Thursday, March 24, 2016

*****On Passing Left-Wing Political “Wisdom” To The Next Generation-With The Lessons Of The 1960s In Mind

*****On Passing Left-Wing Political “Wisdom” To The Next Generation-With The Lessons Of The 1960s In Mind

From The Pen Of Frank Jackman 

 

One of the worst excesses, and there were many although made mostly from ignorance and immaturity and were moreover minuscule compared to the conscious policies of those in power who we were opposing, that we who came of political age in the 1960s were culpable of was our sense that we had to reinvent the wheel of left-wing political struggle. Mostly a very conscious denial and rejection of those thinkers, cadre and organization who had come before us and whom were disqualified from the discourse by having been worn out, old-timey, or just ideas and methods that we had not thought of and therefore irrelevant. The expression “throwing out the baby with the bath water” may seem a cliché but serves a purpose here. Most of the time back then until fairly late, maybe too late when the tide had begun to ebb toward the end of the 1960s and the then current and fashionable anticommunist theories proved to be ridiculously inadequate, we turned our noses up at Marxism, and at Marxist-Leninist ways of organizing the struggle against the American beast.

I can remember more than a few times when somebody identified him or herself as a Marxist that I and the others in the room would groan audibly. Occasionally, as well, taking part in some of the shouting down exercises when the political disputes became heated. Part of the problem was that those who organizationally claimed to be Marxists-the Communist Party and Socialist Workers Party and to some extent the Progressive Labor Party were following political lines that were far to the right (right being relative here in the context of the left-wing movement in this country) of the politics of those who considered themselves radical and revolutionary youth. Those organizations far too eager to traffic with what we called respectable bourgeois forces who were part of the problem since they helped control the governmental apparatus. (I won’t even mention the moribund Socialist/Social Democratic organizations that only old laborites and “old ladies in tennis sneakers,” although that might be a slander against those nice do-gooder ladies, followed as the expression went at the time.) I know, and I know that many others at the time,  had no time for a look at the history books, had nothing but a conscious disregard for the lessons of history, good and bad, that we thought was irrelevant in seeking to build the “newer world.” (Strangely, later after all our empirical experiment proved futile and counter-productive, quoting, quoting loudly and vehemently  from this or that book, by this or that thinker, this or that revolutionary or radical became the rage. Ah, the excesses of youth.)               

Of course not everybody who came through the 1960s passed through any left-wing political school. Despite the nostalgia, despite the now puffed-up claims that we had this or that decisive effect on history, especially these days with the commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the fall of Saigon in 1975 and the trotting out once again of the overblew claims that the American anti-war movement stopped the Vietnam War rather than the heroic struggles of the people of Vietnam, the number of the young who got catch up more than marginally was significantly smaller that the photographs, videos, and remembrances of the times would suggest. A case in point is my old friend Sam Lowell, from my growing in Carver times whose longtime political trajectory I want to highlight in this sketch.

Highlight to provide something, I am not sure what, perhaps a cautionary tale, to what appears to be the makings of the next “fresh breeze” coming through the land that another Carver corner boy, the late Peter Paul Markin, would harangue us with on lonely Friday nights was coming. The big turn in the environmental movement, the fight for better conditions for young workers (and old) epitomized by the “Fight for $15” movement and above all, the bedrock struggle of the “Black Lives Matter” movement portends some new awakening and we old-timers who have kept the political faith have something about all of that early experience which may push those struggles forward. Here’s Sam’s story and see what you think:   

 

Sam Lowell when he was young, when he was coming of age in the 1960s along with his hang around guys at Jimmy Jack’s Diner on Main Street in Carver, did not give a “tinker’s damn” (Sam’s term which he would endlessly utter especially when the late Peter Paul Markin would start talking about what was going on outside of the Jimmy Jack corner world) about politics, about the fate of the world, about the burning and pressing issues of that day nuclear disarmament, black civil rights down South (he if anything had the Northern white working class prejudices inherited from his parents and relatives using the “n” word to refer to blacks for a very long time), and the exploding war in Vietnam. Sam’s world, like many guys of that time, like now too as far as anybody can see, was about girls or sex or name the gender combinations, above all about the music of the times, about what is now called the classic age of rock and roll (the folk music minute of that period which Bart Webber tried to get him interested in was, is, a book sealed with seven seals and he still grinds his teeth when any of us who hang with him still mention that genre).

Sam, declared by his local draft board exempt from military service as the sole support of his mother and four younger sisters after he father had passed away suddenly of a massive heart attack in 1965, had pretty much kept his head in the sand about the war, probably supported the war against demon communism as much as anybody in town who was not directly involved in the escalation of the war. That is until one of his hang around guys, Freddie Callahan, Jack’s younger brother, had lain down his head in some rotted jungle in some unpronounceable hamlet in the Central Highlands of Vietnam in late 1967 and who would later have his name placed on that black granite down in Washington, D.C. which would bring a tear to Sam eye every time he visited it despite his complete change of heart about the war.

The war, the hellish flare-up and destructiveness of the war had not been Freddie’s fault, it had not been Freddie’s war as Sam was at pains to explain when he did get active in the anti-war movement and people around town thought that he was being disrespectful of Freddie’s memory and of the flag, actually probably more the flag until very late, maybe about 1972 when even the American Legion types in town saw the writing on the wall, some of them anyway.

Bart Webber was the first to take his slightly held anti-war feelings to the holding up the wall in front of Jimmy Jack’s Diner night but he was facing the draft himself in 1966 so Sam had not taken his plight to heart. It really had been Freddie’s death that got him thinking, Freddie whom he had known since fifth grade when his own family had moved to Carver from North Adamsville when the shipbuilding trade there bottomed out and his father sought work in the new electronics plant just built up the road from Carver. Got him thinking about lots of things that did not add up in the world, the world of people just trying to get by without being shot at, or shot up by friend or foe.

One day, maybe in early spring 1968 in any case sometime before summer of that year, Sam had gone to Boston about thirty miles up the road from Carver on some business when he was walking near the Park Street subway station and a young guy about his age in regulation long hair (Sam’s was short although long for Carver young adults just then and commented on at Jimmy Jack’s by the older crowd going in for the old-timers’ blue plate specials and gung-ho guys who had no truck with “fairies” and “hippies”), unkempt beard, blue jeans and sandals, a picture of heaven’s own high priest hippie who handed him a leaflet for an anti-war rally sponsored by Students for a Democratic Society that was going to take place on the Common later that afternoon. (That was the notorious SDS that every right-thinking American believed, including Sam a little before Freddie’s death, as they could not understand kids who seemed to have everything going for them including draft exemptions were so rebellious unless some unknown source was prodding them, as the agents, paid or unpaid, of Moscow or China or someplace antagonistic to the interests of the United States. Every time an SDS rally was broken up by the cops, or mass arrests occurred, those believers breathed a short sigh of relief).     

The guy in hippie garb pressed the issue, something Sam thought was odd since in his experience these hippie types were too laid back doing dope and sex and listening to acid rock to bother about politics usually saying that to get involved only “encouraged” those politicians who had depended on free-wheeling unpaid volunteer youth to campaign for them. That drug, sex and rock and roll were okay with him although he had not been into the dope scene then but rather the traditional Carver Friday and Saturday night down by the cranberry bogs drinking cheap whiskey scene, a scene that Carver guys had been doing since time immemorial at the bogs from what he had heard.

This dippy hippie started yelling at him that it that it was his “duty” to attend the rally and help “stop the fucking war.”  Something in that common language “speech” made Sam take notice and he asked the hippie where he was from. He answered from Lynn, a very working class town on the North Shore of Boston, and told Sam, who blushed a little at the information, that he had already been in the Army, had served in Vietnam and had had enough of seeing his buddies killed or otherwise “fucked up.” Sam then out of the blue mentioned the death of Freddie Callahan, something he had never talked about except with the guys at Jimmy Jack’s, and the hippie told him that he had better get his ass to the rally before half their generation went up in smoke.

Sam pleaded business but that afternoon and early evening as the sun went down in Boston Sam was no longer “not political.” And Lance Jones, the hippie who had “recruited” him was there that afternoon and many times later to make sure that he did not backslide, and to give him the “skinny” on what was really going on in Vietnam and whose interests that commitment was serving. Sam and Lance (and others) would do many things together, sit-in at draft boards (Sam uneasy about that given his own status as exempt but Lance said everybody counted in the struggle), rallies, blocking highways and every other kind of civil protest against the damn war.

The defining moment, the moment Sam saw that the movement was ebbing, was becoming ineffective as a way to stop the “fucking war” as even he was prone to express his outrage at the constant bombings and constant lies about the situation, was down in Washington D.C. on May Day 1971 where there was a separation in the movement between those who wanted to endlessly built, presumably, larger mass rallies to show the people’s war weariness and those who decided it was time for more militant in-your-face tactics when the proposal was to “stop the government, if the government did not stop the war.” Sam had gone with the militants, a decision he has since never regretted although not for the outcome of the event itself which was an unmitigated failure but because of the enormity of that failure he had to think through things a bit more carefully, think more strategically.

He had been manhandled and arrested by the cops the first day out as the governmental forces far outnumbered and were more effective in containing the mass than that mass of people had been in evading the waiting cops and troops. Sam had spent a week in detention in RFK Stadium, a goddam football field as he would always tell everybody afterward, for his troubles (although he tempered his remarks about the stadium after the coup in Chile in 1973 where those militants were not merely harassed and detained but jailed for long periods or shot death out of hand in many cases). 

Sam, Lance, Jack Callahan, Frankie Riley, me, maybe a couple of other guys did other things too, things like taking those continent-wide hitchhikes to the West Coast, the rock concerts, all of the stuff that those who had broken from the old expected cookie-cutter, if in Sam’s case only partially and slowly since he was not sure that the whole thing had not been a dream, and he had those family responsibilities although they lessened as his sisters came of age and left the house and his mother re-married to a good guy who ran a tool and die shop in town and had government contracts for high precision machine work. But it was funny thing about Sam, a thing that was not apparent when he hung around Carver in high school but once he was convinced that he needed to do something he stuck with it (he would later tell anybody who would listen that “sticking with it” included his two drawn out failed marriages beyond repair).

Sam, after that debacle in Washington, had settled in for the long haul, had listened to what Lance had to say about needing to organize better, get more substantial allies. Gave a glance at Marx and some other thinkers who knew what they were talking about if you wanted to  effect real change and not just play at the thing for kicks, or for something to do while you are in school or on the loose, had read some and while for a long time he had his misgivings about taking his political cues from around the edges of rational politics, politics that he and his family, his neighbors, his corner boys had dismissed or worse stigmatized as “commie” talk which still hovered over his thinking. But Sam had been the first in the group to sense in the mid-1970s, particularly after the fall of Saigon and the close of the Vietnam era which had almost split the country in two, that the Garden of Eden was going to be postponed for a long time, that the tide had ebbed just as Bart Webber had sensed the rising tide in the mid-1960s.

But Sam stayed with the commitment to serious political change, to right some wrongs, to be a stand-up guy when some egregious governmental decision reared its ugly head. Stayed with it far longer that Lance who wound up going to school and becoming a CPA, longer than Bart who decided writing law briefs was easier than sitting around with about twelve people dedicated to changing the world and projecting when the next great mass upsurge would occur. Stayed with longer than Frankie Riley who also was drawn to writing legal briefs although he made a comeback in the lead-up to the first Iraq war in 1991. Longer than even the late Peter Paul Markin who had totally lost his moorings, let that “wanting habits” hunger that all the Jimmy Jack’s hang out guys had near the surface of their lives get the best of him and got caught up in the down side of the dope trade and wound up in a back alley face down under mysterious conditions in Sonora down in Mexico after a dope deal went bad. Yeah, those were not good years

So Sam faced the next few decades doing his best to keep up the good fight, working mainly with ad hoc committees that would rise and fall over specific issues like the effects of the “Reagan revolution” in this country, the struggles in Central America throughout the 1980s, the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, that first Iraq war in 1991, and a laundry list of other causes great and small which filled his political life in hard times. But always kept his eyes open and ears to the ground to see if some new version of that 1960s experience would get some wind in its sails as new generations got caught up in the whirlwind of trying to right the world’s wrongs. He knew that the 1960s experience could never be exactly replicated, that each new generation would come to understandings in its own ways and forms, did not believe that a lot of 1960s stuff should be replicated but he did believe that another wave would come, believed in that vision for a long time. But when, damn it.

One of Sam’s worries as he got older and got more concerned about the future, especially in the post 9/11 world of the early 2000s, got much more concerned about the possibilities of a socialist future if not for him then for later generations as the American body politic took one of its prolonged turning in and against itself was that there would be no one to pass on whatever accumulated political wisdom he and his dwindling band of aging 1960s sisters and brothers had been through. No one to make sense of the political battles won and lost, no one to pick up the skills necessary to organize any effective opposition to the fierce predatory appetites of the American imperium, or maybe better said, any opposition at all as the post-2003 anti-war landscape demonstrated. Most importantly no one to learn how to avoid the mistakes of the past, mistakes made, unlike the American government, mostly out of willful ignorance, foolhardiness and hubris but certainly avoidable. Avoidable since a great if fairly obvious lesson from his own experiences had been that uprisings against the government, against the social norms of the day are short and precious opportunities not to be squandered by willful ignorance, foolhardiness and hubris.       

Sam’s youthfully derived certitudes had taken a hammering in the process of the reactionary counter-offensive that erupting in the mid-1970s as the spirit of the 1960s rapidly dissipated, and took a decisive turn right under the auspices of the Reagan Revolution. The self-serving, self-promoting, social Darwinist view of society systematically laid out in that period has held a full head of steam since then as everyone almost daily has his or her nose rubbed in the hard fact that most people are not getting ahead while the bourgeoisie, the economic royalists, what did one wag call them, oh yeah, “the one-percent” with all the guns, prosper with no sweat.  That ethos had never really abated despite a couple of promising uprising blips around opposition to the second Iraq war in 2003 which evaporated after the hellish bombs began to fall in earnest in Baghdad and after the world financial meltdown in 2008 and the subsequent short-lived and anarchistic Occupy movement of late 2011.

So Sam had more recently begun to feel that feeling in the extreme,   the fear that there would be nobody to pass the torch to, nobody in the American body politic to learn a couple of things about past left-wing struggles and organizational efforts to attempt to “tame the monster.” Began to wonder if what he believed had not been an idle thought or some kind of self-induced paranoia.

Over the previous several years he had given the immediate reasons some thought as he began to realize that the generation after his which was the logical place to have passed that information onto never in the aggregate cared much about his kind of politics, had turn tail and gotten caught up in the “Reagan revolution” or after witnessing what happened to the ‘60s crowd ducked their heads, seriously ducked their heads when the deal went down. He had also become pretty sanguine about prospects for the generation after that, the grandkids, who seemed preoccupied with “Me” and with looking down toward the ground with their technological gadgetry and their ethereal “social networking” tweeter. But of late he was not so sure he should have been ready to throw in the towel but a new gathering storm, or what old Bart Webber, who he had run into recently in town for the funeral of a brother, had called “the fresh breeze” was still in its embryonic stage.

Sam had had to laugh at one point after a small demonstration of few hundred in Boston’s Park Street on the Common, the historic spot for such activities, against the escalation of the war in Afghanistan in the early days of the Obama administration  (one of the “surges” that was supposed to secure “victory” and which in the final analysis led to more doors in more villages being kicked in and the United States’ action acting, once again,  as a “recruiting sergeant” for ISIS-type organizations). That demonstration drew a cohort young people, people who had not previously been out in the public square but who were bewildered by a “peace” American President, a Nobel Peace Prize winner to boot, sending more boots on the ground after he had told the nation that the best American course was to withdraw from that benighted country. Of course the usual dwindling crew of AARP-worthy older types, the ones that his old friend Pete Markin had called when they were young the “little old ladies in tennis sneakers, Quakers up-tights, and assorted harmless do-gooders” back in the Carver days when he didn’t give a damn about politics and now here he was a “little old man in tennis sneakers” carrying on their seemingly utopian struggle.

An unusual combination indeed. The sly laugh part though was his realization that if there was any new action, any seeking of the “newer world” as that same Markin liked to called it comparable to the 1960s, that it would be the grandpas and grandmas and the grandkids linked up against the world. He was okay with that if that ever happened but after that initial burst of young energy faded he got increasingly more morose about that prospect, and the handing of that goddam torch.

Like with a lot of things in the world of politics, particularly left-wing politics where due to the smallness and isolation of those forces there is tendency to have to react to events not of your own making, the reaction by governments, particularly the United States, following 9/11 with its attempt to institutionalize the national security state and to seek vengeance at any target foreign or domestic that it considered dangerous. No question the scariest time of his political life, the only time he felt the full heat of physical threat from the average citizen whom he assumed usually view people demonstrating about anything as mere cranks and weirdoes was in the aftermath of the frenzied American bombing campaign and troop occupation in Afghanistan in 2001 right after 9/11 when he had with very few others had organized a small, a very small demonstration in opposition to the bombing campaign at Park Street and took more menacing guff from passers-by than he had ever encountered before. Those were dark days when some locally well-known committed peaceniks dependable in fair weather favored folding up the tent rather than face the hostile streets, and no question they were hostile, were suddenly not available to rally.

Like Sam said he hoped the later Occupy movement which arose phoenix-like out of the ashes of the world financial crisis but that fizzled fairly quickly and that sent Sam into another bout with what the hell, no who the hell was going to lead the struggle, who among the young who of necessity with their energy and sense of wonder drive all the great movements, was going to step forward. He felt at that time that he would have no problem taking a back sit in the struggle if the new blood came along.   

Here is a funny thing, a quirk of politics. Everybody Sam talked to, young and old, understood that the social tinder underlying American society only needed a little push to go wild. Knew that as a result of the vast increase in income inequality, knew the weight of the endless wars on the budget and human resources   was at a breaking point, knew that people, a lot of people, did not feel they were getting ahead in life always something that will steadily enflame people. So Sam, and they, the ones he talked to and talked to him knew something had to flare up. But didn’t, for a long time didn’t. Then in a rather quick succession the environment, the fight for a living wage and the fight against police brutality and the fight against the hard racism against black people were taken up by the young, or rather sections of the young from say late 2013 to now.

Not everything that has been proposed, not every action has made political sense but there is some motion toward upping the struggle, getting back into the street politics that Sam had been pushing for some time in various committee meetings since the portals of government seemed to be tone-deaf to what was going on down at the base of society. Here is the kicker though. The kicker for now as things are still in flux, still have a way to go before they are sifted out. Things may be in flux and need sifting out but Sam is starting to get and uneasy feeling already. Sam went to a meeting of those who wanted to respond to the various egregious police shootings of the past years around the country and tried to make some points, give some perspectives. He was rather unceremoniously dismissed by the young leaders there, both the young black and white leaders, as an old-timey too talkative guy.

The young, like in his generation, appear ready to seek to reinvent the wheel. Appear too as well to be as naïve about the enemies they are facing as they were in his generation. But what bothered Sam most of late has been that the young in their identity political way are “ageist” if such a term makes sense, are disrespectful of his right to have his say since when the deal goes down he will be on the barricades right beside them. Sam thought that even with the slights he could still say-“Ah, to young was very heaven” though as old Wordsworth had said in his sunnier days.    

Out In The Be-Bop 1950s Hollywood Novel Night- Norman Mailer’s “The Deer Park”-A Review

Click on the headline to link to a Wikipedia entry for Norman Mailer’s The Deer Park.

Book Review

The Deer Park, Norman Mailer, Putnam, New York, 1955

At one time, like in the case of Ernest Hemingway, I tried to get my hands on everything that Norman Mailer wrote. In his prime he held out promise to match Brother Hemingway as the preeminent 20th century male American prose writer. Mailer certainly has the ambition, ego and skill to do so. In his inevitable search to write the great American novel, at least for his generation, I do not believe, however that he was successful. The Deer Park is an early attempt to tackle that task and while there are flashes of brilliance there is too much self-consciousness about making a great American novel on Mailer’s part and that gets reflected in the tinniness of his characters, male and female, to break away from a fairly ordinary look at a slice of the American pie, the Hollywood bright lights and back streets side.

Certainly the subject matter of the novel is an almost surefire way to get attention. Put Hollywood in exile in the desert, wayward movie stars, starlets and wannabes, and a male lead who is not sure what he wants to be but is sure that the stars shine for him somewhere and you have the makings of a great American novel. Throw in, almost obligatory for a ‘fifties’ novel and for a self-described leftist like Mailer , the tensions surrounding the ‘red scare’, Hollywood- style, and the cultural clamp down that shameful blacklist episode imposed and one should be onto something. But, strangely, Mailer gets bogged down in the sexual escapades of the main characters and never gets to the heart of the real question that the novel poses- How the hell does one safeguard his or her creative expression without selling out to every conceivable pressure that comes along. It did not work, but nice try Norman.

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

The Struggle For Qualtiy PublicEducation Continues...

Fight Budget Cuts to Public Education!
View this email in your browser
RSVP on Facebook

Build a Political Revolution Against the Cuts

Rally and March on the Final Budget Vote!

5 PM - Blackstone Square
TOMORROW, WEDNESDAY MARCH 23RD
1525 Washington St, South End

Socialist Alternative supporters,

Tomorrow night, join a rally and march on the final Boston Schools meeting to tell the Mayor that there's NO ACCEPTANCE TIL THERE ARE NO CUTS!

The inspirational student walkout on March 7th has shaken Boston’s political establishment. It has already had an enormous impact, as we can see with Mayor Walsh taking back the part of the budget cuts aimed directly at high schools. It's also shown what's possible when we get organized and take action to fight back. However, despite the heroic actions of the students, the majority of the budget cuts are still planned on being implemented. Parents and workers from the community have to take decisive action to throw our weight into the fight.

By taking mass collective action as working people and students, we can exert further pressure on a divided School Committee and the Mayor to halt the cuts altogether. It can also lay the foundation for a broader movement of the 99% in Boston that not only stops cuts, but can go on the offensive to fight for higher wages, better jobs and other things that matter to all working people.


WE CALL FOR:

• Tax the billionaires to fund our schools
NO corporate handouts on the backs of students and
workers; expand school programs and facilities; NO layoffs or school closures

End high-stakes testing
NO to testing systems that set up students to fail

• No new charter schools
Keep the Charter cap, NO to the privatization of education

• For an elected and fully accountable School Committee
For oversight of public schools by a School Committee democratically elected from BPS parents, students and the unions

• For a political voice of the 99%
Students, parents and teachers should run candidates against any politicians that support budget cuts and other attacks on working people and youth
Twitter
Facebook
Website
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list

Spring Walk For Peace From Leverett Massachusetts To Washington, D.C. -March 4-April 28, 2016 -Join Us

Spring Walk For Peace From Leverett Massachusetts To Washington, D.C. -March 4-April 28, 2016 -Join Us


 

From The Partisan Defense Committee- Reinstate Fired Chicago Transit Union Steward!

Workers Vanguard No. 1085
11 March 2016
 
Reinstate Fired Chicago Transit Union Steward!
(Class-Struggle Defense Notes)
 
The Partisan Defense Committee sent the following protest letter to Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) president Dorval R. Carter, Jr. on February 29.
 
The Partisan Defense Committee joins the many voices calling for the immediate reinstatement of bus driver Erek Slater. Mr. Slater is an elected Executive Board member of Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 241 and union steward for the North Park Garage. The CTA fired Mr. Slater for “insubordination” for defending the rights of a union member whom he represents. The CTA had previously targeted Mr. Slater for protected union activity including speaking as a union representative at a company safety meeting and informing co-workers of a rally on behalf of the Chicago Teachers Union. His firing is an outrageous attack on ATU 241 and an attempt to bully the transit workers and their union in the midst of contract negotiations.
We call for the immediate reinstatement of Erek Slater with full back pay.
* * *
We urge others in the labor movement to take up the defense of Erek Slater. Protest letters should be sent to Dorval R. Carter, Jr., President, Chicago Transit Authority, 567 W. Lake Street, Chicago, IL 60661 and copied to Amalgamated Transit Union Local 241.

In Boston-Take The Fight For $15 To The ......Banquet Hall

In Boston-Take The Fight For $15 To The ......Banquet Hall



From The Maine Peace Walk Archives- Turning Swords Into Ploughshares In Portsmouth, NH



From The Partisan Defense Committtee- Let Rachel Wolkenstein Defend Her Client!

Workers Vanguard No. 1085
11 March 2016
 
Let Rachel Wolkenstein Defend Her Client!
(Class-Struggle Defense Notes)
 
The state of Pennsylvania is attempting to revoke the right of attorney Rachel Wolkenstein to represent her client Corey Walker. This is a clear act of political retribution for her work in defense of Mumia Abu-Jamal, America’s foremost political prisoner. As an out-of-state lawyer, Wolkenstein was admitted to practice in Pennsylvania pro hac vice (for this case only) in September 2014 in order to represent Walker, who is fighting to overturn his murder conviction. In a 6 November 2014 motion that raised several legalistic pretexts, the Pennsylvania attorney general’s office explicitly cited Wolkenstein’s political views as a reason to revoke her admission to practice and to prevent her from representing her client.
The attorney general finds “intolerable” Wolkenstein’s “beliefs that...the judicial system is an organ of repression and racism controlled by, and subservient to, elite capitalists.” That the racist judge Albert Sabo had her dragged from court in handcuffs and jailed while she was representing Mumia Abu-Jamal in August 1995 is presented as “evidence” of Wolkenstein’s “disdain and disrespect” for the courts! Her former associations with the Spartacist League and the International Communist League are also raised. This is an attack on the right to counsel and on all leftist lawyers!
For decades, Wolkenstein was staff counsel for the Partisan Defense Committee, a class-struggle, non-sectarian legal and social defense organization which champions cases and causes in the interests of the whole of the working people. Wolkenstein served as co-counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal from 1995-99 when he was on death row. She pursued an investigation that unearthed much new evidence of his innocence and more details of the state frame-up against Mumia, an award-winning journalist, former Black Panther and supporter of the MOVE organization.
The PDC sent the following February 8 protest letter to Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane on the eve of an evidentiary hearing on the motion.
* * *
The Partisan Defense Committee strongly protests your attempt to deny Corey Walker his Sixth Amendment right to the attorney of his choice. Mr. Walker has made absolutely clear his desire that attorney Rachel Wolkenstein represent him in his challenge to his conviction.
Your motion to revoke attorney Wolkenstein’s pro hac vice status as the attorney for Corey Walker is pure McCarthyism. The motion vilifies this attorney for her political views and zealous advocacy on behalf of her clients. The attempt to remove attorney Wolkenstein because of her efforts to uncover the injustices suffered by renowned prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal and others she has represented is not only unconstitutional but outrageous.
We demand that Corey Walker be represented by the attorney of his choice.

A View From The Left-Australian Union Tops Push Chauvinism Against Trade Pact-Defend China!

Workers Vanguard No. 1085
11 March 2016
 
Australian Union Tops Push Chauvinism Against Trade Pact-Defend China!
 
The following article is reprinted from Australasian Spartacist No. 228 (Autumn 2016), newspaper of the Spartacist League of Australia.
Following over ten years of negotiations, in June last year government officials from capitalist Australia and the Chinese bureaucratically deformed workers state signed off on a China-Australia Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA). The agreement was approved by the Australian Senate in November. Under ChAFTA, Beijing has agreed to slash tariffs for Australian coal, mineral resources, seafood, wine, pork, sheep, dairy and other commodities over the next two to nine years. If implemented, the agreement will also allow for the expansion of Australian banks, insurance operators, tourism and private education, aged care and healthcare providers in China.
For its part, the Australian government has agreed to increased Chinese investment in Australian agriculture, resource projects and a greater role in infrastructure development. Chinese projects in excess of $150 million [US$110 million] will be able to import labour into Australia under Investment Facilitation Agreements (IFAs). IFAs are similar to Enterprise Migration Agreements that allow companies to employ overseas guest workers on large resource projects. While the Australian capitalist rulers are celebrating ChAFTA and salivating at the prospect of greater economic penetration of China, the deal precipitated an ugly chauvinist backlash from within the union movement. A cornerstone of the xenophobic union tops’ campaign has been opposition to the clause allowing overseas workers into Australia on special visas to work on Chinese projects. Counterposed to the nationalist outlook of the pro-capitalist union leaders, the future for workers in Australia lies in common class struggle with the Asian working masses as part of the fight for a socialist Asia.
The signing of ChAFTA takes place in the context of a growing U.S.-led imperialist campaign to promote capitalist counterrevolution in China, the largest remaining country where capitalism has been overthrown, a workers state albeit deformed from its inception by the rule of the parasitic Chinese Communist Party (CCP) bureaucracy. Against China, the imperialists are pursuing a combined strategy of economic pressure and military encirclement. Under the Obama administration’s “pivot” to Asia, repeated U.S. military provocations in the South China Sea have been accompanied by a push to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). If ratified, the TPP would be the largest trade agreement in history. Encompassing one third of all global trade and deliberately excluding China, the TPP is an economic bloc against that country. It is designed to undercut China’s influence in the Asia-Pacific and beyond. In a clear indication that the TPP is the economic analogue to the U.S.’s flagrant military provocations, last year U.S. defence secretary, Ashton Carter, declared “Passing TPP is as important to me as another aircraft carrier.”
Dominated by U.S. imperialism, and consisting of nine other capitalist states, including Japan and Australia, and the Vietnamese deformed workers state, the TPP aims to drive up exploitation of labour across the board while increasing imperialist domination of dependent countries. There is an urgent need for common class struggle against the TPP by the working masses around the globe. Key to our proletarian internationalist opposition to the TPP is unconditional military defence of the Chinese deformed workers state against internal capitalist counterrevolution and imperialist attack.
As for ChAFTA, we recognise that the Chinese and other deformed workers states—Laos, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba—have both the right and often the necessity to formalise economic relations with the capitalist world through trade pacts and joint ventures with Western and Japanese corporations and governments. Greater integration into the world capitalist market not only creates opportunities to build up their economies but also brings counterrevolutionary dangers. A key question is the terms and the method of implementation of such trade deals and the extent to which the workers states are prepared to protect their economies against the influence, penetration and fluctuations of the world capitalist market.
It is possible for the Chinese bureaucracy to make agreements with capitalist powers that can benefit the deformed workers state (e.g., by increasing the supply of iron ore and other minerals, or by helping to neutralise U.S. attempts to economically isolate China). But, opposed to a revolutionary internationalist perspective, the bureaucracy pursues such benefits in its own narrow, nationalist way. Thus the Chinese Stalinists help prop up the global bourgeois order. This ultimately undermines and endangers the gains of the revolution. However, while the Chinese bureaucracy is not motivated by proletarian internationalism, neither are its international investments driven by the relentless pursuit of profit as is the case with the imperialist powers (see “Hue and Cry Over China’s Role in Africa,” Workers Vanguard No. 987, 30 September 2011).
Why China Is Not Capitalist
In 1949 China experienced a profound social revolution as the peasant-based People’s Liberation Army (PLA) led by Mao Zedong’s Communist Party overthrew the imperialist-backed bourgeois-nationalist regime of Chiang Kai-shek’s Guomindang (GMD). The PLA’s victory destroyed the Chinese capitalist state and smashed the rule of the Chinese bourgeoisie and landlords. It freed China from imperialist subjugation and further ignited anti-colonial and revolutionary struggles in Asia. The subsequent creation of a collectivised, planned economy laid the basis for an acceleration of industrial development and brought enormous social gains to China’s worker and peasant masses, particularly women.
However, unlike the 1917 Russian Revolution, which was made by a class-conscious proletariat guided by the internationalism of Lenin and Trotsky’s Bolshevik Party, the Chinese Revolution, based on the peasant masses, was shaped by the absence of the Chinese workers struggling for power in their own right. Thus, from its inception, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was bureaucratically deformed by the rule of a nationalist petty-bourgeois caste resting atop the collectivised property forms issuing from the revolution. The CCP patterned their regime on the Stalinist bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, which had usurped political power from the Soviet proletariat in a political counterrevolution beginning in 1923-24.
Like their Kremlin counterparts before them, the Chinese bureaucrats promulgate the fantasy that there can be “peaceful co-existence” with imperialism. From Mao’s time to now, the CCP’s policies have expressed the nationalist Stalinist dogma that socialism—a society of material abundance marked by the disappearance of classes—can be built in a single country. This is completely counterposed to the Marxist program of world proletarian revolution—the prerequisite to creating an internationally planned economy that would eliminate scarcity.
From the beginning, the development of a collectivised economy in China was immensely distorted by bureaucratic mismanagement. In 1978 when Deng Xiaoping came to power he introduced “market reforms” which he called building “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” These reforms were an attempt, within the framework of Stalinist bonapartism, to use the whip of the market to spur modernisation and overcome stagnating productivity engendered by bureaucratic commandism. In addressing “market socialism” in Eastern Europe in the 1980s, we wrote:
“Within the framework of Stalinism, there is thus an inherent tendency to replace centralized planning and management with market mechanisms. Since managers and workers cannot be subject to the discipline of soviet democracy (workers councils), increasingly the bureaucracy sees subjecting the economic actors to the discipline of market competition as the only answer to economic inefficiency.”
— “For Central Planning Through Soviet Democracy,” Workers Vanguard No. 454, 3 June 1988
Over time, the Chinese regime has invited imperialist investment into the country, given up the state monopoly of foreign trade and instituted market mechanisms. However, despite major capitalist inroads, the economy as a whole is not organised on the basis of capitalist production for profit. The core of the Chinese economy remains collectivised; state-owned enterprises dominate strategic industrial sectors and much of the surplus they create is channeled into the banks and treasury of the workers state. Testifying to the superiority of a collectivised economy over capitalist production for profit, China’s economy continued to grow rapidly during the 2007-08 capitalist world economic meltdown.
Since the 1949 Revolution, China has gone from being a backward peasant country to a majority urban one, lifting some 600 million people out of poverty and creating a powerful industrial proletariat. China nonetheless remains a country of extreme contradictions, with great backwardness and a widening disparity in wealth between the richest and poorest. On mainland China there is a nascent capitalist class. Although they have no cohered political leadership and do not hold state power, this bourgeois layer poses a threat of internal capitalist counterrevolution. At the same time, hundreds of millions of workers as well as poor peasants wage countless strikes, protests and riots every day against the consequences of bureaucratic misrule. The social contradictions in China are growing and, when they blow, either capitalist counterrevolution or workers political revolution will be posed.
The Chinese workers need a leadership whose perspective is to oust the Stalinist bureaucracy and replace them with the rule of workers, peasants and soldiers councils (soviets). A government based on soviets and led by a Leninist-Trotskyist party would expropriate the new class of domestic capitalists. It would seek to utilise the world market to accelerate economic development. Based on defence of the collectivised economy, it would re-establish a central plan and restore the state monopoly of foreign trade, while renegotiating the terms of foreign investment in the interests of the working people.
However, even the most farsighted communist leadership would not be able to overcome the limits facing China in a world dominated by powerful imperialist states. The establishment of a revolutionary internationalist government in China would spark revolutionary upsurges from Korea to Japan through to the oppressed masses of Southeast Asia. Ultimately, only the overthrow of capitalist class rule internationally, particularly in the advanced imperialist centres of North America, West Europe, Japan and Australia, can lay the material basis for the all-round modernisation of China as part of a socialist Asia.
Imperialists’ Anti-China Crusade
Far from peacefully co-existing with the Chinese deformed workers state, the imperialists are committed to returning the Chinese masses to the unfettered imperialist exploitation that existed prior to the 1949 Revolution. The Chinese deformed workers state is a strategic target for the imperialists. This can be seen with the growing U.S.-led military aggression against China, which occurs in tandem with the strengthening of military alliances with imperialist Japan and Australia, and the impoverished neocolonial Philippines. Hardly a week goes by without some new imperialist military provocation directed at Chinese land reclamation and construction projects in the islands of the South China Sea. These islands are of strategic importance to China’s military defence and its ability to defend critical shipping lanes. Behind the imperialist gunboat diplomacy is the threat of embargo and war.
U.S. sabre-rattling against China has been met with some disquiet by sections of the Australian capitalist class. With China being Australia’s largest trading partner and much of Australia’s trade passing through the South China Sea, the bourgeoisie are hardly enthusiastic about instability in that region. Thus the Australian government has tried to walk a diplomatic tightrope, repeatedly indicating that they would not take sides while simultaneously asserting their “right to passage” through the disputed sea lanes, in keeping with U.S. military provocations. Whatever the diplomatic doublespeak, in any military conflict between China and the U.S., the Australian bourgeoisie would back the U.S. to the hilt.
While Australia’s economic penetration of China (including under ChAFTA) is not in itself a significant contributor to the development of an indigenous bourgeoisie or the undermining of the collectivised property forms, its part in the U.S. military alliance against China is significant. Sharing the U.S.’s strategic aim for capitalist restoration in China, the Australian imperialists play an aggressive role as a gendarme under the U.S. umbrella, while pursuing their own predatory neocolonial interests. U.S. military and spy bases in Australia target the deformed workers states in Asia, particularly China. In a transparent “message” to China, the Australian federal government recently announced that it will recruit an additional 5,000 personnel to run a more potent force of new warships, submarines, aircraft and army equipment. Canberra’s intention to beef up its military and their ongoing military assistance to Indonesia and the Philippines are all aimed at countering China’s influence in the Asia-Pacific as part of the counterrevolutionary U.S./Australia alliance. We stand for class-struggle opposition to the Australian imperialist military and in the tradition of our revolutionary communist forebears—Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht and V.I. Lenin—we demand not one person, not one cent for the Australian imperialist military! As proletarian internationalists we say: Down with the U.S./Australia alliance! All U.S. military and spy bases out now!
The Chinese government has responded to imperialist military belligerence and economic pressure through a concerted effort to upgrade and modernise its military and by major economic initiatives like the Beijing-centred Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the “new Silk Road” project. Much to the chagrin of the U.S., there has been a stampede of countries joining the AIIB. These include European imperialist powers and rusted-on lackey allies like Australia. Unlike imperialist-dominated institutions such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, who dictate how countries they invest in should be governed and starve out those who don’t toe the line, the AIIB will reportedly offer loans for infrastructure development at below-market interest rates and with no strings attached.
To further undercut U.S. imperialism’s attempted containment and to facilitate Eurasian economic integration, China’s “new Silk Road” projects multiple trading routes linking Asia with Western Europe through a vast system of pipelines, rail, air and maritime routes as well as high-tech communications systems. At the same time, in direct counterposition to the TPP, the Chinese regime is pushing for a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP). Speaking at an APEC conference in Manila late last year, Chinese president Xi Jinping made a direct link between the FTAAP and the “new Silk Road.” The former, he said, would reduce barriers to trade across the whole region and the latter would facilitate the physical movement of goods through infrastructure connectivity. ChAFTA and the many other free-trade agreements that the Chinese bureaucracy has signed with Southeast Asian and Pacific nations fall within this overall framework.
Trade and economic relations between workers states and a hostile capitalist world are not just about economics. History shows that they can and have been used to play one imperialist/capitalist country off against another. Having established a state monopoly of foreign trade, the early Soviet government in Russia under Lenin and Trotsky’s leadership pushed hard to institute economic relations with the West. Beginning in 1918, with Soviet Russia under siege from counterrevolutionary forces and its economy under great stress, the Soviet government strove to establish foreign concessions in Russia and trade pacts with imperialist powers. Lenin energetically pursued a proposal by one Vanderlip (which he quipped was expressed with “the frankness, cynicism and crudity of the American kulak”) to open concessions for exploration of mineral resources on the Kamchatka peninsula. For Lenin this deal would not only have boosted the Soviet economy, but he also saw it as a way of stymieing Japanese encroachments in Siberia. In 1920, during the Soviet-Polish War, the Soviet Union began negotiations with imperialist Britain to conclude a trade pact. This resulted in strained relations amongst the Allied powers.
While revolutionary Marxists recognise that a workers state might be compelled to strike trade deals and diplomatic agreements with capitalist states, this must not be confused with the task of the communist party to lead the struggle for international proletarian socialist revolution. Unlike the Stalinist Chinese leadership which, in pursuit of “peaceful co-existence” with imperialism, has helped to perpetuate the capitalist-imperialist system on a global scale, the early Bolshevik regime was motivated by genuine working-class internationalism as part of the fight for world revolution.
Union Tops Reprise “White Australia” Nationalism
The Laborite trade-union misleaders are a key obstacle to proletarian internationalist struggle in this country. This is exemplified by the chauvinist outburst they led against ChAFTA, along with their ALP [Australian Labor Party] parliamentary brethren. Through leaflets, media advertisements and public rallies, the union tops called on the government to enact stronger measures to defend “Aussie” jobs and to “Stop the China FTA.” A well-publicised TV advertisement produced by the CFMEU construction union shows a “typical” Australian worker telling his son that under ChAFTA the Australian government is “letting Chinese companies bring in their own workers” and that “you won’t even get a look in.” At a Sydney rally, an Australian Workers Union spokesman reportedly bellowed, “good fair dinkum [genuine] Aussies are being done over,” and under ChAFTA, “There’ll be no work in this country. It’s going to end up with the Chinese….”
The arch-protectionist Australian manufacturing union (AMWU) leadership have been in the forefront of this reactionary campaign. They railed against “cheap Chinese imports that are unfairly subsidised and do not meet Australian standards.” The AMWU’s pernicious anti-China protectionism lines workers up behind the imperialist rulers against the Chinese deformed workers state. Encouraging anti-China xenophobia, the union leaders’ anti-ChAFTA campaign reflects the Australian imperialist rulers’ fear and hatred of the Asian masses and fuses it with deep-seated anti-Communism. While the union tops cynically deny that their campaign is hostile to overseas workers, their divisive nationalism has clearly become a magnet for reactionaries. The fascistic “Party for Freedom” (PFF) joined Sydney’s thousands-strong union rally against ChAFTA last July. So attractive has the union misleaders’ campaign been for racist anti-union elements like the PFF, the union tops shamefacedly felt compelled to include a “racism not welcome” disclaimer on their anti-ChAFTA rally leaflets.
The union leaders’ appeals to the government to defend “Australian jobs” are a cover for their prostration before the capitalist rulers’ attacks on unions, jobs and conditions. While hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs have been shredded over the last seven or eight years, the union misleaders have not lifted a finger to mobilise their base in a class-struggle fight to defend workers’ livelihoods. Instead, appealing to governments to subsidise “local” industry and to only use “Australian-made” materials on government projects, they have repeatedly sold out workers’ struggles in the bosses’ courts.
Their outcry against ChAFTA continues a years-long campaign against the employment of overseas guest workers on temporary 457 visas. To be sure, some unions, under pressure from their multiracial base and more class-conscious members, have on occasion defended and organised such workers. However, as is the case with their anti-ChAFTA campaign, the union tops’ overall “Australia-first” approach to immigrant labour has not been about securing more jobs or any gains for the working class as a whole but about distributing jobs according to the nationality of the workers. Such chauvinism towards overseas workers reprises the worst traditions of the Australian labour movement. It recalls the very roots of Laborism, which lie in explicit rejection of class struggle and the adoption of “White Australia” racism. The exclusion of “cheap Asian labour” was the basis of the ALP’s class-collaborationist chimera of bringing prosperity to its white Australian working-class base through domestic capital ownership and the exploitation of Australia’s natural resources.
The pro-capitalist economic nationalism that underpins the Laborite worldview means protecting the Australian bosses’ profits while lining workers up behind the capitalist rulers against “foreign” rivals and against workers overseas. What’s desperately necessary is a concerted fight to organise overseas workers into the unions with full union wages and conditions. A class-struggle leadership of the unions would oppose deportations and champion full citizenship rights for all who have made it here. This would include access to social services, healthcare and education.
As we stated a few years ago:
“In opposition to the chauvinism promoted by the union bureaucracy it is necessary to make clear that it is not overseas workers that cause unemployment but the bosses and their irrational capitalist system. A class-struggle leadership of the unions would fight layoffs through using the weapons of the class struggle, such as occupations and mass pickets, while demanding a shorter workweek at no loss in pay to spread the available work around. It would adopt special measures to recruit the most oppressed (including 457 visa workers), recognising that this would strengthen the organised working class as a whole. Bringing new layers of immigrant workers into the unions would crucially forge a living bridge to proletarian struggles overseas.”
— “Unions Must Defend ‘Guest Workers’!” ASp No. 220, Winter 2013
The presence of Chinese workers on Chinese development projects in Australia, so vehemently opposed by the union tops, could potentially provide a vital point of contact between the Australian and Chinese proletariat. This would be especially important should proletarian political revolution in China (or socialist revolution in Australia) be posed.
Reformist Left: Lawyers for Laborite Chauvinism
Tailing the union tops, and opposed to the necessary political struggle against Laborism, reformist groups such as the Communist Party (CPA), Socialist Alliance (SA) and Socialist Alternative (SAlt) backed the union campaign against ChAFTA. The CPA and SA enthusiastically built the anti-ChAFTA union rallies. SA long ago wrote off the PRC as capitalist, while the anti-communists of SAlt deny that a social revolution ever took place. Both make common cause with imperialist-backed counterrevolutionary elements against China.
As for the CPA, their Australian nationalism wins out against any tilt they have towards China. In Stalinist tradition, they always stand ready to push class-collaborationist nationalism. While cynically decrying “xenophobic responses...being used to attack China,” the CPA nevertheless align themselves with the campaign in support of “the just demands of workers in Australia for the protection of local jobs, rates of pay and conditions and action in support of those rights” (Guardian, 22 July 2015). Meanwhile, SA claimed that these rallies were “being promoted by the unions as anti-racist” and that the unions were “also calling for any foreign workers on temporary visas to be employed under Australian conditions,” completely disappearing the union tops’ chauvinism (Green Left Weekly, 25 July 2015).
While backing the union campaign, SAlt offer some mild rebukes of the union leadership’s slogans on ChAFTA without offering any proletarian program of struggle or analysis of the wretched role that Laborism plays in the workers movement. To the contrary, covering for the union bureaucracy, they claim that the trade unions “have been a great force against racism in this country” (Red Flag, 17 September 2015). While some of the prouder traditions of unionism in Australia—too few and far between—have involved anti-racist struggle, the bitter truth is that from its “White Australia” beginnings until now, the procapitalist union misleadership, in thrall to the ALP, have relentlessly peddled nationalism and protectionist poison to their working-class base. In covering for the role of the union bureaucracy, outfits like SAlt, SA and the CPA play their own small role in the syphilitic chain that binds workers to the capitalist system. These reformists cover for the “left” union tops, who in turn cover for the ALP, whose role when in government is to administer racist Australian imperialism on behalf of the bourgeoisie.
Against the chauvinism of the union tops and the ALP to which they are connected, it is necessary to forge a new class-struggle leadership in the unions. Such a leadership would begin with the understanding that the interests of labour and capital are irreconcilably counterposed. The ALP is a bourgeois workers party—thoroughly pro-capitalist in its program and leadership but based on the trade unions. A revolutionary workers party must be built through splitting the proletarian base away from this procapitalist leadership.
In contrast to the reformist left, our model is the Russian Revolution of October 1917. The young Soviet workers state led by Lenin and Trotsky’s Bolshevik Party was based on the principle that workers of the world should unite against their capitalist oppressors. In opposition to Laborism we seek to build a multiracial revolutionary workers party like the Bolsheviks. This party would be a tribune of the people, ready to take up the struggle against all manifestations of capitalist oppression as part of the fight to overthrow racist capitalist rule and establish a workers republic of Australia, part of a socialist Asia.

In Honor Of The 145th Anniversary Of The Paris Commune-On The Barricades- Theresa Dubois’ Journey.


In Honor Of The 145th Anniversary Of The Paris Commune-On The Barricades- Theresa Dubois’ Journey.




She had heard that they needed help over on Rue Martin, that the barricade work there had gone slowly and that if that barricade was breeched before completion then the whole northern front of Paris was in danger, was in danger from either the gruesome Germans, or worse, the vanquished Theirs government if it ever got its act together and tried retake Paris, retake their Commune, with or without German help. So she, Theresa Dubois, all of sixteen, all of sound working- class background, all of bright-eyed idealism and all of, well, all of fetching, fetching in non-revolutionary times when more than one stout-hearted working class gallant would take dead-aim at that fetching manner of hers. But these were revolutionary times, or Theresa acted on that premise and attempted, foolishly attempted, to hide that beauty beneath shabby boys clothing and unkempt hair. And nobody, no man young or old, at the  Rue Moulin barricade tried to do more that out- do each other in showing one Theresa Dubois what a great barricade builder he was.

But revolutionary fervor, revolutionary elan, and revolutionary idealism would all go for naught if that Rue Martin intersection did not hold and so Theresa and her younger sister, Louise, also dressed in boys clothing slipped away to the other desperate location.  Along the way, along the fifteen or twenty blocks it would take to reach Rue Martin before dark the sisters talked, mostly sisterly talked, girl talk in low voices about this or that young man who did, or did not, measure up on the barricade work at Rue Moulin but also as they drew nearer about what they expected, what they hoped for once they had secured their Commune. That got them to thinking about the new schools that were being talked about, the new schools where girls, girls like them, would be encouraged to learn, book learn, or trade learn as the case might be, and about the right to vote for women that seemed unbelievable just the previous year, and about having time to just sit along the Seine and daydream. [They also talked about whether the new government, or the doctors assigned to the problem, would be able to find a way so they didn’t have to deal with their “period” a cause of painful troubles for both girls. They weren’t sure that the government would be able to do anything about it. In any case they both agreed that they were too modest to ask anybody to anything about it even if they could.]                  

Upon reaching the Rue Moulin fortifications they were appalled by the sloppy and incomplete work previously done there. They immediately, with all the fervor of young revolution, went hither and yon to move the several young men who were dallying around the spot to get moving. And something in the manner of the young women (or the age- old sight of two women, young and fetching, in a man’s world) got the men moving.

Now barricades, at least in Paris, at least since the revolution of ’89 of blessed memory were something of an art form, something that in the best cases not only protected what they were intended to protect against unwanted intruders from whatever source but were hospitable as well. And so the sisters, Theresa in the lead, set about showing the young how to make their “new home” a new home. Logs and paving stones out front, varies wires, pickets, and ropes to retard any offensive advance from the opponent and behind overhangings to protect against all weathers. And then the furnishings (the young men had foolishly thrown many chairs helter-skelter on the pilings and were sitting on stumps) to make the place reasonable to while away the sentry duty hours.

When dusk settled in they stopped for the evening and one of the young men made some stew, which they all ate greedily. While sitting around the campfire that night to keep warm, Theresa noticed a young man, Laurent, a young man who had done much work strengthening the barricades once the two sisters took charge, was looking in her direction. And she flushed, was looking back…                  

From The Archives-Support Jobs For Justice