We are not to demand government action to lower their soaring prices. And if we do, corporations will punish us.





by Richard D. Wolff

More and more we hear that nothing can be done to tax major corporations because of the threat of how they would respond. Likewise, we cannot stop their price gouging or even the government subsidies and tax loopholes they enjoy. For example, as the oil majors reap stunning profits from high oil and gas prices, we are told it is impossible to tax their windfall profits or stop the billions they get in government subsidies and tax loopholes. There appears to be no way for the government to secure lower energy prices or seriously impose and enforce environmental protection laws. Likewise, despite high and fast rising drug and medicine prices, we are told that it is impossible to raise taxes on pharmaceutical companies or have the government secure lower pharmaceutical prices. And so on.

Such steps by "our" government are said to be impossible or inadvisable. The reason: corporations would then relocate production abroad or reduce their activities in the US or both. And that would deprive the US of taxes and jobs. In plain English, major corporations are threatening us. We are to knuckle under and cut social programs that benefit millions of people (college loan programs, Medicaid, Medicare, social security, nutrition programs, and so on). We are not to demand higher taxes or lower subsidies or fewer tax loopholes for corporations. We are not to demand government action to lower their soaring prices. And if we do, corporations will punish us.

Three groups deliver these business threats to us. First, corporate spokespersons, their paid public relations flunkies, hand down the word from on high (corporate board rooms). Second, politicians afraid to offend their corporate sponsors repeat publicly what corporate spokespersons have emailed to them. Finally, various commentators explain the threats to us. These include the journalists lost in that ideological fog that always translates what corporations want into "common sense." Commentators also include the professors who translate what corporations want into "economic science."

Of course, there are always two possible responses to any and all threats. One is to cave in, to be intimidated. That has often been the dominant "policy choice" of the US government. That's why so many corporate tax loopholes exist, why the government does so little to limit price increases, why government does not constrain corporate relocation decisions, etc. No surprise there, since corporations have spent lavishly to support the political careers of so many current leaders. They expect those politicians to do what their corporate sponsors want. Just as important, they also expect those politicians to persuade people that it's "best for us all" to cave in when corporations threaten us.

What about the other possible response to threats? Government could make a different policy choice, define differently what is "best for us all." In plain English, it could persevere in the face of business threats, and to do so, it could counter-threaten the corporations. When major corporations threaten to cut or relocate production abroad in response to changes in their taxes and subsidies or demands to cut their prices or serious enforcement of environmental protection rules, the US government could promise retaliation. Here's a brief and partial list of how it might do that (with illustrative examples for the energy and pharmaceutical industries):
1. Inform such threatening businesses that the US government will shift its purchases to other enterprises.

2. Inform them that top officials will tour the US to urge citizens to follow the government's example and shift their purchases as well.

3. Inform them that the government will proceed to finance and organize state-operated companies to compete directly with threatening businesses.

4. Immediately and strictly enforce all applicable rules governing health and safety conditions for workers, environmental protection laws, equal employment and advancement opportunity, etc.

5. Present and promote passage of new laws governing enterprise relocation (giving local, regional, and national authorities veto power over corporate relocation decisions).

6. Purchase energy and pharmaceutical outputs in bulk for mass resale to the US public, passing on all the savings from bulk purchases.

7. Seize assets of enterprises that seek to evade or frustrate increased taxes or reduced subsidies.

Laws enabling such actions either already exist in the US or could be enacted. In other countries today, existing models of such laws have performed well, often for many years. These could be used and adjusted for US conditions.

Of course, it is possible to create a much better basis than threat and counter-threat for sharing the costs of government between individuals and businesses. That basis would be established by a transition to an economic system where workers in each enterprise functioned collectively and democratically as their own board of directors. Such worker-directed enterprises eliminate the basic split and conflict inside capitalist corporations between those who make the key business decisions (what, how, and where to produce, for example) and those who must live with and most immediately depend on those decisions' results (the mass of employees).

One concrete example can illustrate the benefits of this alternative to the threat-counter-threat scenario. Corporations have used repeated threats (to cut or move production) as means to prevent tax increases and to secure tax reductions. Likewise they have made the same threats to secure desired spending from the federal government (military expenditures, federal road and port building projects, subsidies, financial supports, and so on). In effect, corporate boards of directors and major shareholders seek to shift tax burdens onto employees. Their success over the last half-century is clear. Tax receipts of the US government have increasingly come (1) from individual rather than corporate income taxes and (2) from middle and lower individual income groups rather than from the rich. In worker-directed enterprises, the incentive for such shifts would vanish because the people who would be paying enterprise taxes are the same people who would be paying individual income taxes. Taxation would finally become genuinely democratic. The people would collectively decide how to distribute taxes on what would genuinely be their own businesses and their own individual incomes.

***
Richard D. Wolff is Professor Emeritus at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst and also a Visiting Professor at the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University in New York. He is the author of New Departures in Marxian Theory (Routledge, 2006) among many other publications. Check out Richard D. Wolff’s documentary film on the current economic crisis, Capitalism Hits the Fan, at www.capitalismhitsthefan.com. Visit Wolff's Web site at www.rdwolff.com, and order a copy of his new book Capitalism Hitshttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif the Fan: The Global Economic Meltdown and What to Do about It.

from MrZine



Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!

transit is critical for all working people in Charlottesville, especially the lowest paid



by Brandon Collins for Charlottesville City Council
Early on in this campaign almost everyone I have spoken to has given thoughts on ways to improve public transit in Charlottesville. There are 2 major groups of people that we want to give access to public transportation- those who are transit dependent, and those who own cars but who we want to get on the bus instead. My approach to transit benefits both. In general, the City has done a fairly adequate job on the bus system (CAT). I am transit dependent. I ride the bus a lot, and have certainly appreciated the improvements made over the past few years, particularly regarding consistency. But we can do more, our residents deserve it, our earth deserves it, and our foreign policy is completely barbaric due to our dependency on our culture of the automobile. Looking through the executive summary of the Transit Development Plan (TDP) it seems that council too has been interested in expansion. There are still many things that should be done, and we can do
these on a shorter timeline than council has offered so far.

Some key points to how I think about transit:
-transit is critical for all working people in Charlottesville, especially the lowest paid
-expansion of CAT means more job opportunities
-any new roads or road expansion will discourage new riders
-demand is hard to measure if we don’t already provide the service
-we have to expand hours of service, and offer full service on every day of the week
-mixed-use development around bus stops is a healthy way to build a sustainable city
-we must build a culture and society that is centered on mass transit

Late Night Service! Everyone I have talked to is in favor of this. We need to extend service until 3:00 am. The benefits to this are immense. First, Charlottesville has large amount of restaurant workers. These workers often make only $2.13 per hour, taking a cab home every night eats up hours of the only paycheck they receive. Workers should have a safe way to get home at night. Late night service could seriously reduce drunk driving. Having more busses on the streets late night could encourage a reduction of crime, as people are more likely to avoid serious acts of violence and crime if busses are coming through every half an hour. Late night service would encourage more students to visit downtown. If necessary we could start with limited service late night, even just a trolley from Barracks Rd. to Downtown and back, though this is not the best option. In order for the entire system to benefit the more likely people are able to benefit from expanded
service.

Earlier starting hours- this goes hand in hand with late night service. If working folks can’t use the service to get to work, or to get home, they don’t use it at all. Too many people work early morning for service to not be offered early. A limited service could be a way to start this, but see above about how I feel about that. I support starting service at 5:30 am.

Route Expansion- to the Airport, the TDP 4-6 year plan has Route 5B extending to Hollymeade, just a step away from the airport, lets take it all the way to CHO, or ensure that CHO sends a shuttle to the Hollymeade stop. The Long Term Plan to 2035 includes CHO, but that expansion is not due to happen for a long time, why not make it happen now?

-to Crozet and Scottsville, a direct service shuttle might be one way to do this. Many residents of the city could benefit from employment opportunities in these places, it is a great trip for folks to make to visit these small towns, and the residents of those towns would have easier access to Charlottesville. This also encourages less commuting by car and single drivers on the roads. I also hope this would better relations between the city and the county.

-to the Regional Jail and Monticello High School, many people work at these two institutions, we need to make public transit an option for these workers, as well as the students at MHS and the released prisoners, and their families. This is a part of the TDP, and I’m glad to see it happening.

Frequency expansion- we’ll never know how much demand there really is until we make things easier, more convenient, and cheaper. Too many routes only happen on the hour, lets try making all routes on the half hour at least. We should also consider expanding frequency to every 15 minutes, similar to route 7 and the trolley, such as 10 (Pantops) and 1 (PVCC). We should also double up on trolley service on Friday afternoons 3:00 pm to 7:00 pm, the trolley is often overcrowded with students heading downtown and “corner” workers heading home. I have personally witnessed, on more than a few occasions, trolleys so crowded that they couldn’t pick up more riders. This problem adds to the already existing divide between townspeople and students.

Affordable Transit- rider generated revenue for CAT is around 10% of overall funding for the bus system. We should consider making more routes free, maybe all of them. This is obviously an incentive to create new riders, and a much needed break for transit dependent residents. Other things we could consider: free service for the times and/or days that expansion is set to occur to encourage ridership; free passes for any resident without a car; free passes for any resident with an income of less than $30,000 annually; personal property tax (car) waiver for car owners who purchase year long bus pass.

JAUNT- could use hours expansion, and completely free use for persons with physical or mental disabilities, senior citizens, and anyone receiving food stamps.

Park and Ride- there is a rumor going around that there already exists “Park and Ride” at various places in the city and county, but I sure cant figure out where they are. If such things exist we should be heartily promoting these. We should be building more park and ride spots as well, and actively promoting them, particularly on 29N and Pantops Mountain.

Continued Fleet Upgrades- The hybrid buses are working out well, I am looking forward to seeing our entire fleet made of hybrids and then transitioning to all electric as we head into the future. Technology is now at a point where this can be a reality and we can avoid the decades old failed attempt at an electric fleet. Hopefully there will come a day when we see a need for much larger buses, and many more of them!

Transit Riders Council- something that could be organized by riders, but a hand from the city could be helpful. The idea would be to self organize in our own interests. If supported by the city this would be a great place for CAT workers to also participate. Such an organization differs from CHART in that riders and workers would focus specifically on the issues they want to address rather than planning, and would need no city or county appointments.

The Transit Development Plan (TDP)- has an overall good approach, but like too many things in government, it relies on slow reforms and doesn’t necessarily approach the fundamental transformation of how public services are provided. We need to prioritize the environment and the needs of working people in Charlottesville and Albemarle and a large majority of people agree that mass public transit is a key component to having a better world. I would like to see a TDP with a greater vision and bigger ambitions. We can’t just take our time on these things, and if we expand piecemeal the effects will will be diminished. So, some comments, on the TDP:

-We must insure that funding for CAT continues, and is expanded. Federal grants continue to be available for upgrades, but those may not always be there. We can also supplement our system using city revenue. Projected increases for operational costs of the TDP expansions are modest, we can supplement funding using city revenue and barely notice. The state offered transportation fund can be used for transit, let’s do just that instead of using the funds for road expansions or new costly roads that directly work against the effectiveness and ridership of public transit. So often we lament the uneven distribution of funds in favor of new roads compared to the tiny amounts of money offered for mass transit, let’ s do something about that!

-1-3 year plan makes plenty of sense, lets add to it! Glad to see service out to Avon St. Extended and presumably to the jail and MHS. We should not reduce the frequency of route 21 (night service to Belmont).

-4-6 year plan, why not now? It could take time to make it happen, but let’s get moving in a big way, put people to work, and get residents excited about a big expansion. The longer we wait the harder it becomes in the future to reverse degradation of the environment, and more cars will be on the road. Development in the county and city will proceed based on cars and roads rather than on a suitable bus system. As stated above- 5B should also go to the airport. I am unsure what “simplified” night service means, hopefully that means full service.
-Long range service plan to 2035- finally some bigger ideas, but way far off in the future. Again the longer we wait, the harder it will be make the whole concept of mass transit a factor in creating the kind of world we want to see. In the year 2035 the city and county will be massively overdeveloped based on car travel, the needs of transit riders will have changed greatly. Let’s make some of these ideas a priority now, and have even more ambitious plans reaching for 2035, when I will be 61 years old, my daughter will be in her late thirties, our entire population will be in the habit of participating in a car based city rather than a better society where transportation is a collective effort. The amount of harm to the planet in that time could be the nail in the coffin for all of us. Scientists overwhelmingly agree that climate change is a reality and we are soon approaching the time when it is all irreversible. Warfare based on securing oil markets will increase in much greater ways than we already have. How about we get CHO service, park and ride, full (rather than expanded) Sunday service, late night and early morning service, route expansions, by 2015?

That is when my term on city council will be over :)



Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!

“community controls of economic frameworks that retail and produce services and goods and political institutions that affect our lives.”



The Socialist Party of California announced today that it will host an evening with founder, chairman, and national organizer of the Black Panther Party, Bobby Seale, on Saturday, June 25th at 6pm, at the Los Angeles Workers Center, 1251 South Saint Andrews Place in Los Angeles, California. This special event is open to the public. Seating will be available on a first-come, first-serve basis. There is no cover charge. Donations are welcome.

Mr. Seale’s program for the evening will focus on “community controls of economic frameworks that retail and produce services and goods and political institutions that affect our lives.” His speech will be followed by a Q&A session and a brief meet-and-greet. Mr. Seale will also autograph copies of Black Panther and Bobby Seale books and DVDs, which will be available for sale at the event.

This event came to fruition after a recent Socialist Party meeting, where Local leaders from Los Angeles County, Orange County and Riverside County discussed hosting a revolutionary leader to address the needs of the community, motivate the working class to take power back into their hands, and provide continued inspiration to those who are currently working on behalf of the people. Bobby Seale, one of the nation’s most dynamic defenders of civil rights and champions of social power, was an obvious choice.

The Socialist Party of California has drawn and continues to draw inspiration from Bobby Seale and the Black Panther Party’s example of community organization and social control. From the free breakfast programs for children and the armed citizen patrols to the medical services and Ten-Point Program, the Black Panthers, under the leadership of Bobby Seale, achieved a level of community power since unseen in the United States.

Please join the Socialist Party of California and Bobby Seale on June 25th.

###

About the Socialist Party of California
The Socialist Party of California, a state chapter of the Socialist Party USA, is a multi-tendency revolutionary socialist organization committed to radical democracy, which rejects the current system where all workers are exploited in the name of profit; production is ever-increasing along with manufactured consumer demand despite finite resources; distribution of goods and services is irrationally unequal; and where our system of economic oppression reinforces racism, sexism, heterosexism, and all forms of bigotry, creating false divisions among the people. For more information, visit www.socialistparty-california.org.



Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!

Though small, these cuts threaten to devastate critical support programs, further dislocating poor and working class New Yorkers.





by Billy Wharton

As thousands of protesters marched through Downtown Manhattan yesterday, I had a difficult task – explain why Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf was such a threat to GED students in New York City. The connection was not so straightforward, but May 12th was a day in which the parts of the City that normally operate in isolation were brought into comparison and conflict with each other. The more than 10,000 protesters made sure this was literally the case as bankers were forced to squeeze past housing rights activists and Wall Street “power-couples” shot disturbed glances at homeless rights advocates. It was a day for all the contradictions in our City to come face-to-face with one another.

I was positioned in Teach-in Zone 2, right on the edge of Pine and Water Street. My topic was education, but my approach was not typical of other education teachers. Most would discuss the high-profile cuts – big number layoffs for teachers and the next in the seemingly never ending gutting of the public higher education system. My focus was to look at smaller budget cuts. Though small, these cuts threaten to devastate critical support programs, further dislocating poor and working class New Yorkers.

My lead in was John Stumpf. He’s a dapper man who prefers dark suits that contrast with his gently graying hair. And Stumpf has a problem, a really serious one. One that I presented to the students at my open-air teach-in. How can you spend $8,500 an hour? That’s how much he received in compensation from Wells Fargo bank last year. The crowd shouted out all the typical working class fantasies – go on a long vacation, buy twenty pairs of jeans, pay off my student loans… Yet, none of these captured Stumpf’s dilemma. He simply cannot spend $8,500 an hour.

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. There is a plan for Stumpf and his fellow CEO’s. First, the cuts.

The education budget is clearly a target for Bloomberg. And with education we know which way the human feces rolls. The Federal Government has ended important funding streams to New York City’s education system. Simultaneously, budget-cutting New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo has also withdrawn funding from the system. And Mayor Michael Bloomberg has gone right along with them by proposing to cut $461 million from the system.

A good chunk of that comes from the previously mentioned teacher layoffs. These firings will send class sizes soaring – from today’s average of 21 students per class to 24 students after the cuts. Yet, the problem with education is about more than layoffs or class sizes. Bloomberg’s coveted charter schools are literally bleeding the public education system dry. In 2007, the charters and other private institutions received $1.1 billion in funding from the Department of Education. That number will climb to $2.6 billion by 2012. The NYC Independent Budget Office reports that, “growth in payments to nonpublic and charter schools over the two years [2010-2012] will outstrip the total growth of the DOE’s budget.”

All of these funds could be directed back into the public education system with the aim toward reducing class size and creating an education system based on learning instead of testing. But my question for the day was what happens to students, particularly youth, who become dislocated from this education system.

Bloomberg has a plan for them. It involves more cuts. There are currently 126 community-based programs that offer GED, English for Speakers of Other Languages and other Adult Literacy Courses. These programs rely on funding from the Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD). Last year, the funds in this line amounted to around $5 million. Bloomberg is proposing to cut this budget in half to $2.5 million. I work at one of these programs. Budgets are already really tight. Many programs will not survive these cuts leaving thousands of students outside of both the traditional and non-traditional education system. Just think, it would only take about 13 days of Stumpf style compensation to fund these programs.

Students in these non-traditional education programs need more than just an education. They also need jobs. However, given the current rate of youth unemployment and long-term patterns of discrimination a job may be hard to come by in the private sector. A recent study by the Community Service Society reported that a shocking 3 out of 4 African-American males age 16 to 24 are unemployed. Programs funded through the DYCD are therefore a crucial outlet for employment. These too are slated for cuts, to the tune of $3.2 million. Such cuts may jeopardize the City’s ability to receive Federal funding. If the cuts go through and the same numbers of youth apply for jobs, they will have only a 1 in 12 chance of receiving one.

This all leads to our Stumpf problem. While Bloomberg has become stingy with people looking for an education and with youth looking for a job, the fiscal floodgates have been opened to banks like Wells Fargo. Over the past fifteen years, Wells Fargo has received more than $122 million in tax exemptions and subsidies from the City of New York. If New York had actually collected these funds we could have funded ten years of adult education services or created thousands of more slots for youth employment.

Things get even worse at the Federal level. While most of us contribute upwards of 30% of our income to taxes, big banks like Wells Fargo don’t. They may have the legal status of a person, but they don’t pay taxes like one. Last year they paid the equivalent of a 10.4% tax rate, well below the 35% standard Federal tax rate. As if this wasn’t enough they also dipped into Bank Bailout funds – grabbing some $43.7 billion in public funds. All this resulted in $3.8 billion in profits last year, or $42 million in profits per day.

Stumpf loved all this. His personal compensation soared to $17.6 million, a figure that accounted for the $8,500 an hour problem he faces. He now makes 796 times what an average bank teller at Wells Fargo brings home every year. And his $17 million dwarves the budgets of most GED programs and could be used to improve the lives of thousands of youth in the City.

May 12th was a day to declare that the time when Wall Street and the Banks dominate our City without resistance has come to an end. We ended my teach-in with the chant – Wells Fargo! Pay your taxes! This was less a polite request and more of a demand that if their taxes were not paid, the next protest would escalate beyond just a teach-in. You see there are many ways to resolve a Stumpf problem – some include teaching, others more direct forms of action.

***
Billy Wharton is a writer, activist and the editor of the Socialist WebZine. His articles have appeared in the Washington Post, the NYC Indypendent, Spectrezine and the Monthly Review Zine. He can be reached at whartonbilly@gmail.com. Become a FAN on Facebook.





Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!

Instead, labour is weaker than before and capital stronger. This should be recognized as the product of a generational defeat of the labour movement




An interview with Sam Gindin

Andony Melathopoulos (AM): Clearly these are not very good times for public sector unions, not only in Canada but worldwide. What characterizes the current situation? How does it differ from what unions have faced historically and how they could respond, not only in the 1990s, but during their formation in the 1960s?

Sam Gindin (SG): In the 1960s, there was an explosion of the public sector and also, an environment dominated by militancy. But militancy can only take you so far. You have to develop the capacity to challenge structural constraints, and that wasn't on the agenda for labour. The result was its defeat, and, simultaneously, the strengthening of capital. At the time we didn't see the scope of this defeat – our present moment has really shown its scale. One would think the current crisis resolutely delegitimizes capital and the financial system, creating an opening for the radicalization of labour. Instead, labour is weaker than before and capital stronger. This should be recognized as the product of a generational defeat of the labour movement, itself connected to the militant movements of the 1960s.
From Strength to Defeat

The crisis then is one stemming from the initial strength of labour and its collapse rather than as a crisis of international competition. Any gains made by the Left in the 1960s restructured production in such a way that is not without relation to present-day capital. Throughout the 1960s, the organized working-class in Europe and North America continued to pose a threat to capitalism, so much so that capital and the state spent a decade trying to figure out how to respond. Even the United States, the supposed core of the global capitalist economy, encountered its limits, such as inflation. So by the end of the 1970s, it became apparent the working-class must be broken, and it didn't just happen overnight. It continued throughout the 1980s and 1990s, because you never know how far you can go, how many gains fought and won in the past can be lost.

October 14, 1976 - the General Strike in Saint John, New Brunswick.

So the 1980s and 1990s are much of the same story, the story of the weakening of the working-class and the deepening of capitalism. Even as the United States pushes further toward being the dominant global power, it struggles through the deep recession well into the 1980s, as capitalism emerges at its most dynamic. By the 1990s, capital is integrating eastern Europe and China, and India emerges as a dominant power. Fewer and fewer speak of leaving capitalism, a common consideration even in the problematic ways it was espoused in the 1960s. Workers' expectations were once quite militant about not wanting the world to continue the way it was. But over time, they have begun to adjust. To maintain your lifestyle, you begin to work longer hours, the kids stay at home longer. What used to be collective struggles began to be solved by individuals. By the late 1990s, the limits of such an approach became incredibly apparent. People began to borrow, using their
home as an asset, getting more into debt. So the 1990s are not just about the defeat of labour, but that defeat as the product of a reconceptualization forced by the state of politics, about the complete breaking down of expectations, the reintegration of people in capitalism as individuals rather than a class. Thus capitalism emerges from the 1980s and 1990s dynamically restructured and restored, and labour and the Left leave feeble.

AM: You describe this period largely as a response by capital and capitalists. What about the politics of the Left through this period? Are they adequate? I mean, historically hasn't the Left been able to politicize the most dynamic edges of capital reproduction in a way in which it seemed unable to do between 1960 and the present?

SG: That's a good question. There are forms of resistance, but in the absence of emancipatory politics, they end up becoming part of the defeat. In 1976 we had a general strike in Canada. The question becomes, what happens if you have a general strike, everybody is intoxicated by their power, and the next day, nothing happens? There wasn't a politicization, much less the onset of a revolution. The 1960s prove exemplary in regards to why the Left ought not exaggerate its power: cultural revolution and anti-war protests do not fundamentally challenge capitalism. While unions could have taken advantage of the moment of capitalist growth to ask for changes in working conditions and hours, they could not challenge capitalism. And while militancy creates a certain space for the Left to raise other questions, nobody was thinking about what unions are, what their inherent limitations are, or what kind of political organizations we need in the long-term. The Left
took for granted the existence of a strong working-class rather than recognizing that its survival was tied to the fate of working-class politics.

So while the 1960s was a period of militancy, we shouldn't exaggerate how far left it was. There was left activism, but there is a difference between being active against the war in Vietnam, and raising the question of socialism. Let me make it more radical. There is nothing spontaneous about workers becoming revolutionary. There is reason to think that they should collectively resist, and then there is reason to believe that they might form organizations for that resistance. But unions are sectionalist organizations, and have no instinct toward the revolutionary. At one historical moment they might be militant, they might inspire, they might raise standards, they might develop confidence, and in another moment in history they might be ineffective, their response might be toward conserving their own existence. It can easily become ‘necessary’ to reproduce an organization and the conditions that produce that organization. How you break this cycle is
hardly objective.

I would characterize the moment right now not as one in which capitalism is legitimated by people thinking it's fair and democratic or that it creates a beautiful world. This might have been so once in capitalism's history. I think right now what reproduces capitalism in developed countries is that workers have actually achieved a lot, and the promise is that you can keep most of it if you do not protest. It's a conservative orientation. This is symptomatic of a fatalistic view toward changing the world altogether. I don't know that the Soviet Union's existence really inspired people to another alternative when I was active, but its failure did evoke the belief that nothing else was possible. You didn't have to believe in the Soviet Union, but when you saw that even those guys wanted to be capitalist, it was devastating. Fatalism allows for the lowering of expectations, for wanting to hang onto what has been achieved so far. This can't be overcome by
just talking to people, part of it is developing an understanding of the world, but to understand the world you have to feel like it can be changed. Not having organizations capable of expressing our frustrations, whether political organizations or unions, certainly contributes to this pessimism.

AM: Could you expand more on the connection between unions and politics? It seems in the present, union activity increasingly greases the wheels of the electoral success of the New Democratic Party (NDP, social democrats) and Liberal Party in Canada, or the Democratic Party in the U.S. At points in this conversation it seems that what you have in mind for an organized form of politics almost appears to be unions in themselves, yet you also suggest there are limits to how far a union movement can independently generate its own politics. What characterizes these limits?

SG: Unions can be involved in radical moments, but they certainly aren't able to revolutionize the world in the absence of a Left. Unions today are not in the place to offer spaces for people to listen to more radical ideas, to push political parties or to join them, but are busy just defending themselves, handling grievances, busy competing with one another within industries. But even in their best moments, unions are only a fragment of a much larger, complicated world. The rank and file need to be linked to a Left.

A major issue here is that you have to understand class, a class built for the purposes of transforming society. That doesn't happen spontaneously. Your experience as a worker doesn't teach you that, it teaches you dependency. Class consciousness requires an organization beyond even the most radical union, whose interaction with workers is about understanding their position in society and their links to others. That is the kind of organization you need, and without it, workers look to the union to be merely instrumental in maintaining the world as is. They look to a party in the same way, instrumentally and pragmatically, especially if a party doesn't even pretend to be radical. But even a party like the NDP, which in the short term will be of little help to the individual worker, doesn't have ambitions to be a radicalizing factor for workers. You look at the party and wonder, how does a party change the world without a newspaper or a journal where they
think through difficult things?

AM: To turn to the material base for class consciousness, there is a way in which organizing in the public sector, from the perspective of capital and its reproduction, limits its dynamism. As you pointed out, reducing public services were linked to regenerating the dynamic character of capital after the crisis of the 1970s. How can something that is increasingly unimportant to capital reproduction generate a progressive transformation from within it?

SG: Well, you certainly don't want to get trapped into arguing for a larger state but you do want to argue for a fight for a more democratic state and workplace. Right now, that kind of strategy, in itself, is only a strategy for giving unions a way to start a struggle rather than passively saying they can't do anything. It has some chance of building alliances and opening the door to begin thinking of issues in class terms, in terms of challenging who runs the workplace and questions about the priorities of the state. But, and this hasn't happened yet, the next step is to honestly and soberly say to people, if they want this they have to become more radical.

...class consciousness is when people know, and you can say to them honestly, ‘if you really challenge capitalism as a social system, there is going to be chaos and your living standards are going to fall, but it will be an investment in the future.’ When workers accept that then they are class conscious. When you tell them that when you get rid of capitalism everything will be better, that's not class consciousness.

This is also true in the private sector. You can't win in auto manufacturing unless you say, ‘we have a whole different vision of what this productive capacity should be used for.’ So in each sector you have people making demands that can't be realized unless they fight collectively. But even if they fight collectively, they can't win if it's just about militancy, so then you have to raise questions about capitalism. I don't think any demands take you anywhere automatically, but some allow more than others. You begin to raise questions about who decides what's valuable and what we think is valuable. You raise questions about production and consumption, and democratic planning – it raises a whole bunch of questions about what kind of economy we will have. To me class consciousness is when people know, and you can say to them honestly, ‘if you really challenge capitalism as a social system, there is going to be chaos and your living standards are
going to fall, but it will be an investment in the future.’ When workers accept that then they are class conscious. When you tell them that when you get rid of capitalism everything will be better, that's not class consciousness.

AM: There seem to be two issues for the Left to consider. The first are organizational problems in which the Left could, for example, create the means for workers to overcome the sectionalism of the union movement. The other is the issue of the Left being able to advance a utopian vision. But utopian impulses can misrecognize the potential of a given historical moment, and as you point out, organization can serve very instrumental ends. How would these two elements come together to make a reinvigorated Left?

SG: The question is, how do you build a movement that can begin to think in class terms to transform the conditions for unions, or in other words, how do you build a culture where socialists can influence rank and file workers without supposing that the line between political organizations and unions isn't real and necessary? I think we need to begin by appreciating the limits of unions, but also the potential. On the other hand, one needs a Left beyond unions, a Left that raises questions that wouldn't be addressed otherwise. The Greater Toronto Workers' Assembly (GTWA) is trying to think about how we create a new layer of politics beyond ineffectual coalitions, but we are really struggling because, while we do not want to begin from a point of immediate rigid consensus, we are beginning to recognize how crucial it is to develop a cadre of workers and activists who both embody intellectual understanding and are active. This is especially difficult if
you want to be honest about the obstacles we face as a movement, but the role of the Left is to challenge things, to reflect on our failures, to resist repeating the notion that the working-class are victims. The prime crisis for both labour and the Left today is the inability to rethink and reinvent our movements, our organizations. We end up reproducing archaic or inept modes of understanding and changing the world. So while I see some movements with good impulses, there aren't many that would be organizationally capable of producing a critical cadre, recruiting from the rank and file, developing socialists, promoting education.

AM: There is a way in which, for example, socialism, or Marxism, are subjective aspects of capitalism. They emerge from capitalism but are reflexive and, in their best examples, comprehend its emergence historically. Of course some types of socialism are romantic, and understand their task to mount a resistance to modernity, but some might consider it a transformative process, and not from the outside, but through capitalism. With this in mind I want to bring the conversation back to something you said earlier about patterns of consumption eroding working-class capacities. I wonder how much of this is more a product of the degradation of left politics and its growing inability to politicize the changing character of capital?

SG: Resistance does come from within capitalism, but for me, Marxism is the attempt to look at capitalism from a perspective that can imagine overcoming it altogether. When I watch comrades jumping from the socialist ship, when they seemed at one point to recognize that capitalism would produce nothing but catastrophe, I wonder what about the world convinced them otherwise. I think many have been disillusioned by the failure to fight for bigger things, a failure which has marked the labour movement for well over a quarter century now. This does seem to suggest that Marxists aren't immune to the cynical fatalism that there may be no going beyond capitalism. I wonder what caused this. Was it a degradation of the politics of the Left? Was it the increasing mindset that one is compensated through individual consumption, not through collective politics? I'm not exactly certain how things have gotten so bad, but it seems to me that without a Left that can keep
alive some sort of utopian impulse, some refusal that things must be the way they are, and without organizations that can collectively raise these questions, only individual responses, however unsatisfactory, ‘make sense.’

Because for workers themselves it seems very hard to develop alternative perspectives. When it became evident that the working-class would cease to experience increases in standards of living, reflecting social mobility from being on the street or on the picket line, the reaction was not social rebellion or political upheaval. Workers weren't radicalized – they responded to social problems by assuming the responsibility personally. Instead of understanding capitalism as systemically incapable of producing a world of equality or justice or extended freedom, a consciousness that would have to be politically contextualized and delivered, those demands were met by working longer hours, changing one's family structure and how it behaves, and debt, all of which only further the kind of dependency produced under capitalism. If you are so busy working you can't explore yourself intellectually or politically, the opportunities for a Left are slim.

AM: As you pointed out earlier one of the reasons why working-class neighborhoods surrounding the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) vote conservative is that there is a certain freedom that capital is generating that they do not want to lose. Wouldn't a socialist politics have to engage that subjectivity and understand the ways in which it could advance politically? Without historical consciousness, how could you tell that the ways in which things are getting worse aren't completely natural?

SG: Without a historical perspective, you would have to make sense of regression in other less effective ways. When times are bad I think people begin to get nostalgic for an imagined past. You get rid of a specific set of politicians and replace them, and for a while, you might have new hopes. That can keep you going for quite a while. You might even get quite militant, but the militancy is about returning to the past. The difficulty is to eventually convince people of the emptiness of a certain kind of life, without being patronizing. It's enormously difficult, because you are not actually presenting them with a tangible alternative. The role of the Left, then, is to be able to take advantage of a moment to politicize people.

AM: Would you agree that the questions arising from this process will not provide political clarification without a ruthless critique? I mean hasn't your experience been that many groups who already consider themselves anti-capitalist or working-class use these categories as a way to affirm their own practices, not to change them? Isn't it true, as Adolph Reed wrote, that “the opposition must investigate its own complicity”? Put another way, what does it say about the Left in the present if the only way to have a conversation about capitalism with activists is to put critique to the side?

SG: The starting point for reinventing the Left is first, to appreciate the extent of our defeat, and second, to acknowledge that we were not in fact that strong and effective before that defeat, that our defeat was produced out of the limits of our analysis and structures. This means that a ruthless critique of ourselves is fundamental. But this can't mean a retreat from activism until we've fully clarified the ‘right’ response. Critique and discussions must not occur just by talking among ourselves; self-examination must occur alongside engagement in struggles. Otherwise we're just talking to ourselves with no reality check.

The problem in bringing a wide range of people together in something like the GTWA is that the early focus is on developing working relationships and the fragility of those relationships means that any political discussions are very cautious and tentative – building bridges gets in the way of the critiques and discussions essential to building a new politics. I don't know a way out of this dilemma other than trying to ensure that such caution is transitional and that at some point the ‘risks’ of the harder discussions must be put on the table. We haven't gotten to that point yet in the GTWA. Some of these discussions have been forced on us where we plan events and have to get to the roots of why we don't agree on certain specifics. But the difficult discussions have not really started. Some think it will be impossible to do so without fracturing the organization, that people are too embedded in their current activism, whether in the movements or
unions, to seriously re-examine what we are doing. I think these pessimists are likely right, but the possibility that this may in fact work, or that we may learn something from the experience that leads to trying again in a more promising way, is good enough reason to work through the GTWA. I cannot think of an alternative way of working that is more hopeful. •

***
Sam Gindin is the Packer Chair in Social Justice, York University.

Andony Melathopoulos writes for the Platypus website, where this article first appeared (Issue 35, 1). This interview is a follow up to a teach-in last November at York University.



Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!

"Indignation is a start. You are outraged, you rise up, and then you see,"





by Josep Maria Antentas and Esther Vivas

There is no doubt about it. The wind that has electrified the Arab world in recent months, the spirit of the repeated protests in Greece, the student struggles in Britain and Italy, the mobilizations against Sarkozy in France . . . has come to Spain.

These are not days of "business as usual." The comfortable routines of our "market democracy" and its electoral and media rituals have been abruptly altered by the unforeseen emergence in the street and public space of citizen mobilization. This "rebellion of the indignant" worries the political elites, who are always discomfited when the people take democracy seriously . . . and decide to start practicing it for themselves.

Two years ago, when the crisis which broke out in September 2008 took on historic proportions, the "masters of the world" experienced a brief moment of panic, alarmed by the magnitude of a crisis they had not anticipated, due to their lack of theoretical instruments with which to understand it, and feared a strong social reaction. Then came the empty claims of a "refoundation of capitalism" and false mea culpas that little by little evaporated, once the financial system was shored up, in the absence of a social explosion.

The social reaction has been slow in coming. Since the outbreak of the crisis, social resistance has been weak. There has been a very large gap between the discrediting of the current economic model and its translation into collective action. Several factors explain this: in particular, fear, resignation, scepticism about trade unions, the absence of political and social reference points, and the penetration among wage earners of individualistic and consumerist values.

The current outbreak did not, however, start from scratch. Years of work on a small scale of alternative networks and movements, initiatives and resistance of more limited impact, had kept the flame of contestation alive in this difficult period. The general strike of September 29, 2010 also opened a first breach, although the CCOO and UGT leaderships' subsequent demobilization and their unconscionable signing of the social pact closed the path of trade union mobilisation and further discredited and lowered the prestige of the biggest unions among combative youth and those who have launched the Real Democracy Now camps.

Indignant!

"Indignation," very much the fashion thanks to the pamphlet by former French resistance fighter Stéphane Hessel, is one of the ideas that define the ongoing protests. Here reappears, in another form, the "Ya Basta!" of the Zapatistas in their uprising of January 1, 1994, then the first revolt against the "new world order" proclaimed by George Bush Senior after the first Gulf War, the fall of the Berlin wall, and the disintegration of the USSR.

"Indignation is a start. You are outraged, you rise up, and then you see," said Daniel Bensaïd. Gradually, we have passed from unease to outrage and from that to this mobilization. We have a true "mobilized indignation." From the earthquake of crisis, the tsunami of social mobilization is developing.

To fight, more than unease and indignation is required; we must also believe in the usefulness of collective action: that it is possible to overcome and that all that has gone before is not lost. For years the social movements in Spain have essentially known only defeats. The lack of victories which show the usefulness of social mobilization and raise the expectations of the possible weighed like a heavy slab on the slow initial reaction to the crisis.

Hence the great contribution of the revolutions in the Arab world to the ongoing protests. They show that collective action is useful, that "Yes We Can." That is why they, as well as the less covered victory against the bankers and the political class in Iceland, have been a reference point from the beginning for the protesters and activists.

Along with the belief that "this is possible," that things can be changed, the loss of fear, in a time of crisis and difficulties, is another key factor. "Without fear" is precisely one of the slogans most heard these days. Fear still grips a large majority of workers and popular sectors, leading to passivity or xenophobic reactions lacking in solidarity. But the 15M mobilization and the camps expanding like an oil slick are a powerful antidote to fear, threatening to dismantle the schemes of a ruling elite in charge of an increasingly delegitimized system.

The 15M movement and the camps have an important generational component. Each time a new cycle of struggles breaks out, a new generation of activists emerges, and the "youth" as such acquire visibility and prominence. While this generational, youth component is essential, and is also expressed in some of the organized movements that have been visible lately like "Youth without Future," it must be noted that the ongoing protest is not a generational movement. It is a movement of criticism of the current economic model and of the attempts to make workers, especially youth, pay for the crisis. The point is precisely that, as on so many occasions, the youth protest acts as a trigger and catalyst for a broader cycle of social struggles.

The Spirit of Anti-Globalization Returns

The dynamism, the spontaneity, and the thrust of the current protests are the strongest since the emergence of the anti-globalization movement more than a decade ago. Emerging internationally in November 1999 at the protests in Seattle during the WTO summit (although its antecedents go back to the 1994 Zapatista uprising in Chiapas), the anti-globalization wave quickly came to Spain. The referendum on the abolition of the foreign debt in March 2000 (held the same day as the general elections and banned in several cities by the Electoral Board) and the big mobilization against the September 2000 IMF/World Bank summit in Prague were the first signs of this, particularly in Catalonia. But the mass movement really arrived with the demonstrations against the World Bank summit in Barcelona on June 22-24, 2001. Just ten years later we are witnessing the birth of a movement whose energy, enthusiasm, and collective strength has not been seen since then. It
will not, therefore, be a nostalgic tenth anniversary. Quite the contrary. We are going to celebrate it with the birth of a new movement.

The assemblies now in Plaza Catalunya (and, indeed, all the camps across the country beginning with that at Sol in Madrid) have given us priceless moments. 15M and the camps are authentic "foundational struggles" and clear signs that we are witnessing a turning point and that the wind of rebellion is blowing again. Finally. A true "Tahrir generation" is emerging, as a "Seattle generation" and a "Genoa generation" did before.

Through the "anti-globalization" impulse across the planet, following the official summits in Washington, Prague, Quebec, Goteborg, Genoa, and Barcelona, thousands of people identified with these protests, and a wide range of groups from around the globe got the feeling of being part of a movement, of the same "people," the "people of Seattle" and "Genoa," sharing common objectives and feeling part of the same struggle.

The current movement is also inspired by the most recent and important international reference points of struggle and victory. It comes in the wake of movements as diverse as the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia and the victory in Iceland, thus part of a general struggle against global capitalism and the servile political elite. In Spain, the 15M demonstrations and now the camps -- an example of simultaneous decentralization and coordination -- are creating a shared identity and symbolic membership of a community.

The anti-globalization movement had the international institutions -- WTO, WB, and IMF -- and multinational companies in its line of fire. Later, with the start of the "global war on terror" proclaimed by Bush Junior, criticism of war and imperialist domination acquired centrality. The axis of the current movement is the criticism of a political class whose complicity in and servitude to the economic powers has been more exposed than ever. "We are not commodities in the hands of politicians and bankers," reads one of the main 15M slogans. The criticism of the political class and professional politics is linked to a criticism, albeit not always well articulated and consistent, of the current economic model and financial powers. "Capitalism? Game Over."

Towards the Future

The future of the movement initiated on the 15th of May is unpredictable. In the short term the first challenge is to continue to build on the existing camps, set them up in cities where they do not yet exist, and ensure they will continue at least until Sunday, May 22. May 21, the day of reflection, and May 22, election day, will be decisive. In these two days, building the camps at a mass level is essential.

It is necessary to also consider new dates for mobilization, in the wake of 15M, to maintain the rhythm. The main challenge is to maintain this dynamic of simultaneous expansion and radicalization of the protest which we have experienced in the last few days. And in the case of Catalonia, look for synergies between the radicalism and desire for a systemic change expressed in 15M and the camps and the struggles against public expenditure cuts, particularly in health and education. The camp in Plaza Catalunya has already become a meeting point, a powerful magnet, for all the more dynamic sectors in struggle. It has become a meeting point for resistance and struggle, for building bridges, facilitating dialogue, and propelling future demonstrations. Establishing alliances between the protests under way among unorganized activists, and alternative trade unionism, local movements, neighbourhood groups, and so on, is the great challenge of the next few
days.

"The revolution starts here . . . " was the claim yesterday at Plaza Catalunya. Well, at least a new cycle of struggles is beginning. So there is no doubt already that, more than a decade after the rise of the anti-globalization movement and two years after the outbreak of the crisis, social protest has come back to stay.

***
Josep Maria Antentas is a member of the editorial board of the magazine Viento Sur, and a professor of sociology at the Autonomous University of Barcelona. Esther Vivas is a member of the Centre for Studies on Social Movements (CEMS) at Universitat Pompeu Fabra. She is also a member of the editorial board of Viento Sur.




Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!

Washington's response to the vicious repression in Bahrain has been so muted and pro-forma, in contrast to forceful denunciations of repression in countries outside the U.S. orbit, such as Iran and Libya.




Campaign for Peace and Democracy

On Feb. 13, 2011, inspired by the forced resignation of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, peaceful democratic protests erupted in Bahrain. Protests grew and, in response, King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa invited other Gulf states to sendhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif security forces into the country to assist in violently suppressing the demonstrators. The March 15 invasion by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates brought an intensification of torture, secret trials, demolition of Shia mosques, and repression against human rights activists, journalists, labor, lawyers, medical professionals, students, political figures, and others. On March 18 the regime destroyed the Pearl Monument that had served as the protest center.

Like many other autocracies in the region Bahrain has been a key U.S. partner. It has provided a home to the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, responsible for naval forces in the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Arabian Sea, and the coast of East Africa as far south as Kenya. This is why Washington's response to the vicious repression in Bahrain has been so muted and pro-forma, in contrast to forceful denunciations of repression in countries outside the U.S. orbit, such as Iran and Libya.

Richard Sollom from Physicians for Human Rights says health care workers in Bahrain have been targeted on a scale he has never encountered. Government forces have invaded hospitals; doctors have been dragged out of the operating room, abducted and detained for giving care to wounded protestors. The government says it will try 47 medical workers it accuses, incredibly, of causing the deaths of protesters by inflicting additional wounds on them.

Hundreds of workers, including union leaders, have been fired for striking for democratic change. Security forces closed down the General Bahraini Federation of Trade Unions headquarters. The Bahrain Center for Human Rights writes, "Bahrain is currently considered a dangerous zone for the freedom of press and journalists." On April 3 the government suspended the country's only independent newspaper, Al Wasat. On May 2 it arrested two politicians belonging to the opposition Al Wefaq party.

Bahrain's population is 60 percent or more Shia, with the government dominated by a Sunni minority. There is systematic discrimination against the Shiite majority in political representation, employment, wages, housing, and other benefits. The government has tried to split the opposition along Shia-Sunni lines, but uprising leaders insist their struggle for democratic rights is non-sectarian.

Zainab Alkhawaja wrote to President Obama after her father, Abdulhadi Alkhawaja, former head of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, was beaten unconscious in front of his family and arrested by masked men: "if anything happens to my father, my husband, my uncle, my brother-in-law, or to me, I hold you just as responsible as the Al Khalifa regime. Your support for this monarchy makes your government a partner in crime. I still have hope that you will realize that freedom and human rights mean as much to a Bahraini person as it does to an American, Syrian or a Libyan and that regional and political considerations should not be prioritized over liberty and human rights."

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Physicians for Human Rights, the International Crisis Group and many others have exhaustively documented the brutal terror of Bahrain's government. No further evidence is needed. As long as the repression continues, the promise to lift the state of emergency is only an empty public relations gesture. The United States should end all aid to Bahrain, condemn the invasion by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and sharply denounce Bahrain's horrific suppression of democratic rights.

As the Arab Spring has swept through North Africa and the Middle East, the role of the United States has been truly shameful. Washington's rhetoric cannot conceal a deep fear of democracy. Its first instinct was to stand behind its old friends. Only when it became obvious that Ben Ali's and Mubarak's days were numbered were they abandoned. As for Saudi Arabia, this ultra-reactionary monarchy, with its appalling treatment of women and religious minorities, is almost never criticized by U.S. officials.

There are those who, while deploring repression in Bahrain, justify continuing U.S. support for that country's brutal tyranny as "realism"; in a dangerous world, they argue, our security depends on having a Middle Eastern state willing to host the Fifth Fleet. This argument is profoundly mistaken. Interventionist naval forces are part of a foreign policy that, by siding with despots and pitting the United States against the Arab people's longing for responsible government and a better way of life, guarantees endless terrorism and bloodshed and an even more dangerous world for everyone. For good reason, democratic movements around the world today do not trust the United States, which they see as motivated by imperial interest. That is why the U.S. desperately needs a new foreign policy, one that welcomes democratic forces -- not hypocritically, in order to manipulate them and blunt their impact, but to stand in solidarity with their struggles to win
political power for the people and achieve social and economic justice.

May 2011

Endorsement List:
Ervand Abrahamian, Bashir Abu-Manneh, Frieda Afary, Janet Afary, Michael Albert, Greg Albo, Elahe Amani, Kevin B. Anderson, Stanley Aronowitz, Parvin Ashrafi, Ed Asner, Rosalyn Baxandall, William O. Beeman, Medea Benjamin, Ruth Benn, Norman Birnbaum, Blase Bonpane, Ph.D., Eileen Boris, Sam Bottone, Joan G. Botwinick, Laura Boylan, MD, Frank Brodhead, Stephen Eric Bronner, Richard J. Brown, MD, Gene Bruskin, Steve Burns, Beth Bush, Leslie Cagan, Antonia Cedrone, Noam Chomsky, Marjorie Cohn, Blanche Cook, Margaret W. Crane, Charles D'Adamo, Hamid Dabashi, Gail Daneker, Bogdan Denitch, Manuela Dobos, Tina Dobsevage, MD, Stephen R. Early, Carolyn Eisenberg, Michael Eisenscher, Daniel Ellsberg, Gertrude Ezorsky, Richard Falk, Samuel Farber, Thomas M. Fasy, MD, Dianne Feeley, John Feffer, Barry Finger, Bill Fletcher, Jr., Ron Forthofer, Ph.D., Jean Fox, David Friedman, Bruce Gagnon, Barbara Garson, Irene Gendzier, Jack Gerson, Joseph Gerson, Suzanne Gordon, John Gorman, Jules Greenstein, Arun Gupta, Ernest Haberkern, Mina Hamilton, Thomas Harrison, Nader Hashemi, Howie Hawkins, Chris Hedges, Judith A. Hempfling, Doug Henwood, Monadel Herzallah, Michael Hirsch, Adam Hochschild, Madelyn Hoffman, Nancy Holmstrom, Doug Ireland, Marianne Jackson, PhD, Melissa Jameson, Mark Johnson, Sally Jones, Toby Jones, Temma Kaplan, Jan Kavan, Kathy Kelly, Assaf Kfoury, Mina Khanlarzadeh, Ynestra King, Dan La Botz, Micah J. Landau, Joanne Landy, Roger E. Leisner, Jesse Lemisch, Traven Leyshon, Nelson Lichtenstein, Martha Livingston, Staughton Lynd, Betty Mandell, Marvin Mandell, Dave Marsh, Scott McLemee, David McReynolds, Deborah Meier, Martin Melkonian, Marilyn Morehead, Molly Nolan, Mary E. O'Brien, MD, Derrick O'Keefe, David Oakford, Rosemarie Pace, Mike Pattberg, Christopher Phelps, Charlotte Phillips, MD, Frances Fox Piven, Katha Pollitt, Charles Post, Danny Postel, Psychologists for Social Responsibiity, Bill Quigley, Saeed Rahnema, Judy Rebick, Leonard Rodberg, Richard Roman, Bruce Rosen, Ruth Rosen, Elizabeth R. Rosenthal, MD, Peter Rothberg, Matthew Rothschild, John Sanbonmatsu, Jennifer Scarlott, Jay Schaffner, Jason Schulman, Peter O. Schwartz, Azadeh Shahshahani, Stephen R. Shalom, Cindy Sheehan, Alix Kates Shulman, Gar Smith, Stephen Soldz, Stephen Steinberg, Cheryl Stevenson, Paul L. Street, Bhaskar Sunkara, David Swanson, William K. Tabb, Jonathan Tasini, Peter Tatchell, Chris Toensing, Bernard Tuchman, Adaner Usmani, Judith Podore Ward, Lois Weiner, Peter Weiss, Naomi Weisstein, Laurie Wen, Cornel West, Billy Wharton, Reginald Wilson, Sherry Wolf, Kent Worcester, Julia Wrigley, and Leila Zand.



Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!

even as a Suprematist, Popova was more interested in painting as a projection of material reality than as the personal expression of a metaphysical reality.




Lyubov Sergeyevna Popova (April 24, 1889 – May 25, 1924) was a Russian avant-garde artist (Cubist, Suprematist and Constructivist), painter and designer. She was also a rarity in the highly male-dominated[citation needed] world of Soviet art.

In 1916 she joined the Supremus group with Kazimir Malevich, the founder of Suprematism, Aleksandra Ekster, Ivan Kliun, Nadezhda Udaltsova, Olga Rozanova, Ivan Puni, Nina Genke, Ksenia Boguslavskaya and others who at this time worked in Verbovka Village Folk Centre. The creation of a new kind of painting was part of the revolutionary urge of the Russian avant-garde to remake the world. The term 'supreme' refers to a 'non-objective' or abstract world beyond that of everyday reality. However there was a tension between those who, like Malevich saw art as a spiritual quest, and others who responded to the need for the artist to create a new physical world. Popova embraced both of these ideals but eventually identified herself entirely with the aims of the Revolution working in poster, book design, fabric and theatre design, as well as teaching. At 0.10 she had exhibited a number of figurative painted cardboard reliefs in a cubist derived style. In 1916 she began to paint completely abstract Suprematist compositions, but the title 'Painterly Architectonics' (which she gave to many of her paintings) suggests that, even as a Suprematist, Popova was more interested in painting as a projection of material reality than as the personal expression of a metaphysical reality. Popova's superimposed planes and strong colour have the objective presence of actual space and materials.

In 1918 Popova married the art historian Boris von Eding, and gave birth to a son. Von Eding died the following year of typhoid fever. Popova was also seriously ill but recovered.




Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!

Though civilians throughout the world were left to deal with the consequences, the figure of Osama was always a useful one for the American Empire.




by Billy Wharton, Co-Chair Socialist Party USA

May 2, 2011 - In the play Doctor Faustus, author Christopher Marlowe described Helen of Troy as the “face that launched a thousand ships.” Marlowe used the phrase to describe the manner in which Helen’s beauty supposedly motivated the Greek armies to attack Troy.

Taking a page from this Elizabethan play, we might describe the now deceased Osama Bin-Laden as “the face that launched a million military budget requests.” Though civilians throughout the world were left to deal with the consequences, the figure of Osama was always a useful one for the American Empire. This was just as true when he received direct financial and military aid from the US in the 1980s as when he was presented as an arch nemesis used to justify the escalating military adventures of the 21st century. No surprise then, if his death yields more benefits for the military industrial complex and even greater hazards to peace loving people everywhere.

While Communism was still being presented as the great global enemy, as the rationale for maintaining a bloated military industrial complex in the 80s, Osama Bin-Laden proved a useful ally. His brand of Islamic fundamentalism received support and funding from the US government, despite the deeply reactionary politics it carried with it. In Afghanistan Bin-Laden was able to establish an international movement trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare and imbued with a backwards looking philosophy of Islamic jihad. All while being funded by the American taxpayer.

After the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, Osama was able to claim the credentials of an Empire-killer. In the new post-Soviet world, the US was the sole imperial force, wielding unchallenged military power in the service of US-based corporations who aimed to be the masters of the globe. Many in the underdeveloped world experienced this globalization and looked to radical Islam as an alternative. Enough support was organized to launch a series of terrorist attacks such as those on September 11th, the US Embassy bombing in Nairobi and the attack on the United Nations complex in Iraq. Each of these acts proved that the ethics of Bin Laden mirrored the ethics of the Empire – no civilian life was precious enough to prevent an attack made in the name of your cause.

The September 11th attacks made Osama even more useful to an assortment of political hawks, weapons manufacturers and military service companies like Halliburton and Blackwater. In the tragic carnage of that day, they saw an opportunity to create a post-Cold War rationale to claim billions in public funds. The subsequent invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, the endless drone bombings in Pakistan that were designed by the administration of former President George W. Bush and are now operated by current President Barack Obama, were done in the name of “finding Osama.” A traumatized American public went along, as Bin-Laden enticed the US military to indiscriminately kill civilians, set up torture camps and occupy countries with large Muslim populations. All along fattening corporate bottom lines and justifying the US war machine.

As always, it was civilians who suffered the consequences. The families of the 911 victims, the people of Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan and all of the millions who became entangled in the post-911 security state were trapped between two shades of reactionary politics. By conservative estimates more than 130,000 civilians were killed from 2003 until 2008 in Iraq as a result of the US invasion. Thousands more have perished in Afghanistan as well as nearly 6,000 US military personnel. The hunt for Osama became a brutal blood letting which taught millions of people throughout the world that they could expect no justice from the US.

In addition to the destruction of human lives, the Osama inspired US military adventures allowed for a looting of public funds. At last count, almost $1.2 trillion has been spent on invading Iraq and Afghanistan. These public funds could have been used to provide 55 million children with healthcare. Or to give out 13 million one-year university scholarships. Or to add 1.6 million elementary teachers per year to our schools. Unfortunately in this moment of economic crisis and budget cutting, the military budget and the war profiteering it produces remain significant drains on public funds. Nearly half of the entire Federal Budget is now spent on the military industrial complex. This only serves to deepen the economic inequalities in American society and poison relations between Americans and people throughout the world.

What the death of Osama Bin-Laden should prove is that the Empire cannot deliver justice. Socialists will certainly shed no tears for Osama. Nor, however, will we celebrate his assassination at the hands of the US military. Instead, we understand clearly that the US military is a destroyer of human lives, a drain on public budgets and is a chain hung around the neck of democracy. No justice will come from it.

If there is anything positive to take from this moment, let it be that the American people now begin to build a movement to dismantle the post-911 war machine, to cry out for the restoration of our civil liberties and to press for an immediate withdrawal of all troops from Afghanistan and Iraq and an end to the drone bombings in Pakistan.

Simultaneously, voters should consider withdrawing their support from President Obama when re-election time comes. Obama has time and time again proven willing to use the war machine in a way that is every bit as ruthless as his predecessor. A Socialist Party USA candidate for the White House will place the dismantlement of the military industrial complex on the top of their campaign agenda. We will present a real candidate of peace.

Let us now build a world based on solidarity, peace and freedom – a world that was so violently opposed by people like Bin-Laden and one that is so deeply feared by those at the controls of the military industrial complex here in the US.


Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!

However, the celebratory refrain rang hollow for me. Actually, it rang
less than hollow.



by Rev. Dr. John Tamilio III, Ph.D.

"USA!" "USA!"

This chant bellowed from my television in the waning hours of May 1. CNN
reported that Osama Bin Laden had been assassinated in a secret
Pakistani bunker by a covert, United States military task force. A few
dozen people gathered outside the White House waving Old Glory and
singing the "Star Spangled Banner." The ad hoc gathering swelled as fast
as the news spread nationally. Similar celebrations took place in New
York City, near Ground Zero, and others erupted in bars across America.
Napkins shred into confetti. Pints of beer hoisted for a toast. Beaming
smiles carved into patriotic faces.

The chants rang through the midnight air. They sank into my soul like
lead.

I was grateful that the world was now safe from this Al-Qaeda henchman.
I breathed a sigh of relief that night, even though I know that neither
this country nor any other is immune from terror. At least there was one
less lunatic seeking to kill innocent people in the name of God.

However, the celebratory refrain rang hollow for me. Actually, it rang
less than hollow. This wasn't about justice or some new-found peace. It
was a celebration. We were rejoicing over the death of a human being,
albeit a sinister one. Was he the enemy? Yes. Was he crazy? I don't know
how anyone could call him sane. But should news of his demise hang from
our mouths as if it were the carcass of a gazelle dripping from the jaws
of a cheetah?

Something was not right. I felt ill.

I remembered a story from 2004: the charred bodies of four American
contractors were dragged through the streets of a town west of Bagdad.
The throng of onlookers cheered. Similar spectacles occurred in
Mogadishu a few years later. We chastise such actions as obscene and
barbaric - and they are - yet we join the chorus and condone such
behavior when it is done to our enemy.

No, Bin Laden's body (riddled with bullets) was not dragged down
Pennsylvania Avenue. But I wonder: how many of the May 1st revelers
would have welcomed such a sight? How many of them would have been
pulling a rope with one hand and waving a flag with the other given the
opportunity?

Death is death - it does not matter whose death it is. Carnage is
carnage - no amount of nationalistic jingoism will convert it into
justifiable pageantry.

The sickness that damped my soul that Sunday night was not assuaged by
the relief I felt. I was not shouting, "USA! USA!" I went to bed with a
whimper.

I am grateful for the women and men who serve in our armed forces. My
brother is one of them. These brave soldiers provide me with the freedom
to write articles such as this. How could I not be obliged? However, we
honor their service best by not only striving for peace (so that they do
not have to risk their lives), but by being the people we are called to
be: civil, generous, compassionate.

My counterparts on the right often claim that America was founded to be
a Christian nation. If that were true, then we need to ask ourselves
that timeless question: what would Jesus do? I do not think that this
itinerant rabbi, who taught us to pray for our enemies and to turn the
other cheek, would exult over any human being's death. Maybe we should
start there.

Written in honor of Col. Douglas A. Tamilio.

***
The Rev. Dr. John Tamilio III, Ph.D. is the religion columnist for The
Lakewood Observer. He is also the Senior Pastor of Pilgrim United Church
of Christ in the Tremont neighborhood of Cleveland. JT3 lives in
Lakewood with his wife and their three children.


Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!

It was Marx who taught us that the future is evitable , is in our hands




by David McReynolds

On April 26, 2011, there was a book party for Martin Duberman s double biography of Barbara Deming and David McReynolds, titled A Saving Remnant. What follows is the talk which was given by David McReynolds, followed by notes he made the next day.
I'm reminded of the day, hitchhiking to UCLA from my parent s home in Southwest Los
Angeles, when I was picked up by a pleasant elderly gentleman with a head of white hair.
At the time I was involved in one of those affairs of the heart which wasn t going at all well, and
I thought, as I looked at the old fellow, how good it must be to be old, past the burdens of the flesh, able to enjoy good food and fine wines, visit museums. Just then he reached over, put a hand on my thigh and said A tall young man like you, I expect you play basketball. As I gently removed his hand and said I didn t play any sports, I wanted to tell him that he had destroyed my illusions of old age.

In fact, in reading Marty s book, which I felt treated me not only accurately but very gently, I sense I probably am less stressed these days than when I was young.
Certainly it is a great honor to find that while you are still alive you are subject of a biography - moreover, one which links you with that major figure of the last century, Barbara Deming. If I do not, tonight, deal with the issue of feminism, it is because Barbara dealt with it so well and I refer you to Marty's book to get her views, with which I am largely in agreement.

It has been a good life in which, looking back, I am moved by the thought that at one time or another I walked in the company of giants such as Alvin Ailey, Norma Becker, Karl Bissinger, Maris Cakars, Sam Coleman, Dave Dellinger, Barbara Deming, Ralph DiGia, William Douthard, Peggy Duff, Allen Ginsberg, Gil Green, Arthur Kinoy, A.J. Muste, Grace Paley, Igal Roodenko, Bayard Rustin, Myrtle Solomon, and Norman Thomas. And was arrested with more than half of them.

I am deeply moved by those who organized this event and by WRL, which put up with me for nearly four decades, and the Socialist Party, which twice honored me with their nomination for President. Given the limits of time, I want to move directly to seven points.

First, do not be dismayed that we are in such troubled time. Large numbers of Americans seem impressed by Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, or Donald Trump. Would you rather have found yourselves in a comfortable time when your voice wasn t needed?
Think back to the other times we have lived through. The great war for Four Freedoms when we put Japanese in concentration camps on the West Coast. McCarthyism, when people were jailed for their political beliefs.

2. I remember, at UCLA, a group of us young radicals met at the beach shack in Ocean Park, 132 ½ Ashland Ave., for a serious discussion of whether we should not all leave for Costa Rica. One of us was taking flying lessons, and one of us was arranging for renting or buying a plane. We voted not to go - though we were convinced we would all end in prison, as indeed some of my close friends at the time, Vern Davidson and others, did, for refusing the draft. Think of the fact that South of the Mason-Dixon line whites and blacks were separated on buses and trains, and blacks in the South had no vote.

Second, my life has been given to trying to find some combination of Marx and Gandhi. In this I have failed, but let me explain why that effort must continue. Do not blame Marx for Stalin, anymore than you can blame Jesus for the inquisition, or Gandhi for India s nuclear weapons.

Marx showed us that whereas in all previous times we had been the objects on which history was imposed, we now had the chance to consciously enter history as the subjects of it, who could act to change it. It was Marx who taught us that the future is evitable , is in our hands. Who helped us see how our consciousness was shaped by the class we were born into, the color of our skin, and, more than Marx realized, the sex we were given. It was Marx who suggested that the great issue was over who controlled the means of production, whether they would be in the hands of a
few, or in some democratic way, in the hands of the many.

Marx came before the Russian Revolution. His vision was not that of the totalitarian state of Stalin, but of a broad and democratic society, one in which we could move from a society of need to one of abundance. Yes, there were errors in Marx, a failure to examine the problem of the patriarchy, a failure to see the limits beyond which the exploitation of nature could lead to ecological disaster. But it was Marx who taught us we could take charge of our history.

Third, Gandhi gave us the solution to how we can engage in struggle without letting that struggle destroy us. In taking the path of violence, we find ourselves pitted against our brothers and sisters, we find ourselves dealing out murder in hopes of establishing the loving community, of building prisons in hopes we will find universal freedom. It was Gandhi who reminded us that the means becomes the end. If your method is an organization which hates your opponents, so will the society you construct be shaped by hatred and not by compassion. I am not going to distance myself from those who are violent revolutionaries - it was Gandhi who felt that it was better to resist by violence than not to resist at all.

Pacifism is not for cowards. In fact, one of the main problems I had in becoming, or trying to become, a pacifist was that I knew I lacked the courage needed. In the end, looking back at a life in which I have suffered little for my beliefs, I conclude that God watches over atheists and cowards. We are not required to march farther than we are able, but to at least take the few steps we can.

3. It was Gandhi who taught us a lesson which had been there all along, in the Gospels, in the teachings of Buddha, that there is a power in love, or, if you find it easier, the power of compassion. There are some few from which we can be exempt from that command - Donald Trump has so much love for himself that he hardly needs mine. But, friends and comrades, when A.J. Muste stood in a Quaker meeting during World War II and said If I cannot love Hitler I cannot love anyone do not think Muste was naive about Hitler. If we cannot find compassion for our enemies, we are lost.

Bayard Rustin explained it to me as the soldiers in a fox hole, when a volunteer was needed for an errand which might well be fatal, and the soldier who volunteered did so because as he looked around at the others with him, one whom he knew was too terrified to make the run safely, one who had a wife waiting him, one who might falter because of an earlier wound, said to himself, let it be me. And all that pacifism does is extend that fox hole to include also the enemies.

This is not an easy teaching. But it is essential, along with Gandhi s absolute passion for truth - for holding onto the truth, for basing his analysis on the facts, for being willing to change his mind. This passion for observing the facts and then reaching conclusions was something he held in common with Karl Marx.

The great light that helps us keep life in perspective is death itself. For there is an end for each of us, but not for all of us together, as a human race feeling its way toward the future. All that we really have along this path is compassion and truth.

Think of the power of the Southern Black movement, largely rooted in the Black Church, which not only gave us the blues and jazz, but the extraordinary power of revolutionary change through taking the risks of change through nonviolence. How lucky I have been to have seen a part of that light cast upon America.

Fourth, we are engaged in a struggle to empower the powerless. It has been said that power corrupts, and that is true. But it is easy for pacifists, most of us safely from the white middle class,to overlook the reality that powerlessness also corrupts. Our struggle is not to seize power and centralize it, but to decentralize it, to empower the communities and the people. Power is a reality. The power to build railroads and dams, to find alternative sources of energy, to build housing for the poor. We want to eliminate the monopoly of power which exists today. The
power to make war, to imprison the powerless.

I do not, I m sorry to say, have the answers. At 81 it is enough if I can suggest the problems. It is clear capitalism has failed, that we have seen a steady, relentless concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few, while the great mass have less economic security.

Fifth, we also need to struggle to take power away from those who have it. At the moment the United States is still the most powerful military force in the world. We have deluded ourselves.

4. With the talk of representing the free world. What our military power has been used for is the defense of America s economic interests, and on some occasions, out of sheer folly and stupidity. We have in the past fifty years waged wars against nations that never fired a bullet in any of our fifty states or posed any real threat. Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Panama, Grenada, Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan.

I do not defend those nations but only note our military actions cannot be justified by threats they posed to us. We have killed millions. And we have killed them with weapons created with great skill, from the drones that fly over Pakistan, to the pellet bombs used in Vietnam.

No other nation can match our record of slaughter in the past fifty years.

Sixth, we are truly two Americas. Both in the sense that the late Michael Harrington laid out so well, the nation of wealth co-existing with the nation of poverty, but also the nation of men and women willing to devise the arsenal of death so recklessly used by the elite which governs us, and the nation of women and men willing to vigil, to organize against, to suffer jail for, their opposition to this America of violence and death.

Remember, at this dark time when Donald Trump can score so well in opinion polls, that this is a nation which survived slavery, the Palmer Raids, and McCarthyism. Our hope lies in our willingness to withhold consent, to refuse to be frightened. It takes courage confront the worst of this nation and this world - the cowardice of a President, and a British Prime Minister and a French head of State, not one of whom has seen combat, to send others into battle in Libya - and yet to hold onto hope. Hope has been defined as the combination resulting from combining anger with courage.

Even to believe that in the hearts and minds of our opponents there is the possibility of change.

One of the lessons in the Gospels is that no one is beyond hope. Jesus, in his ministry, did not sit with us, but chose to sit with agents of the IRS, and the FBI, to break bread with the bigots. So let us, in our community work, not disdain our enemies but dialogue with them. Keep in mind that the Tea Party folks are largely middle aged, almost entirely white and Christian and confused to find their President is black, the Secretary of State is a woman, there is a lesbian commentator on MSNBC cable, and the society pages record men getting married to men, and women getting married to women. The reality is that in a short time whites will be a minority in this country. And there is great fear of this final shift in our nation.

Seventh, let each of us take on the task we can. We are not observers, but participants. That may not mean joining an organization, but it means realizing that organizations are needed - and you will find literature from several of them at the back of the hall. Your work may range from being a good parent - a work of great courage and skill - to being a good artisan or artist, or teacher. But
we are united in rejecting the assumption that the accumulation of wealth is the object of our lives.

5. And in this task of building a movement for change, let us build on based on the uniqueness of this country, and not on patterns others have set. The lessons of the Russian Revolution do not prove a guide for us. Gandhi s tactics in India are not a guide to us. Remember that American socialism was a real force before the Russian Revolution and that the greatest example of nonviolence in this nation did not come from the white pacifists, but from the Black Churches in the South.

Eugene V. Debs is an example of someone who tried to shape a movement based on the
exceptionalism of this country, as A.J. Muste also did. Remember, each country is unique and exceptional.

Finally, let me say that we really do not know if we will win or lose. That, depending on your philosophy or religion, is in the hands of history or of God.

But we do know that our lives are defined by having been part of the endless struggle. For Gandhi knew, and Marx knew, that conflict does not end. We can hope, in the words of the old joke, that when we came to this seminar we were confused and uncertain, but we are happy to say, on the conclusion of our weekend of study, that we are confused on a higher level and uncertain about more important things .

The joy of those who flooded Madison, Wisconsin, in the struggle for worker s rights, the joy of those who marched in Washington DC on August 28, 1963, when the streets were filled with hundreds of thousands, the joy of the May Days in 1971 when 15,000 of us were arrested and tear gas floated over the city.

Those were great times - and better times lie ahead. Even in defeat we are victorious, for we have given our lives a meaning others should envy. In struggling for something greater than ourselves, we will be transformed.

And if I have not, in this speech, addressed the questions of gender and gay liberation, let me close by quoting my old friend, Allen Ginsberg, in saying America, I am putting my queer shoulder to the wheel.

Postscript
Reading over these notes I am struck by omissions that were inevitable but need to be briefly discussed.

I do not think socialism must be Marxist . There is religious socialism, utopian socialism, libertarian socialism. I simply want to affirm the debt we owe to Marx and Engels. I do not believe Marxism to be scientific socialism. It is said that at one point an exasperated Marx said thank God I am not a Marxist.

6. Lenin, whose views I respect even though I disagree with them, was quite right when he wrote Marxism is not a lifeless dogma, not a completed, ready-made immutable doctrine, but a living guide to action.

But what is socialism? What would it look like? Marx himself was vague on this, and what set him apart from the utopian socialists (who were not, let me note, without a value of their own) was his awareness that social change is a process, not a blueprint. The closest he came to defining socialism was in his Critique of the Gotha Program. But even to take that up is to waste time - it was written long before the Russian Revolution, long before all of the trauma of the technological, and cybernetic revolutions.

We can say that socialism is a way of organizing the economy so that the major means of production are socially owned and democratically controlled. We can say that great fortunes would be a thing of the past, that the huge concentrations of wealth as they exist now would end with estate taxes.

But we can also say that socialism does not mean there will be no small business. Ironically it is capitalism which has proven the great enemy of small business. Socialism does not mean your apartment or your home or your family farm will be seized, much less your toothbrush. Private property would not be abolished. It would be social property which would be dealt with.

Even this, however, requires a lot of new thinking. Our own society today has few great factories that can be turned over to the workers. To a great extent we have become a society of service industries. Ironically our farming is perhaps more collectivized (by large farming corporations) than was true even in the Soviet Union. Socialists might want to find incentives for the revival of family farms.

We can certainly look at the mistakes (and the successes) in the Soviet Union, of the social democracies of the Nordic countries, of Cuba, of China, etc. but we are so very far from having the political power to achieve socialism that it is pointless to waste enormous time now over debating the blueprints.

Clearly - because our survival depends on it - whatever socialism we struggle to create must have much more concern with ecology than the socialist movements of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Economics, whether Marxist, Keynesian, or free market is extremely complex and extremely unpredictable. What is clear, and has been clear for some time, is that capitalism is a failure. This has been dramatically shown with the most recent collapse of the free market but it is also inherent in capitalism that human beings become commodities, that they are driven to compete, often wasting their lives in activity that has almost no social or intrinsic value (advertising, dealing in commodities, etc.). Capitalism produces a society in which authentic human freedom is
hard to achieve.

Finally, the other necessary postscript, is how . Not just what is socialism, but how do we get there. Marx thought socialism would come when in the final crisis and collapse of capitalism, the workers would seize power. He was sure that the birth of the new order would be bloody - and he had history on his side, since all other major shifts in how society was organized took place with great violence. It was not that Marx hoped for violence, simply that he thought it inevitable. (And I might add that if one adds up the millions of lives destroyed in wars due primarily to capitalism, then the violence of revolution looks a bit different).

However the Russian experiment is instructive and tragic. Without trying to reprise that history here, the enormously liberating experience of the first years of the Revolution were replaced by secret police, prisons, brutal repression, and the hideous conformity of Stalinism. Even more sadly, with the collapse of the Soviet Bloc we have seen little remaining that is of value.

It is easy for the ultra-revolutionists to argue for a violent revolution, but I believe, with Debs, that if workers cannot learn to aim their ballots, they wouldn t aim their bullets any better. Aside from which, a violent revolution inevitably falls upon the young and strong, while a nonviolent revolution is one in which all, young and old, weak and strong, can take part.

In the United States even Karl Marx had thought that it was possible for profound social change to occur through elections.

At this point there is no single party which represents democratic socialism. And we need to think less of parties in the usual sense than of organization, which can educate, organize demonstrations (and civil disobedience) as well as enter the electoral field.

There are groups today which might with profit work more closely together - the Socialist Party, Democratic Socialists of America, the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, would be in this grouping. Nor would I exclude the Greens from dialogue. Nor would I exclude the Communist Party, which is going through serious internal changes.

A final word before the postscript becomes an entirely new venture rather than simply an effort to clarify. While I have no interest of any kind in the Vatican, one must remember figures such as Pope John XXIII, Dorothy Day, the quiet revolutionaries of the Catholic Worker - and of other Christian groups. And if one despairs at much of the Jewish community for its rigid approach to issues such as Palestinian rights, there are groups such as Jews for Racial and Economic Justice (as
well as several others working for peace in the Middle East) which remind us that a rigidly atheist socialist movement will pointlessly isolate itself. Judaism, more than most religions, is based on the concept of law and community.

Marx represented, I realize, an atheist approach to society, and as such he was the enemy not only of capital but of all religious bodies. But Marx was not, himself, a God. On the contrary he dealt with contradictions, as did Gandhi. It may baffle the orthodox mind, but it is quite possible to embrace a generally Marxian approach and also a Christian, Jewish, or Islamic set of beliefs. Let

those who would be offended by this willingness to link spiritual values with material struggle be offended - it is still possible and needs to be said.
Finally, pacifists must not simply resist violence, but seek to build a society which does not treat people violently. If we are not inherently a philosophy of radical social change, I think we have little value. But if we make ourselves a part of a broader movement, most of which may well not be pacifist, we can help to resolve the conflicts, and make dialogue an alternative to endless fracturing and splits.

We may, as people committed to reconciliation, shy from the terrible reality of the class struggle, but there is indeed a class struggle or class war, and as Warren Buffet said there is a class war and my class is winning it (and he wasn t happy about it - the concentration of economic power in so few hands is profoundly alien to democracy). The only people who don't know there is a class war are those at a safe distance from it. Think of it as a war against injustice, but it is real, and we must take our part in it.

A final point (like all radicals, one s final point is never quite final). State and Government. They are confused by most people who view socialism as the State taking charge of their lives. There is a crucial difference between the State, which has the power to wage wars and to execute people, and the Government, which collects garbage, educates our children, maintains public safety, builds bridges, and in many other ways does those things which individuals alone cannot do, and which
we do not feel comfortable having done for a profit.

Governments can be very decentralized, States tend to seek an absolute monopoly of power. I would hope the democratic socialism we seek is one of diffused power. (Now you may think this is the end. And it is).


Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!