People Before Profit blog

American-Russian analyst laments the new Cold War

Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:42:00 +0000

CULVER CITY, Calif. - American-born Justin Lifflander, graduate of Cornell University, arrived in Russia (then the USSR) in 1987 as a driver-mechanic for the U.S. embassy in Moscow. Within the year he found himself serving as a missile inspector at a Soviet production plant, as authorized by the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) signed by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. (Remember Reagan's slogan "Trust but verify?" - this was the verify part.)

Lifflander was stationed in the small town of Votkinsk, undistinguished in any way except that it happens to be the birthplace of composer Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky. Votkinsk, in the Udmurt Republic, is located in a restricted area (because of its military manufacturing) 631 miles as the crow flies and one time zone due east of Moscow, in the foothills of the Ural Mountains, where foreigners from any other country are rarely seen.

There he met a young woman who had been assigned by the KGB to be his "escort" ("minder" might be the more familiar word). Short story: They fell in love, the Soviet Union imploded, they married, he became a dual American-Russian citizen, and he has lived and worked in Russia for nearly thirty years now.

On April 27, Lifflander came to the Wende Museum, a unique institution dedicated to the history of the Cold War, located in this city nestled into the L.A. urban sprawl, to give a power point lecture, "What's Old is New: A Personal Perspective on Disarmament, the End of the Last Cold War and the Start of a New One."

"Something like a new Cold War" has been emerging since about the year 2000, Lifflander says. The era we live in contrasts sharply with the Reagan-Gorbachev moment, a short historical interlude that understandably looms large in Lifflander's personal history.

The two world leaders met in person five times. Despite their positions as heads of the lead nations in the two major opposing political and economic blocs in the world, they developed a mutual admiration and even friendship. Reagan began, of course, with great bluster about the Strategic Defense Initiative and talk of the USSR as the "evil empire." But over time, Reagan and his advisors, including his longtime Secretary of State George Shultz (1982-89), came to see the folly of mutually assured destruction (M.A.D.), and started seeking ways to curtail the nuclear threat. One could argue that the Soviets had been pursuing the path of peaceful coexistence for many years already.

The character of Reagan's new approach included a commitment to consistency, open-mindedness, de-linkage (not thwarting progress in this area because of disagreements in that area), compromise, on-site inspection, and an articulated vision of a better, safer world. According to Shultz, meeting your counterpart is not evidence of weakness.

Alongside this fresh attitude of political openness would surely come economic development, from the diminution of the nuclear and military budget for one thing. Perhaps even then the "Tear down this wall" president was already anticipating the collapse of the socialist model and the availability of new entrepreneurial opportunities.

In any case, the INF treaty did indeed eliminate a whole class of nuclear weapons on both sides. Interestingly, in an official map of Soviet INF launch sites that Lifflander projected, most of them were strung out for thousands of miles adjacent to the Chinese border. The Soviets were obviously far more fearful of the Chinese than of the Europeans or Americans. The speaker wryly commented that, to date, China has never thanked the U.S. for helping to remove that particular nuclear threat along its border with Russia.

What happened?

In 1988, Reagan's last year in office, the United States and the USSR had some 86 ongoing intergovernmental negotiations proceeding on a wide variety of subjects. At the end of the year 2014, there were none between the U.S. and Russia. Zero. A virtually complete lack of communication had frozen into place.

In 1991, approval of the U.S. in Russia peaked at 80 percent. In 2015, 59 percent of respondents in Russia saw the U.S. as a threat.

The 1990 reunification of Germany - which for historic reasons the USSR considered a most dangerous prospect - came about because of a promise the U.S. made not to expand NATO in the newly capitalist countries of Eastern Europe that had been part of the socialist Warsaw Pact. But with the collapse of that bloc, U.S. arrogance soared. America was now the "unipower" in a formerly bipolarized world. "Who cares what Russia thinks?" became the tacit, if unstated U.S. policy.

The new outlook became visible in many ways. First and foremost, the invitation to Eastern European states to join NATO, thus installing U.S. military bases, troops and missiles practically at Russia's borders. Gone now was that precious buffer zone that protected this great but vulnerable power which, after all, had its national historical pride and a certain zone of influence to which it had long felt entitled, dating from long before the Soviets. This stage took place largely under the aegis of President Bill Clinton, but it is evidenced still, for example in blatant U.S. interference in Ukrainian politics.

In other smaller but meaningful ways the new attitude manifested itself. Diplomats assigned to embassy and consular posts in Russia did know Russian, much less the country's sensitivity to territorial insecurity. The embassies replaced local employees with contracted workers from the States. Dinner parties were reduced from seven-course, evening-long affairs to three-course working sessions where both sides could informally "roll up their sleeves" and talk, forgetting that diplomatic niceties over vintage wines can strongly convey an honorable sense of respect and appreciation.

In a mild but pointed critique of President Obama, Lifflander observes that in his cool reserve he is not known for the warmth of his relations with world counterparts. There seems to be a mutuality of understanding with Germany's long-serving Chancellor Angela Merkel, but one would be hard pressed to name another close partnership.

"We don't seem to be working toward cooperation with Russia," Lifflander says. "Maybe we could become a little more humble."

Where to begin? We could start, Lifflander proposes, by working together to resolve the tragedy of Syria, and then advance to solutions in the Middle East as a whole. Global warming calls for mutual agreements, and (this seemed less urgent and more symbolic to my ears) a joint manned mission to Mars.

Justin Lifflander was an executive with Hewlett-Packard Russia for two decades, after which he became business editor of the Moscow Times daily newspaper. He calls himself a Democrat and says he voted twice for Obama. Cuba, he says, is his "third favorite country in the world," and he has visited it many times. To this listener he sounded rational and hopeful, even if against formidable odds.

Justin Lifflander's whole biography is wrapped up in American-Russian history and owes its shape to the Reagan-Gorbachev relationship, over which hover a plethora of controversies, of course. Lifflander's is certainly not the final word. Yet during that time, there was cooperation on the highest level, there were critical agreements, there were demonstrable milestones of demilitarization. His memoir, overflowing with comic incident, How Not to Become a Spy: A Memoir of Love at the End of the Cold War, was published in English in 2014 and in Russian at the end of last year.

The book includes a sad kind of epitaph: There's a photo of the monument to the INF treaty near the U.S. inspectors' housing, and the plaque reads:

"In accordance with the treaty between Russia and the USA on the liquidation of their intermediate range missiles (INF), for the first time in history during the period from 1 July 1988 to 31 May 2001, a treaty to destroy strategic nuclear weapons was implemented. Here, next to the Votkinsk Machine Building Factory, a residential complex was constructed for thirty American inspectors who continuously verified the fulfillment by Russia of its commitment to no longer manufacture missiles covered by the INF Treaty. (The same work was carried out by Russian inspectors in the state of Utah in the USA.)"

For more information see: The Wende Museum and Justin Lifflander.

Photo: Justin Lifflander with works in the Wende Museum's exhibition "Artistic Interpretations of the Cold War." / Eric A. Gordon PW

Left strategy in 2016 (Part 2): Building real political independence

Wed, 27 Apr 2016 13:34:00 +0000

This is Part 2 of an article by John Bachtell, chair of the Communist Party, on Left strategy and the 2016 elections. It is adapted from an article first published in Platypus Review #85. Part 1 can be read here.

Broad unity and multi-class alliances

As mentioned previously, the coming-to-power of the ultra-right in 1980 radically changed the dynamics of political struggle in our country. What has emerged over the last four decades is a broad understanding of the danger posed by the right, and with it a loose, multi-class alliance which includes the labor movement, communities of color, and democratic reform movements of all kinds. This alliance is multi-generational, and it unites left and center political currents, as well as a section of capital that is in conflict with the extreme right.

For those who recoil at the notion of a multi-class alliance, consider that our nation's history is replete with such examples. Recall the fight against slavery and the alliance of northern industrial capitalists, slaves, working masses, and abolitionists. Or the struggle against fascism, the splits in the U.S. ruling class, and the multi-class alliance built to defeat it in the 1930s and 40s. Today, splits in the ruling class have appeared over the climate crisis. A section of capital who sees an existential threat to capitalism is objectively aligned with the environmental movement.

So this is nothing new. In fact, for Lenin, building multi-class alliances and exploiting fissures in the ruling class was a given. The Bolsheviks advocated alliances between Russia's nascent proletariat, its vast peasantry, and the small bourgeois class to overthrow the czar.

Class struggle within

We have to play the cards dealt as we fight to change the rules of the game. Politics in America is conducted in a two-party, winner-take-all system, institutionalized since the Jacksonian era. Third parties have arisen during times of sharp crisis or political realignment, as the Republican Party did in the fight against slavery. In such instances, they may supplant one of the two dominant parties, but third parties failing to make this breakthrough have never lasted long. Until radical reform allowing parliamentary democracy or fusion politics, the prevailing circumstances don't allow for more than two viable national parties.

All parties reflect coalitions of class and social interests, and the Democrats and Republicans are no different. They are vehicles through which these forces fight for their agendas. In the battle being fought in the political realm, some see no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties, painting them with a broad brush as creatures of Wall Street. For sure, both are dominated by corporate interests.

But we can't leave it there; real life is far more complex. For starters, both have vastly different social compositions. While the Republican Party is led by the most reactionary sections of capital, but also includes extreme right-wing elements like the Tea Party, white supremacists, climate deniers, and Evangelicals.

Meanwhile, in the Democratic Party there is organized labor, African Americans, Latinos, other communities of color, the women's, youth, and a range of other social movements. A wide spectrum exists in the Democratic Party including a substantial current of self-described democratic socialists. These constituencies exert influence and hold leadership positions at various levels. They still see the Democratic Party as the most viable means to advance their agendas within the party system at this moment. Any establishment of a people's party requires these very forces at its core and until they are prepared to bolt, it is not yet a viable prospect.

The Democrats' multi-class constituency, however, is beset with internal contradictions. The class struggle rages within, between the Wall Street and progressive wings. Establishment and machine elements clash with independent forces. This is reflected in part in the competition between Clinton and Sanders, but similar clashes play out on a local level, such as the 2015 Chicago mayoral race that pitted Chuy Garcia and independent candidates against Rahm Emanuel and the Democratic machine.

There may be cooperation in the fight against the extreme right, but the class struggle is never suspended; these same forces battle daily on economic, political, and ideological fronts. Extreme wealth concentration will continue to deepen these class divisions and tensions within the Democratic Party coalition. A "political revolution" can transform politics if labor, its allies, and the broad left put their stamp on the multi-class alliance, shape its politics, and frame the issues debated for the elections.

Such is the nature of class contradictions.

Majorities make change

Any successful "political revolution" will be fueled by ongoing shifts in public attitudes. Majorities of Americans now favor taxing the rich, raising the minimum wage, immigration reform, abortion rights, marriage equality, criminal justice reform, and action to curb the climate crisis.

A political revolution is based on the idea that majorities make change. It is not enough for majorities to believe in an idea, they must actively fight for it. While important shifts against the ultra-right have taken place on key issues, the electorate is still deeply divided, with a substantial section misled, disillusioned, and disengaged. To be transformative, a movement must have an organized expression in every community. It must fight uncompromisingly against racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant attacks, and all efforts to divide.

White working-class communities are considered a key demographic for the GOP and are targets of the worst kind of racist and reactionary ideas. They cannot be abandoned to the embrace of the extreme right and its ideology of hate. A political revolution calls for a 50-state strategy including turning red states and districts blue and defeating the GOP in its stronghold - the "Deep South."

Political independence

The loose coalition that presently aligns itself with the Democratic Party - including organized labor; organizations and movements in communities of color; the women's, immigrant, LGTBQ, student, and environmental movements - is in constant motion, changing in response to real life experiences.

Intertwined with the fight against the right is the ongoing process of building political independence. And it is here that I disagree most strongly with both Doug Henwood and Gregor Baszak, our two giant-slayers from the lead-off to this article. Far from being liquidated into the Democratic Party, I see the labor-led democratic movement becoming increasingly assertive, growing in influence, and establishing politically independent structures both inside and outside the Democratic Party.

The AFL-CIO no longer gives directly to the DNC but funds its own voter education and mobilization efforts. It develops its own strategic outlook, and is increasingly training and running trade union activists for public office. There are rich examples of the growth of independent structures including MoveOn, Democracy for America, Progressive Democrats of America, and the Working Families Party.

Politically independent movements are beginning to take root in Chicago. Developments include the establishment of several independent political organizations working in and outside the Democratic Party and an increasing number of independent challenges to machine candidates. This process is in its early stages and foreshadows the eventual establishment of a real people's party.

A defeat of the right - and especially winning the Senate and House - could constitute a political turning point, creating new possibilities for advancing the struggle. It would create more favorable circumstances to reform the electoral system itself, build the labor movement, and broaden and deepen coalitions.

Out of decisive turning points come new stages of struggle, including for more radical reforms.

Post-election

If either Sanders or Clinton are elected, their administrations will face unrelenting pressure and obstruction from (in Sanders' case) Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, the fossil fuel industry, right-wing think tanks, the mass media, and, of course, right-wing elements in the oligarchy. In addition, the Democratic Party's neoliberal establishment will reassert itself in the post-election period, casting aside elements of the program upon which the election pivoted.

Contrary to what Henwood or Baszak might have us believe, Clinton and Sanders aren't the giants we need to slay.

What is important is that voters and movements remain engaged after the elections. When President Obama was elected in 2008 voters thought they had done their duty and went home. The void was filled by GOP obstruction and the Tea Party. Low voter turnout in 2010 and 2014 led to GOP control of Congress and statehouses across the country.

The challenge before labor, communities of color, women, youth, the LGBTQ community, climate justice and other democratic forces is to continue to build the biggest, broadest, most diverse and tactically mature movement possible to win in 2016 and set the stage for bigger victories ahead.

Photo: AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka (3rd L) marches with Jack Ahern, President of the NYC Central Labor Council (3rd R) and other leaders at a rally in New York, N.Y. | AP

Socialism: Fight for something or you’ll lose everything

Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:43:00 +0000

People's World Series on Socialism

Everyone seems to be talking about socialism these days, but what does it mean? That was the question asked by Susan Webb in one of our most popular and widely-shared recent articles. Millions of Americans are considering alternatives to a system run by and for the 1 percent. They are taking an interest in socialism, a word that has meant a great many things to activists, trade unionists, politicians, and clergy around the world over the last century and a half. The article below is one of a series on socialism, what it can mean for Americans in the 21st century, and how we might get there. Other articles in the series can be found here.

I was absolutely shocked when I got asked to write an essay on what socialism means because I never get asked about big philosophical questions. People come to me with very specific requests about my not-so-secret recipe to deploying the concepts of direct action, concrete change, sustained relationships, and progressive values to kicking ass and taking names. I don't get to think about big philosophical questions, ever.

I'll start by saying I don't believe in utopia, and I don't trust utopians. Anyone who tells me that they have a solution that will create a perfectly just and equal world makes me check for my wallet while I reach for my fact-bat. So I have a real hard time with libertarians, separatists of any flavor, anarchists, religious zealots, and communists. I lump you all together. If you are incensed, you can stop reading now. I don't hold it against you that you believe in fairy dust. I just think you are terribly dangerous to yourself and others.

So what is socialism in America to me? I take it from the root of the word sociare, to share. And by share, I mean that we all share a collective fate in how society works or doesn't work. I take it from its more concrete meaning - societas. The concept is that there exists a bond between people who stand as equals before and under the laws of society - laws that they both create and consent to live by. That there is between all of us a common public good which we contribute to and benefit from that defines society. So socialism is the notion that we share a common destiny, whether we know it or not.

Sadly, most of us do not.

Socialism is the idea that all are equal, and that we participate in the creation, maintenance, and understanding of the common public good. It is the recognition that, without the common public good, society goes to hell in a flaming handbasket. And at the heart of that common public good we find a civil society, criminal justice system, and social service system that are always on guard against racism, militarism, and materialism.

That could look a lot of ways in terms of public policy. But if we can't agree that no matter what we do, we are always impacted by racism, militarism, or materialism, then we are screwed from jump-street. I mean we could end up with a Black president and still be the most unequal society in all creation. Wait a minute...damn, that just happened.

Socialism is working to create and maintain a society that lets people pursue their aspirations and not be preyed upon by the greedy, opportunistic, and amoral among us. It is always going to be a struggle.

It is a realization that the American status quo has always been built on the backs and bones of oppressed groups of people. The story of this country is written in the blood of people and movements who fought to redefine societas and to determine what is in the sociare that we share. Everything of value in American society came from a struggle against forces opposed to having an inclusive societas because of the status quo crushing people and refusing to expand the sociare to others. Socialism is the battle against the forces trying to stamp out the civic imagination that animates societas and horde sociare.

I believe in both the frailty and the aspirations of humanity, and I know that humanity's most incredible trick is that when we band together we can create or destroy pretty much anything - including ourselves.

So I don't believe that there is ever going to be a workers' paradise. And history has shown us that whenever the elites have gotten too much power and control, society has collapsed into an orgy of bloodshed and suffering. There is nothing in living or recorded history that says the collapse of society will be a good thing. And the people who suffer the most when the bloodshed and suffering kick in are those at the bottom.

So socialism is about creating a society where our default mode is not to reward those who find the best way to game the system, but to create a system that is responsive to the common public good.

It's like my grandfather said: Democracy is the battle that never ends. You are either fighting for something or losing everything.

Don Washington is an award-winning writer, researcher, trainer, and organizer who has been working on issues of human, civil, and labor rights in the U.S. and abroad for over 20 years. He runs the volunteer public policy blog and events cooperative, Mayoraltutorial.com. You can follow him on Twitter @drobsidian. You can also hear him on Fact-Bat Radio, Lumpen Radio, and on Facebook at "Jack Knight."

Left strategy in 2016 (Part 1): Grasping the key link of struggle

Tue, 26 Apr 2016 13:19:00 +0000

This is Part 1 of an article by John Bachtell, chair of the Communist Party, on Left strategy and the 2016 elections. It is adapted from an article first published in Platypus Review #85. Part 2 can be read here.

As we have trudged along through the 2016 presidential nomination contest, a number of prominent folks on the Left commentators' circuit have eagerly set themselves up as giant-slayers.

Doug Henwood, publisher of the Left Business Observer, for instance, put out a new book, My Turn: Hillary Targets the Presidency. It was an expanded version of a critique he first made of Clinton in Harper's Magazine in 2014. There, he lambasted the former Secretary of State, dismissively saying the case for her candidacy rests on just three factors: "She has experience, she's a woman, and it's her turn."

In a review of Henwood's book that appeared in the February 2016 Platypus Review, Gregor Baszak takes the critique to another level, trying to strike down not only Hillary, but Bernie Sanders too. He concludes that the hope sparked by the Sanders campaign is "misplaced." For him, Hillary and Bernie represent the Left's "liquidation into the Democratic Party." What is really required, according to Baszak, is that "the Left must be kept very far away from the Democrats."

I believe both Henwood and Baszak (and too many others this election season) express views that are far too cynical of the class and social dynamics taking place. One-sided assessments and undervaluing the agency of organized labor and its democratic allies prevents them from offering a viable path to effect social change. I'd like to suggest a broader strategy for the 2016 elections and how it might connect to longer term prospects for radical change.

2016 elections

The most dynamic force in the electoral arena has undoubtedly been the Sanders campaign. It is more than a presidential campaign; it is also a movement that has greatly broadened political imagination, brought thousands of people (especially young people) into politics, and stimulated a national discussion of democratic socialism. He is directly challenging the corporate domination of the Democratic Party.

It is being propelled by popular anger against vast wealth inequality, long-term economic stagnation, and declining wages and living standards. Sanders gives voice to the resentments, economic anxieties, and fears of millions. But his campaign is also propelled by shifts in public opinion. New social movements are influencing millions at the grassroots.

The campaign is strengthening the Left, independent, and grassroots composition of the broad anti-extreme-right coalition. Many of those associated with the Sanders campaign are frontline activists in the anti-globalization, labor, Black Lives Matter, Dreamer, LGBTQ, and environmental justice movements. They bring a higher level of consciousness, determination, and organization.

Win or lose, U.S. politics will never be the same again because radical new ideas have been discussed widely and new forces have energized the electoral arena.

Sanders and Clinton

Some have concluded that Sanders could still win the nomination (and emerge victorious in November as well) even without the Democratic Party establishment. There are also calls for Sanders to launch a third party or independent bid if he doesn't win the nomination. In my opinion, such thinking overestimates the strength of the Left, underestimates the strength of the corporate forces, and most importantly, overplays the willingness of various constituencies to break with the Democratic Party at this moment. A split would likely pave the way for a right-wing victory, and for those reasons, Sanders has rejected it.

It's certainly the case that Hillary Clinton has deep ties to the neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party and foreign policy establishment. While she's more hawkish on foreign policy, however, Clinton is no neo-con. She supports diplomatic efforts like the Iran nuclear deal and the normalization of relations with Cuba.

Achieving a non-interventionist foreign policy that also advances equitable trade relations is going to require building far bigger peace and justice movements, not to mention global labor solidarity.

While I agree with Henwood's assessment of many aspects of Clinton's career, we shouldn't ignore context and dismiss the fact she has been battling the extreme right for over 25 years, including the Gingrich-led government shutdowns and the drive to impeach Bill Clinton. She has been the object of their hatred, venom, and misogyny for a quarter-century.

Clinton is also motivated by democratic sensibilities and supports collective bargaining rights, reproductive rights, and restoring and expanding voting rights. She has pledged to continue the Obama climate policies. I would suggest we need a more nuanced view of Clinton, who is susceptible to pressure from below.

The Communist Party USA does not endorse candidates. It goes without saying, though, that the Sanders program addresses the needs of the country and is closest to our own. My guess is most of our members support the Sanders campaign.

Presently, the forces necessary for victory over the GOP are fractured in their support between Clinton and Sanders. We consistently advocate unity around the issues and always keep in mind the bigger goal - the defeat of the right.

Huge stakes

Independent of what side one takes, a lot is at stake in the outcome of the 2016 elections for the American people. The results will determine the post-election terrain upon which future battles will be fought out. What is needed is a sober appraisal of objective realities, the political dynamics, and the balance of class and social forces. Taken together, these constitute a particular stage of struggle.

In developing strategy and tactics, Marxists should seek to identify the most critical challenges the working class and people face in any given stage of struggle that, if overcome, can advance the entire movement. Lenin called it grasping the key link in the chain. Today's most critical challenge is the danger posed by the extreme right to democratic rights and institutions, to social programs tens of millions depend on, and to life on this planet of ours. I believe we make a fundamental error in strategy and tactics if we discount, dismiss, or underestimate this threat.

2016 offers an opportunity to deal a decisive setback to the extreme right grouped in the Republican Party and those allied with it, blocking their ascension to the White House, ousting their elected majorities in Congress and statehouses, blocking right-wing appointments to the Supreme Court and judiciary, and defeating their ideas in the court of public opinion.

Because the anti-extreme-right coalition sees the Democratic Party as the only viable electoral vehicle presently, the only realistic way to defeat GOP candidates is through electing their Democratic Party opponents. Short of such a defeat, it is impossible to see winning substantial victories in the economic and political arena, let alone radical democratic reforms or socialism.

In fact, were Donald Trump to win, it would likely mean the ascendancy of a right-wing authoritarian government whose aim will be to dismantle accustomed democratic norms. In one way or another, Trump, Cruz, and Kasich all express support for a national right-to-work law, unbridled racism, misogyny, hatred of transgender people and immigrants, elimination of any curbs on greenhouse gas emissions, further rollback of reproductive rights, and militarization abroad and at home.

Rise and domination of right wing extremism

The most recent rise of the extreme right began in the 1970s when sections of the U.S. ruling class - grouped around oil, military, and banking interests - launched an all-out effort to undo the gains of the New Deal, the Civil Rights Movement, and Great Society programs and to reassert U.S. economic and military domination globally.

This new era coincided with the end of the postwar economic boom and the beginning of growing extreme wealth inequality. These forces captured the Republican Party and engineered the nomination of Ronald Reagan, employing racism and the elaboration of the "Southern Strategy."

In the recent period, the GOP, in tandem with the Koch brothers and other plutocrats, has waged total obstruction against President Obama in an effort to block his agenda including raising the minimum wage, gun control, infrastructure repair, student loan relief, hiring more teachers and first responders, curbing greenhouse gas emissions, extending protections of undocumented youth and their families through DACA and DAPA, closing the Guantanamo Prison, and now blocking his ability to appoint a Supreme Court nominee.

The GOP's 2014 victory heightened the danger, extending right-wing domination of Congress and probably guaranteeing a House majority until at least 2022. They now control 11 more statehouses and 31 governorships, 67 of 98 state legislative chambers, and have total control of both branches of government in 24 states. Republicans have gone all-out to lock in their power through redistricting and the passage of voter suppression laws. It is now estimated that 3 to 5 million people were prevented from voting in 2014.

Want to know what a right-wing authoritarian government looks like? Check out Wisconsin, Michigan, Kansas, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, Indiana, Illinois, and elsewhere, and see the kind of legislation being passed: right-to-work laws, voter suppression, anti-LGBTQ, anti-reproductive rights, anti-immigrant, etc.

In most cases, GOP governors and state legislators have taken directly from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) playbook and its cookie-cutter legislation backed by the Koch brothers and their ilk.

The fight against extremism

The CPUSA was one of the first organizations to raise the alarm over the rise of the extreme right as far back as 1980. We called for an "all-people's front" to combat it, a modern day version of the united front policy first articulated by the Bulgarian communist Georgi Dimitrov. This battle has been waged over 35 years through election cycles, in the legislative arena, and in the battle to sway public opinion.

Since 1980 though, several new factors have emerged, raising the level of danger and the urgency of defeating the right. First, there is the re-emergence of oligarchy and extreme concentration of wealth, and their impact on politics resulting from the Citizens United decision. The New York Times reported in October that 158 families provided half the early money to presidential candidates. Of that, 138 supported GOP candidates. The radically magnified influence of a relative handful of billionaires greatly increases the threat to existing democratic institutions, imperfect as they are. Secondly, there is the emergence of the planetary ecological crisis and its existential threat to humanity and nature. The fossil fuel industry is a main bulwark of the extreme right.

We see the role of our Party being to help foster maximum unity of the diverse forces in the democratic coalition, build its breadth by helping bring in new activists and movements, deepen its consciousness by promoting the most advanced positions and candidates, and arguing for the strategic aim to defeat the extreme right. We connect all of this to the longer-term strategy for more fundamental change.

Part 2 >>

Photo: AP

Plotting for Gus Hall and free speech at Blue Moon Tavern

Tue, 26 Apr 2016 11:06:00 +0000

This article is an excerpt from the upcoming autobiography of former People's World editor and long-time correspondent, Tim Wheeler.

Gus Hall was coming to the Pacific Northwest in February 1962. Members of the Communist Party of Washington State were elated. Party organizer Milford Sutherland had worked hard setting up speaking engagements for Hall to speak at campuses all across the state from Spokane to Bellingham to Ellensburg to Seattle and Tacoma. Hall had recently been released from Leavenworth Penitentiary where he had been railroaded to prison for over six-and-a-half years falsely charged under the Smith Act of "conspiring to teach or advocate the overthrow of the government by force and violence."

Hall and the 12 others jailed under this infamous witch-hunt law were not accused of a single act of violence. They had not stockpiled arms or trained in the woods for terrorism or guerrilla warfare. No, he was imprisoned for his ideas, for upholding the notion that at some time in the future, the majority of the people of the United States might decide to "alter or abolish" the government and replace it with another government. In Hall's words, he was jailed for "the crime of thinking."

Hall's life was an open book. He had been a steelworker, a founder of the United Steelworkers, one of several Communist Party union activists recruited by United Mine Worker President, John L. Lewis, to help organize the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). He had served in the U.S. Navy during the war against fascism.

Now he was on a nationwide speaking tour, telling the crowds that the Smith Act was an assault on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights aimed at smashing the labor movement and all other movements seeking progressive change.

He was scheduled to speak at the University of Washington. Members of my youth club at the university were mobilizing to hear Hall speak.

Then, one by one, the colleges and universities where Hall was scheduled to speak started canceling the speaking engagements. Virtually every day, another cancellation was announced in the media. A day or so later, the University of Washington cancelled Hall's appearance on campus.

I had stopped with a friend, Tim Lynch, at the Blue Moon saloon on 45th Street to quaff a pint of ale. We sat at a booth, a large crowd of other students sitting nearby. Tim started ranting angrily about the cancellation of Hall's visit.

"We ought to do something about it," Tim said.

"I agree. It is really outrageous. You know Boeing and other corporations are threatening to cut off funding to intimidate people. Why don't we try to think of somewhere Hall could speak where the sponsors won't cave in to the fearmongers?"

I thought of Eagleson Hall at the YMCA-YWCA right in the University District. It was located off-campus at the corner of 15th and 42nd.

"We should start at petition right now," Tim said. "We don't even have time to get it printed."

I pulled out a yellow legal pad from my book-bag and handwrote across the top: "We, the students of the University of Washington, who uphold freedom of speech and assembly, appeal to the UW YMCA-YWCA to open the doors of Eagleson Hall for Gus Hall to speak."

Tim Lynch signed on the first line. I signed on the second. It turned out that many at the tables and booths around us had heard Tim and me ranting and raving about the vile crime of barring Gus Hall from speaking. We passed the petition around in the dimly lit bar room. Virtually everyone signed. We had to handwrite the petition on another sheet and it too was filled. Others in the bar took out notepads and wrote out the petition text and promised to circulate it among their fellow students.

The next day, Tim and I were racing around campus gathering signatures on sheets of notebook paper. My Party club meeting at the home of Kae and Ted Norton was that evening. Tim and I went to the meeting in their cramped street level apartment and reported on the petition we had launched at the Blue Moon Tavern.

Every member of the club agreed to circulate the petitions. Within 78 hours, we had collected well over 500 signatures. Tim and I went to the YMCA-YWCA. Luckily, Frank H. Mark, Executive Director of the UW YMCA and Elizabeth Jackson, Executive Director of the UW YWCA were there. We met with them and presented the handwritten petitions. We already knew them as friends of the Student Peace Union, the civil rights movement, and other progressive causes.

They studied the petitions and told us they would get back to us soon---within hours---because they knew, as well as we knew---that time was of the essence. Sure enough, within a few hours, when Tim and I returned to the "Y," these two courageous leaders gave us the nod. Yes. They would provide a meeting place for Gus Hall to speak. We settled on a date: February 10, 1962. Tim and I would contact Hall immediately to give him the news.

We were---no pun intended---over the moon!

Yet as we walked down the steps of the "Y," I told Tim. "This is just the beginning of the fight. You know the FBI, Boeing, the rightwing extremists, are going to descend on the UW 'Y' with a vengeance. We have to launch a counter attack right now!"

We telephoned Milford Sutherland and our own club chair, Kae Halonen, to ask them to start mobilizing in support of Frank Mark and Elizabeth Jackson immediately.

Within hours, the phone began to ring at the "Y" with people calling to thank them for taking a stand for freedom of speech. Bouquets were delivered so that the reception room of the "Y" was filled with flowers.

And sure enough, the FBI and other anti-communist witch-hunters were busy. The whole story is contained in a report posted online at the Washington State HistoryLink.org. The YMCA officials said the scheduled Hall appearance "has brought the wrath of the town down on us."

The website adds, "An executive with the United Good Neighbors (predecessor to the United Way and a major source of funding for the Seattle YMCA) said contributors were 'raising hell with us.' Representatives of the Boeing Company asked that United Good Neighbors cut allocations for the YMCA."

This sledge hammer intimidation was aimed at the UW "Y" officials even though they were not the sponsors of the event. As the HistoryLink story put it, "His (Hall's) appearance at Eagleson Hall...was sponsored by a group of UW students, faculty, and staff rather than by the UW YMCA itself."

I had an idea. My mother's first cousin, Herb Robinson, was the news anchor of KOMO TV. He was a widely respected journalist, chief editorial writer for the Seattle Times. I telephoned KOMO and asked for Herb Robinson. He came on the line. I told him that "Y" officials, Frank Mark and Elizabeth Jackson, had taken a courageous stand in defense of free speech in opening Eagleson Hall to a speech by a Communist Party leader. Could he arrange an interview? He said he would.

"By the way," he asked, "We're cousins aren't we?"

"Yes we are."

"Give my fond regards to your mom," he said.

Herb Robinson himself came to conduct the interview with Mark and Jackson. These two "Y" officials stood their ground. And so did my cousin, Herb Robinson.

Gus Hall came to Seattle.

Eagleson Hall was packed to overflowing. The windows were opened so the vast crowd of students and faculty that gathered outside could hear.

He blasted the Smith Act, J. Edgar Hoover, and the other redbaiters. Hammering the air with his steelworker fist, he warned that the aim of this assault on democracy is not the Communist Party alone but all progressive forces seeking to change our nation for the better. Those who cave in to the hatemongering John Birch Society and Minute Men terrorists were placing all the rights of the people at risk. The crowd gave him a strong ovation.

Doing research for this book a few weeks ago, I drove from the University of Washington Library up to 45th. I turned left and was inching my way toward I-5.

There on my right was the Blue Moon Tavern, the place where Tim Lynch and I plotted on behalf of Gus Hall...and freedom of speech.

Photo: February 10, 1962 edition of People's World.

Low-ball to snowball: Underestimating poverty among older Americans

Tue, 26 Apr 2016 10:18:00 +0000

This is the second in a series of articles on aging in America that will appear on People's World as we look back on 50 years of the Older Americans Act. Other articles in the Aging in America Series can be read here.

Last week, as President Obama signed the Older Americans Act reauthorization (OAA), people of all ages were volunteering hundreds of hours of their time to provide low-income older adults with simple but lifesaving services that go unfunded or underfunded by both state and federal programs. Adding to the insult of meager funding, most seniors find the injury of a byzantine patchwork of federal and state services and benefits to be overwhelming and sometimes outright impossible to navigate alone.

Nevertheless, programs such as Meals-On-Wheels, in-home services, transportation, legal services, elder abuse prevention, and caregivers support are often the lifelines which enable our aging population to stay in their homes and in the community. Along with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the programs and services funded by the OAA are essential to millions of older adults.

But as the press corps leaves the White House signing ceremony and media attention dwindles, our older co-workers, friends, parents, and grandparents will continue to be forced to make cruel decisions in order to pay their rent, heat, grocery, and medical bills. Millions of older Americans, some of whom served alongside our allies to defeat fascism in Europe and Asia, are themselves the outcasts of a society whose priorities, politics and economic system, have turned against them in their time of need.

Instead of a life lived in dignity, many senior citizens are having to scrimp, accept charitable hand-outs, and are often forced to decide whether to pay for much-needed medicine, or go hungry. Far from being an anomaly, the National Council on Aging reports that one in three, or a total of 25 million, older Americans is economically insecure. Over nine million, or one in six older adults, faces hunger. Perhaps most shocking, between 2001 and 2014, the number of older adults experiencing serious economic and food insecurity has doubled.

As the need increases, it should not be surprising that we are seeing a dramatic increase in older people participating in the labor force and living in poverty. But according to a recent study--ironically funded by a private health care and insurance company's foundation--these same federal statistics on poverty may be severely underestimating the underlying crisis. According to this study, the official poverty measure and the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), which is held to be more effective and detailed, differ significantly. Despite its superiority as a tool of measurement, SMP is not used in the development of poverty statistics for older Americans.

Aside from the numbers of older adults living in poverty, SPM points to larger disparities in poverty between older white males and African Americans, Hispanics, and women than we see in the official statistics. For example, in 2013 Hispanic adults over 65 represented 20 percent of all 65+ seniors living in poverty using the official poverty measure. Using SPM, that number grew to 28 percent Hispanic. Similarly, for African Americans, the official measure showed 18 percent, versus 22 percent using SPM.

Incredibly, the official poverty measure does not factor cost-of-living disparities throughout the U.S., and instead focuses on age-based tiers. Alternatively, SPM provides for Localized Threshold Adjustments, which are based on real-world factors such as food and housing costs.

The end result of an analysis using SPM is the stark revelation that Congress and policymakers are working under the assumption of inaccurately low poverty rates among the aging population, and they are prioritizing accordingly. Without proper advocacy at both the state and federal level, this low-balling could snowball into one of the worst human disasters in U.S. history.

If we want to get a picture of how this statistical disparity pans out across the more populous urban parts of the U.S., we need to look at specific areas. As an example, I live and work with older adults in Massachusetts. The official poverty measure reports 8 percent of our senior citizens living in poverty, but in the naked light of SPM, that number doubles, to 16 percent. It would seem this discrepancy has the potential to inflict catastrophic consequences as the older population bubble continues to inflate over the next 30 years.

As the World War II generation knows from personal experience, confronting national and international challenges such as these requires unity, education, analysis, and skillful leadership, as well as determination. Knowing these factors is an important starting place for analyzing the demographic, economic, and political terrain.

Working people and working class older adults will need to come together to build a viable, symbiotic, and politically cohesive force for claiming and enshrining economic, social, and cultural rights, just as previous generations led the way in championing our civil and political rights.

Donald Donato is a writer, priest, and human services advocate from Boston. He has worked with community-based organizations in support of economic, social, and cultural rights as human rights for over a decade, and he is currently the Area Planner and grant writer for an Area Agency on Aging near Boston.

Photo: HeartlandAlliance.org

Clinton will win nomination, but Sanders’ revolution can’t quit now

Fri, 22 Apr 2016 13:27:00 +0000

After her resounding victory in New York's primary, it's now pretty clear that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for president. Claims that there will be a contested Democratic convention may buoy the spirits of distraught Sanders supporters, but they stray a little too far from numerical reality to be worth much consideration.

As of this writing, Clinton has 1,930 delegates. Even if she only wins 40 percent of the delegates still up for grabs, she will have enough to capture the nomination by early June at the latest. As for the push to get waves of superdelegates to switch from Clinton to Sanders, there's really no reason to expect much success here. If her strong performance in the polls wasn't enough to keep them onside, there are always the financial incentives as well.

Barring some totally unforeseen circumstances, Clinton will carry the banner against Trump or whomever the GOP manages to put forward.

Sad news for socialists.

But before you start to think this article is another one of those pieces telling Bernie to pack up and go back to Burlington, read on a little further. It's not. Just because Sanders won't get the nomination doesn't mean this should be a time for despair on the left.

Who would have thought a year ago that his campaign would carry on this far? Who would have guessed that millions of people, especially young people, would be so energized by the anti-austerity message of a self-proclaimed democratic socialist? Or that those same millions would carry him to the brink of capturing the leadership of the Democratic Party?

I didn't. After the first couple of contests, I thought it would all be over. Perhaps he'd get Clinton to tack leftward a little bit here and there, maybe he'd get a few more folks talking about socialism. But I'll admit, I was pretty pessimistic about the prospects of a long-lasting Sanders campaign.

I'm glad I was wrong.

The "political revolution" has come this far because of the power of its ideas. In essence, the message is that if people get together, organize ourselves, and get in on the action, we can change our country's future. It is a call to build a political movement of the 99 percent.

It took hold of millions because it speaks to what we've been living through after years of recession and economic crisis. Breaking up the big banks, free college tuition, $15 minimum wage, investments in a new green economy, fairer trade deals, and single-payer healthcare - all of these were proposals that found a mass constituency in this election beyond their usual circles.

It is a message in tune with the spirit of the times. And combined with Sanders' masterful skills as spokesman and leader, it was a formula for success. But that success doesn't have to end.

Rather than dropping out when the campaign for the nomination wraps up, now is the time when the advocates and activists of the "political revolution" have to step up our game once again. It is now that we have to redouble our efforts to reshape independent politics - both inside and outside the Democratic Party. It's time to give life to a form of political independence that can really deal a defeat to the right and open the path to proactive advances.

And whatever their many shortcomings, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party don't have to be obstacles in this. Hillary isn't Bill. Even if third way politics are her heritage, she knows that she will need Sanders' supporters in November. If the millions backing him stay mobilized and engaged, they will be hard to ignore.

Sanders himself is well aware of this. On Wednesday night, his campaign manager Jeff Weaver announced that Bernie will not only support Clinton if she is the eventual nominee, but that he is also a member of the Democratic Party for life. This is a signal - a signal that his campaign is not going to just close up shop. Instead, it is preparing to reorient itself away from the nomination fight and focus on consolidating the movement and transforming the Democratic Party.

Bernie's in it for the long haul. He's going to keep up the fight to build and strengthen a broad-based democratic left in this country, but he's going to do it with at least one foot inside the official structures of the Democratic Party.

Given the hurdles of forming a new third party (as well as the divisive role such an effort would play at this time), Bernie is nudging his supporters to think about the big picture. He wants them to remember that the movement that has emerged is about more than just him.

The project of making the Democratic Party a vehicle for progressive advance, although currently headlined by Sanders, is one that has to outlive his candidacy. It's an uphill battle for sure, but anything worth doing usually is. And there hasn't been a real opportunity to do it in a very long time, at least not like the one we have right now. Progressives are in the ascendance, building on the gains made during the Obama era. And Republicans? Well, they've got a lot of problems right now, but they'll regroup. So we've got to take advantage of the opening.

Now is the time to inject some radical ideas and real politics into the mix. The Sanders camp will arrive in Philadelphia for the Democratic National Convention with enough delegates to make an impact on the platform committee, enough clout to make the case for getting rid of superdelegates, and enough energy to redefine the image of the Democratic Party for the American people. If this same capacity is applied to all the down-ticket races, it is also possible to make a dent in the GOP's control of Congress and statehouses across the country.

Throughout this campaign, we have seen the conversation within the Democratic Party inching further and further to the left. Sure, primary season always finds candidates leaning a little more to the liberal side. But this year has been different. It is progressive, not centrist, arguments which have dominated the debates.

Sanders is setting an example for a new form of political independence. Hopefully his supporters are all getting the message.

Photo: Bernie Sanders in Davenport, Iowa. | Charlie Neibergall/AP

An open letter to Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam

Fri, 22 Apr 2016 13:24:00 +0000

Dear Mr. McAdam,

Last week, I took a drastic step. Instead of going in to work at Verizon, I stood outside with a picket sign. I'm on strike because it's time for you to listen to us.

I'm a cable splicing technician in Roanoke, Va., which means I install and fix Internet, cable and phone service. I'm proud to say I've volunteered to serve wherever the need is greatest. I went to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and Central Florida after bad storms there.

Yet on a work call the other day, one of the managers said technicians like me were "tools to accomplish a task."

Maybe that manager chose those demeaning words poorly, but that comment stung with more truth than I can easily admit.

We're not tools. We're the public face of Verizon. We talk with customers. We solve problems. We restore service. And we help our company make $1.5 billion in profits every single month.

As ordinary working people, we do our jobs and also do stuff like coach Little League and volunteer in our communities. I enjoy time with my three grandchildren: Hope, Elijah and Lucas. I want to work hard, then come home and spend time with my wife.

The coming home thing has become an issue. I imagine, from your military service as a Navy engineer and in your early career with Pacific Bell, you know about traveling on a moment's notice to get the job done. I've done my share of that.

One reason I'm a Roanoke tech is Verizon's job description said the need for out-of-town travel would be "low."

Increasingly, that hasn't been the case. Out-of-town assignments have become arbitrary, disruptive and extended. Your managers have started pulling technicians from our home communities and sending us across the state, sometimes 300 miles away, to work for weeks at a time. These last-second moves are turning our lives upside down.

And now you want to make these reassignments even worse by sending us with just a few days' notice anywhere from Massachusetts to Virginia for up to two months?

It's crazy, and it's not even smart business.

When you send us for long out-of-area assignments, it downgrades the Verizon service in our home areas. In Roanoke, for instance, we struggle with backups and delays, and that means unhappy customers.

Instead of shipping us out, Verizon should focus on maintaining and repairing the copper network and, wherever possible, expanding FiOS. It baffles me that you refuse to install high-speed broadband in my part of the state. It's not for lack of demand - my customers and my neighbors clamor for it. People stop me on the street every day and ask, "When are we going to get FiOS?" It is hands down the best service around. Let's build it out!

Treating us like tools isn't good for Verizon's bottom line.

There is another way to be, and that's treating us like family. I'm a second-generation Verizon worker. My mother spent 36 years with the company, starting out as an operator. Over the decades, I've often felt like part of the Verizon family.

Not today.

In 2014 my wife Robin developed several pulmonary embolisms. It was terrifying. She had two blood clots in her left lung and two blood clots in her right. Recently, her condition led to spinal fusion surgery. I help administer her medication and hook up her Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation device, which helps to relieve her pain.

I also drive my wife to her weekly doctor appointments. I love my wife, and it's important for me to be there for her. I'm her only caregiver. My wife takes Warfarin, which is a blood thinner. I worry that if she falls and I'm not around, she could bleed out and die in no time flat. She's already had two emergency room visits.

I've explained this your managers and even provided a note from my wife's surgeon, yet Verizon continues to send me miles away from home at the drop of a hat.

All this helps explain why that "tool" comment hurts so bad.

As I said, I'm not a tool. That's why I'm on strike. I want you to know we're men and women, mothers and fathers, husbands and wives, partners and caregivers. Techs like myself have and will do everything possible to help Verizon succeed, but we're at our breaking point.

Please listen to us. Please confirm that the ugly "tool" comment was just that, a comment and nothing more.

Sincerely,

Dan Hylton

This article was reprinted from Medium.com.

Photo: Dan, his mother, and his grandchildren on the picket line. | Dan Hylton

Trump’s got everyone asking: Is he a fascist?

Fri, 22 Apr 2016 10:48:00 +0000

The F-word is back.

No, not that F-word. That word never left the conversation. The F-word making a comeback is fascism. It was the second most-searched term in the dictionary last year. (Socialism, by the way, was first.)

And no one can take more credit for its comeback than Donald Trump. Not since George Wallace's presidential primary bid in 1968 has such an over-the-top, in-your-face racist, nativist, misogynist, bellicose, bullying, and demagogic candidate run for president and received such attention.

In a few short months, Trump has, with a big assist from the corporate-owned mass media, polluted the public discourse, incited violence against his opponents, and fractured the electorate and the Republican Party, all while developing a loyal following of unruly supporters. At one rally, according to the Washington Post, they cheered when he exclaimed: "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldn't lose any voters, okay? It's, like, incredible."

What makes this scary is that Trump is currently the front-runner for the nomination, and could be the next president. His commanding victory in New York brings him closer to both.

Taken aback by this unexpected turn of events, quite a few political commentators have concluded that the word fascist fits his persona and politics. As they see it, Trump isn't simply one more irresponsible and dangerous demagogue like Wallace; he's also a cat of a different color - a fascist. Some even wonder if it is time to rethink the conventional wisdom that "it (fascism) can't happen here." (See Robert Reich, Sasha Abramsky, Ezra Klein, and Jamelle Boule, Lizza Ryan among others.)

Classical fascism and the modern parallels

It is easy to see why they do. Trump does exhibit the behavior and echo the themes of fascists of earlier eras. His message of national decline and renewal, internal enemies and traitors, racial hatred, nativism, misogyny, hyper-nationalism, bellicose militarism, disgust for traditional parties and politics, victimization and revenge-seeking, glorification of violence and "manliness" were the stock and trade of the fascists of yesteryear.

He never misses an opportunity to mention the singular importance of political will and the role of the great leader. Nor does he fail to remind his audience of a time when America's word and power sent shivers around the world.

Moreover, his constituency (and this too is typical of earlier fascisms) isn't specific to one class, income, demographic, gender or religious grouping, although it is largely male and overwhelmingly white. It includes the economically beaten and battered, but also the well-off and very wealthy. His supporters can be found in rust belt cities, inner-ring suburbs, and small towns, as well as the exurbs and gentrified neighborhoods of major metropolises. His largest following lives in the South.

It is this heterogeneous mix that accounts in no small measure for the eclectic nature of his political talking points. Not every politician has the virtuosity to do such political juggling. But Trump does; he is a superb demagogue. Few people in present-day politics are better at exploiting people's resentments, giving voice to hot button issues, and retailing themselves as the "One" to "Make America Great Again."

He also deftly combines a sense of the profound shifts at the political, economic, and cultural levels that have caused an upheaval in the way tens of millions live and think. He does it all with a showman's flair, shining a harsh light on the failure of both parties to address the mounting turbulence of everyday life accompanying these shifts.

When he rhetorically slays both parties and their presidential candidates on the unending war in the Middle East, the weaknesses in the economic recovery, recent terrorist attacks in Europe and the U.S., legislative gridlock and suffocating bureaucracy in Washington, China's rise, "porous" borders, "free" trade and job losses, and corruption in high places, his supporters roar approval and more than a few scream hateful epithets.

However, unlike fascists and fascisms of the 20th century, the specter of socialism is seldom heard in Trump's stump speech. And the reason is simple. Notwithstanding the Sanders campaign and the growing popularity of the term itself, socialism isn't beating down the gates of U.S. capitalism. If anything, a harsh right-wing regime is a more likely possibility. In fact, it could be only an election away.

Nor does the real estate developer, to use New York Times columnist Charles Blow's mocking term, confine his rant to the poorly-performing economy. Trump is aware that people live on multiple terrains - political, social, cultural, religious and, not least, economic - that interact in complicated ways and shape people's attitudes. Thus, he appeals to them accordingly. Robert Kagan, a noted author on the right, makes much the same point:

"We are supposed to believe that Trump's legion of 'angry' people are angry about wage stagnation. No, they are angry about all the things Republicans have told them to be angry about these past 7½ years, and it has been Trump's good fortune to be the guy to sweep them up and become their standard-bearer. He is the Napoleon who has harvested the fruit of the revolution."

So is Trump a fascist?

But does all this make Trump a fascist? New Yorker columnist John Cassidy doesn't think so:

"Some people have gone so far as to suggest that Trump, in whipping up popular resentments and stigmatizing immigrants and Muslims, is exhibiting Fascist tendencies...but is 'Fascism' the best way to describe the Trump phenomenon? I don't think so."

Cassidy goes on: "Originally used as a collective noun for the murderous, revolutionary hypernationalist movements that emerged in Europe from the embers of the First World War, the word is often employed today as a catch-all term of abuse for right-wing racists and rabble-rousers. Trump certainly qualifies as one of the latter, but calling him a Fascist serves to obscure rather than illuminate what he is really about."

Cassidy is on to something here. Trump is exceedingly unruly, over-the-top, narcissistic, divisive, and dangerous. About that there is little disagreement. But he has no all-consuming and consistent worldview. He doesn't speak, as Nazi propaganda did, of creating a unitary, exclusivist community free of conflict under the authority of a single all-powerful leader, superintending a fascist state that penetrates into and presides over every nook and cranny of civil society.

Nor is he the leader of a separate party/movement that is guided by an overarching (ugly and anti-human) worldview, thinks strategically and tactically, and thrives on mass, often violent, actions. Zealous supporters, which Trump has, are one thing, but a fascist party steeped in ideology, politically adroit, equipped with a deep, broad, and skillful leadership, and steeled in struggle isn't part of the mix.

Furthermore, Trump has few elite supporters in the Republican Party or the capitalist class. And the rise of fascists and fascism depends on such supporters facilitating its ascendancy, even if fascist dictators, like Hitler and Mussolini and their respective parties, operated with a considerable degree of autonomy from the elites of their time. (See Ian Kershaw and Robert Paxton).

Fascism, capitalism, and democracy

Finally, U.S. capitalism is in a crisis, but It's not in its death throes. Nor do the class and social forces challenging it possess the breadth, depth and maturity of understanding and organization to contest its hegemony. The Sanders campaign, as exciting and significant as it is, is nowhere close to constituting a political movement that can successfully upend existing capitalism. And until there is such a party - not simply a movement - that possesses that capacity, fascism will likely remain on the sidelines. Only in the most dire circumstances when capitalism is being seriously contested does it become the preferred option of significant sections of big capital and right-wing extremism.

And it's not because of their unshakable loyalty to democracy. Their first commitment is to the reproduction of capitalism and their political hegemony. But, all things being equal, a democratic capitalist state, with a measure of what Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci called popular consent, is their preferred framework for economic exploitation and political governance. In fact, if you listen to the apologists of U.S. capitalism - and not just Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan - free markets (read: capitalism) and democracy are two sides of an organic, indissoluble, and historically constituted whole.

Moreover, this marriage of markets and democracy, these apologists go on to say, turned a new nation, occupying in its early years the eastern shore of a much bigger land mass populated for centuries by indigenous people, into "last and best hope for humankind," and "exemplar of freedom and beacon of hope." This ideological notion provides the main justification for the political hegemony of U.S. ruling elites on a national and global scale. So much so that the shattering of this legitimizing notion of their rule, which a descent into fascism would do, is something that they would avoid except in the most exceptional circumstances.

But between the ground of fascism and the ground of democratic governance that we now occupy, albeit limited and restricted, there is a terrain of class rule and political governance that is authoritarian, abnormal, and anti-democratic, but still short of fascism. Such a terrain would be wrapped in the rhetoric of personal responsibility (not collective rights), family values, free markets, limited government, "protection" of the unborn, "color blindness" and reverse racism, sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, reward work (not dependence), America for Americans, Christian virtues, and national greatness. And it is precisely this terrain that the Republican Party is eager to occupy.

The GOP's worst nightmare

Which brings me back to Trump. If he isn't a fascist, where does he sit on the political spectrum? Trump, in my view, is a right-wing extremist and demagogue, with some fascist overtones. He's not alone, however. He occupies that space with the likes of Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, and the Republican Party leadership at the national and lower levels.

What distinguishes Trump from his mates is his reckless, unreliable, and unpredictable behavior. He's not a team player, but a rogue. He knows one tune - his own. And his class and political ideology is inconsistent, sometimes all over the map. Not surprisingly, the top circles of the Republican Party and capitalist class find this very troubling.

While a degree of autonomy usually operates in the relations between those who rule (capitalists) and those who govern (politicians), as well as between the president and his or her (for the first time if Hillary wins) party, it is limited and relative. But the fear in elite circles is that a Trump presidency could rupture this dynamic altogether, that he could become completely unhinged, thus running the risk of introducing a highly destabilizing force into politics, economics, culture, and the dominant ideas that frame capitalist rule.

But more immediately, the concern in Republican circles is that a Trump presidential run could result in massive defeat up and down their ticket in November and irreparably damage the entire right-wing political project and the party's long term standing.

In short, Trump is the GOP's worst nightmare.

Thus, the money bags of the Republican Party are sparing no expense to cut Trump down to size and deny him the party's nomination. Whether they will succeed and crown Cruz or someone else to lead them into the fall campaign is unclear. In any event, it seems likely that the Republican Party will leave its convention fractured, perhaps badly so. Whether it can recover for the fall elections and what it will look like over the longer term is a matter of conjecture, but it is fair to say things are not looking promising for the GOP.

This intra-party bloodbath should give a big leg up to the Democratic Party and the broader democratic coalition - labor, people of color, women, youth, seniors, and social movements - in November. But only if they dodge the bullet of their own contentious nominating process and enter the general election this fall united behind their nominee. And after yesterday's primary victory in New York, it appears that Hillary has a lock on the nomination.

What Bernie does between now and the convention isn't yet clear. No doubt he is feeling pressures from all sides. A few in his campaign and many more in Hillary's are urging him to call it a day and turn his attention to his role at the convention. Others are counseling him to stay the course until every vote is counted and every primary is completed. And of course a few are advising him to go the independent, third-party route.

I can't imagine him choosing the third-party option. And it appears he will stay in the contest for a while anyway, maybe to the very end. In any case, what is of paramount importance is that he and Hillary tone down the harsh rhetoric directed at each other, make Trump the main target of their polemics, and find common ground heading into the convention. That will take a measure of restraint and common sense on both sides. And Hillary, assuming for the moment that she is the nominee, needs to be especially solicitous to Bernie. She is a better candidate because of his campaign.

This is no time for either candidate to draw a line in the sand. Too much is at stake in November.

Bernie's supporters no doubt will be disappointed, some bitterly, but these feelings hopefully will dissipate by summer's end, helped along by a unified convention and the looming possibility of a Trump or Cruz in the White House. If that isn't the case, a path opens up - maybe the only one - for a Republican Party victory in November. Such an outcome would throw the people's movement and the Democratic Party on the defensive, and obviously put Bernie's program of fundamental reforms on ice indefinitely.

On the other hand, a Clinton win, coupled with Democratic Party gains at the Congressional level, would give the broader movement and reform-minded Democrats leverage to move the politics, economics, and culture of the country in a democratic, progressive, and peaceful direction.

To think that everything would be frozen in a neoliberal and imperial framework in the event of a Clinton and Democratic Party victory is a supposition that isn't warranted. It's undialectical, at odds with historical evidence. In fact, the campaigns of Bernie, Hillary, and Trump - each in their own way - tell us that neoliberalism isn't on the same uncontested ground that it occupied for more than three decades.

None of this may sound very sexy, especially to younger voters who are anxious to make a political revolution, post haste. Who doesn't want to move beyond the burdens of the past and the outrages of the present? Who doesn't want to scale dizzying heights and take leaps down freedom road?

But desire and aspiration can't discount out-of-hand existing realities. The future can't be invented out of thin air. It springs out of the present with its constraints as well as its possibilities. We live at a time when a new terrain of radical, anti-corporate democracy isn't an idle dream, but the realization of that dream depends on the freedom train arriving at the next station - the November elections - and taking care of business: putting a hurt on right-wing Republican extremism. All aboard!

This article originally appeared at the author's blog, SamWebb.org.

Any sandwich but socialism, please

Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:16:00 +0000

Ed. note: This column is the author's response to Paul Krugman's column in the April 15, 2016 edition of the New York Times.

Paul Krugman's latest piece in the Times, "The Pastrami Principle," is just one in a series of recent, let us say, smears against Bernie Sanders. And what's the essential message of this one? Sanders is a liar and a racist for not being ashamed of his victories in recent primaries with lots of white voters. I hope Krugman does not expect to put this turd in everyone else's sandwich without comment.

This latest accusation comes on top of previous Krugman charges that Sanders' economics are "smoke and mirrors"; that he has infantile economic fantasies; that he's a "single-issue" bumpkin only interested in that humdrum money issue; that he's a gun nut; and more.

On the subject of "smoke and mirrors," I submit that this is exactly what Krugman is deploying in these snarky arguments of his. He does this instead of addressing what he really does not like about Sanders proposals: they require too much socialism, too much working class and popular mobilization, and indeed perhaps too much "revolution" - restructuring the current class and power structure - to achieve.

What his hit pieces against Sanders mostly consist of are political biases, not economic judgements. And they are based on a fundamental pessimism about the country as a whole and its aspirations.

Krugman's angst could be considerably ameliorated if he was spending more of his day talking with folks on the Verizon picket line. No doubt he would have argued that this was basically a strike against automation and trade agreements, and thus likely doomed. There is some grain of truth in that. But that's not the underlying and important truth. Nor is it the meaning of a 35,000 worker strike.

The American worker is reaching nothing-to-lose-but-chains status as the the decades roll on with no improvement - or, at most, one-step-forward, two-steps-back "improvements" in standard of living and security. It's a protest against the rigged game for workers. Get on the picket line, Paul. You will feel better about everything.

Now, I do not agree with Bernie on every issue. I don't think opposition to trade agreements is the effective path to restoring U.S. workers' bargaining strength in the economy. And is it true that his pitch to African Americans could be better tuned? Of course. I believe he has been responsive to criticisms on this matter, and his polling numbers among African Americans have been steadily improving as people get to know more about him.

But is he a sincere friend and supporter of every movement and legislative effort to redress racial, national, and ethnic inequalities? Yes. And, most important, is he a consistent friend to every working class issue and movement that is struggling against austerity? Yes.

So, why treat him as an enemy? Indeed, what question to working people is more important than those two enumerated above? None that I can think of.

So these issues of Paul Krugman's are just smoke over the real one: his fear of the degree of socialism that may be needed in order to do what must be done - reversing austerity.

Now, it is not so bad, in my opinion, to show fear in the face of potentially revolutionary changes - changes that the ruling elite will not accept willingly and will deploy every available resource to crush. And I ask every Bernie supporter who calls my radio show, Winners and Losers, if they really want a "revolution." Most say yes, interestingly. But there is a lot of hot air and empty talk about revolution in the U.S. among some of the "Bernie Bros," as there has been among numerous others over the decades. I predict the counterpunch from the billionaires, should Bernie actually approach the nomination, will be a fierce and dangerous thing to behold, and a thing to fear.

But that gets to the essential question of this election, on the Democratic side: Does defeat of the ultra right require reversing austerity?

Not just talk. Not just "calling out." But really reversing austerity.

And if so, does that require "revolutionary," as contrasted with "triangulation," tactics? Bill Clinton was brilliant at times playing off the liberal and reactionary forces in Wall Street, high tech firms, and others against each other. But is that sufficient now? Can we raise wages while still promising the billionaires the level of rewards they currently enjoy?

I lean strongly toward Bernie's analysis. But I am still, in truth, officially undecided. I want to see if the temper of the people (and my own temper too) is ready to walk the walk that Bernie's campaign of truth demands.

Bernie Sanders is not a lot of hot air. He is a man who always meant precisely what he said when I knew him in Vermont. He is using the phrase "political revolution" today very deliberately and consciously. He is saying, "Citizens: I am not promising anything but a straightforward and honest struggle for a better life. But this is the kind of struggle in which everyone, including all the politicians, will have to shed some real skin in the game."

Do I wish Dr. King and the Poor People's Marchers were walking beside him to add an even broader dimension? Yes.

Do I wish Lincoln, FDR, John L. Lewis, Frederick Douglass, the miners of Matewan, the Rebel Girl, John Henry, the veterans of a thousand working class movements and struggles for human rights were holding him up!? Yes, yes, yes.

We will need the living as well as the spirits and souls of the dead, plus the jeweled lights of the future, to prevail. But we will rise!

John Case is host of The Winners and Losers Radio Program, which broadcasts from 7:30 AM to 9:00 AM EST, weekdays on 89.7 FM from Shepherd University in Shepherdstown, West Virginia. The program can also be heard on the Internet at Listen Live.

Photo: Burlington Mayor Bernard Sanders greets presidential candidate Jesse Jackson at a campaign appearance at Montpelier City Hall, December 31, 1988. | Toby Talbot/AP

Passover begins Friday night: A rabbi’s poetic reflection on freedom

Thu, 21 Apr 2016 13:05:00 +0000

The eight-day Jewish festival of Passover begins Friday night in the Jewish year 5776. The holiday celebrates the exodus of the Jews from Egyptian slavery. It is the central narrative that defines the Jewish people. Many times in the Bible Jews are admonished to do justice and "remember the stranger because you were once slaves in Egypt." Other cultures have also taken sustenance and inspiration from this story ("Let My People Go"). It should be noted that despite the centrality of the exodus in the creation of Jewish nationhood, there is no reliable recorded or archeological evidence of the Jewish people's sojourn in Egypt. But even if mythical, the Passover story still exerts a powerful hold on a people's yearning for freedom.

Your Child Will Ask

By Rabbi Brant Rosen

Your child will ask
why do we observe this festival?

And you will answer
it is because of what God did for us
when we were set free from the land of Egypt.

Your child will ask
were we set free from the land of Egypt
that we might hold tightly
to the pain of our enslavement
with a mighty hand?

And you will answer
we were set free from Egypt
that we might release our pain
by reaching with an outstretched arm
to all who struggle for freedom.

Your child will ask
were we set free from the land of Egypt
because we are God's chosen people?

And you will answer
we were set free from the land of Egypt
so that we will finally come to learn
all who are oppressed
are God's chosen.

Your child will ask
were we set free from the land of Egypt
that we might conquer and settle
a land inhabited by others?

And you will answer
we were set free from the land of Egypt
that we might open wide the doors
to proclaim:

Let all who are dispossessed return home.
Let all who wander find welcome at the table.
Let all who hunger for liberation
come and eat.

Rabbi Rosen is the Midwest Regional Director for the American Friends Service Committee and the rabbi of Tzedek Chicago. This poem appeared on his blog Shalom Rav posted April 18, 2016.

Photo: Wikimedia (CC)

Police accountability report highlights “Chicago’s shame”

Thu, 21 Apr 2016 10:26:00 +0000

"The community's lack of trust in C.P.D. (Chicago Police Department) is justified," so concluded the blistering, in-depth report of the Police Accountability Task Force, set up by Mayor Rahm Emanuel after the uproar surrounding the fatal police shooting of Laquan McDonald.

After a four-month investigation, the task force pulled no punches. "CPD's own data," it concluded, "gives validity to the widely-held belief the police have no regard for the sanctity of life when it comes to people of color." It detailed a long pattern of institutionalized racial abuse: unjustified stops, physical abuse, torture, detention without counsel, shootings, and more.

The task force backed its conclusions with data drawn from the CPD's own files. Blacks, whites, and Hispanics each make up about one-third of the population of Chicago. Yet African Americans constituted three out of every four people that CPD tried to Taser. In addition, 74 percent of the 404 people shot by the Chicago police between 2008 and 2015 were black.

The Task Force also noted that the system itself was designed to be unaccountable. It singled out police union contracts, urging changes in clauses that "make it easy for officers to lie in official reports," give officers 24 hours to get their stories right, ban anonymous citizen complaints, and more. The contracts "have essentially turned the code of silence into official policy."

The task force chair, former federal prosecutor Lori Lightfoot, called the report a "call to arms." It made more than 100 recommendations for change, including creating a new independent civilian oversight panel and a dedicated, independent police inspector general. Two Chicago aldermen have already introduced draft ordinances to move on these recommendations. The task force recommendations included everything from diversifying the police force, to adding body cams, to changing police patrols, and more.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel met with the task force to review the report. His curt public response was disappointing: "I don't really think you need a task force to know that we have racism in America, we have racism in Illinois, or that there's racism that exists in the city of Chicago and obviously could be in our department... The question is, what are we going to do to confront it and make the changes in not only personnel but in policies to reflect, I think, the values that make up the diversity of our city?"

Emanuel said his "general attitude" was to "look at everything they say," but then went silent, saying he wanted to review the recommendations before commenting.

Chicago, with the number of shootings rising in recent months, needs an effective police force that has the community's trust. According to a recent Chicago Tribune editorial, this is the seventh such report, each generally issued after another corruption-related scandal.

Real reform can no longer be put off. We need serious steps to diversify the police force, to train police, to stop racial profiling, to restructure police-community relations, and to enforce accountability and the law.

If Mayor Emanuel won't lead, the City Council need not wait to take action. And the city's powerful business community also must demand accountability. As The New York Times wrote in a powerful editorial on "Chicago's shame," "Chicago's business leaders should be sickened that it took the execution of a teenager for the city's elected leaders to begin to face up to the truth about the Police Department - a truth that the black community has been saying for decades."

Yet, even if the task force's recommendations are adopted, that is only a first step. The CPD is guilty of a long, racially-biased institutionalized pattern of abuse. But they are also tasked with enforcing order over communities in despair that are plagued by poverty, unemployment, drugs, guns, and a lack of hope.

We must reform the police. But we also need a program for urban development, jobs, schools, and hope. Without that, the streets will remain hard and ugly, and the people will continue to suffer.

Rev. Jesse Jackson is the founder and president of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition. He was a leader in the civil rights movement alongside Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and was twice a candidate for President of the United States. This article originally appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times. It is reprinted here with the permission of Rainbow PUSH.

Photo: Lori Lightfoot, chair of the Chicago Police Accountability Task Force. | Terrence Antonio James/AP

What does socialism mean? It means working class power

Wed, 20 Apr 2016 10:27:00 +0000

People's World Series on Socialism

In everyday political discussions, "socialism" is used to describe policies in capitalist countries such as those in Scandinavia, where the means of production remain primarily owned by private individuals, but, through heavy taxation on excessive wealth and income, important social benefits like health care, education, and quality government services are provided to people.

This is the stated goal of self-described "democratic socialists" like Bernie Sanders, and compared to what we have now in the United States, such a set-up would certainly be a huge improvement. It would reflect a serious weakening of the extremist section of corporate power. But the problem is that there is no guarantee such benefits will last as long as capitalists retain economic ownership and control political parties continually seeking to reverse the gains achieved by working people.

The essence of socialism is the replacement of the capitalist class and private corporate power by the working class and allied forces (family farmers, small businesspeople, self-employed professionals, etc.) as the dominant influence in society. When this coalition is the new ruling class, it can then begin to reorganize the economy. Such a reorganization would include social ownership of key industries such as finance, energy, and armaments. It would mean developing policies that put people before profits and guarantee full democratic rights and economic security for all.

Socialism would still be a class society. But it would be one in which working class and trade union values become dominant - values like solidarity, equality, democracy, and peace. The trade union slogans of "an injury to one is an injury to all, united we stand, divided we fall" would be the watchwords of socialism in defense against residual forces looking to restore capitalism.

Historically, the establishment and maintenance of socialism has only been possible when the people have been led by well-organized political parties committed to the working class and with a vision of building a new socialist society. This has generally been the role of the Communist Parties.

However, coalitions of Communists and other progressive forces and parties are also possible. They may actually be able to guarantee a larger base of support, and thus greater political stability. This possibility was clearly demonstrated in Nelson Mandela's government elected in South Africa following the end of apartheid - a coalition of the African National Congress, the South African Communist Party, and the South African Congress of Trade Unions.

The first effort to do away with millennia of private property ownership and class power, in the Soviet Union, faced ferocious hostility in an international environment still dominated by private capital. Socialism's ability to flourish was, to say the least, greatly limited. The most serious challenge came with the rise of fascism and the Second World War unleashed by Nazi Germany and its anti-communist allies. Their goal was nothing less than the destruction of socialism in Russia and democracy everywhere else. Withstanding unprecedented devastation and loss of life, Soviet socialism overcame the Nazi onslaught, though, and an entire group of socialist-oriented states arose in Eastern Europe, North Korea, and China.

With the support of the socialist countries and peace forces in the capitalist world, Vietnam established a unified country with a socialist government defeating the U.S. in a war that took over three million lives. Similar support allowed socialism to arise and survive in Cuba - despite invasion, repeated attempts to assassinate government officials, and economic sabotage conducted by the United States.

Soviet socialism continued for decades under the conditions of the Cold War, but it was eventually destroyed because of both external pressure as well as internal corruption and mis-leadership. With the end of Soviet socialism, capitalist forces also regained power in Eastern Europe and Mongolia.

Nonetheless, the other socialist-oriented states survived, began to grow, and new ones continued to emerge, especially in Latin America and Africa. Today, governments in China, Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba use a mixture of social and private ownership as a way to accumulate the capital, skills, and technology needed to establish modern socialist economies.

In the capitalist countries, meanwhile, the rise of socialism greatly strengthened the hand of the working class and its allies over the years, especially in Europe. The example set by the socialist countries allowed them to expand democratic rights and wrest enough national wealth from capitalists to establish high-quality health, education, social services, and environmental protection.

In the 1980s, however, right-wing forces took power in the United States, the world bastion of capitalism. They launched a drive to reverse the gains won by working people around the world and here at home. Internationally, they aimed at achieving domination through vastly superior military power, especially after the demise of the Soviet Union. And domestically, the right wing conducted a sustained effort to suppress living standards and curtail democratic rights that has gone on now for more than thirty years.

In the new millennium, we once again find ourselves in a period of mass popular resistance and severe economic crisis. Support for the capitalist system today is greatly weakened, as the American people increasingly demand that the vast wealth they create be freed from private owners and used for the benefit of society.

At present, the class struggle in the United States centers on the clash between labor and its democratic allies on the one hand, and right-wing extremism on the other. Meanwhile, the material basis continues to grow for full socialization of the economy, universal abundance, and the emergence of a classless, modern, democratic, and green communist society sometime in the future.

To finally end class exploitation, though, working people and their close allies must establish a system where the socially-produced wealth is socially distributed. This requires progressive taxation of capitalist wealth and socialization of privately-owned means of production.

All of this can only fully happen if the working people take over the apparatus of government. Whether this occurs gradually or rapidly depends on a number of factors, including the will and ability of the capitalists to resist, and the will, organization, and ability of working people to overcome that resistance and take power.

In any case, this transformation is inevitable. The socialist genie is out of the bottle and cannot be put back. The genie is out because governments where working people hold power have been established and are flourishing on every continent, and in the remaining capitalist countries, working people have increasingly adopted socialist goals and democratized wealth and power.

Hopefully, the change to a society free of unpaid, i.e. slave, labor will occur as peacefully, democratically, and rapidly as possible. This would be the realization in practical terms of the long-held religious ideal of "the Beloved Community," the secular ideal of the "Family of Man" (and Woman), and the communist ideal that "the international working class shall be the human race."

This contribution to the People's World Series on Socialism was adapted from a pamphlet, "A Handy Guide to Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy." Funds are now being raised to publish a new third edition. Readers can donate here and contact the author at ricknagin1@yahoo.com about how to get copies of the new edition.

Worked to death: The aging face of the American labor force

Tue, 19 Apr 2016 13:22:00 +0000

This is the first in a series of articles on aging in America that will appear on People's World as we look back on 50 years of the Older Americans Act.

Other articles in the Aging in America Series can be read here.

In the dirty old Boston of my boyhood, to see an older man walking down the street early in the morning probably meant he was on his way to the bakery, or to the café to gossip with his buddies. If it was a Thursday or Friday, he might buy some fruit at Haymarket and make his way back home in time for lunch. A generation of largely immigrant workers aged at home with the help of their children, were able to retire with Social Security, and many could count on union-bargained pensions. Today, only the wealthy can afford to live in the once-working class neighborhoods of Boston's pricey housing market, and if there are seniors in the streets early in the morning, they're likely going to a full-time job just like their younger neighbors.

Despite the fact that a tidal wave of older adults over 65 is already crashing down on lawmakers in state legislatures and Capitol Hill, many leaders are choosing to hide their heads in the proverbial sand rather than plan to meet the needs of low income older adults over the long term. Over the next 30 years, the 65+ population will nearly double, from 48 to 88 million, according to An Aging World, a U.S. Census report released last month.

While this dramatic increase in the older population is far from being news, in terms of the percentage of older adults participating in the labor force, the U.S. is fast approaching levels reminiscent of a developing economy.

Looking at the nine-year trend (2002-2011), the number of Americans between the ages of 65 and 69 who are still having to work increased from an already very high 26.1 to 32.1 percent. By contrast, in France during almost the same period (2001-2011), that percentage began at 2.1 and increased to 5.3 percent. Although those percentages are considerably lower thanks to France's national pension and health care systems, the rise of elder poverty, longer life-spans, and the need for work is clearly visible.

Late-stage capitalism may be hindered in countries like France, with its social charter, strong trade unions and viable political parties of the left, but its imprint and future course is unmistakable.

Back in the U.S., in 2013, over 70 percent of working men age 65+ were working full time jobs. This is hardly an anecdotal incident of grandpa bagging groceries to pay for his golfing trip; it is quickly becoming a way of life for most working class older Americans. When asked the question "Overall, how confident are you that you will be able to fully retire with a lifestyle you consider comfortable?", 40 percent of U.S. older adults surveyed indicated that they were "not confident."

None of this will come as a surprise to working people with older parents, friends, and colleagues in the workplace. More and more older people have been forced into working low-wage jobs in order to help pay for things like prescription drugs, medical treatment and food, in lieu of enjoying a healthy retirement.

While the low-wage-no-benefits economy continues to flush the super-rich with even more of the world's wealth, health care spending for the average senior citizen has skyrocketed. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) forecast that health care spending will surge at an average annual rate of almost six percent between now and 2024. Incredibly, national health expenditures during this period will be increasing one percentage point faster than the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. Profits for a few are leaving millions without the basics, and the siutation for older people will only get worse.

In the face of these overwhelming challenges, the Congress and its well-heeled campaign contributors continue to try to sabotage the Affordable Care Act and adequate resources for essential programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Title III funds re-authorized by the Older Americans Act of 1965 (OAA).

In the Republican-controlled Congress, minimalist legislation is hailed as a grand commitment to the elderly. As an example, the re-authorization of the OAA, which funds critical social and nutritional services across the country, was recently passed by both houses of Congress. Touting the mirage of a seven percent annual increase (which itself must be approved every budget year), the GOP policy handlers omitted the fact that their single-digit increase will be inundated by the wave of Baby-Boomers who are turning 65 at the staggering rate of 10,000 per day.

Older Americans have traditionally been a well organized political force, but too many of the programs and organizations which once advocated for Social Security and Medicare have been co-opted by insurance schemes and pay-for-play politics.

Still, out of the fires of this immense challenge, working people have a unique opportunity to combine the strength of older adults, labor, and smart political leadership, to advocate for both radical changes and real politics. A system which pushes frail, older people back to work to pay for profiteering health care is a system the American working class can no longer afford.

Photo: An elderly worker at a fast food restaurant. AP

Where is the Republican Party going?

Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:07:00 +0000

When John Boehner stepped down as Speaker of the House last fall, everyone assumed his deputy, Kevin McCarthy, would quickly take up the position. Facing intense opposition from the Tea Party-backed Freedom Caucus, however, McCarthy beat a hasty retreat and the party had to persuade a reluctant Paul Ryan to step up. Republicans tried to put a positive spin on things: Ryan was the "unity candidate." No one really bought it though. What we actually witnessed was a sneak preview of the party's 2016 presidential race.

The reactionary populist base that GOP leaders have been all too happy to wield against Obama and the Democrats for years appears to have slipped out of their control. With the Trump-Cruz-Kasich race still going strong, some in the commentariat have even begun entertaining notions that the GOP is entering a state of collapse. The fact that all the so-called establishment candidates like Bush, or to a lesser extent Rubio and Walker, are long gone, leaving Trump and Cruz at the head of the pack, certainly wasn't how things were supposed to go. But claims that the party is entering its death throes are more than a little exaggerated, even if it is clear that the party faces serious division at the national level.

That is only part of the story, though. If we only pay attention to the presidential contest, we could miss out on some important factors in this election.

At the down-ticket level, the GOP machine still retains a considerable degree of unity and capacity. Heavy infusions of cash at the Congressional and state levels continue to fuel the Right (both inside and outside the party proper). Looking beyond the race for the White House, what we find is a policy and funding network that is still quite effective at guaranteeing Republican dominance.

These seemingly contradictory trends are part of a major political realignment underway which could reshape politics in the United States. As is often the case, ours is a time of both danger and opportunity.

Breakdown of the New Right coalition

It would appear that what we are witnessing right now is the breakdown of the New Right coalition that has kept the Republican Party (mostly) unified for the past 35 years. That's not to say there haven't been dissidents or personality clashes along the way, but since Reagan's victory in 1980, there has been a generally united stance within the GOP that has allowed it to successfully advance its ultra-right agenda.

McCarthyism was the first inkling of this force, but it really started to coalesce with the Goldwater campaign of 1964. It became more coherent when Nixon married segments of big business and educated urban/suburban Republicans to rural constituencies with his racist "Southern Strategy," and then emerged in its full form with Reagan's election.

It is this hegemonic grouping which finished off the Democratic Party's New Deal Coalition and replaced it as the dominant ideological and political trend in our country. It combined major sections of capital, neoliberal free market advocates, libertarians, and Evangelical fundamentalists.

This mix has come under strain, however, due to a number of factors: the prolonged economic crisis and slow recovery; the increased differentiation of capital between advanced globally-oriented sectors like finance, high-tech, and energy on the one hand and domestically-oriented small and medium capital in sectors like services, small manufacturing, and regional energy exploration on the other; and the profound demographic shifts reshaping the population of the United States. Immigrants, people of color, and other formerly minority communities are making up ever-larger proportions of our country. And the younger generation is leaning to the political left.

Relatedly, it is also clear that these emerging divisions are linked to changes in the voting base of the Republican Party (and also that of the Democrats). White, non-union, non-college educated voters now make up around half of the GOP voting base (even though they are only 36 percent of the national voter total); while only a quarter of the Democratic electorate come from this group. The Republican Party is becoming more reliant on this segment of voters at precisely a time when their overall share in the population is decreasing. The group is also replacing the GOP's shrinking segment of educated upper-income professionals earning over $100,000 a year, who now split almost 50/50 between the two parties.

As this group of voters - those who have lost out in globalization and free trade - grows into a larger share of the Republican electorate, we are seeing their clout reflected in the surging support for candidates like Trump. He articulates, however crudely, the insecurities that the last few decades have created for them. Cruz draws on such sentiments to a certain extent as well, but his approach to public policy draws more on his Evangelical outlook. There is, of course, much overlap in all of these categories.

A time of differentiation is unfolding for the American Right. What we are witnessing is a reconfiguration of the Republican electorate. It is not, however, the end of the Republican Party - contrary to what some on the left are celebrating and others in GOP circles are lamenting.

Factions, capital, and the nomination

With Trump and Cruz marching ahead, the party establishment, such as it is, is probably wringing its hands and doesn't know what to do at this point. It is possible that some have accepted that it is better to lose to Clinton than to support Trump, but beyond that there's little agreement on what to do next.

Do they go all out to stop him from getting the nomination and risk splitting the party - jeopardizing their chances not just this election but also in the future? Or do they let him have his place at the head of the ticket and then sit on their hands and hope he flops? Or do they actually put effort and resources behind an alternative conservative candidacy?

These are not easy questions to answer, and GOP leaders are probably not getting clear direction from their partners in business either. Aside from the voting base outlined earlier, Trump also appeals to significant parts of the small business sector that is needed by the party for both money and votes. But it seems highly unlikely that much of the larger corporate sectors are at all excited about Trump, or Cruz for that matter. Some would probably prefer to get behind Kasich, but he has little electoral legitimacy and not much hope at this time.

Considerable segments of the finance and high-tech sectors will likely go for Clinton, just as they did for Obama. Their business is so international that many are unwilling to risk putting someone in the White House who even verbally threatens to close open borders and restrict free trade. For them, the main criterion is competent management of the capitalist system. If Republicans could combine their low-tax/no-regulation agenda with toned-down social issue stances and competent leadership, most of these folks would probably be eager to accommodate themselves to a GOP nominee. But as it stands, it doesn't look like the party will be able to fit the bill.

Oil, agriculture, and the resource sectors would almost certainly prefer an establishment candidate in the mold of Jeb Bush, however, there is really no one viable at this point. But with fracking bans, carbon taxes, and green energy filling the speeches of Clinton and Sanders, they will probably back any Republican when it comes down to the wire.

Enduring strength down-ticket

It is clear by now that the factional divisions at the top of the GOP are real enough, but as mentioned, this is only part of the equation.

In states and localities across the country, a policy and funding infrastructure is in place which still provides a surprising level of organizational unity and institutional capacity for the ultra-right. This has particular significance for state-level contests and the struggle to control Congress.

Since 2008, the Republicans are up 69 seats in the House, 13 in the Senate, 900-plus in state legislatures, and 12 governorships. Though at the national level it might look like the GOP is in big trouble, the last eight years have been extremely successful for the party. They control what laws get considered by Congress and they decide electoral boundaries and voting laws in thirty states. The stranglehold they enjoy over state governments, combined with gridlock in Congress, enables the right to push through their agenda on a state-by-state basis. Their hold on these levers of power will not be broken just by a Democrat winning the presidency.

A coordinated network of some 60+ state-level right-wing think-tanks and policy institutes - like ALEC, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and others - continues to vigorously promote an anti-labor and anti-public services agenda in almost every electoral district in the nation.

They provide ready-made policy recommendations and research to Republican state legislators, governors, and members of Congress - still far outpacing anything that the center-left has been able to put together. Many of them also spin themselves as pragmatic centrist groups, so their policy products even show up in the legislative proposals of some Democrats. A similar network of "family policy" institutes, which are really Evangelical outfits, do the same dirty work when it comes to social policy issues like abortion and LGBT equality.

It is here - at these down-ticket levels - that the extreme concentration of wealth and the undermining of democracy is perhaps being felt most strongly. This is where Citizens United is wreaking some of its worst damage. The Koch Brothers, for instance, focus the bulk of their political spending and activities at these levels - not on the national presidential campaigns.

Their network of billionaire funders plans to spend $869 million dollars on the 2016 election - an amount on par with what the two major parties each plan to spend this year.

These realities point to the need for labor and the left to continue giving just as much focus to city, county, state, and Congressional races as they do to the presidential campaigns.

Possibilities for realignment?

Taken together, these developments all point to a political realignment in the United States. Demographically, the current Republican voting coalition is not on a path to long-term sustainability or growth. The shift toward a more moderate center-right party that many elements of the GOP establishment hoped to pull off for the 2016 election will have to take place eventually. After enough times losing at the presidential level, the forces inside the party advocating for change will gain traction.

Years from now, this period might be looked back on by Republicans in the same way Democrats view 1968-92. It was a time of Congressional dominance for the party, but with the one-off exception of Jimmy Carter, it was shut out of the White House. The 2016 GOP nominee - especially if it is Trump or Cruz - could one day be seen as the Republicans' version of George McGovern, assuming that the Democratic nominee wins.

If this is the case, the years ahead will be transitional ones for the GOP nationally as it seeks to formulate new ways to market itself. This could mean that opportunities for advancing a left-labor democratic agenda are possible, as we have seen with the rapid growth of the Fight for $15 and other movements in the recent period.

Lest anyone begin anticipating smooth sailing from here on out, though, it is necessary to keep in mind that the ultra-right's hold on Congress and many states is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. As the GOP message loses its appeal among an increasing number of Americans, the party will rely even more on redistricting and voting rights restrictions to shore up its electability, a response Bernie Sanders has described as political cowardice.

But in general, what we see right now is a reopening of the ideological divide in American politics. For Republicans, the pressure to move to the center will increase - especially if the party loses the presidential election.

To the left of center, the factional gap appears in the form of a strong liberal-left grouping around Sanders, which is setting the pace for the party's traditionally centrist wing, attached to Clinton. The latter group finds itself forced to adapt to a new period when the old third way ideology is losing currency.

All sides are fluid. But in the long-term, there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic. It won't be easy, and there will still be reversals and hurdles along the way. Labor and the people's movements still haven't harnessed their potential transformative power. But if a broad majoritarian coalition can be consolidated to capitalize on these openings, there could be a period of more advances ahead.

The Republicans will undoubtedly regroup at some point and again start to match at a national level what they are already doing on the state and local levels. The democratic movements can't afford to miss the current window of opportunity.

Photo: AP

Ivanhoe Donaldson, a Civil Rights movement backbone, passes

Thu, 14 Apr 2016 14:18:00 +0000

WASHINGTON - In the 1960s, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) helped African American Southerners, who faced terror and intimidation, organize to be allowed to exercise their right to vote.

The work was tedious, frustrating, exhausting and dangerous.

Ivanhoe Donaldson taught many of us how to do it.

SNCC organizers, mostly black Southerners themselves - with some black and white folks from the North - worked to support thousands of "everyday" heroes who risked everything for equality and justice. Your name and address was put in the paper if you tried to register to vote. If you were African American, you could be beaten, have your house burned down, your mortgage called in, be fired from you job or be put off your land.

Donaldson, born in Harlem and raised in the Bronx, the son of an African-American New York cop, went South and helped black people from Mississippi to Virginia face the dangers and join the Freedom Movement.

Before the Selma march, Donaldson was in Alabama helping to organize the Lowndes County Freedom Organization, whose members adopted as their symbol a Black Panther. Later it was used, with permission, by the group who organized in Oakland, California.

After his work in SNCC, Donaldson helped change the color of American politics by helping black candidates across the nation win offices for the first time.

He was one of the first leaders to recognize the untapped electoral power of the District of Columbia's majority black population and helped transform the District from a somnolent, subjugated colony into a progressive community able to continue its fight for full home rule.

Donaldson was a brilliant organizer, an astute political tactician and a fearless fighter for equality.

Like Bayard Rustin and Ella Baker, he was part of the Movement backbone. He helped shape its direction, but felt his role was to help others become visible leaders and spokespersons.

If you haven't heard of him, you will. His story will be told as the true history of the Civil Rights Movement continues to be written.

Top trainer

I first meant Ivanhoe in 1964. I had been an organizer for SNCC since '61 and had been sent to Holly Springs, Mississippi, where I worked alone for many months before a group of volunteers and an experienced project director, Ivanhoe Donaldson, arrived.

I was expecting a director who would be, like most SNCC leaders, armed with little more than great faith.

Ivanhoe came armed with a map of the counties surrounding Holly Springs and lists of black residents. "You can organize any community," he said, "if you have a map."

Working with most SNCC leaders, you did about one hour of work for every three or four of introspective discussion. Ivanhoe was different. He took charge and put us on a vigorous work schedule. He was blunt and brooked very little back talk from naïve volunteers who thought they knew it all from books and television.

Ivanhoe expected results. We loved and respected him and felt safer with his leadership.

Once, when he and I were arrested on some trumped up charge, the sheriff brought us into a holding area surrounded by deputies with billy clubs. He moved to smack us.

Instead of using the standard, passive, nonviolent technique of protecting his head, Ivanhoe took control of the situation just as he had taken charge of the project.

"If you hit me," he yelled at the sheriff, "I'll sue you for so much, you'll have to sell your wife."

I was sure we'd be killed.

In the segregated South, death was a common punishment for a black person talking that way to a white man, especially if the white man was the sheriff.

In this case, however, the sheriff was so flustered, so sure he had run into something that was threatening beyond his understanding, that he quickly put us back in our cells.

In other instances, Ivanhoe's courage in expressing his anger to racists was truly life threatening. His close friend Harry Belafonte taught him to control it.

Ivanhoe became the quintessential SNCC worker. The group made a training film featuring him, called simply Ivanhoe.

Assertive with SNCC staff and volunteers, Ivanhoe was low key with local people. He worked patiently to encourage blacks to take the courageous step of attempting to register to vote. He would sit for hours on porches, talking and listening. At other times, he sat among worshippers at church, enthusiastically singing hymns.

Ivanhoe helped guide SNCC from being a protest group to becoming an organization leading African-American communities in struggles to gain genuine political power.

Political strategist

After SNCC, Ivanhoe helped usher in a generation of black political leaders. As his campaign manager, he helped Julian Bond become one of the first blacks since Reconstruction to serve in the Georgia legislature. He helped Richard Hatcher become the first black mayor of Gary, Ind., and advised black candidates around the country who were running for local, state or federal offices.

Courtland Cox, a top SNCC leader, said, "Ivanhoe understood electoral politics before any of us did. He knew the numbers and how the game was played."

Along with many former SNCC organizers, Ivanhoe moved to Washington, DC while it was still officially a "department" of the federal government. He helped District residents get the right to elect their own city government.

The first mayor under "home rule" was a holdover from the days of federal control. It wasn't until Ivanhoe led and won Marion Barry's mayoral campaign that DC came closer to becoming a self-governing city.

Barry, who's gotten a raw deal in the national press, became a skilled politician able to relate to and bring together disparate District communities. But it was Ivanhoe who learned how to get thing done.

He served as Deputy Mayor and in other capacities, and it was commonly said that "Barry could talk the talk, but it was Donaldson who walked the walk."

In recent years, Ivanhoe suffered from cancer and Parkinson's disease. As he grew weaker, he was too proud to allow his friends to feel sorry for him. He kept them away.

However, two weeks ago his partner put her foot down and insisted Ivanhoe allow some of his close friends from his SNCC days to visit him. They chatted for a long while and then someone suggested they sing Freedom songs.

As weak as he was lying there in bed, Ivanhoe took charge. He would not allow the singing. Not because he didn't like the songs but because he knew no one there could live up to his standards for good music.

Ivanhoe passed away a few hours later, Sunday morning, April 3.

His phone kept ringing with people who did not know he had died but who wanted advice on a wide range of subjects.

Photo: Ivanhoe Donaldson, 2014, Zinn Education Project.

Socialism will encourage the better angels of our nature

Thu, 14 Apr 2016 11:32:00 +0000

People's World Series on Socialism

The phenomenal success of the Bernie Sanders campaign has put his self-styled democratic socialist agenda into the mainstream political conversation. Reading Bernie's proposals and listening to his critics have stimulated thinking about what exactly capitalism and socialism are all about. To me, the single slogan that best captures Bernie's socialist ideal is, "capitalism with a moral center," with "moral" standing for equality, compassion, empathy, and sharing earth's and humankind's bounty.

The anthropologists remind us that the human race is descended from primates. Apes, chimps, and so on. Apes are capable of great tenderness and loyalty, as you see in a mother nurturing and protecting her offspring. At the same time, apes have no hesitation to rip into an adversary with teeth and claws, chewing its flesh. Tenderness and cruelty coexist in the ape's personality.

Human beings deep down are no different. We can engage in the most vicious, heartless acts, from rape to murder. And we can weep at a poor child's death or an animal's suffering. We can be kind and we can be cruel in equal measure.

Capitalism in its bare, modern form exploits the human ability to take without pity; to destroy without shame. A "gentle" capitalism might simply try to make a little profit out of an enterprise. But the force of competition in modern-day capitalism pushes the capitalist to pay the lowest wage possible, and to take shortcuts in safety and environmental impact, lest a more cutthroat competitor put him out of business. The system, left to operate on the maximum profit principle, is heartless and cruel.

But capitalism has its positive aspects. It is a powerful engine of innovation. The greed that drives the capitalist to maximize profit also pushes the company to innovate and develop more productive methods, whether it's increasing yield in a farmer's harvest or lowering the cost in labor hours per car in mass production. An increased productivity could make everyone richer: consumers would pay less if the cost savings are passed on in lower prices; workers could take home a higher pay since they are producing more wealth per hour worked.

Alas, the capitalist in his greed prefers to keep the lion's share of the increased profits, if not all of it. The only hope of sharing the wealth is a countervailing force of organized workers, consumers, community members and others. That counter-force, to me, is the socialist agenda.

With the kind of democratic socialism that Bernie proposes, capitalists still own the factories and the farms. But under a socialist president - and a socialist congress, state legislature, etc. - profits would be taxed highly, the money going to pay for social good, like free college, maternity leave, improved libraries and parks, and so on.

Federal and state socialist parties would mandate that banks invest a significant portion of their portfolio in socially beneficial enterprises, such as renewable energy, organic farming, and medical research. More money would be put into public health, water and land reclamation, and other such programs.

Socialism is also an international approach to life. People in other countries practicing other religions and speaking other languages are friends and colleagues unless they prove hostile. Socialists see the unity of all working people and of the planet as a whole, rather than as competing markets fighting to exploit someone else's natural or human resources.

So far, Bernie's form of socialism sounds pretty good, but it's not enough for me. Consider your local bank. Once you deposit your money, you lose any control on how it will be invested. The capitalist who borrows your money has no upper limit on the profit he might extract from his investment, but the depositor is limited to a paltry percent that doesn't even match inflation. Who made the rules governing deposits and loans? The capitalist.

A socialist agenda would place all banks under the control of the depositors and the community in which they operate. Loans would be made simply to make a modest profit, which they need to pay their staff's wages and the costs of doing business. Beyond that necessary profit, decisions on where and what to invest in would be determined by an elected board of depositors and community members, not by shareholders demanding maximum profit.

The bottom line for me is that socialism tries to bring some form of compromise and working relationship between our greedy nature and our sublime, generous self. As opposites, they will always be antagonistic, each side trying to dominate the other. Class conflict will never disappear. But if we can manage the greed of the capitalist class while allowing for the innovation and adventure of the entrepreneur, it may turn out to be a deal with the devil, but I think it's about the best bargain we can reach.

Tim Sheard is a veteran nurse, novelist, and union organizer with the National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981. He is also the founder of Hard Ball Press, a publisher dedicated to helping working class people write and publish their own stories.

Alabama tractors till the soil of U.S.-Cuban cooperation

Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:44:00 +0000

Saul Berenthal and Horace Clemmons have a dream. They want to outfit the farmers of Cuba with small, customizable, easy-to-repair tractors. Cuban-born Berenthal and Alabama native Clemmons are the co-owners of Cleber LLC, an American firm which, if all goes as planned, will soon be setting up a tractor manufacturing plant in the Mariel Special Economic Zone.

In February, the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) - the body responsible for enforcing the blockade against Cuba - approved a license for Cleber to go ahead with plans to establish an assembly facility in the foreign investment area just west of Havana.

Their product, the Oggún, is named after the god of iron in the Afro-Cuban religion of Santería. It is aimed at the small farms which make up the backbone of Cuba's agricultural sector. Clemmons says the company is proud to be taking steps to help "develop the Cuban economy" and provide "a means for farmers to directly benefit from their efforts."

Cleber, whether its owners completely realize it or not, is a pioneer in the effort to normalize economic relations between the United States and Cuba. It is one of the first companies to receive an OFAC license since President Obama began his push for normalization, and it will likely be the first U.S. manufacturer to open up in Cuba since the 1959 revolution.

The company is the beneficiary of one of the few powers available to Obama in his effort to end the blockade. Even under the terms of the so-called embargo, the president can encourage U.S. companies to do business with Cuba as long as they are able to meet the licensing terms set by the Treasury and Commerce departments and can demonstrate a benefit to the Cuban economy in the sectors prioritized: oil, renewable energy, or tourism.

They also have to get approval from Cuba, of course, whose foreign investment laws don't just accept any project. According to Déborah Rivas, the director general for foreign investment at Cuba's Ministry of Foreign Trade and Investment (MINCEX), "It's about attracting foreign investors whose projects are in tune with our public policy."

Cleber's proposed tractor facility and the negotiations around its establishment are just one aspect of the much bigger efforts underway to end the blockade. In September 2015, President Obama reauthorized the Trading with the Enemy Act so he could retain jurisdiction over Congress and take steps to weaken the blockade.

Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution gives the President the power to recommend changes to Congress, and thus exercise some authority to dismantle the blockade. The Departments of Treasury and Commerce, which are overseeing projects like the Cleber tractor plant, are part of the executive branch, and thus under Obama's direction. They are tasked with carrying out the terms negotiated through any bilateral agreement with Cuba.

It's important to remember, however, that although the approval of licenses like Cleber's are important steps, it is still the case that Obama's power to change economic policy toward Cuba is limited. The laws that make up the blockade prevent him from allowing U.S. citizens to travel to Cuba for the purpose of tourism, for instance. He also cannot permit subsidiaries of U.S. companies in third countries to do business with Cuba; nor can he lift the prohibition on commercial relations with former U.S. properties which were nationalized during the Cuban Revolution. And finally, he has no power to end the requirement that American agricultural products sold to Cuba be purchased in cash, in advance.

The ultimate decision to fully normalize relations, of course, rests with the U.S. Congress. The imposition of an economic, commercial, and financial blockade against Cuba in peacetime remains an extralegal act that has no useful purpose in a global economy. Business requires two-way trade in order to benefit people on either end in the marketplace, and so far only Obama and the Cubans seem willing to do their part.

Next week, Americans opposed to the blockade will be in Washington demanding that Congress step up to the plate. From April 18 to 22, a series of events including educational forums, film showings, and Congressional lobbying will take place as part of the "Days of Action Against the Blockade."

It is only a matter of time before ever-wider sections of the U.S. public demand their legal right to travel and trade with Cuba on an equal par with the rest of the world. The pressure on Congress will only increase.

The small Cleber tractors that will soon be tilling Cuban fields are hopefully the first of many more joint-venture products to come. As Berenthal told the press, "There's no reason trade cannot be re-established...the product exists, the facilities exist, and there are people willing to invest."

The Oggún, designed in Alabama and assembled in Mariel, is just a first sample of what's possible through greater U.S.-Cuba cooperation. It's time for Congress to get out of the way.

Photo: The Cuban Handshake

Does freedom of religion not apply to Muslim Americans?

Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:28:00 +0000

Freedom of religion is considered by many people and nations to be a fundamental human right. It is the practice that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to practice their religion without persecution.

In the United States, freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right provided in the religion clauses of the First Amendment. The First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Along with this, The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution also guarantees religious civil rights. It prohibits discrimination, including on the basis of religion, by securing "the equal protection of the laws" for every person."

Yet, the issue of freedom of religion has become a hot button topic as the 2016 presidential election has candidates addressing who exactly this freedom of religion should apply to. Or rather, if certain people should be subjected to specific laws and restrictions because of their chosen religion.

This is aimed particularly at those who practice Islam, as anti-Muslim rhetoric has taken center stage when addressing the so-called "war on terror."

Since the Paris attacks by ISIS- a group that proclaims itself to be Islamic- there have been at least 42 violent attacks, threats, assaults, protests, and instances of vandalism against Muslims in America. There has also been a rise in anti-Mulsim rhetoric within the Republican party as top presidential candidates debate temporarily banning Muslims from entering the country.

Leading GOP candidate, Donald Trump, went on record calling for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."

President Obama, in a speech given at the Islamic Society of Baltimore in February of this year spoke out against anti-Mulsim rhetoric, stating "We can't be bystanders to bigotry. Together, we've got to show that America truly protects all faiths."

People's World took it to the streets to ask the public: What does freedom of religion in America mean to you? How has this situation been affected by politicians and others attacks on Muslim Americans?

Check out the video to see what they had to say:

Video contributors: Teresa Albano, Rossana Cambron, Mariya Strauss/PW

Photo: Video snapshot

Letter carriers bear a heavy weight for all of us

Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:39:00 +0000

I hear the alarm. It's the first sound in the morning. My leg extends to make the first muscular stretch of the day. I hear that "pop." It's an unfortunate, but familiar resonation. It comforts me because I know I am not dreaming. I am still alive for another day. Pain is good that way; a reminder that this day is worth living. My knees seem to have taken the brunt of my fifteen years of carrying mail, and both my right and left kneecaps is where that insidious, infernal "pop, pop, pop" explodes from. We live with it: whether it is our knees, our backs, our feet, or our shoulders. It is the price we pay for carrying the US Mails for the United States Postal Service. At the age of 56, every day I feel a strong sense of honor and responsibility to walk my six miles a day representing a part of our Federal Government that has been around since the National Constitution of 1787. I am proud, and every Letter Carrier today should be proud. We are walking in the footsteps of those that came before us.

I have a unique situation. My wife, who I worked next to for many years, is a retired Letter Carrier. She carried the US mails for 31 years and pounded the same streets for more than 20 of those years. Since she retired, I have had the opportunity to take over the duties of delivering the mail to those same patrons. I am literally walking in her footsteps every day. Those sidewalks, those mailboxes, those door slots, my wife touched with her hands and feet every day for over two decades. And I am doing that now. Quite amazing and humbling. I hope to reach my retirement doing this route, just as Jackie did. I am five years away from that furtive date, and I pray to the Gods of Arthritis every day.

Having a job with retirement benefits seems like such a basic idea. You, as a worker, give 30 or 40 years of your most productive life to a company and you get something in return; a "thank you" in the form of a monthly dividend payment and benefits till the day you die. A just reward. But for workers today that is a fleeting promise. And for the Letter Carriers that came before us, it was a cause that was stained with much struggle, and even stained blood red with death.

Since its founding in 1889, the NALC had been lobbying unsuccessfully for some kind of annuity or pension for aging carriers, or as they were called then, "the superannuated carriers." In 1913, Postmaster General Burleson was adamantly opposed to any retirement benefits and the Postal Service had a callous program of firing any "old" carrier who could not keep up the pace. A protest emerged in Fairmont, West Virginia in 1915. The Fairmont postmaster, complying with Burleson's strict instructions, fired an "old" letter carrier because he could no longer perform his job satisfactorily. Furious at the postmaster, the remaining 25 employees decided to resign from their jobs at the same time. All 25 workers were then immediately arrested and thrown in jail for striking against the federal government.

The jailed workers were shocked at the government's reaction. They were not striking; they had simply quit their jobs. But the government persisted in prosecuting the case. Without money to pay for their defense, the carriers and clerks threw themselves on the mercy of the court. In turn, the court imposed fines ranging from $5 to $500 upon all but one of the 25 employees of the Postal Department. The 25^th worker, a Letter Carrier by the name of W.H. Fisher, had hanged himself in his cell the night before the trial.

NALC persisted, and its prolonged efforts finally bore fruit. On May 22, 1920, the Civil Service Retirement Act (CSRS) became law, and for the first time, Letter Carriers received retirement benefits. Two weeks later, on June 5^th carriers received their first sick leave benefits. Fifty years later, after the Great Postal Strike of 1970, our nation's Letter Carriers achieved collective bargaining. But the one fact I never realized until I read the history of our Union is that someone gave their life in the quest for our retirement benefits. Jailed simply for quitting a job and called a criminal. That is the unwritten history of our country and I will make darn sure that my children and grandchildren learn that history from me, because I know they will not learn that in an American History class.

I want to thank the writers and researchers for the book Carriers in a Common Cause, a history of NALC. Our union has done a great job of promoting the history of America's Letter Carriers and I have stolen much of the material for this article from that masterpiece. Or let's say borrowed. I hope to join my wife and many of my comrades one day in the ranks of the retired letter carriers. I will fight for the hope that in my grandchildren's future there will never be another W.H. Fisher swinging from the end of a noose.

Photo: Postal workers strike, March 1970. | National Postal Museum