Sunday, June 22, 2014

From Women and Revolution-Ida B. Wells-A Black Woman’s Fight Against Lynch Terror





Workers Vanguard No. 1048
 








13 June 2014
 
Ida B. Wells-A Black Woman’s Fight Against Lynch Terror
 
(Women and Revolution pages)
 
We print below a forum, edited for publication, given by Lisa Martin on April 5 in New York City.
Why do we say on the flyer for this forum that Ida B. Wells is a forgotten courageous fighter for black rights? It is true that some people have heard of her and there are now a number of biographies of her life. But her role has been purposely minimized and she has been turned into a harmless icon.
Born a slave in 1862 in the middle of the Civil War, Ida B. Wells was in the forefront of the fight for black rights in the post-Reconstruction era—a time of widespread lynch-rope terror when black people, although not returned to slavery, were being solidified as a race-color caste at the bottom of American society. She refused to accommodate racist reaction in any way and so was anathema to those like Booker T. Washington and his apologists who repudiated militant struggle against the racist status quo. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) initially kept her out of its leadership and even appropriated some of her efforts while disappearing her role in the anti-lynching struggle.
In contrast to Wells, Booker T. Washington was a black leader whom all the white racist capitalist leaders could appreciate. Coming to the fore in the 1890s, he represented acquiescence to forcible segregation. Washington is famous for his Tuskegee Institute, which was created to prepare blacks for menial labor, and for his “Atlanta Compromise” speech in 1895 that advocated that black people work hard, accept segregation and submit meekly to racist oppression.
Washington’s emphasis on “industrial education” appalled Wells, who observed in the article “Booker T. Washington and His Critics,” which ran in the magazine World Today (1904):
“This gospel of work is no new one for the Negro. It is the South’s old slavery practice in a new dress. It was the only education the South gave the Negro for two and a half centuries she had absolute control of his body and soul. The Negro knows that now, as then, the South is strongly opposed to his learning anything else but how to work.”
Wells characterized the Tuskegean’s answer to lynching as “give me money to educate the Negro and when he is taught how to work, he will not commit the crime for which lynching is done.” In her eyes, Washington ignored the fact that “lynching is not invoked to punish crime but color, and not even industrial education will change that.”
As comrade Don Alexander pointed out in a forum, it makes perfect sense that Washington is being rehabilitated in this reactionary period [see “The Rehabilitation of Booker T. Washington,” WV No. 1000, 13 April 2012]. The current Democratic president Barack Obama, the first black CEO of bloody U.S. imperialism, hailed Booker T. Washington as “the leader of a growing civil rights movement.” Both Obama and Washington came to the fore in periods of reaction and serve well the white ruling class, in part by despicably telling black people that their ongoing oppression in this racist capitalist society is their own fault.
On February 27, Obama gave a speech to young black men at the White House. He lectured them on their “responsibilities,” adding that “you will have to tune out the naysayers who say the deck is stacked against you.” And this speech was given in the presence of the parents of Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis, two young black men who had been shot dead by racists in Florida, a state with a “stand your ground” law that promotes vigilantism. This blame-the-victim crap is sickening, but it is in line with Booker T. Washington. In 1906, three weeks before a horrific anti-black pogrom in Atlanta, Georgia, Washington gave a speech denouncing black people for committing too much crime. The white racist press ate it up.
We oppose Obama and all other politicians from the capitalist parties on principle. Democrats, Republicans and Greens all represent the interests of the ruling class. We’re for a workers party independent from the class enemy. Such a party, born out of class struggle by the multiracial working class and integrated unions, would fight for the rights of blacks, immigrants, women and gays as part of the struggle to overturn capitalism.
Growing Up Amid Racist Reaction
Ida B. Wells represented continuity in a long line of black women who were in the forefront of the fight against slavery and for black liberation. Harriet Tubman played a vanguard role in laying the groundwork for black freedom in the U.S. as a conductor on the Underground Railroad and a military strategist and spy during the Civil War. Harriet Jacobs was an active abolitionist fighter who lived through the Civil War, struggled to implement the promises of Radical Reconstruction—the most democratic period for black people in this country—and witnessed the betrayal of those promises.
Wells grew up during Reconstruction, which went through distinct phases, and experienced the exhilaration of the freed slaves during those volatile years. In her youth, she came to expect full equality and refused to accept anything less. Wells persistently fought against the stream of reaction that was ascendant after the defeat of Radical Reconstruction. That defeat gave rise to a new political alliance of big planters, Southern capitalists and certain Northern financial interests, in particular, investors in Southern railroads, land, mining and timber. In “Black and Red—Class Struggle Road to Negro Freedom” (1966) [reprinted in Marxist Bulletin No. 9], one of the Spartacist tendency’s founding documents, we describe what happened:
“This bloc initiated a campaign of violent race hatred among their political opponents which succeeded in destroying the developing black-white unity. In the context of the new racism the Black people were disenfranchised, stripped of all legal rights, and permanently denied access to adequate education. Those setbacks were codified into a series of laws institutionalizing the rigid segregation which has been the dominant feature of the South ever since.”
The civil rights struggles in the 1950s and ’60s resulted in real gains for black people in the realm of legal equality. Yet the black masses remain specially oppressed: economically the last-hired, first-fired, and through state and extralegal racist terror forcibly segregated at the bottom of society in ghettos, prisons and prison-like schools.
When Wells was born, the Civil War was raging and her hometown of Holly Springs, Mississippi, was in the thick of the fighting. Located 40 miles southeast of Memphis, Tennessee, and almost 200 miles north of Vicksburg, Mississippi, Holly Springs changed hands at least 57 times during the war. In November 1862, Union general Ulysses S. Grant entered Holly Springs with a force of 5,000, nearly doubling the population of the town. After the Union victory in the war, 200 federal soldiers occupied Holly Springs, which became the regional headquarters of the Freedmen’s Bureau.
The first couple of years after the Civil War were called Presidential Reconstruction. During this time, racist “black codes” were passed in many states, land that had been given to freedmen was taken back, and racist attacks were rampant. In 1866, horrific racist massacres in Memphis and New Orleans made many realize that President Andrew Johnson’s leniency toward the former Confederates had unleashed renewed barbarism.
The clash beginning on May 1 in Memphis between recently discharged black veterans and racist mobs, mainly Irish cops and firemen, resulted in the deaths of 46 black people. Hundreds of black homes were also burned down. Then on July 30, New Orleans cops—many Confederate veterans—attacked a Radical-dominated constitutional convention called by the governor and attended by 25 delegates who were guarded by 200 black supporters, many former soldiers. Thirty-four black people and three white Radical Republicans were killed and over 100 were injured.
The political tide turned toward a more radical Reconstruction. The Congressional Reconstruction Acts of 1867-68 were passed, placing the states of the former Confederacy under martial law. Two things came out of this period: voting rights for black men and public education for both black and white children. However, the capitalist class did not and could not make a serious effort to redistribute land to the former slaves because of its own interest in protecting private property.
Learning the Importance of Struggle
Ida was inspired by her father Jim Wells. He was active in Reconstruction politics and refused to back down when the racists tried to intimidate him. With Reconstruction making public education available for the first time, Jim and Lizzy Wells insisted that their children receive as much education as possible. Ida later recalled, “Our job was to go to school and learn all we could.”
Jim Wells was apparently active in the town’s Loyal League, a black political organization run by A.C. McDonald of Shaw University and Nelson Gill of the Freedmen’s Bureau. The Republican-affiliated Loyal League was founded in 1863 in the North. The Republican Party began as a pro-Union, anti-slavery capitalist party. The Democratic Party, in contrast, was a pro-Confederate, pro-slavery party. Following the Civil War, thousands of black freedmen throughout the South organized and voted for the Republican Party through the Loyal League, also known as “Lincoln’s Legal Loyal League.”
The Loyal League held torchlight parades at night in Holly Springs during election campaigns. Hundreds and even thousands of black marchers would fill the city streets with what whites referred to as “obscene pictures” of the Democratic Party candidates painted on thin cloth, ten to twelve feet long. Of course, the racists did not think it “obscene” that when marching for the Democratic Party they carried a coffin in a mock funeral procession for Nelson Gill, who with his wife ran one of two freedmen’s schools in Holly Springs, the one allied with the Baptists. Ida attended the Methodist-run Shaw University (now Rust College), where her father was a trustee.
The town was relatively violence-free, although white hostility did show itself on the sidewalks of the town square. Gill’s school let out about the same time each afternoon as the Female Institute and Bethlehem Academy, which were attended by whites. The students from each flocked home in groups. The whites claimed right of way, but Mrs. Gill would no more cede to them than her husband would back off in politics. She placed herself in the center of her pupils, who would lock arms to form a solid wall across the sidewalk. The white girls would have to pass around or come into contact with the black girls. Ida’s uncompromising attitude toward full equality was formed in this atmosphere.
Her first fight was against segregation in train travel. As a young woman, Wells began teaching school in Woodstock, Tennessee, 12 miles north of Memphis, where she lived with her aunt and sisters. Although she had been riding the train without incident for over a year, one Saturday evening in 1883 en route to Woodstock a conductor decided she did not belong in the first-class car because she was black. At first, Wells ignored the conductor, but he returned and picked up her bags to move them to the second-class smoking car. Wells resisted. The conductor grabbed her arm as she braced herself against the seat. He tore her clothing, so she bit his hand, drawing blood. The conductor returned with two other men to force this petite woman into the smoking car. Instead, she demanded to be let off. She was dumped off the train unceremoniously as white racist passengers cheered.
Wells did not back down. She sued the railroad, winning $200. The railroad appealed. The suit was going nowhere, but her attorney, who she suspected was bought off by the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad, promised that it would not further harass her. Once again she was thrown out of first class and once again she sued. This time, she retained another attorney and was awarded $500 on the basis that the separate car was not equal. It took until 1887 for the appeal by the railroad to be settled, with the judges ruling against Wells and holding her liable for $200 in court costs.
This legal fight was but one example of resistance to racist reaction. While the recall of the final Union troops from the South in 1877 represented the official end of Radical Reconstruction, black people engaged in ongoing struggles against their enforced segregation up until and after the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court decision made “separate but equal” segregation the law of the land. Separate is never equal in this racist society, as Wells was quite aware.
A Crusading Journalist
Wells published an article about her case, introducing her to the field of journalism. Meanwhile, Wells was fired from her teaching job in Memphis because she publicly denounced the deplorable condition of the segregated black schools there. It was as a journalist that she took up the fight against lynching.
In 1894, Frederick Douglass, the radical abolitionist leader, wrote about the epidemic of lynching in “Why Is the Negro Lynched?” He observed:
“Not a breeze comes to us from the late rebellious states that is not tainted and freighted with Negro blood. In its thirst for blood and its rage for vengeance, the mob has blindly, boldly and defiantly supplanted sheriffs, constables and police…. There is nothing in the history of savages to surpass the blood-chilling horrors and fiendish excesses perpetrated against the coloured people of this country, by the so-called enlightened and Christian people of the South.”
Douglass explained that the myth of the black rapist was invented after the Civil War to justify lynch law. He pointed out that during the Civil War and Reconstruction, even while scores of black people were killed by white mobs, the charge of rape was never made as justification. Instead, it was claimed that black people were plotting insurrection and planning to kill all white people and take over.
Wells took the myth of the black rapist head-on as editor of the Free Speech, an outspoken Memphis newspaper. An 1891 editorial stated: “Those Georgetown Kentucky Negroes who set fire to the town last week because a Negro named Dudley had been lynched, show some of the true spark of manhood by their resentment.” Wells advocated black retaliation against white racist terror as the only way to stop the atrocities.
Galvanizing her campaign against racist lynching was the March 1892 victimization of Calvin McDowell, Henry Stewart and her close friend Thomas Moss. Wells described the lynching of the three “peaceful, law-abiding citizens and energetic businessmen” who ran a grocery store in a Memphis suburb. A white man named Barrett, the owner of a rival store on the opposite corner, had gone into their grocery with a drawn pistol, threatening to “clean them out.” After hearing that Barrett was returning with a group to attack them, her friends “mustered forces and prepared to defend themselves against the attack.” Barrett came with a 12-man posse, supposedly with a warrant. Wells continued:
“When they entered the backdoor the young men thought the threatened attack was on, and fired into them. Three of the officers were wounded, and when the defending party found it was officers of the law upon whom they had fired, they ceased and got away....
“Excitement was at fever heat until the morning papers, two days after, announced that the wounded deputy sheriffs were out of danger. This hindered rather than helped the plans of the whites. There was no law on the statute books which would execute an Afro-American for wounding a white man, but the ‘unwritten law’ did. Three of these men, the president, the manager and clerk of the grocery—‘the leaders of the conspiracy’—were secretly taken from jail and lynched in a shockingly brutal manner. ‘The Negroes are getting too independent,’ they say, ‘we must teach them a lesson.’ What lesson? The lesson of subordination. ‘Kill the leaders and it will cow the Negro who dares to shoot a white man, even in self defense’.”
Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases (1892)
In Crusade for Justice: The Autobiography of Ida B. Wells, published decades after her death in 1970, Ida wrote: “Like many another person who had read of lynching in the South, I had accepted the idea meant to be conveyed—that although lynching was irregular and contrary to law and order, unreasoning anger over the terrible crime of rape led to the lynching; that perhaps the brute deserved death anyhow and the mob was justified in taking his life.” But these three black men were lynched “with just as much brutality as other victims of the mob; and they had committed no crime against white women.” She described how this “opened my eyes to what lynching really was. An excuse to get rid of Negroes who were acquiring wealth and property and thus keep the race terrorized.”
In her 1895 pamphlet, The Red Record: Tabulated Statistics and Alleged Causes of Lynching in the United States, Wells stated: “During the past thirty years in the South...more than ten thousand Negroes have been killed in cold blood, without the formality of judicial trial and legal execution...and for all these murders only three white men have been tried, convicted and executed.” During the 1890s, lynchings in the South averaged two per week. Black people were resisting segregation and disenfranchisement and these lynchings were used to force acceptance of Jim Crow.
The Right of Armed Self-Defense
Wells was in favor of black armed self-defense. In her autobiography, she relates how she bought a pistol “after Tom Moss was lynched, because I expected some cowardly retaliation from the lynchers. I felt that one had better die fighting against injustice than to die like a dog or a rat in a trap. I had already determined to sell my life as dearly as possible if attacked. I felt if I could take one lyncher with me, this would even up the score a little bit.”
In her pamphlet Southern Horrors, which the newspaper New York Age published after she was driven out of Memphis, she further stressed the importance of armed self-defense for black people:
“Of the many inhuman outrages of this present year, the only case where the proposed lynching did not occur, was where the men armed themselves…. The only times an Afro-American who was assaulted got away has been when he had a gun and used it in self-defense. The lesson this teaches and which every Afro-American should ponder well, is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give. When the white man who is always the aggressor knows he runs as great a risk of biting the dust every time his Afro-American victim does, he will have greater respect for Afro-American life.”
Contrary to the pacifist mythology of the civil rights movement, there is a long history of armed self-defense on the part of black people. The approximately 200,000 black soldiers who fought in the Civil War held onto their arms as long as they could. In the 1930s, Southern union organizers and sharecroppers armed to defend themselves. During the 1950s and ’60s, black gun clubs such as that started by Robert F. Williams in Monroe, North Carolina, and the Deacons for Defense in Louisiana were organized around the country to stop racist Klan terror. Many black soldiers returning from Korea and Vietnam refused to put their guns down and utilized their military training to defend the civil rights struggle from Klan terror. The racist capitalist state has systematically disarmed black people in order to fully subjugate them.
The entire working class has an interest in opposing gun control laws. If you support gun control, you support the capitalist state having a monopoly of arms. This is what Martin Luther King Jr. pushed. The Spartacist League opposes gun control and collected money for the Deacons with the slogan “Every dime buys a bullet.”
Rape and Race
Wells’s article about the Memphis lynching outraged the white ruling class. An Associated Press dispatch from Memphis that she read while on vacation in New York shortly after the article was published said that a committee of leading citizens went to the office of her paper, the Free Speech, and ran the business manager, J.L. Fleming, out of town. They destroyed the type and furnishings and left a note warning that anyone trying to publish the paper again would be punished by death.
The article had noted that the “rape of helpless Negro girls and women, which began in slavery days, still continued without let or hindrance, check or reproof from church, state or press.” It continued:
“I also found that what the white man of the South practiced as all right for himself, he assumed to be unthinkable in white women. They could and did fall in love with the pretty mulatto and quadroon girls as well as black ones, but they professed an inability to imagine white women doing the same thing with Negro and mulatto men. Whenever they did so and were found out, the cry of rape was raised, and the lowest element of the white South was turned loose to wreak its fiendish cruelty on those too weak to help themselves.”
The white racists were infuriated that she spoke openly and boldly about consensual sex between white women and black men, which was an explosive issue.
Let’s be very clear. The accusation of rape had nothing to do with any crime against women. Instead, it was a cover for the hideous barbaric lynchings being carried out across the South. Rape was not even claimed as a justification in the majority of lynchings, but it did not matter. As Wells pointed out in Southern Horrors:
“This cry has had its effect. It has closed the heart, stifled the conscience, warped the judgment and hushed the voice of press and pulpit on the subject of lynch law throughout this ‘land of liberty.’ Men who stand high in the esteem of the public for christian character, for moral and physical courage, for devotion to the principles of equal and exact justice to all, and for great sagacity, stand as cowards who fear to open their mouths before this great outrage.... Even to the better class of Afro-Americans the crime of rape is so revolting they have too often taken the white man’s word and given lynch law neither the investigation nor condemnation it deserved.”
Wells observed that rape of black women by white men went unpunished. And as far as the Southern racists’ concern for the well-being of even white women, they had shown during Reconstruction that they cared nothing for the Northern white women who had traveled heroically to the South as teachers at the freedmen’s schools. Wells thundered condemnation on American lynch law. Her article in the New York Age, “The Truth About Lynching,” was widely published and 1,000 were sold in the streets of Memphis alone. The racists who destroyed the Free Speech to try and shut up Wells instead managed to propel her on an international tour, on which her words reverberated worldwide.
On the International Stage
Wells began her speaking career on October 5, 1892 at a talk organized by black women in New York that launched the Women’s Loyal Union. This appearance was followed by invitations to speak in Boston; Philadelphia; Wilmington, Delaware; Chester, Pennsylvania; and Washington, D.C. In Philadelphia, her talk was widely attended, including by many from the old abolitionist movement. Also attending was Catherine Impey, the editor of Anti-Caste, a magazine published in England that opposed caste oppression in India.
Wells’s first European engagement was at the home of Isabelle Fyvie Mayo, a Scottish author who provided shelter to students from Ceylon (today Sri Lanka) and India. The gruesome lynching of Henry Smith in Paris, Texas, in 1893 had shocked and outraged Mayo. In view of a mob of 10,000, Smith was tortured with hot irons for almost an hour and then doused with gasoline and burned to death. Wells wrote about it, noting that “the mob fought over the hot ashes for bones, buttons, and teeth for souvenirs.” When Mayo was told that many people were not aware of and so did not care about lynchings, she agreed to form a group called “Emancipation” that would take up the fight against lynch terror.
After first speaking in a drawing room at Mayo’s home before a small group of organizers, Wells went on to speak to a meeting attended by approximately 1,500. Wells gave talks all over Scotland, informing people of the atrocities occurring in the American South. She proceeded on to the English cities Newcastle, Birmingham and Manchester and got resolutions passed all over Britain. Those resolutions were published throughout the U.S., including the South, further enraging the racist authorities.
Wells traveled directly from her first anti-lynching lecture campaign in Europe to the Columbian Exposition of 1893 in Chicago. It was a segregated event. Black people were not allowed, except at the Haitian exhibit. The Expo had reproductions of antebellum plantation scenes glorifying slavery and contained no hint of the violence and repression black people were being subjected to.
Wells saw possibilities in forcing visitors, who came to celebrate the progress of white men, to confront the bloodlust of white lynch mobs. Wells waged an uphill battle, even against Frederick Douglass, who was somewhat skeptical of her plan to publish an 81-page pamphlet, The Reason Why the Colored American Is Not in the World’s Columbian Exposition. Douglass wrote the introduction. Wells contributed a chapter titled “Lynch Law” and another on the convict lease system in the South that enslaved black people on chain gangs and was used to drive down wages of free labor. The Haitian government had asked Douglass to supervise its exhibit. So Wells was able to distribute 10,000 of these pamphlets from a desk she manned at the Haitian Building.
Wells and Women’s Rights
Like Douglass, Wells was a staunch champion of women’s rights—even though feminist leaders like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, formerly avowed abolitionists, turned their movement for women’s rights into a tool of racist reaction following the Civil War. Feminists organized against passage of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution because it gave votes to black men and not to women.
Wells worked with the suffragists in a much later period and fought against their disgusting conciliation of Southern racists. In January 1913, Wells formed the Alpha Suffrage Club, the first suffrage group for black women in Chicago. The group sent Wells as its delegate to a national suffrage parade held on March 3, 1913 in Washington, D.C., during the presidential inauguration of the vile racist Democrat Woodrow Wilson.
To appease racist Southern white women who did not want an integrated march, the president of the Illinois Suffrage Association decided to exclude Wells from their delegation. Wells was outraged and declared she would boycott the march if she could not march under the Illinois banner. Instead of boycotting, though, she came out of the crowd along the parade route and slipped in next to a white Illinois delegate, successfully integrating the march without official permission.
Wells was a woman in a very anti-woman period. From the time she was 16 years old and took care of her siblings, Wells was maligned for taking on such responsibility as an independent young woman. Rumors went around that she was being kept as the mistress of an older white man, which infuriated her. Wells’s struggle for full equality was complicated by the fact that she wanted respectability as a woman, something which black women under slavery had been denied.
Slave masters routinely brutalized black girls and women—including Ida’s mother—justifying such dehumanizing treatment by labeling them “sexual savages.” Stripped, beaten and raped, black women suffered an extra burden under slavery. But “respectability” under capitalism, particularly in Victorian times, meant that a woman should be subjugated to a man in the nuclear family. Black working-class women are triply oppressed in capitalist society by race, sex and class.
Women’s right to vote in the U.S. was not recognized until after the Russian workers revolution of October 1917, which gave women the vote. The Bolshevik Revolution put the question of women’s rights on the international agenda as never before. Full equality for women necessitates replacing all the functions of the family with free 24-hour childcare, dining halls, laundries, cleaning services, not to mention free abortion on demand as part of free, quality health care for all. This real equality is what the Bolsheviks took steps toward after they took power. No capitalist government will ever do so.
Wells saw herself as an anomaly. She refused to limit herself to what were seen as “women’s concerns.” Wells had many suitors; many were writers who sparred with her in the press. Wells obviously was only going to get together with a man with a strong political backbone, someone who could respect her as his full equal. She married Ferdinand Barnett, a black lawyer living in Chicago, in 1895. They first met when they worked together on the anti-lynching pamphlet for the Columbian Exposition of 1893. Barnett owned a black newspaper, the Chicago Conservator, for which Wells began to write in 1893. They shared political views.
The Barnetts and W.E.B. Du Bois coalesced into an anti-Booker T. Washington camp following the 1903 publication of Du Bois’ book The Souls of Black Folk, a polemic against Washington. Du Bois presented his idea of a “talented tenth” elite of the black population who would uplift the black masses. Wells was particularly opposed to Washington’s servile acceptance of segregation because of her own bitter experience in Memphis.
White race riots and lynchings of blacks in Springfield, Illinois, in 1908 led to the founding of the NAACP the following year. Wells spoke from the floor of Cooper Union at the initial NAACP meeting to urge the assembly not to compromise with Booker T. Washington’s Tuskegee machine.
Du Bois was the only black person on the nominating committee for the NAACP’s leadership body. Also on that committee were Mary White Ovington, a member of the Socialist Party (SP), and Oswald Garrison Villard, the grandson of abolitionist leader William Lloyd Garrison and an avid Booker T. Washington supporter. Those two shunned Wells; Ovington was very condescending to blacks, seeing them only as victims, and thus opposed an outspoken radical black woman like Wells having a leadership position. Both Wells and William Monroe Trotter, another outspoken black radical of the time, were purposely omitted from the leadership body by Du Bois.
Later, Du Bois in his 1940 book Dusk of Dawn erased Wells from the campaign that saved Steve Greene of Arkansas, giving the credit to the NAACP. Greene was a black man who killed a white farmer in self-defense. In 1910, Greene arrived in Chicago wounded from the shootout and was extradited to Arkansas to be lynched. The Negro Fellowship League run by Wells raised money and organized a defense committee that spirited Greene to safety. Wells had him returned to Chicago and hid Greene successfully.
Wells in Context
Wells was a militant reformer. She was religious and was part of the black middle class, albeit somewhat of a thorn in their side. She appealed for federal legislation to ban lynching. Such a ban was her ultimate goal, as she did not have a Marxist perspective. She was a courageous liberal.
Wells has to be taken in historic context. The victory of the North in the Civil War opened the road for the development of the working class. The proletariat is key to the overthrow of capitalism, which is the only way forward for black liberation. While the young American working class waged some explosive struggles, including for the eight-hour day, it was still in its formative stage. Following the Civil War, a populist movement developed based on black and white poor farmers in the Midwest and the South. Big Business mobilized to smash this interracial movement, ultimately driving a wedge between its black and white components.
Wells took an important outspoken stand in defense of union organizing. The Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters (BSCP) had been founded in 1925. Railway sleeping car porters were commonly referred to as “George,” after George Pullman of the Pullman Company. Porters were overwhelmingly black, and the practice derived from the Old South, where slaves were named after their masters.
The union leadership sought to build its membership by targeting one of the Pullman Company’s biggest terminals: Chicago. In December 1925, women from Wells’s Chicago women’s rights club invited A. Philip Randolph, the head of the BSCP and a member of the Socialist Party, to speak at their meetings. Wells hosted Randolph at her home. The club women, together with a sympathetic minister, campaigned to promote the Brotherhood, defying a storm of protest by the black press and most of the clergy.
For more than two years, as the Chicago Defender, a black newspaper, obsequiously defended the Pullman management and opposed the BSCP, Wells and her cohorts raised support for the union within the black middle class. Milton Webster, BSCP local organizer, believed that Wells’s club women were instrumental to the union gaining a voice in black Chicago. By siding with labor in this struggle, Wells alienated others in the black elite.
Black and Red
The early SP in the U.S. included everyone from outright racists like Victor Berger to liberals like Mary White Ovington to revolutionaries like Eugene V. Debs. Debs was an anti-racist who spoke out against lynching and was in favor of organizing integrated unions. But even Debs, who was among the best of the Socialists, did not clearly see the need for American revolutionaries to systematically organize the whole multiracial working class against the atrocities being committed against black people. His color blindness was expressed in his statement: “We have nothing special to offer the Negro, and we cannot make separate appeals to all the races.”
The American Socialist Party belonged to the Second International, which also included the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. The Russian party split into two parts in 1903. The leader of the left wing of that split, known as the Bolsheviks, was V.I. Lenin. In What Is To Be Done? (1902), Lenin put forward that it was not enough to struggle for economic demands for the workers—revolutionaries also had to fight against all attacks on the oppressed. Lenin wrote: “The social-democrat’s ideal should not be the trade union secretary, but the tribune of the people.” The Bolsheviks championed national rights for oppressed minorities. They organized labor defense guards to defend Jewish people against tsarist pogroms and fought for women’s rights as part of their working-class program.
After the Bolsheviks took power, they organized the Third (Communist) International and recruited from socialist parties and anarchist groups around the world to form Communist parties that attracted those inspired by the Russian Revolution. The Comintern made a special point that Communists in the U.S. had to organize to defend black people. James P. Cannon, a founding member of the Communist Party (CP) and later leader of American Trotskyism, stated in The First Ten Years of American Communism (1962): “Everything new on the Negro question came from Moscow—after the Russian Revolution began to thunder its demand throughout the world for freedom and equality for all national minorities, all subject peoples and all races—for all the despised and rejected of the earth.”
Anti-black racism is the main weapon used by the capitalist rulers to divide and weaken the working class as a whole. The fight for black rights was and is a matter of self-defense for all workers. This became very clear in 1919 when there was an attempt to organize black and white meatpacking workers in Chicago. A racist riot killed many black people and isolated black workers in their segregated neighborhoods. What was needed were integrated labor defense guards to protect black workers and their families. These were not organized. Instead, the bosses were able to recruit blacks as scabs, which helped defeat the organizing drive.
In the wake of the Russian Revolution and under the prodding of the Bolsheviks, the CP over time came to appreciate the struggle against black oppression. While they won to their ranks a small group of radicals from the African Blood Brotherhood in Harlem in the 1920s, this work did not really take off in a big way until the 1930s. Despite Stalinist degeneration, the CP did good work in the South fighting for black rights in this period. The International Labor Defense (ILD)—a non-sectarian defense organization initiated by the Communist International on which the Partisan Defense Committee is based—took up the case of the Scottsboro Boys. These nine black youths were threatened with legal lynching and would have been murdered by the state of Alabama were it not for the international campaign waged by the ILD and the Comintern.
As much as things have changed, they have remained the same. Despite the civil rights movement, black oppression remains the bedrock of capitalism in Obama’s America. The fight to organize the South is as crucial to the workers movement as ever, especially since many industrial unions have been decimated. Public schools in this country are more segregated than they were 40 years ago. Black people and Latinos have become the majority in the nation’s prisons as the prison population has swelled to over two million during the last two decades. The death penalty is legal lynching—the majority of those on death row are black or Latino—and a part of the legacy of chattel slavery. It has become less popular in some quarters, but in the South the death penalty is going strong.
The fight against racist terror and oppression continues. Our communist program is for revolutionary integrationism. We are for the full integration of black people into an egalitarian socialist society. We strive for equality for black people, but not by relying on the good graces of the capitalist politicians of the Democratic or Republican Parties, the enemies of labor and black struggle. Instead, we seek to mobilize the working class in independent action.
Black rights and labor rights will either go forward together or fall back separately. We aim to build a revolutionary party like the Bolsheviks that can uproot racist oppression through a thoroughgoing workers revolution that will expropriate the capitalist class and establish a workers government. Triply oppressed black women workers will play a key role in building that revolutionary party. When black people fight for their rights as in the 1950s and 1960s, it clears the ground for the entire working class to struggle for workers power. We want to turn fighters for black freedom into fighters for communism. We aim to finish the Civil War through workers revolution! When the working class in power writes its official history, Ida B. Wells, the uncompromising fighter, will not be forgotten. She will hold an honored place as a historic fighter for black equality.
Reformist Left: Shills for U.S./EU Imperialists Over Ukraine


Workers Vanguard No. 1048
 

13 June 2014
 
Reformist Left: Shills for U.S./EU Imperialists Over Ukraine
 
Throughout the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, the International Communist League and its sections have stood staunchly against the machinations of the U.S. imperialists and their counterparts in the European Union (EU). Not so the vast bulk of reformist groups across Europe, as well as in the U.S., which have in one way or another lined up in support of the “democratic” imperialist powers.
The U.S. and European states helped instigate and inflame the turmoil in Ukraine that began with the outbreak of the Maidan protests last November after then-president Victor Yanukovich rejected “partnership” with the EU. Throwing money and publicity behind the protests, Washington in particular was central to the formation of the new government that was installed with the February 22 coup. For the U.S./EU imperialists, the aim has been to establish a client state on the border of capitalist Russia, which under the rule of strongman Vladimir Putin has increasingly become a thorn in their sides as well as a political rival.
We warned from the outset about the presence among the Maidan protesters of a significant fascist element, centered on the Svoboda party, which derives from the Ukrainian nationalists led by Stepan Bandera, whose forces committed mass murders of Jews and Poles in collaboration with the Nazis during World War II. After the war, the Banderaites worked with Western intelligence against the Soviet Union. The coup that ousted Yanukovich was spearheaded by fascists and supported by the U.S. and EU. Among the first actions of the new parliament was to abolish the official status of Russian and other minority languages, a measure that the interim president vetoed under pressure to give the coup a “democratic” veneer.
The establishment of a right-wing Ukrainian-nationalist regime in Kiev alarmed the Russian-speaking population of eastern and southern Ukraine. Faced with the prospect of the further extension of the NATO military alliance to its very doorstep, capitalist Russia moved quickly to bolster its troop levels in Crimea to secure its national interests there, particularly its strategic Black Sea Fleet based in Sevastopol. The ICL supported this intervention based on our support of the democratic right of Crimea’s ethnic Russian population to self-determination. In opposition to the imperialist lie that Russia was intervening into a foreign country, we pointed out the fact that “Crimea is Russian,” including its historical adhesion to Russia, and explained:
“The people of Crimea have every right to self-determination, including independence or incorporation into Russia. In the present juncture, exercising that right might well depend on the support of Russian forces. Indeed, it was the new Crimean government that requested Russian intervention.”
— “Ukraine Coup: Spearheaded by Fascists, Backed by U.S./EU Imperialists,” WV No. 1041, 7 March
The validity of our position was underlined by the massive vote in favor of rejoining Russia in the subsequent Crimean referendum.
Our defense of the Russian intervention did not and does not imply any political support to the Putin regime, a capitalist government based on Great Russian chauvinism. We opposed Russia’s murderous 1994 and 1999 invasions of Chechnya, a country in the Caucasus whose population is overwhelmingly Muslim, and call for that country’s independence. During the 2008 war between Russia and U.S.-backed Georgia, we were revolutionary defeatist on both sides: the class interests of the workers of Georgia and Russia lay in a struggle to overthrow their respective capitalist rulers through socialist revolution. We also champion the rights of the Tatar and other oppressed minorities in Crimea and elsewhere in Russia.
After Crimea rejoined Russia, the Kiev regime launched an ongoing campaign against insurgent forces in the east. Hundreds have already been killed in the Ukrainian military’s bloody crackdown. On May 2, a fascist-led mob firebombed a trade-union building in the southern city of Odessa, massacring more than 40 anti-government protesters. Behind the repression lies the hand of the Kiev regime’s patrons—the U.S. and EU imperialists. While Washington and (to a lesser extent) the EU are implementing sanctions against associates of Putin for “intervening,” the CIA and FBI are busy advising Kiev how best to suppress the separatists. We oppose the imperialists’ sanctions against Russia and their military provocations in the region.
Spurred on by the repression unleashed by Kiev, insurgents in the eastern provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk held May 11 referendums in which the overwhelming vote was for “self rule.” We defended the right of the people there to conduct the referendum and to act on the result of the vote, which could entail a push for a federated Ukraine, independence or unification with Russia. Upholding the democratic rights of all nationalities is crucial to our goal of forging the revolutionary unity of the proletariat across national, ethnic and communal lines. An urgently needed expression of such working-class unity would be the formation of multi-ethnic, non-sectarian workers militias to crush the fascists, who represent a threat to all workers and minorities in Ukraine. This perspective requires steadfast opposition to the schemes of the imperialist powers.
The situation in Ukraine is a result of the counterrevolutionary destruction of the Soviet Union, the world’s first workers state, in 1991-92. The imperialist-spearheaded counterrevolution led to economic collapse and the bloody resurgence of national antagonisms, unleashing untold misery on the peoples of Russia, Ukraine and the other former Soviet Republics. To the best of our ability and resources, the ICL fought to defend the USSR against capitalist restoration and for workers political revolution to oust the Stalinist bureaucracy, whose politics fatally undermined the gains of the 1917 October Revolution.
The imperialists’ mouthpieces in the bourgeois media are warning of a “new cold war” between the West and Russia. This characterization disappears the class line that existed between the U.S. and its West European allies on the one hand and the Soviet degenerated workers state and the deformed workers states of East Europe on the other. The current regime in Russia represents the very capitalist class that the imperialists fought tooth and nail to restore to power throughout the Cold War. After capitalist restoration, the oligarchs enriched themselves by looting the former state-owned industries.
Apologists for U.S./EU Imperialism
In contrast to the ICL’s proletarian internationalist perspective, most reformist groups in the U.S. and West Europe have effectively lined up with their capitalist rulers, retailing lies about “Russian aggression.” In the U.S., the International Socialist Organization (ISO) hailed the Maidan mobilizations as “action from below” even while admitting the role of the fascists. And when the White House railed at Russia’s reincorporation of Crimea, the ISO and Socialist Alternative/Committee for a Workers’ International chimed in with cries of “Russian imperialism.”
In Britain, the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), leading section of the tendency founded by Tony Cliff, saves the bulk of its outrage for Russia, notwithstanding some limited criticisms of the U.S. and EU. A Socialist Worker (March 3) article by SWP honcho Alex Callinicos lectured: “Russia’s seizure of military control over Crimea has brought Ukraine to the brink of war.” Callinicos whitewashed the role of the fascists in the Kiev coup, offering that “those who claim Yanukovych’s overthrow was a ‘fascist coup’ are parroting Moscow propaganda.” In fact, the fascists of Svoboda and the Right Sector were the shock troops for the coup and quickly became prominent components of the new Kiev government.
Such details are incidental to the SWP, which is known for tailing after almost any “popular” movement, no matter how reactionary. This goes back to their origins, when they capitulated to their own “democratic” imperialist rulers by refusing to defend the Chinese and North Korean deformed workers states during the Korean War of the early 1950s. The British Socialist Worker (6 May) also grotesquely alibied the May 2 fascist massacre in Odessa, reporting only that “the Russian and Ukrainian governments each blamed forces sympathetic to the other side,” even though video footage clearly showed the fascists firing into the trade-union building as people jumped to escape the flames.
It was the German-dominated EU’s attempt to extend its tentacles into Ukraine that sparked the current crisis. Part of the European left supports EU expansion, purveying the lie that this imperialist alliance can be transformed into a “social Europe,” where democracy and prosperity prevail. The Pabloite United Secretariat’s (USec) German-language journal Inprekorr (March-April) published a statement by French New Anti-Capitalist Party activist and longtime USec spokesman Catherine Samary that claimed the solution to the Ukraine crisis was a “Bigger Europe.” In its May-June issue, Inprekorr printed a declaration by Zbigniew Marcin Kowalewski defending the right of Ukraine to join the EU, because anything else would be “the chauvinism of the privileged.”
The fake Trotskyist groups prettifying the fascist-infested Maidan movement today had earlier supported fascist and other anti-Soviet forces during Cold War II in the late 1970s and 80s. Notably, some Stalinist-derived organizations have not been as shrill. In Germany, which has extensive trade relations with Russia, the government has performed something of a balancing act between supporting the new regime in Kiev and trying not to break all ties with Russia. The concerns of a section of the German ruling class were reflected in a March 22 statement of the social-democratic Left Party (formed in part by East German ex-Stalinists), which opined: “The answer to the separation of the Crimea by the Russian federation which is contrary to international law and which we condemn must lie in diplomacy.”
And then there are those that have been somewhat more critical of the imperialists and their fascist allies in Ukraine. In Italy, Rifondazione Comunista denounced the U.S. and EU for supporting the fascists in Kiev and opposes the sanctions against Russia. But Rifondazione also states that it fights to ensure “Europe is independent of the USA,” thereby declaring their allegiance to the presumably more enlightened EU imperialists. In fact, the EU is an imperialist bloc whose purpose is to tighten the screws on European workers and to act as a tool for its larger powers, particularly Germany, to exploit weaker, dependent capitalist states. Its eastward expansion will only mean increased misery for the working class across the continent.
The EU maintains racist fortress Europe, under which the Mediterranean and Aegean Seas have become mass graveyards for desperate immigrants fleeing war and hunger inflicted by both the U.S. and EU imperialists in their African and Near Eastern neocolonies. Rifondazione has made its own contribution to fortress Europe by participating in bourgeois governments from 1996-98 and 2006-08. Down with the EU and racist fortress Europe! We fight for the expropriation of the bourgeoisie through socialist revolution and for an internationally planned economy that will overcome the limits of the nation-state. For a Socialist United States of Europe!
Capitalist Russia: Not in the Imperialist Club
The British Workers Power (WP) group, part of the League for the Fifth International, has published a Summer 2014 “Ukraine Supplement” headlined “Stop Nato’s New War Drive” that includes a polemic against the USec’s blatantly pro-imperialist line on the Maidan protests. While aiming most of their fire at the EU and U.S., WP also claims that capitalist Russia is one of the “recent graduates to the imperialist club,” and furthermore so is China. They thus lend support to the U.S. and Japanese imperialists’ ongoing military provocations against the Chinese deformed workers state (see article on page 12). The reformists’ demonization of “Russian imperialism” is a blatant capitulation to their own capitalist rulers.
For Marxists, labeling a country imperialist is not an epithet but a scientific characterization of that country’s role within the global economic system. Bolshevik leader V.I. Lenin’s 1916 pamphlet Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism put forward a Marxist description of modern imperialism as that epoch of capitalism marked by monopolies, the dominance of finance capital and the export of capital. A few major advanced capitalist states had divided the world into “spheres of influence,” where each controlled markets and access to raw materials. Rising imperialist powers like Germany sought to redivide the world at the expense of established powers like Britain and France. The result of the interimperialist rivalries was the horrendous slaughter of World War I.
Russia today is not imperialist, though it has potential to become so. Key to the fact that Russia’s imperialist aspirations have not been realized are the efforts of the existing imperialists, led by the U.S., to keep Russia out of their club. Russia is also hampered by an economy that is heavily dependent on extraction and export of natural resources. With the important exception of the armaments industry, mainly an inheritance from the Soviet Union, no branch of Russian manufacturing is competitive in the international market.
While it is a regional power, Russia does not play a role in the carve-up of the world on a global scale. Over the past 20 years, Russia has never intervened militarily outside the territory of the former Soviet Union, except for a very limited intervention in 1994 when Russian troops in Serbia served as soft cops for NATO. This is in stark contrast not only to the U.S., which as the self-appointed “world’s policeman” invades and bombs countries across the globe, but also to second-rate imperialist powers like Britain and France, which repeatedly send their troops abroad to advance their national interests. More than a century of rape, pillage and war by the imperialists of the U.S., Europe and Japan proves that these are, in fact, the biggest enemies of the world’s working people.
The Capitalist State and National Oppression
Groups like those in the Cliffite tendency justify their opposition to self-determination for Crimea by retailing the imperialist line that the referendum was not democratic due to the supposed Russian invasion. For their part, Rifondazione Comunista and Workers Power, which acknowledged in theory the right of self-determination for Crimea, refused to support the intervention of Russian troops that made the implementation of that right possible. In fact, the presence of Russian troops was welcomed by the vast majority of Crimeans for that very reason: it enabled them to finally hold a referendum to rejoin Russia after years of being prevented from doing so by successive Kiev governments.
The leader of the French Left Party, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, denounced some of the cruder lies in the bourgeois press about Russian troops “invading” Crimea, but at the same time declared in a March 5 blog post: “Currently, the number one issue is to avoid war. This means above all to prevent the partition of the country: we do not touch the borders in Europe! Neither here nor anywhere.” Upholding the sanctity of borders in Europe is, of course, the line of the West European ruling classes, which oppose the exercise of self-determination by oppressed nationalities at home, such as the Basques and Catalans.
In opposition to such chauvinism, we call for the right of independence for the Basques on both sides of the French and Spanish border as well as for the Catalans, whose scheduled referendum on self-determination later this year has been declared illegal by the Castilian-chauvinist government based in Madrid. We stand for the right of Catalonia and other nations not only to “unilaterally” hold a vote on independence but to act on a vote in favor of secession.
The generally more left-sounding Stalinists of the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) also express chauvinist opposition to changing borders. In a March 14 statement on the Crimea referendum posted in English on the KKE Web site, they wrote:
“The secession of the Crimea and its assimilation in Russia will further strengthen the nationalist current, both in Ukraine and in Russia.... There is also the danger of opening ‘Pandora’s Box’ in other regions as well, especially in the Balkans, leading to other regions being assimilated e.g. the assimilation of Kosovo into the so-called ‘Greater Albania’ which is linked to the annexations of the territories of neighbouring countries. There are in any case examples from the dismemberment of Yugoslavia which, in the name of the self-determination of the peoples, paved the way for border changes.”
The Pandora’s Box that the KKE is so fearful of opening is full of claims on Greek territory by bordering states. Also weighing heavily on their minds and those of the Greek bourgeoisie are Greek claims on the island of Cyprus, which was bloodily partitioned in 1974 into separate Turkish and Greek zones. The KKE’s obsession with not ceding an inch of “Greek soil” provides the framework for their position on Crimea.
That the KKE’s defense of the borders of the bourgeois state is based on the purest Greek nationalism is demonstrated in the April 27 issue of its newspaper Rizospastis, which denies the existence of Macedonian or Turkish minorities in Greece. The KKE calls for upholding the borders drawn up by the British and French imperialists in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, which ended the predatory war against Turkey waged by these powers and their Greek lackeys. In opposition to such nationalism, our comrades of the Trotskyist Group of Greece uphold the right of the Macedonian minority in Greece to self-determination, including the right to unite with the existing state of Macedonia. We also defend democratic rights for the Turkish-speaking and other non-Greek minorities in Greece.
To cover its chauvinism, the KKE argues that the assimilation of Crimea into Russia would not “solve in essence any of the real problems of the Crimean people” because they would be joining a capitalist rather than a socialist country. Some left gloss was also provided by the inveterate reformists of the International Marxist Tendency, led today by Alan Woods, which conveniently sidestepped taking a position on Crimea while calling for a “united socialist Ukraine.” Concretely, this echoes the chauvinist line that Ukraine is one and indivisible—i.e., a denial that there is any aspect of national oppression posed in the country.
Arguments to the effect that self-determination is meaningless under capitalism and should be postponed until there is socialism are not new. Lenin argued forcefully against this position, including in his 1916 theses on “The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination”:
“The proletariat cannot remain silent on the question of the frontiers of a state founded on national oppression, a question so ‘unpleasant’ for the imperialist bourgeoisie. The proletariat must struggle against the enforced retention of oppressed nations within the bounds of the given state, which means that they must fight for the right to self-determination. The proletariat must demand freedom of political separation for the colonies and nations oppressed by ‘their own’ nation. Otherwise, the internationalism of the proletariat would be nothing but empty words; neither confidence nor class solidarity would be possible between the workers of the oppressed and the oppressor nations.”
Cheerleaders for Counterrevolution
While much of the pseudo-Trotskyist left stands against the exercise of self-determination for Crimea today, their posture was very different when it came to the imperialist-sponsored counterrevolutionary movements that wielded self-determination as a key tool in the overthrow of the Soviet workers state. The USec, among others, supported a host of counterrevolutionary “independence” movements in the Baltic republics, going so far as to salute fascist nationalists like the Estonian “Forest Brothers” for their “armed struggle against Stalinism” (see: “Why They Misuse Trotsky,” Spartacist [English-language edition] No. 49-50, Winter 1993-94).
You know that you have to hold on to your wallet when organizations that sided over and over again with the forces of “democratic” counterrevolution in Soviet bloc countries now parade around with calls for a “socialist” or “Soviet” Ukraine. Take the Workers Revolutionary Party (EEK) in Greece and the Communist Workers Party (PCL) in Italy, sections of the Coordinating Committee for the Refoundation of the Fourth International (CRFI) headed by the Argentine pseudo-Trotskyist Jorge Altamira. In a March 30 declaration of their “Workers Euro-Mediterranean Conference,” they came out against Crimean self-determination, declaring: “No to all annexations, no to the dismemberment of Ukraine—for an independent, united, socialist Ukraine!”
Such rhetoric about a “socialist Ukraine” is pretty rich coming from the Altamira tendency, which hailed Boris Yeltsin’s pro-imperialist countercoup in Moscow in August 1991 that opened the floodgates to capitalist counterrevolution and has since tried to cover its tracks by denying that the counterrevolution even happened! To this day, they claim, as in their March 30 statement, that there is an “on-going process of capitalist restoration” taking place in Ukraine and other parts of the former Soviet Union.
It should be noted that Savvas Michael Matsas, current leader of the EEK, was the longstanding leader in Greece of the fake-Trotskyist tendency led by political bandit Gerry Healy. While the Healyites nominally stood for “defense of the Soviet Union,” they supported just about every anti-Communist force encircling the Soviet workers state, from Khomeini’s mullahs in Iran to the CIA’s mujahedin in Afghanistan and Polish Solidarność.
Those leftists who supported the imperialists’ anti-Soviet drive in the guise of “anti-Stalinism” bear their own small measure of responsibility for the social devastation and the upsurge in nationalist chauvinism that swept the former USSR and East Europe after counterrevolution. Workers and youth looking for a revolutionary Marxist program must turn to the Bolshevik political arsenal—the experiences of the October Revolution, the early Communist International and Trotsky’s Fourth International. New gains for the workers and the oppressed will be won only by those who have fought to defend past gains. In opposition to the reformists and centrists who long ago made peace with their own capitalist rulers, the ICL fights to forge a party that can lead new October Revolutions.
The Chinese Proletariat and the Tiananmen Uprising


Workers Vanguard No. 1048
 


13 June 2014
TROTSKY
LENIN
The Chinese Proletariat and the Tiananmen Uprising
(Quote of the Week)
To mark the 25th anniversary of the mass protests centered in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, we reprint below excerpts from our article written immediately following the 3-4 June 1989 massacre of working people and students by the Stalinist regime of Deng Xiaoping. Far from backing down after the repression, millions of workers across China continued to wage mass strikes and protests, driven by anger over official corruption and the effects of Deng’s “market reforms.” While the imperialist media painted the upheaval as simply a pro-Western student movement for “democracy,” we emphasized that it marked an incipient proletarian political revolution against the bureaucracy whose rule undermined the workers state established with the overthrow of capitalism in the 1949 Chinese Revolution. Under the impact of the proletarian upsurge, the army, including the officer corps, had begun to fracture.
The “Beijing Spring” reverberated in the Soviet Union and the East and Central European deformed workers states, which would soon face the sharply posed alternatives: workers political revolution or capitalist counterrevolution. The Chinese bureaucracy was able, over the next few weeks, to reassert control, mainly through bloody repression against the workers. The crucial missing element, during the Tiananmen events as well as today, is an authentic communist—i.e., Leninist-Trotskyist—party to lead the combative proletariat.
JUNE 6—Chinese Stalinism has provoked a political revolution that may well spell the doom of this bureaucratic, anti-worker regime. The massacre of students and other protesters by the despised Deng regime has brought China to the brink of civil war. The bloodletting, with victims numbering perhaps in the thousands, did not succeed in intimidating the populace. Defiant and heroic, the rebels marched out of Beijing’s Tiananmen Square singing the socialist workers anthem, the Internationale....
Conditions are exceptionally favorable for the working class to take charge in China. Industrial workers have enormous social weight in the main arenas of struggle, Beijing and Shanghai, as well as Wuhan and Canton. It was the hundreds of thousands of working people pouring into the streets who stymied the regime’s attempt to impose martial law. Motorcycle squads of workers reported on troop placements around Beijing. And the mass of soldiers identify with the working people. They, too, are hard-hit by the raging inflation resulting from Deng’s market-oriented policies....
Only the working class, under the leadership of a genuine communist vanguard party, can unify China through developing a just, egalitarian and prosperous society. The restoration of centralized economic planning, under a workers and peasants government, is necessary to begin to even out the now enormous regional differences. At the same time, a Chinese soviet government would scrupulously respect the national rights of the non-Han minorities, granting autonomy for Inner Mongolia, Tibet and the Turkic-speaking peoples of Sinkiang....
A truly communist China would help forge the unity of the world working class and oppressed toilers against imperialism. A first and elementary step is to generously aid the reconstruction of impoverished Vietnam, whose decades-long struggle inflicted the greatest-ever defeat on U.S. imperialism. And Chinese workers must link up with the powerful Soviet working class, whose resistance to Gorbachev’s market-oriented perestroika can open the road to proletarian political revolution in the USSR. A revolutionary internationalist government in Beijing would also be a tremendous impetus for socialist revolution in Japan, the industrial powerhouse of Asia. To construct a Leninist-Trotskyist communist party in China it is necessary to break workers and radical students from liberal illusions and Stalinist-nationalist prejudices.
—“Beijing MassacreCivil War Looms,” WV No. 479, 9 June 1989
 
Capitalists Tell Workers: Pick Your Poison-Detroit Pension Robbery


Workers Vanguard No. 1048
 




13 June 2014
 
Capitalists Tell Workers: Pick Your Poison-Detroit Pension Robbery
 

In May, over 32,000 active and retired Detroit city workers started receiving ballots asking them to vote on a bankruptcy scheme that will slash their pensions, eliminate their medical plans and gut their unions no matter what the result is. Officials overseeing the nation’s largest ever municipal bankruptcy are pressuring workers and retirees to vote “yes” on what they call the “grand bargain”: draconian attacks on retirees and current public employees as well as basic services in return for funding from the state of Michigan, private foundations and the Detroit Institute of Arts’ backers to “rescue” the city. Municipal workers and retirees vested in the city’s pension plans have been placed among the many classes of creditors being asked to approve the package. Make no mistake: eliminating or diminishing pensions is pure theft of workers’ earnings. The Detroit pension rip-off is a harbinger of what lies in wait for workers across the country.
Largely crafted by federal mediators, the “grand bargain” is a grand scam. The plan involves sweetheart deals with Wall Street banks, secret concessions from union leaders and a battery of state laws hammering at the rights and the very lives of the residents of this 82 percent black city. Once bankruptcy was declared last July, the presiding judge was legally empowered to “cram down” whatever terms he decides, irrespective of the objections of individual creditors.
The facts about the deal speak for themselves:
• It was widely reported that pension checks for former city workers would drop by 4.5 percent. The plan also calls for a “claw back” of “overly generous” interest earned in their retirement annuity accounts, in effect doubling or tripling the actual reduction in monthly pension payments, which even now average only about $1,600. Exempted from the most severe cuts are the police—the racist, anti-labor guard dogs of the capitalist class—as well as firemen.
• Retiree health care coverage is eliminated, an especially vicious blow to as many as 7,500 retirees too young for Medicare. The city walks away from a $4.3 billion liability in return for setting up a $450 million health care trust. While mid-range Obamacare insurance can cost around $5,000 per year (not including hefty out-of-pocket expenses), Detroit retirees are slated to receive a mere $175 per month to help buy it.
• Unelected authorities vested with special powers will oversee the massive slashing of benefits and wages. State lawmakers have approved a legislative package that for at least 13 years subjects the city to the diktats of an oversight commission, composed mainly of state officials or people appointed by Republican governor Rick Snyder. Modeled on a board that controlled New York City budgets after the 1975 municipal fiscal crisis, the commission will have final say on labor contracts and will exert authority over and above elected city officials.
• The big banks will make out as always. In late April, the main architects of the Detroit bankruptcy—Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr and U.S. bankruptcy judge Steven Rhodes—cut a deal with Bank of America and UBS, granting them $85 million to settle claims stemming from wildly speculative financial “swaps” that the banks had already handsomely profited from. The city had made these transactions in the mid 2000s to shore up the pension plans, only to see them go belly-up during the subsequent world financial crisis.
• Linked to the bankruptcy are plans to privatize the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department. This is a direct attack on a unionized workforce and a sure sign that further suffering is in store for city residents. Already, the water department is sending out crews to shut off 3,000 homes behind in their bill payments each week.
The bankruptcy ballot is a complete sham. As one retiree said, “When you open your envelope, there’s a gun to your head.” And if the deal is turned down, the government and the courts threaten far worse terms, including pension cuts of as much as 27 percent. The choice, another retiree aptly put it, was between the “deep blue sea with a heavy stone around our necks or burning in hell.”
By the lights of the pro-capitalist labor officialdom, workers and retirees have no option other than accepting terms dictated by the capitalist government and courts. To help prepare the creditors’ ballot, in late April bureaucrats from 14 municipal unions agreed to massive concessions in new five-year contracts. As a rubber stamp for pension and health care cuts, the government appointed an official retirees committee including representatives from AFSCME, the largest union of city workers, and the United Auto Workers (UAW). Under pressure from angry retirees, some AFSCME officials are telling unionists to hold off on voting. But construction union officials have agreed to kick in cash for the grand scam while the UAW tops have started a fund drive—another illustration of the bureaucrats’ program of subordinating workers’ class interests to those of the U.S. capitalist rulers, as represented by the Republican and Democratic parties.
Marxists reject the entire framework of the Detroit bankruptcy vote. Guaranteed pensions, decent health plans and other gains for working people came not through the beneficence of their exploiters but through hard class struggle. And it will take real struggle to halt the rulers’ efforts to steal what remains of those gains. For a start, the labor movement should demand that the federal government insure the full value of both public and private pension funds. Government-provided health care should be available to all at no charge. The ruling class has no intention of providing these or other necessities to the workers whose labor it exploits, much less to the unemployed, the ghetto poor and everyone else on the bottom. In fighting for these necessities, the working class must be won to the understanding that the way forward is to sweep away capitalist rule and create its own government, laying the basis for the socialist reconstruction of society to meet human needs.
Detroit Scheme: Threat to All Workers
With the Detroit bankruptcy, the racist capitalist rulers are once again making the working class and the black poor pay for the greed, decay and irrationality of the system of production for profit. Once a powerhouse of the U.S. economy and a center of integrated union power, Detroit has been turned into a giant, rusting disaster area by the auto corporations that abandoned the city in order to exploit cheaper, non-union labor in the U.S. South and overseas. What had once been the fifth-largest metropolis in the U.S. is today the 18th-largest. Hollowed out by the decline of the American auto industry and further wrecked by the financial crisis, Detroit today faces estimated long-term debts of over $18 billion.
The former Motor City, where hundreds of thousands of unionized black auto workers once had the semblance of a decent job, is now a vast urban wasteland. Simply put, black Detroit has been deemed expendable by the racist ruling class, which endlessly blames “overly generous” union contracts for the devastation the capitalists themselves have wrought. While black industrial workers were the first to be written off by the bourgeoisie, since their labor was no longer needed to produce profits, such ruin now increasingly stalks the working class across the country. (For more, see our article “Detroit: The Rise and Fall of a Labor/Black Stronghold,” WV Nos. 1044 and 1045, 18 April and 2 May.)
From Obama on down, the government has made clear that Detroit’s black masses are not about to receive a smidgen of the largesse that was dished out not too long ago to the big banks and auto companies. Continuing a move undertaken by the Republican Bush White House, the Democratic Obama administration bailed out General Motors and Chrysler with tens of billions of dollars when they threatened bankruptcy. With the companies claiming that they could no longer afford to pay union pensions and health benefits to retirees and new-hires, the UAW tops saluted their Commander-in-Chief and willingly agreed to massive givebacks. These included a two-tier wage scheme that allowed the automakers to hire assembly-line workers at a bit more than half the previous pay scale as well as a no-strike pledge. GM, for one, has since bounced back to reap record profits for its owners—a capitalist success story recently dimmed by the exposure of the GM bosses’ murderous indifference to those who purchased a Cobalt.
The UAW bureaucracy’s role in gutting union wages as part of the auto bailout was the climax of decades of sacrificing its members on the altar of the profitability of American capitalism, not least through peddling chauvinist “America first” protectionism. In sapping the fighting strength of the UAW, once the powerhouse of the U.S. labor movement, the union tops undermined the ability of the working class in Detroit to counter the auto bosses with concentrated power. The labor sellouts thus not only helped prepare the ground for the devastation of Detroit but opened the door to further attacks on workers more broadly, as seen, for example, in the anti-union “right to work” law passed in Michigan in December 2012.
The outcome of the Detroit bankruptcy scheme will have far-reaching consequences for public-sector workers across the country. Pension obligations for public employees had been considered legally protected until two recent municipal bankruptcies—one in Pritchard, Alabama, and another in Central Falls, Rhode Island, where pensions were cut as much as 50 percent. In fact, Michigan and some other states have constitutional statutes guaranteeing public employees’ pensions.
Detroit’s “grand bargain” would change all that. It would set a precedent for supposedly cash-strapped governments to slash pensions, as well as eliminating hard-won medical benefits and throwing workers onto the mercy of the “Obamacare” insurance marketplace. Officials in San Bernardino, California, which is also in bankruptcy, see Detroit as a test case for slashing their obligations to the state’s public employee retirement system. From California to Illinois and New Jersey, Democratic and Republican politicians are looking for a way out of their commitments to retirement plans, many of which are woefully underfunded.
For decades, public union misleaders had helped state and local governments hold the line on increased wages and benefits with the promise of greater contributions to pension funds. A form of deferred wages, pensions are supposed to be held in trust until they are needed. But those funds became a honeypot for high-rolling bankers and hedge fund managers, in league with state pension plan managers, for some of their riskiest investments. And when these imploded, pension funds were burned.
American corporations (steel, airline and auto companies, to name just a few) have long utilized bankruptcy as a tool to loot pensions, slash labor costs and bust unions. Now capitalist politicians are using the same weapon against government workers. In Detroit’s case, the rulers are counting on the isolation of the city’s overwhelmingly black population from the mainly white workforce in the rest of the state to push through cuts that will be the leading edge of an assault on all workers. The Detroit plan is a continuation of the war waged by both the Democratic and Republican parties of capital against public employee unions, which, due to deindustrialization in the Midwest and Northeast and the precipitous decline of private-sector unions, now comprise about one-half of organized labor. We say: All labor must fight the assault on public workers! No to pension and health care cuts!
For a Class-Struggle Perspective
For workers and retirees, the Detroit bankruptcy ballot is a lose-lose situation. But the “Moratorium Now! Coalition to Stop Foreclosures, Evictions, and Utility Shutoffs” backed by the reformist Workers World Party (WWP) tells workers and retirees to vote “no” in order to wage a fight “in the courts and in the streets” to “make the banks pay.” By signing on to the ballot hoax and urging yet more court suits, WWP & Co. are telling people to rely on the very instruments the ruling class is using to force through the bankruptcy and its savage cuts. As for the union misleaders and Democratic Party pols who are complicit in the scheme, mum’s the word from the WWP.
Meanwhile, the counterfeit “Trotskyists” of the Socialist Equality Party (SEP) have switched from telling pensioners to vote “no” to acknowledging that the ballot is itself a fraud. This shift, to be sure, is not to help prepare the way for some desperately needed union struggle in defense of pensions and health benefits. A May 15 SEP statement argues for “action committees” against the bankruptcy plan to be “organized independently of and in opposition to the trade unions.” This puts the SEP in league with the very forces driving the bankruptcy scheme, which want to crush whatever is left of public workers unions in the city.
Conflating the unions—the basic economic defense organizations of the working class—with their pro-capitalist misleaders, the SEP has opposed organizing non-union auto plants, as seen in its gloating over the UAW’s defeat in Chattanooga earlier this year, and openly alibied for scabbing. And these political bandits do not stop there. Two years ago, as millions were outraged over the killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin by a racist vigilante in Florida, a statement by the SEP’s presidential candidate Jerry White opined that the killing “is not fundamentally about race” and concluded by urging a “fight for socialism” (see “SEP Denies Racism in Trayvon Martin Killing,” WV No. 1005, 6 July 2012). The SEP peddles the grotesque notion that the socialist liberation of the working class means denying the reality of black oppression—a cornerstone of capitalist rule in the U.S. To anyone tempted by the SEP’s “Marxist” verbiage, we say: Buyer, beware!
The crisis in Detroit glaringly shows the need to sweep out the sellout labor bureaucrats and forge a new, class-struggle leadership of the unions—independent of and opposed to all capitalist parties—as part of the fight to build a revolutionary workers party. The arrogant capitalist rulers presume that people will passively accept being thrown from their jobs and homes, losing vital services and any hope for a decent future for themselves or their children. But there is enormous resentment at the base of society toward the tiny class of obscenely rich exploiters. The key is to harness and direct anger among workers and minorities toward the eradication of racist capitalism.
Laying out the programmatic framework for such a struggle, the 1938 Transitional Program, written by Bolshevik revolutionary Leon Trotsky, raised a series of “transitional demands, stemming from today’s conditions and from today’s consciousness of wide layers of the working class and unalterably leading to one final conclusion: the conquest of power by the proletariat.” Against the catastrophe of mass unemployment, we call for a shorter workweek with no loss in pay to spread the available work. Desperately needed is a massive program of public works to rebuild America’s decaying infrastructure—from housing, schools and hospitals to roads, transit systems, bridges and dams. Such a fight would unite private and public unions together with the unemployed and would mobilize the power of labor in the interests of the ghetto and barrio poor, striking a blow against the racial and ethnic hostilities whipped up by the capitalists to prop up their rule.
Against the swindles of the finance capitalists who control the economy, Trotsky wrote: “Only the expropriation of the private banks and the concentration of the entire credit system in the hands of the state will provide the latter with the necessary actual, i.e., material, resources—and not merely paper and bureaucratic resources—for economic planning.” But as he emphasized, “The state-ization of the banks will produce these favorable results only if the state power itself passes completely from the hands of the exploiters into the hands of the toilers.”
There may be no better argument for the revolutionary overturn of decaying capitalism than the situation in Detroit today. What must be done is to build a workers party that champions all the exploited and oppressed in the struggle for a workers government, where those who labor rule. The victory of the workers on a world scale will lay the basis for an internationally planned socialist economy that will finally rid the planet of poverty, racial and national oppression, war and all other evils of capitalist society.
Mass Executions Push Iraq Towards Sectarian War by PATRICK COCKBURN
16 Jun 2014
US Lines Up Iran Talks to Halt ISIS
Click on image for a larger version

iraq again.jpg
Iraq is close to all-out sectarian war as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) massacres dozens of Iraqi soldiers in revenge for the loss of one of its commanders, and government supporters in Baghdad warn that the spread of fighting to the capital could provoke mass killings of the Sunni minority there.

One unverified statement from Isis militants on Twitter says that it has executed 1,700 prisoners. Pictures show killings at half a dozen places.

Isis has posted pictures that appear to show prisoners being loaded on to flatbed trucks by masked gunmen and later forced to lie face down in a shallow ditch with their arms tied behind their backs.

Final pictures show the blood-covered bodies of captive soldiers, probably Shia, who make up much of the rank-and-file of the Iraqi army. Captions say the massacre was in revenge for the death of an Isis commander, Abdul-Rahman al-Beilawy, whose killing was reported just before Isis’s surprise offensive last week that swept through northern Iraq, capturing the Sunni strongholds of Mosul and Tikrit.

Meanwhile, the US government was considering direct talks with Iran to discuss options for halting the Isis advance, an official from the Obama administration said.

The two countries were already scheduled to meet with other world powers to discuss Iran’s nuclear programme in Vienna this week, and the US deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns will now travel to take part in those talks.

President Barack Obama continues to weigh up options for international intervention in Iraq, and has now deployed three warships to the Persian Gulf, but on Sunday the Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said: “We are probably going to need [Iran’s] help to hold Baghdad.”

Early on Monday the mayor of the northern town of Tal Afar said it had become the latest landmark settlement to fall to Sunni militants.

Abdulal Abdoul told reporters his town of some 200,000 people, 260 miles (420 kilometres) northwest of Baghdad, was taken just before dawn.

Shia militiamen are pouring out of Baghdad to establish a new battle line 60 or 70 miles north of the capital. Demography is beginning to count against Isis as its fighters enter mixed provinces such as Diyala, where there are Shia and Kurds as well as Sunni.

In Mosul, from where 500,000 refugees first fled, the Sunni are returning to the city. Isis ordered traders to cut the price of fuel and foodstuffs, but religious and ethnic minorities are too terrified to return.

Sectarian strife looms as Shia join up to fight Isis to go home. “People in Baghdad are frightened about what the coming days will bring,” said one resident, but added that they were “used to being frightened by coming events”.

Baghdadis have been stocking up on food and fuel in case the capital is besieged. There is no sound of shooting in the city, though searches at checkpoints are more intense than previously and three out of four of the entrances to the Green Zone are closed.

Isis may be the shock troops in the fighting but their swift military success and the disintegration of four Iraqi army divisions have provoked a general Sunni uprising. At least seven or eight militant Sunni factions are involved, many led by former Baathists and officers from Saddam Hussein’s security services. But the most important factor working in favour of Isis is the sense among Iraq’s five or six million Sunni that the end of their oppression is at hand.

“The Shia in Iraq see what is happening not as the Sunni reacting justifiably against the government oppressing them but as an attempt to re-establish the old Sunni-dominated-type government,” said one observer in the capital. On both the Shia and Sunni sides the factors are accumulating for a full-scale bloody sectarian confrontation.

The surge of young Shia men into militias was touched off by the appeal of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the revered Shia cleric, for people to join militias. “The street is boiling,” said the observer.

Some 1,000 volunteers have left the holy city of Kerbala for Samarra which is on the front line, being the site of the al-Askari mosque, one of the holiest Shia shrines in a city where the majority is Sunni.

Asaib Ahl al-Haq, a Shia militia force close to the Iranians, is said to have recaptured the town of Muqdadiyah in Diyala and Dulu’iyah further west towards Samarra.

A problem in Iraq is that the country’s sectarian divisions are at their worst in areas where there are mixed populations: the country could not be partitioned without a great deal of bloodshed, as occurred in India at the time of independence.

The Sunni-Shia civil war of 2006-07 was centred on Baghdad and eliminated most mixed neighbourhoods, leaving those Sunni who had not already fled holding out in enclaves mostly in the west of the capital.

A cadre of advisers from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is believed to be putting together a new military force drawn from the army and militias. The regular army command has been discredited by the spectacular failure of the last 10 days.

The involvement of Shia militia fighters at the front increases the likelihood of mass killings of Sunni. This had started to happen even before the present offensive in Diyala province and at Iskandariya, south-east of Baghdad, where militants were said to be building car and truck bombs and where the Shia militiamen are said by witnesses to have adopted a “scorched-earth policy”.

Iraq has effectively broken up as the Kurds take advantage of the collapse of the regular army in the north to take over Kirkuk, northern Diyala and the Nineveh plateau.

The Kurds have long claimed these territories, saying they had been ethnically cleansed from there under Saddam Hussein. Many of these areas are rich in oil.

The government in Baghdad, though vowing to return to Mosul, has a weakened hand to play. Its military assets have turned out to be much less effective than even its most severe critics imagined.

If there is going to be a counter-attack it will have to come soon but there is no sign of it yet.

Isis has taken some of the tanks, artillery and other heavy equipment to Syria which might indicate that it doesn’t want to use it in Iraq.

But as a military force, it has recently depended on quick probing attacks and forays using guerrilla tactics, so its need for heavy weaponry may not be high.

PATRICK COCKBURN is the author of Muqtada: Muqtada Al-Sadr, the Shia Revival, and the Struggle for Iraq.
Mass Executions Push Iraq Towards Sectarian War by PATRICK COCKBURN
16 Jun 2014
US Lines Up Iran Talks to Halt ISIS
Click on image for a larger version

iraq again.jpg
Iraq is close to all-out sectarian war as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) massacres dozens of Iraqi soldiers in revenge for the loss of one of its commanders, and government supporters in Baghdad warn that the spread of fighting to the capital could provoke mass killings of the Sunni minority there.

One unverified statement from Isis militants on Twitter says that it has executed 1,700 prisoners. Pictures show killings at half a dozen places.

Isis has posted pictures that appear to show prisoners being loaded on to flatbed trucks by masked gunmen and later forced to lie face down in a shallow ditch with their arms tied behind their backs.

Final pictures show the blood-covered bodies of captive soldiers, probably Shia, who make up much of the rank-and-file of the Iraqi army. Captions say the massacre was in revenge for the death of an Isis commander, Abdul-Rahman al-Beilawy, whose killing was reported just before Isis’s surprise offensive last week that swept through northern Iraq, capturing the Sunni strongholds of Mosul and Tikrit.

Meanwhile, the US government was considering direct talks with Iran to discuss options for halting the Isis advance, an official from the Obama administration said.

The two countries were already scheduled to meet with other world powers to discuss Iran’s nuclear programme in Vienna this week, and the US deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns will now travel to take part in those talks.

President Barack Obama continues to weigh up options for international intervention in Iraq, and has now deployed three warships to the Persian Gulf, but on Sunday the Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said: “We are probably going to need [Iran’s] help to hold Baghdad.”

Early on Monday the mayor of the northern town of Tal Afar said it had become the latest landmark settlement to fall to Sunni militants.

Abdulal Abdoul told reporters his town of some 200,000 people, 260 miles (420 kilometres) northwest of Baghdad, was taken just before dawn.

Shia militiamen are pouring out of Baghdad to establish a new battle line 60 or 70 miles north of the capital. Demography is beginning to count against Isis as its fighters enter mixed provinces such as Diyala, where there are Shia and Kurds as well as Sunni.

In Mosul, from where 500,000 refugees first fled, the Sunni are returning to the city. Isis ordered traders to cut the price of fuel and foodstuffs, but religious and ethnic minorities are too terrified to return.

Sectarian strife looms as Shia join up to fight Isis to go home. “People in Baghdad are frightened about what the coming days will bring,” said one resident, but added that they were “used to being frightened by coming events”.

Baghdadis have been stocking up on food and fuel in case the capital is besieged. There is no sound of shooting in the city, though searches at checkpoints are more intense than previously and three out of four of the entrances to the Green Zone are closed.

Isis may be the shock troops in the fighting but their swift military success and the disintegration of four Iraqi army divisions have provoked a general Sunni uprising. At least seven or eight militant Sunni factions are involved, many led by former Baathists and officers from Saddam Hussein’s security services. But the most important factor working in favour of Isis is the sense among Iraq’s five or six million Sunni that the end of their oppression is at hand.

“The Shia in Iraq see what is happening not as the Sunni reacting justifiably against the government oppressing them but as an attempt to re-establish the old Sunni-dominated-type government,” said one observer in the capital. On both the Shia and Sunni sides the factors are accumulating for a full-scale bloody sectarian confrontation.

The surge of young Shia men into militias was touched off by the appeal of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the revered Shia cleric, for people to join militias. “The street is boiling,” said the observer.

Some 1,000 volunteers have left the holy city of Kerbala for Samarra which is on the front line, being the site of the al-Askari mosque, one of the holiest Shia shrines in a city where the majority is Sunni.

Asaib Ahl al-Haq, a Shia militia force close to the Iranians, is said to have recaptured the town of Muqdadiyah in Diyala and Dulu’iyah further west towards Samarra.

A problem in Iraq is that the country’s sectarian divisions are at their worst in areas where there are mixed populations: the country could not be partitioned without a great deal of bloodshed, as occurred in India at the time of independence.

The Sunni-Shia civil war of 2006-07 was centred on Baghdad and eliminated most mixed neighbourhoods, leaving those Sunni who had not already fled holding out in enclaves mostly in the west of the capital.

A cadre of advisers from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is believed to be putting together a new military force drawn from the army and militias. The regular army command has been discredited by the spectacular failure of the last 10 days.

The involvement of Shia militia fighters at the front increases the likelihood of mass killings of Sunni. This had started to happen even before the present offensive in Diyala province and at Iskandariya, south-east of Baghdad, where militants were said to be building car and truck bombs and where the Shia militiamen are said by witnesses to have adopted a “scorched-earth policy”.

Iraq has effectively broken up as the Kurds take advantage of the collapse of the regular army in the north to take over Kirkuk, northern Diyala and the Nineveh plateau.

The Kurds have long claimed these territories, saying they had been ethnically cleansed from there under Saddam Hussein. Many of these areas are rich in oil.

The government in Baghdad, though vowing to return to Mosul, has a weakened hand to play. Its military assets have turned out to be much less effective than even its most severe critics imagined.

If there is going to be a counter-attack it will have to come soon but there is no sign of it yet.

Isis has taken some of the tanks, artillery and other heavy equipment to Syria which might indicate that it doesn’t want to use it in Iraq.

But as a military force, it has recently depended on quick probing attacks and forays using guerrilla tactics, so its need for heavy weaponry may not be high.

PATRICK COCKBURN is the author of Muqtada: Muqtada Al-Sadr, the Shia Revival, and the Struggle for Iraq.
No New War On Iraq

IRAQ, ISIS, AND INTERVENTION: JUST WHAT IS GOING ON?
21 Jun 2014
IRAQ, ISIS, AND INTERVENTION: JUST WHAT IS GOING ON?

John Chuckman

As so often is the case in foreign affairs, we will never know with precision what is happening in Iraq. The governments involved have reasons to disguise what they are doing, and a number of governments are indeed at work there. The press doesn’t spend the resources needed to discover the facts, thus saving government considerable embarrassment and themselves a good deal of work. But, if you look carefully, there are enough bits of information scattered around to gain an adequate picture of events, just as you might detect what people had been eating from the crumbs and splashes left on a dinner table.

From columnists and editorials, you can find almost any explanation of events in Iraq you care to find, all of them together yielding precisely a huge muddle. My favorite example of confusion is the story which made its way around about the way the United States and Iran were coming together to stop ISIS, each of them having their own reasons for doing so. As it turns out, nothing could be further from the truth. Iran, indeed, cares deeply about stopping ISIS. The United States makes a good deal of noise – what else can it do when pictures are published, intended to inflame public opinion, of prisoners being violently murdered? – but it does nothing of substance because it does not want to do anything.

The less-than 300 troops America sent to Iraq are only for embassy protection, not fighting, the monster embassy the United States forced on occupied Iraq being a private city of spies and communication and resources, totally out of proportion to a country the size of Iraq – if you will, a Middle East branch plant for CIA headquarters in Virginia. Now the United States talks of sending 300 advisers to Iraq’s army. Advisers? Since when does the United States send advisers to a besieged area where it has vital interests? So, too, the matter of air support: Prime Minister al-Maliki is reported to have asked for air support, and the United States is reported to have responded that it will be sent if he resigns. That is a very odd response for a government supposedly having common cause with Iran.

Yes, ships with planes have been sent to the region, but I think they may well be used in a different fashion than how the press speculates.

ISIS (aka ISIL) is often called a powerful and frightening force, but that is almost laughably inaccurate. All estimates of its manpower range from 7 to 15,000 – that is not a lot of soldiers by any standard and no larger than some American street gangs. The Iraq military, in the last numbers I saw, had approaching 300,000 on active service and more than half-a-million reserves. You can find pictures on the Internet of ISIS forces on the move, a rag-tag bunch with small arms riding around in Japanese pick-up trucks. They would be scary for any individual or village, but they wouldn’t stand a chance against even a single division of a modern army. Iraq’s government has many hundreds of armored combat vehicles, including more than 200 heavy tanks, a mix of American M1A1s and Russian T-72s, and several billion dollars’ worth of other high-end military equipment.

So why does Maliki seek American help? The Maliki government is not popular in Iraq, as proves the case so often with governments set up by the United States after its colonial wars. It represents a religious minority (Shia), and it has all the faults found throughout the Middle East of cronyism, nepotism, etc. And in a country with great divides of ethnicity and religion – Arabs, Kurds and Sunni, Shia – plus still other regional divides – oil-producing, agricultural, plains and mountains, urban and rural - any central government is bound to suffer unpopularity. Democracy has no history here, so popularity is not necessarily even a relevant criterion. But Maliki also is not popular with his original benefactor, the United States, almost certainly a far more relevant fact.

On the other hand, the Maliki government has become quite well disposed towards Iran, far more so than the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel like. Some earlier observers of America’s handiwork in Iraq said that the ultimate beneficiary might just prove to be Iran. Israel, in one of the more informative statements made about the situation, said that Iran was far more a threat to the region than ISIS. Maliki’s government forms an important link in an arc of Shiite power through the region from Iran through Syria (Assad is Shia) to Hezbollah in Lebanon (also Shia). The Shia are viewed by many in the Muslim world, which is overwhelmingly Sunni, much the way Protestants in the 17th century were viewed by the Catholic Church, as a minority which has broken old traditions, cultural patterns, and loyalties. All of the great reformers of Protestantism were viewed by the Catholic Church as heretics, and as many Protestants as possible were disposed of in bloody persecutions like the Holy Inquisition or the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. It is actually the politics and attitudes of the Shia, rather than this or that minor difference in theology, which makes them unwelcome to the folks running Saudi Arabia, much as was the case with the Reformation and Rome, the rulers of Saudi Arabia being in general about as genuinely religious as many of the old hedonistic popes in Rome.

Some observers, early in the American occupation, predicted that Iraq would crumble into three rump states, and to some extent their expectations have proved perceptive. It is not clear that America would have been entirely averse to that development since it would have eliminated a state which might one day again possess the strength to oppose Israel. Saddam Hussein held Iraq together through ruthlessness towards any who were opposed or questioned his central authority, but he did represent more than a simple bloody dictator. He was also building something of a modern secular society with public institutions serving welfare needs, more rights for women, and the advance of education and science – in many ways, his Iraq was the most advanced state in the Arab world, and undoubtedly the growing middle class his policies helped create would have brought democracy one day after his death. The American invasion smashed all of that, leaving little of which to be proud and three regions pulling in different directions. To the degree Maliki has again tried to impose a will on the situation, he naturally has not been popular. And his efforts to work with Iran, a natural and powerful regional ally for him to turn, have made him loathed in Israel and Saudi Arabia.

ISIS, whatever the exact paths from its origins, represents just one more of the rag-tag groups that Saudi Arabia and Turkey, working under the close eye of the United States, introduced into Syria to topple Assad in an engineered civil war. We have many reports of ISIS members with British or American passports. The past Benghazi, Libya fiasco, never explained by Washington, was part of these efforts, the murdered American ambassador running a black operation to collect weapons and radical fighters to ship to Turkey for insertion into Syria when he was caught in what intelligence agencies call “blowback,” a group of those with whom he was dealing turning on him, viewing an available American ambassador as perhaps a more worthy target than Assad. ISIS has expanded its horizons to include Iraq, and it has been encouraged and assisted to do so by the Saudis.

Why do jihadist types hate Assad enough to go there risking their lives? Apart from the natural attractions for some young men of adventure, war, and escape from rules, it is because Assad, like Hussein, actually represents some progressive, modern developments in a large Arab state. He has at his disposal fewer resources, not being a major oil producer like Hussein’s Iraq, but, within the limits imposed on him, Syria exhibits secular tendencies and some openness to modern trends. The great irony of the region is that the very states with which Israel keeps the best relations are absolute ones doing all they can to dampen social progress, places like Saudi Arabia or Egypt.

ISIS is a perfect mechanism for two American goals, the first being to assist in the disposal of Maliki, something which would make Israel very happy because it would cut the Iran connection. Second, ISIS can be used as an excuse for American air attacks into Syria, perhaps even the insertion of limited ground forces there. Assad and the Syrian army have foiled the elaborate secret effort to topple him, and a great opportunity, from America’s point of view, stands to be lost if some additional effort is not made. ISIS being chased into Syria by American jets and Special Forces may just be an opportunity not to be missed: attacks on Syrian forces staged as hot pursuit of repulsive ISIS fanatics. And the fanatics, having served their purpose from America’s point of view, will be slaughtered too. Of course, none of this has anything to do with the welfare of the Syrian people who have endured countless horrors as though their country were a dump site for the toxic wastes of some great corporation.

ISIS has been given waves of publicity for its ferocity and barbarism, but as with all such publicity, we must make allowances for inflated claims. We do have reports that in villages where residents ran from ISIS, they are returning and being treated decently. Would anyone return to place occupied by a wild band of cutthroats? If such a force shows up at a town or village where there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the Maliki government, it is not hard to see how the locals might run, but how do we explain reports of those who ran away being welcomed back?

The key factor as to whether Maliki can stop ISIS is the loyalty of the army as well as local populations, and that is not certain at all. It is extremely likely that strategic payments to soldiers and others are being made to secure results like those of the early ISIS victories, the funds coming from Saudi Arabia. Soldiers running and leaving behind modern tanks when confronted with a mob in Japanese pick-ups are not credible otherwise. Remember, Iraq is a place where pallet-loads of freshly-printed United States’ hundred dollar bills disappeared in countless payments and bribes to silence various groups active in the violent wake of America’s so-called victory. It is the way the place has worked for a decade of corrupt American influence.

A high Israeli official was quoted recently saying it was Iran’s influence that is most dangerous in the region, not that of ISIS. Of course, that should tell us a great deal. In this part of the world, Israel’s views count for far more than those of all the other countries put together, at least, so far as the United States’ government is concerned, the ridiculous lopsidedness in that reflecting the best Congress campaign funding can buy.
Spain: Defend Abortion Rights! FEMEN Topless Protest at Catholic Church
22 Jun 2014
The Catholic Church in Spain, and around the world, works to restrict abortion rights. FEMIN is a direct action propaganda group. They seek to spread their ideas widely by putting on dramatic protests that may be seen by many.
Click on image for a larger version

Byoa7DZihG.jpg
Spain: Defend Abortion Rights! FEMIN Topless Protest at Catholic Church
Click on image for a larger version

aFhhBEP2Dx.jpg
Spain: Defend Abortion Rights! FEMIN Topless Protest at Catholic Church
Click on image for a larger version

EFs9ZR7d0S.jpg
Spain: Defend Abortion Rights! FEMIN Topless Protest at Catholic Church
( June 13, 2014 ) Sextremists of the international movement FEMEN, have burst into the main altar of the Almudena Cathedral in Madrid to protest against the advance of Gallardón’s law about abortion in Spain, that is imposing a new measure where the woman who aborts is economically punished by a fine.

Coinciding with the day in which the General Criminal Council meets to make a decision about our right to decide, the activists have chained to the crucifix of Juan de Mena of the altar under the slogan "abortion is illegal, let's take the altar". According to the new law, if they take our right to abortion and we have no clinics or hospitals where do it safely, we will return to obscurantism and hiding. This is why FEMEN proposes and encourages all Spanish women to assault its churches and its cathedrals, to recover by force what the government is removing by force: our right to choose!

If they do not respect our freedom, do not respect their temples! A sacred place for a sacred right! We cannot wait any longer, we have to react to this Spanish State of the modern Inquisition. Torquemada would be proud of Gallardon, who has taken his relay, taking any pro-abortion woman as a criminal.
Abortion is a right, women’s body is women’s freedom. This is just one step in our holy war for our rights! Thier crucifixes don’ t frighten us, nor your prisons, women will continue to have abortions legally or illegally. But we will not consider the second one!

Abortion is sacred!
IF ABORTION IS ILLEGAL, WOMEN WILL TAKE THE ALTAR!

http://femen.org/gallery/id/327
see details of the march at Facebook
see also The hypocrisy of Human Rights Watch

and this video debate on DemNow - June 11, 2014

"Human Rights Watch, one of the world’s largest and most influential human rights organizations, is facing an unusual amount of public criticism. Two Nobel Peace Prize laureates, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel and Mairead Maguire, and a group of over 100 scholars have written an open letter criticizing what they describe as a revolving door with the U.S. government that impacts HRW’s work in certain countries, including Venezuela. The letter urges HRW to bar those who have crafted or executed U.S. foreign policy from serving as staff, advisers or board members. Human Rights Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth has defended his organization’s independence.
We host a debate between HRW counsel
Reed Brody [at left below] and Keane Bhatt, a writer and activist who organized the open letter."





video/photos-No new US war on Iraq protest-Harvard Sq.
19 Jun 2014
Click on image for a larger version

no new war on iraq-harvard square 6-18-14--6.jpg
Harvard Square-Cambridge, Mass.-June 18, 2014:
About 40 anti-war activists, from Mass. Peace Action,
United For Justice With Peace, and other peace
organizations, staged a protest against any new
U.S. attack on Iraq.New England Cable News and
Channel 5 WCVB were there covering the protest.

I took some video and photos:
video:
http://youtu.be/pXuDXqfk8Ak

photos:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/protestphotos1/sets/72157645247412515/

There will be a bigger protest this sat.6/21 at 1pm
outside Park St. T station in Boston.
Click on image for a larger version

no new war on iraq-harvard square 6-18-14 (2).jpg
no new war on iraq-harvard square 6-18-14 (3).jpg
Click on image for a larger version

no new war on iraq-harvard square 6-18-14--7.jpg