during the storm) into the claustrophobic hotel lobby area where the frayed nerves of all were exposed.

Naturally since old Johnny had all the guns, all the gunsels, and a very nasty disposition when he was crossed he was hands down the winner, right. No, no you were not paying attention. See a dame, well, actually two dames, come in to muck things up. No femme fatales here though, just Nora (played, very understatedly by Lauren Bacall), who was married to the owner’s deceased son and is pretty easy on the eyes. While the sparks between Bogart and Bacall do not light up the screen like they did in To Have And Have Not they go for each other. So Frank’s hands off the world approach is doomed, doomed big time, if he wants to get anywhere with Ms. Nora. And then there is Johnny’s lush girlfriend, Gaye, who old Johnny does not treat right, no way. Add a slap or two to Nora by Johnny and Johnny is doomed, doomed big time. RIP. Thus there is, whether it makes any different in the great mandela in fact one less Johnny Rocco in the world. Got it.

***The Life And Times Of Michael Philip Marlin – Yeah, Trouble, Trouble With A Big T

As readers know Tyrone Fallon, the son of the late famous Southern California private operative, Michael Philip Marlin (Tyrone used his mother’s maiden name for obvious reasons), and private eye in his own right told my old friend Peter Paul Markin’s friend Joshua Lawrence Breslin some stories that his illustrious father told him. Here’s one such story.  

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

As Michael Philip Marlin, Los Angeles’ rough-edged, hard-nosed, no nonsense windmill- chasing (skirt-chasing too) private eye drove up the main driveway of the vast Jeter estate, yes, those Jeters the ones who made fortune in the LaBrea tar sands oil money racket, he was trying, desperately trying to remember where he had heard or seen that bit about the rich, the very rich actually being different from you and me. As he turned up in front of the massive mansion named La Strada (they always names their estates something, something European as if to put paid to the point that they had made it) he finally remembered it was F. Scott Fitzgerald in a book he had read a few years back.

He also remembered that the rich, the very rich, were not so very different from you and me when it came to crime, crime all the way up to murder. What was different is that they could afford, easily afford, the fee in his case to hush it all up and go on about their business. And since the private eye business, like everything else in the year 1939, was slow he was glad for a chance to make some office rent dough to get along for another month. He just wondered what kind of nastiness he was supposed to hush up this time, not murder, not from what he had heard through his police grapevine but something that needed hushing if it required his services.    

As Marlin entered old Jeters’ study, the guy who had actually made the money that got these digs, make the money walking over a mountain of human bones, including a couple of suicides when things got tough in 1929,  he saw the living corpse that was what was left of one Herman Jeters.  Human wreck or not, apparently he was feisty enough to want no trouble left surrounding his name before he passed on. Passed on and left his fortune to an errant son who seemingly was hell-bent on spending every last dime on wine, women, and song.

Oh yeah and some high-end gambling too which is what had old Jeters disturbed. Apparently young Jeters, Jeff, had run up a sizable debt at Marty Bennett’s casino over in Santa Monica up the Pacific Coast Highway, something like 50k, and Marty, purely for professional pride and for good business practice was squeezing the old man for the dough. On top of that a dame, wouldn’t it figure, had her hooks into the young pup, planned to marry Jeff and live in splendor. Old Jeter had her down as just another gold-digging whore who had to be paid off like the previous times. So Marlin was on the case, on top of what a rich man wanted done when he had his wanting habits on.   

What the old man did no tell Marlin was that this dame, Leslie Lamour (yeah this was Hollywood remember and just the kind of name which Susan Smith or Jane Jones took when she stepped off at Vine Street from Omaha or Davenport), was something to look at, something that he would take a run at himself if he got the slightest encouragement. She was in any case not in the market to be bought off for chump change, particularly since she was working with Marty Bennett on this Jeff project but also because old man Jeters had been the cause of  her father’s suicide back in ’29. Yeah, this case was not going to be the walk over Marlin thought.   

First off things got just a little bit complicated when somebody put two, two slugs, into Jeff Jeter’s chest and stuffed him in a closet in Leslie’s apartment. That left a big hole in Marlin’s job since now there was nothing and nobody to negotiate with. Marty was out big dough and Leslie was down for the count now that Jeff was by-by and so she was back on cheap street. Of course, while it was not strictly in the line of business, trouble business or otherwise Marlin was more than helpful in helping Leslie get over her loss. (Yes she had an alibi, airtight, and so no snooping cops were going to pin the crime on her even if it was her closet, maybe especially because it was her closet.) They shared a few nights of satin sheets at her place while Marlin figured out who was going to do the big step- off for young Jeters murder.

And Marlin did figure it out, figured it out pretty quickly once he found out that Marty was head over heels for Leslie and got so daffy that he let his emotions get the best of him. He had hired Jeff’s chauffeur to do the deed and so Marlowe had to go mano y mano with the chauffer. Well not exactly hand to hand since that chauffer tried like hell to drill Marlin with a sweet .38. Marlin plugged him dead, very dead, to give the state its best shot at Marty. So Marty was left holding the bag, no more than the bag since he was the last anybody heard scheduled for the big step –off at Q for the Jeters murder. Leslie, well as Leslies everywhere will do, she walked away from whole thing leaving Marlin with nothing but a lingering sandalwood trail to remember her by. You say you never heard about all of this, about the Jeters murder. What did I tell you before the rich, the very rich are different, very different from you and me. The whole thing had the big hush on it, and I mean big.           

all- radical caroling time is here, and its on!

 

SUNDAY, DECEMBER 22^nd, 2:00-4:00 p.m. @ BOSTON COMMON, Park Street Station – RAIN or SHINE –

please take your feet to the street and join us as we raise our voices to raise awareness around issues of social un-justice, economic exploitation, political oppression, environmental degradation, and general havoc-reeking practices known as “the holidays” and capitalism.

 our playlist focuses on questioning capitalist and holiday norms practices. the cheatsheet for the street songbook with all of the lyrics, and the flyer, are available from our event page (you can join there or email me directly) : https://www.facebook.com/events/1402573919983168/?source=1

for those new to radical caroling and street art actions:

what happens?

this is an open event, anyone may join us at anytime. we will be singing, signing, and playing instruments.  there will be homemade percussion for kids, songbooks to share, lyrics written on large poster boards and infosheet handouts (explaining our message and providing alternative practices) for those passing by who are interested.

why bother?

many folks simply don’t know the whole story, bringing knowledge to the streets, in the form of satirical (and hopefully enjoyable) art, can get folks to stop, listen, contemplate a message, it can alter how and what they see, and possibly reconsider the choices they make.  i remember not knowing i HAD a choice, actually didn’t  even realize i was actively MAKING a choice…until folks educated me.  so basically we learn, we share, we learn, we share, and we attempt to create change. and we have fun.

this is a kid friendly event and we aim to be accessible to ALL who wish to participate.  so if you have the knowledge to spin, the voice to raise, the freedom to join and the time to spare to spread the good word of building a more fair and just world for all-then lend your voice and SING!

in solidarity-  karan

End-of-the-Year Reflections on Drawing the Court Martial of Chelsea Manning-Deb Vanpoolen

Although Private Manning vs. the United States was one of the most important trials in US history, no cameras were allowed inside the courtroom.  Without cameras in the courtroom, the world’s masses of people impacted by the Wikileaks releases could not be properly informed of the proceedings.  In the three years following the Wikileaks releases and Manning’s arrest, the mainstream US media provided miniscule coverage of anything to do with Private Manning, including her entire three-year pre-trial confinement and the two years of pre-trial hearings.   Thus, before the court martial began, I saw a dire need for alternative media as well as ordinary citizens to daily attend and closely report on the trial so that quality information about the historic trial was accessible to as many citizens of the whole world as possible.

Although I had virtually no experience in courtroom sketching, I predicted that my portrait drawing skills might prove useful in communicating images from the courtroom to the public.  I arranged my life (found a work-trade/rental situation providing massage, cleaning, and gardening services in exchange for rent) so that I could attend each day of the court martial which began in the first week of June and lasted until the third week in August, 2013.  I taught myself how to use a smart phone’s internet hot spot, a portable scanning device, the Picassa computer program, and Facebook and Twitter accounts so that I could immediately upload images during breaks in the courtroom proceedings. 

Throughout the summer’s proceedings, I experienced a huge spectrum of emotions.  I was deeply impressed by the way Private Manning held her professional, intensely attentive composure throughout each day of the trial.  She was almost always sitting on the edge of her seat, focused on each word that was spoken in the courtroom. Every single time one of the defense team prepared to speak, Manning flipped the switch which turned on the defense team’s microphone.

I was deeply inspired and encouraged by the opening and closing statements of David Coombs as well as the statement Chelsea Manning read on the final day of the trial.  I was very happy upon hearing the amazingly articulate testimony of Professor Benkler who schooled us all on the “aiding the enemy” charge’s potential to wield a fatal blow to freedom of the press in the US.  The day Benkler testified followed several days of ridiculous, nauseating prosecution witnesses who claimed—under oath--that national security was harmed by Manning’s actions.  When Benkler appeared, my heart leapt for joy because it recognized that truth had been resurrected (after a few days of hellish defeat) inside the Ft. Meade courtroom!  I was nauseatingly angry on the day the prosecuting attorney Ashden Fein spent over five hours giving his highly repetitive and mind-numbingly boring closing statement (which resulted in Coombs’ closing statement being postponed until the next day, when much less press was present).

I was also very moved by the following testimonies:  Lauren McNamara who spoke regarding Manning’s transgender desires; Debra Van Alstyne, who described her interactions with Manning as her aunt who offered Manning nurturing shelter at key times in her life; and Casey Manning, Chelsea’s older sister, who described Chelsea as a wonderful, loving, and dearly missed sibling.  I cried throughout the testimony of Casey Manning as the unceremonious courtroom was transformed by the presence of undeniable, sisterly, strong love between Casey and Chelsea Manning.

David Coombs often met with Manning supporters after the proceedings and I deeply valued each word he shared with us about Manning’s well-being and about the intricate developments of case.  He was consistently very warm and appreciative of our presence, as well as open to answer any questions we asked.  I was also thrilled to meet and work alongside of some of the very hard-working lawyers, journalists and activists who were regularly attending and/or commenting on the case:  Alexa O’Brien, Michael Ratner, Cornel West, Chris Hedges, Medea Benjamin, Debra Sweet and Ray McGovern.

The large group of Manning supporters, dubbed the “truth battalion” by David Coombs, was not only supportive of Chelsea, but also of each other.  Each day I went to Ft. Meade, I was fascinated to observe who else came to the proceedings and to learn where they were from and what exactly motivated them to support Chelsea by silently sitting in the courtroom.  Many supporters--whether they came just for a couple days of proceedings or were regular attendees--acknowledged me and thanked me for my work covering the trial.  The supporters, most of whom donned “truth” t-shirts for the day, were very friendly, intelligent, and informed.   Almost each day of the trial there were at least ten Manning supporters sitting in the courtroom and many days over thirty supporters were in the courtroom with another twenty in the overflow trailer.

I attempted to draw each witness who testified, even if they were on the stand for just a few minutes.  Throughout the summer, in between the times of witness testimony, I drew several portraits of Chelsea, David Coombs and Judge Denise Lind.   The drawings from the trial, as well as some watercolor portrait paintings of Manning, can be viewed at the following link: www.debvanpoolen.com.  Four of the images are available as limited edition giclee’ prints and can be ordered via the website.  

HAPPY HOLIDAYS!  

FREE CHELSEA MANNING! 

Dear Alfred,

VFP needs your help to keep up our work.  Thank you for your interest in Veterans For Peace in 2013. It was a great year.

We made a difference in working for peace and pushing our government to avoid  more war. We will do it again next year, but we need your help now to keep up the struggle in 2014. Please consider making a year-end donation.  Follow this link to make your donation.

With our five areas of focus in the strategic plan: Current and Future Wars, G.I. Resistance, Drone Warfare, Redirecting of military budget to community needs and closing Guantanamo Bay, there is no other veteran organization that  consistently brings the voice of peace to such a broad set of issues.

2014 looks to be an exciting year for Veterans For Peace as we continue to resist war and forward the cause of peace. We are grateful to you for your support as we close out the old and bring in the new.

Donate to us today before the year is up. Your donation is tax deductible.

Sincerely,



Michael McPhearson
Interim Executive Director

 

Forward to a Friend Veterans For Peace, 216 S. Meramec, St. Louis, MO 63105, 314-725-6005 www.veteransforpeace.org

BOSTON FIRST NIGHT AGAINST THE WARS 2013-2014 EDUCATIONAL Come celebrate the close of 2013 with First Night Against All Wars! Join a growing coalition of people dedicated to ending all forms of oppression ! Noon until 6pm Tuesday, December 31, 2013... Facebook page First Night Against All Wars https://www.facebook.com/firstnightagainstallwars   Meeting first at 565 Boylston St. Community church of Boston and then walking on over to our set up location on the steps of the Boston Public Library (corner of Boylston & Dartmouth starting at Noon till six after the parade).   We'll have free hot chocolate and snacks for passersby who stop to pick up your literature. We're also going to have a bright sticker that has broad appeal and that everyone opposed to these wars can wear.   We're organizing an educational action that reaches the 100,000s of people who will be in Boston to celebrate First Night. We want to welcome them. We want to celebrate.   But we also want everyone to be fully conscious of the many wars: • Wall Street and Government's War on Us! •The wars on women. •The wars on people of color and immigrants. •The wars on working people.   •The wars in Africa and Middle East. •The war on the environment.   These are all connected!   Help make this happen!   To help with the planning and organizing, please call "Dan the Bagel Man", Daniel Kontoff, at 857-272-6743. Daniel.Kontoff@yahoo.com   Our second planning meeting will be on Monday, December 16 at 6:30 PM at the Community Church 565 Boylston Street Copley SquareSee More

565 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02116

565 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02116

View Map

· Get Directions

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

 

… and ten thousand tearful partings at the train station, Grand Central, Union, South Station, Adamsville, Podunk, as Jimmy’s number has been called (or fill in that government issue’s, G.I. okay, name who has caused the tearful parting), called to go fight against the night-takers who stalk their world, go to push back against the night of the long knives some maniacs have declared against the commonality. Jimmy and kindred numbers to wade on the dangerous ocean swirled fragile beachheads of Europe, to take guard duty in some frozen lean-to up north near the Arctic Circle, to flame-blow inside some cave on some unnamed, maybe nameless Pacific atoll, to wait, always wait, tented against the China Sea squalls.

She swore she would wait for him, wait for him in lonely home-fire rooms (his picture right next to Christ on that lonely room wall). All the time wondering, fearing whether he has laid his head down on some Italian beach, some frozen tundra, in some watery grave, against some stony bridge, and what will become of her (and the baby). Thinking, thinking too hard for the times that she will get by, get by somehow.

And he, Jimmy (or fill in your named one, okay) now in some landing craft off some foreboding beach, in some woe-begotten lean-to holding off frost-bite, in some water-rat cave, in some make-shift beaten down tent, hoping to high heaven that he will not have to lay down his head so far from home, so far away from her wondering in his lost moments whether she will really wait for him, wait for him alone. Silly boy haven’t you been reading her letters, her every day letters (although usually delivered in bunches, APO hassles- you know snafus), she was built for forty, fifty year Jimmy love, yeah she was built to get by until you return thank you very much.                                  

From The Marxist Archives -The Revolutionary History Journal-The WIL view (Britain)

...those not particularly invested in the various disputes that have arisen in the world Trotskyist movement are unlikely to realize that such differentiations are key to the struggle for a revolutionary program. Whether the disputes between small groups and grouplets seem esoteric we can leave aside but the struggle for program, a program that marches in step with the objective needs of the working class is decisive-and messy.    

Click below to link to the Revolutionary History Journal index.

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

Peter Paul Markin comment on this series:

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

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

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

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

The WIL view

We reprint the following document to provide a contrast to the article on the Left Fraction by Harry Selby. It first gives an account from the point of view of the Political Bureau of the Workers International League of the development of Trotskyism in Britain up until the “Peace and Unity Conference” held in August 1938. It then deals with developments after the conference, especially in respect of the disintegration of the Revolutionary Socialist League. Reasons of space prevent us from reproducing in this issue the various resolutions, statements and letters to which reference is made in the document.

The document was intended to accompany the discussion inside the WIL initiated by the proposal of the minority led by Gerry Healy for immediate unification with the RSL on the basis of the proposals of the International Secretariat of the Fourth International. Undated and untitled, the document was written in the latter half of 1943. The last date given in the document is 4 July 1943, but it was probably issued around 11 September, as it was written to accompany a document which appeared on that date answering a criticism of the WIL made by Lou Cooper of the Socialist Workers Party of the USA.

John Archer adds that in his opinion the statement may have also arisen because there was contact at a rank and file level between members of the WIL and the RSL.

In order to acquaint our membership with the events leading up to the present relations between ourselves and the RSL as well as with the International Secretariat, we present a short factual summary of the early development of the Fourth International in this country together with the main documents relating to the 1938 Unification Conference.
British communism has always been more backward than in other countries. This was the case not only among our own cadres, but also in the Communist Party, whose leadership was always regarded by the International movement as the most backward in the world.
The initial cadres of the Left Opposition in the Communist Party of Great Britain were, in the main, petit-bourgeois. While accepting the ideas and principles of the International Left Opposition, they made no attempt to concretise these ideas and apply them to the British movement. The spirit of a petit-bourgeois discussion circle was fostered in the early meetings. No real attempt was made to acquaint the youth members and sympathisers with the theoretical differences between the Bolshevik Leninists and the Stalinist bureaucracy nationally or internationally, or with the programme of the Left Opposition. The leadership showed the greatest incapacity to train the younger elements or to conduct any decisive political action.
During the period of the campaign of the Left Opposition for re-entry into the Communist parties, it was possible for a loose collection of individuals to hold together, for in this country it enabled them to appear in public as “critics” while binding them to no real programme of activity. However, when the German betrayal impelled the Left Opposition to consider the reform of the Comintern no longer possible and to adopt the perspective of orientation towards the new Fourth International, the basic weakness of the British Bolshevik Leninists was revealed.
The directive given to the British comrades was to turn towards the centrist organisations as the main field of work. This perspective worked out by comrade Trotsky was fundamentally correct, but due to the complete incapacity of the Trotskyists to carry out this tactic, the outcome resulted in failure. This turn towards the centrists marked the first of what was to be a series of splits. Incapable of acting as a unified body, the opposition burst asunder, one group entering the ILP, the other at first remained independent and later entered the Labour Party. This initial split took place without any thorough discussion or preparation, the factional lines running parallel to the personal alliances of the various individuals.
From 1934 until 1938 a continuous series of splits took place. The political lines were, as a rule, not fundamental in character, but on questions of tactics, which were raised to immutable principles. The factions were characterised by a core, who, generally speaking, broke along lines of personal affiliation. The few who remained on the periphery of these factions – mainly fresh elements turning to the Trotskyist viewpoint – moved aimlessly from one group to another, seeking a lead.
The French Party’s turn to the Socialist Party and the Oehler split in America over the question of entry into the Socialist Party, created a new basis for the various factions. The “principle” of the “independence of the Bolshevik Party” became the centre of the new and “higher” forms of political discussion.
During the whole of this period, the International Secretariat was completely misinformed as to the real situation in the British movement – its strength, the forms of work it conducted, its support among the workers, and in every other aspect of its activities. The loose connection between the IS and the British movement facilitated this.
The Trotskyist groups which evolved and disappeared were myriad. The Communist Left Opposition, the Marxist League, the Marxist Group, the Militant Group, the Chelsea Action Group, the Revolutionary Socialist League, the Unified Revolutionary Socialist League, the Militant Labour League, the Revolutionary Workers League, the Workers International League – all these in the London area alone, and others emerged from time to time in the provinces.
By September 1938 there were three distinct groups in existence in the London area as follows (the names of the leaderships of these organisations are given to identify them, as subsequently the names were changed): The Revolutionary Socialist League (James, Duncan, Lane, Wicks, Dewar), the Marxist League (Wicks, Dewar) had just entered into a unification with the RSL on the basis of the Independent tactic. The Militant Group (Harber, Jackson) was an entrist group in the Labour Party, and the Workers International League (Lee, Grant, Haston) was an entrist group in the Labour Party.
There also existed the Revolutionary Socialist Party of Edinburgh, which was moving towards the Fourth International and was about to effect a unification with the RSL on the basis of the Independent tactic. The leaders of this group were Maitland and Tait.
Each year, and sometimes twice a year, a “unity” conference was called, but without any serious preparation or intention. The soft elements who had proved themselves incapable of any continuity of organised work, who had dropped out of the movement from time to time, appeared on the platform and played a prominent role in the “discussions”. Each year it became more and more obvious that a genuine unification among the old elements was absolutely precluded, because of the determination of the “leaders” to retain their independence and resist any encroachment on their positions, and, most importantly, because of the absence of a genuine rank and file. It was evident that unification would only take place on the basis of a common programme of action, on the basis of common work.
Such was the position in the British movement when the “Peace and Unity Conference” took place in September 1938. In the bulletin circulated for pre-conference discussion, there were three theses submitted for discussion by the WIL, the RSL and the RSP. The conference was attended by representatives of these three groups, as well as a representative of the Militant Group. At this conference the “Peace and Unity Agreement” was drawn up and presented by the American comrade. There was no political discussion on the differences of tactics and perspective, for Britain, which had separated the groups for years – only this “Peace and Unity Agreement” which the groups were given 20 minutes to sign. All groups signed except the WIL. We reproduce here the Peace and Unity Agreement.
(Here follows the text of the Peace and Unity Agreement of August 1938)
The American comrades addressed the whole of the membership of the WIL on several occasions with the object of convincing them to accept the above agreement as the basis for unity. The WIL unanimously rejected this. We claimed that the so-called “unification” was not a unification at all but was merely the prelude to further splits because of two fundamental factors: there was no unified tactic and therefore no unified body; with two tactics in operation without a majority decision, it was impossible to work as a unified body. The WIL expressed to the American comrade the desire to become a sympathetic section of the Fourth International, which he assured us he would exert his influence to effect. We were asked to send a delegate to the International conference, failing which we were to hand a statement to DDH [Harber], a delegate of the unified section who attended the conference. The WIL decided to send a written statement and delivered it by band to DDH, as instructed by the American comrade. The statement of the WIL is produced below.
(Here follows the text of the statement addressed by the WIL to the Founding Conference of the Fourth International)
The International Conference accepted the “unified” organisation, the RSL, as the official British Section of the Fourth International. It rejected the application of the WIL to be recognised as an official section or even a sympathetic section and predicted its inevitable degeneration and collapse.
Below is produced the statement of the 1938 International Conference on the “Lee Group” (WIL). It must be pointed out that the accusation in Section 3, that our statement was addressed to the world at large, presents a mis-statement of fact. We addressed our statement in a sealed envelope to the conference as headed.
(Here follows the resolution of the Founding Conference of the Fourth International on the “Lee Group” [WIL])
Hardly had the ink dried on the Peace and Unity Agreement and the American delegates departed for home, when the cracks in the “unified” organisation began to appear. These cracks rapidly widened into splits. After signing the agreement, the RSP, which launched a vicious attack against the WIL at the International Conference because of our warnings on the nature of the unification, had split away before the year had ended. What is more, they split precisely on the basis we predicted. The “lefts” soon followed suit, setting up their own “official section” of the same name, the RSL. This was followed by a rapid disintegration of the majority of such provincial groups and contacts as the unified section still retained. It is noteworthy, that although the International took a very “hard” stand when the WIL refused to accept the Peace and Unity Agreement as the basis of agreement and made a caustic public condemnation of the WIL, no public statement was ever issued denouncing the splitters from the “unified” section. Thus we have it that such elements who did not enter the unification honestly – Wicks, Dewar, Lane, Maitland, etc., etc. – these are the people who are using the statement of the International against the WIL today.
For the information of members, we produce the statements of the first two splits issued by the RSP and the RWL (the latter is the nucleus of the present ”TO” [Trotskyist Opposition]). Although these are somewhat lengthy they are of value insofar as they demonstrate the exact line of development as foreseen by the WIL.
(Then follow the statements of the Edinburgh RSP and the London ”RSL” [later called the RWL] splitting from the united RSL, section of the new Fourth International)
Once again the old situation existed, except that it was more chaotic than at any time in the past. Our movement continued to consist of “general staffs” but without the armies.
During this period the WIL continued its work, convinced that the only way out of the impasse of British Trotskyism was to turn our backs on the old clique spirit and petit-bourgeois milieu and draw in fresh workers to reinforce the ranks of the movement. That we suffered from the denunciation of the IS is undoubted. But as we had the correct policy and the correct attitude, the general harmony within our ranks gave us a superiority in the orientation and organisation of our cadres. A new phase began in the development of our movement. Whereas in the years 1934-39 we witnessed a series of interminable splits, superficial re-unifications and splits again, the last period 1939-43 has marked a period of genuine unification of all the serious elements and the growth and influence in our ideas among the British working class. This unification has taken place within the framework of the Workers International League. Any member or section seeking the road to the genuine building of the party in Britain found their way into the WIL as an organisation putting forward the policy of the Fourth International, conducting its activities in a serious and disciplined manner, and basing itself upon the principles of democratic centralism.
Just over 12 months ago we made contact with the comrades in the RSL who now constitute the TO. At that time the RSL was composed of three warring factions, the so-called “Left” (Robinson, Mercer), the “Centre” (Harber, Davis), and the “Right” (Lawrence, Lane). The TO claimed to hold a position identical to the WIL on the political and tactical questions facing our movement. The “Left” characterised the WIL, as well as the IS and SWP, as “chauvinist” and “opportunist” and retained the entrist tactic. The “Centre” was between the two, claimed also that the WIL and the IS were “chauvinist” and “opportunist”.
It must be pointed out that the TO was working in very close and comradely collaboration with the WIL. We were paying Lawrence at the same rate as our professionals – in effect he was a professional for our organisation. But as a result of Stuart's intervention the TO changed its course. It turned away from collaboration with the WIL and returned to the perspective of re-entering the RSL with the object of gaining the majority,
Today the position of the RSL is that both “Left” and “Right” have been expelled. The TO has taken into its ranks elements who have opposed the political position of the WIL and the Fourth International for a period of years, who have opposed entry into the WIL on the grounds of political differences. That the TO has been influenced by these elements is undoubted.
In a letter to the WIL, dated 4 July 1943, they write:

We are not prepared at this stage to open up “written discussion” with WIL on the points of agreement and disagreement with your present political program – but we certainly do not consider the program as a whole to be incompatible with membership of the FI.

Not only have the TO moved their political position, but they have expelled and are expelling members from their ranks who disagree with their tactics and who demand a genuine collaboration with the WIL, and yet remain in agreement with the basic policy on which the TO was formed.
Thus, from a position of comradely collaboration with the TO, we have reached a position today where the TO has political disagreements with the WIL; they have made no gains from the RSL; they are expelling members who disagree with their tactic and methods and demand a genuine collaboration with the WIL. The responsibility for this situation rests on the shoulders of Stuart, who prevented the TO from fusing with the WIL in the most favourable circumstances and diverted the political struggle onto organisational questions. When his tactic of re-entry into the RSL appeared to be failing (far less winning the majority), Stuart proposed to the TO … that they found a new Trotskyist party in this country, that they establish a new Trotskyist journal, with no apparent programme other than the alleged programme of “Democratic Centralism” and that they conduct a public struggle against the WIL and the RSL. He thus repudiated his previous “principled” position, apparently lending international authority to a further split in out. movement. Here is reproduced the letter from Stuart to the TO:
(Then is reproduced the letter of JB Stuart [Sam Gordon] to JL [John Lawrence] dated 4 February, 1943)
As the result of this and other letters of Stuart, the leaders of the TO are drawing the logical conclusions: when the TO eventually does fuse with the WIL, they will maintain their fraction within the WIL as the “true” Fourth Internationalists. In other words, instead of liquidating the factions after the fusion. the TO is discussing the maintenance of the split within the ranks of the fused organisation, yet it has no avowed political differences. This is a false and unprincipled conception of unification and lays the basis for a future split.
The above documents provide the facts of the British situation as a background to the discussions now opening up in the organisation.
Political Bureau
Workers International League

***The Life And Times Of Michael Philip Marlin –The Big Knock-Out

 

 

As readers know Tyrone Fallon, the son of the late famous Southern California private operative, Michael Philip Marlin (Tyrone used his mother’s maiden name for obvious reasons), and private eye in his own right told my old friend Peter Paul Markin’s friend Joshua Lawrence Breslin some stories that his illustrious father told him. Here’s one such story.  

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

Every wise guy, every sporting guy, every crippled corner newsie, hell, everybody over the age of twelve, no more, knows, knows to a certainty that boxing, you know guys (and these days gals) beating each other down for the amusement of the blood-lusted crowds is fixed. Is fixed six ways to Sunday even before the first bell is sounded. It is worst now than in the old days when you at least knew that when a champ was crowned he was the one and only champ not like now the World Boxing this, Federated Boxing that, and United Boxing the other thing handing out gaudy belts like they were going out of style. But just so nobody gets all nostalgic about the good old days, gets misty-eyed that only one champ meant only one skinning on the bet line, only one fix, let’s look at our trusty brother tough-edged, hard guy private eye Michael Philip Marlin as he tried to unravel murder and mayhem on the canvas. And while Marlowe had seen it all, had figured out a few things in his time he almost for a minute believed with this kid, this well-built, scrappy kid that was being groomed for a championship fight was on the up and up. That momentary slip almost cost him his life so listen up.

Marlin thought that he really should have passed on the job, should have just walked away and maybe seen if that graveyard shift as the house peeper at the old Taft Hotel was still available. Yes, he was short of dough, short of office rent money, short of room rent but lining himself up with Jacky Craig, the, ah, boxing promoter, and man of many operations, mostly illegal, gave him pause. But damn that rent had to be paid and so in the year of our lord 1940 one more gumshoe took a walk on the wild side and he showed up at Craig’s gym to find out what was expected of him. See what Jackie wanted to see him about.

Of course a wise guy, if he wants to stay a wise guy, or at least alive covers himself with layers of protection so Markin was prepared when he was frisked by Frankie Lip, a cheapjack gunsel who had been with Craig for years, before entering his majesty’s office. The nature of Craig’s offer though was pretty straight up, pretty straight up on the face of it, a job for a tough- guy private eye and not for some brainless muscle only good for taking shots to protect the boss. What Jackie wanted was for Marlin to investigate who had been threatening Earl Avery, the best fighter in his stable and a boxer everybody said was slated to take a run for the light heavy-weight championship, when he was ready. Not only had somebody, some punk, Jackie called him been threatening the Earl but also Jean, the girlfriend that Jackie had provided to keep Earl amused, and to keep an eye on him in the sex, drugs, booze department.  No booze, no dope and one girl, this Jean who had Earl under her thumb about two minutes after he saw her.       

This Jean was a looker, the kind of woman Marlin favored, the kind he would take straight aim at if she wasn’t attached to the Earl, or to Jackie. Hell, taking a second look he thought if things worked out right he might take that run anyway, especially once he got close enough to get a small whiff of that sandalwood perfume she was wearing, wearing just enough to make a guy, a red-blooded guy, jump.  Moreover Jean’s story, when Marlin got around to hearing it, included some tough times, some down times. She had come West like a million other frails as she tried to make a go as a singer, along with another  woman doing duos and had finally caught on when Jackie heard them, mainly her over at the Club Lola near the Santa Monica Pier. Jackie signed them to perform at his club-casino, The Lighthouse, up in Malibu. But enough of Jean, enough for now because  Marlin was on the case to find out what the hell was going on in that murky world of boxing, big time money boxing out on the angel streets of his city, Los Angeles.

What happened was simplicity itself a guy like Jackie Craig doesn’t take chances, tries to control his environment and so it was the case here too. That is why a certain Sammy Sams (believe it or not his real given name so why change it), a punk, was found floating out with the tide, a classic Jackie job and Marlin was ripping mad once he found out that he had been simple-simon doped up by Jackie. And Jackie tried to control all his arena, his boxing business, tried to control the new boxing commissioner, Steve Earle, a former state senator and power in the state capital, who had come in declaring the he was going to “clean the sport up.” So Jackie tried by might and main to buy him off, buy him off good. And Brother Earle turned out to be looking for the main chance, and that had Jackie’s signature all over it too. That was what Marlin was up against and after a few fists flying, a few off-hand shootings at The Lighthouse, and a few off-hand tosses under the sheets with Jean he closed down Jackie’s operation, closed down Earle’s operation and felt he had done some good work. Even if he got no dough to pay that office rent coming due at the end of the week.                    

Oh yeah, about Jean, about that perfume driving Marlin crazy every time he came with a mile of her. The Earl Avery thing was strictly as a favor to Jackie, a favor to get her act on his stage and before long Marlin and she were roughing up some sheets. Here is the funny thing though this Jean had her own ax to grind, grind against Steve Earle. Her previous performance companion, Ada, had committed suicide after they were forced, after striking out in a few mean street gin mills doing opening act duos for third-rate has-beens out in the heartland, to turn a few tricks out on the mean streets to keep body and soul together and Ada was too ashamed to face that fact. The funny part although obviously not funny is that this Ada was allegedly Steve Earle’s daughter and so Jean had drifted to L.A. to squeeze Earle for some dough, for retribution dough.

Naturally any girl, any guy for that matter, down on her uppers was entitled to take a chance at getting out from under with guys who had dough. But this Earle character proved quite reluctant even when she put the proposition to the boss, Jackie. But before she could properly squeeze the main chance Jackie as was his way tried to insure that his boy Earl had a one- hundred percent chance, no one-hundred and ten percent chance of winning that championship so the fix was in, in big time. Jackie bought Earle (who actually needed dough and so it made sense that Jean’s pitch fell on deaf ears) into the tent. Avery in three.  Marlin took that probability off the agenda though when he confronted Jackie with his evidence. Those aforementioned fists and guns flailed away. Needless to say the boxing world was short one promoter. In the fallout Earle tumbled under Jackie’s weight after Marlin pulled the hammer down on his operation Jean and so lost her chance for serious dough. But ever the trouper all Jean said when her current partner said that The Lighthouse was closed was “I guess we have to hit the road again.” Nice. Nice too that Marlin told her to keep in touch, and keep wearing that sandalwood next time they met.