People Before Profit blog

A season’s reflections on socialism

Tue, 23 Dec 2014 14:27:00 +0000

This season, besides gaiety, good food and drink (and may all of us have an abundance of these), brings moments of quiet reflection. Sometimes the reflection is of a personal nature; other times, it's about the larger world in which we live.

Both are good for the soul. But here, I'm going to stick with the larger world - and making it a better one - with some reflections on socialism. It is a subject on which my thinking has changed significantly over the past decade, and continues to evolve.

And that's good! Over time I have learned that in politics, standing still is seldom a wise choice, especially when things change, and they always do.

Reflection 1: I begin with the unexpected implosion of the Soviet Union nearly a quarter century ago. One moment this seemingly sturdy socialist edifice was a major presence in world politics and the next moment - poof! - it was gone.

Not surprisingly, the demise of that first land of socialism, whose revolutionary beginning in 1917 constituted a sea change in the international class struggle, triggered a debate that will likely continue for a long time. While I don't claim to be a historian, I offer one thought:

The fall of the Soviet Union wasn't the singular handiwork of its then-leader Mikhail Gorbachev, as some have suggested. I don't doubt that Gorbachev played a role in the meltdown, but leaving the analysis here misses the forest for the trees.

The "forest" - the bigger picture - was the Soviet model of socialism that took shape in the 1930s, became entrenched, acquired a political constituency at the leadership and mass level, and proved resistant to any fundamental change till the very end.

This model didn't come out of any Marxist textbook. It was a specific historical product. It was the outcome of an extraordinarily tumultuous 10-year period, in which a peasant-based economy and society, hyper-industrialization, an autocratic political culture, the looming war against Hitler and Nazism, competing political and class forces, and especially the personality and policies of Joseph Stalin clashed and left a deep and lasting imprint on the main features and dynamics of Soviet socialism.

Soviet society during this period was modernized, struck - at great cost in human life - the decisive blow against the Nazi war machine, evolved into a world power, registered notable achievements in the provision of jobs, education and other public services, science and culture, and overcame many long-standing divisions and inequalities.

But the price paid was nearly incalculable, in two ways.

First, the authoritarian and at times improvisational "forced march to socialism" snuffed out the lives of millions of victims, including substantial numbers of communist leaders and members. In the name of building socialism in one country and combating the class enemy, Stalin and his acolytes committed crimes on a vast scale. Only later was this sordid chapter in socialism's history finally condemned by the Soviet Communist Party and the world communist movement.

Second, the command-style, undemocratic structures of political and economic governance were deeply rooted and persisted long after Stalin's death. These structures - and the political constituencies that controlled and gained advantage from them in various ways - were resistant to necessary economic renovation and democratization in the second half of the 20th century. All of this gradually and inexorably sucked the dynamism and liberating potential out of Soviet socialism. By the 1980s, stagnation, exhaustion and cynicism came to define the society.

Any analysis that fails to place these historical dynamics at its core will yield only the most surface, superficial insights as to why the Soviet Union fell so quickly and with no popular resistance. At the same time, making a deeper historical-political analysis doesn't preclude recognizing other causative factors - including the role of Gorbachev and other Soviet leaders who lost confidence in socialism and its capacity for renovation, the unrelenting pressures of U.S. imperialism, and so on - but it doesn't turn them into the main explanation for the collapse.

Reflection 2: If our vision of socialism is simply a slightly modified version of what existed in the 20th century, don't expect a crowd to embrace it. I have said on more than one occasion that using a rear view mirror to construct a vision of socialism won't fill the bill.

Only a vision that is modern, forward looking, democratic, and home grown will capture the imagination of the American people - not to mention meet the challenges of this century. It has to be sunk in our own realities, traditions, and sensibilities in the first (and last) place.

Moreover, socialism's vision shouldn't be reduced to economic structures, relations, planning, and growth rates, or how big a basket of material goods it provides.

What should figure large is socialism's commitment and capacity to expand the boundaries of human freedom and equality, as it completes the unfinished democratic tasks left over from the American Revolution and Civil War. It must place ordinary people - and this is paramount - at the center of creating a new society. It must accent the full, free, and many-sided development of the individual along with the expansion of collective rights like the right to organize. It must paint in many colors new arrangements of collective living and working.

And it should insist that political power be subordinated to a set of values, as well as embedded in and checked by a thoroughly democratic culture and institutions.

Furthermore, political power and its exercise cannot be the property, constitutionally or otherwise, of any one party or centralized state. Socialism should diffuse power broadly among the people and a range of institutions. If the 20th century taught us anything it is that a singular emphasis on the question of class and political power (a means) at the expense of socialist values and aims (a purpose) can easily lead to major distortions of democracy, massive crimes against people, and eventually the loss of legitimacy, and defeat.

In short, socialism's vision and practice in the 21st century must give new vigor to, and in some cases recover, its democratic, emancipatory, humanistic, people-centered essence.

Reflection 3: It is evident that some sections of the American people are gravitating toward a radical critique of society. And furthermore, this gravitation towards radical change, inconsistent and uneven as it is, is explained in no small measure by the giving way of one era in which U.S. capitalism was relatively dynamic, stable, and broadly lifting standards, to a new era defined by instability, inequality, heightened exploitation, and economic crises.

Economic crisis alone, however, is not the sole cause of revolutionary change. The soil is prepared via the cumulative impact of many different crises - economic, political, social, and moral - taking place over time, during which people's understanding gains in sophistication (going beyond "them and us" and "the system sucks"), unity broadens and deepens, and organizational capacities and infrastructures grow by leaps and bounds.

In other words, the old notion of economic breakdown followed by "the revolution" should be retired. It should be replaced by an understanding of a more protracted and complicated political/historical process, which will surely have more than one stage and shifts in initiative, momentum, popular thinking, and power, as we see today in Latin America.

Reflection 4: Socialism, it is correctly said, must be the product of an engaged, united, and politically sophisticated majority. But it doesn't follow that such a majority will simply emerge out of everyday struggles in the absence of a growing, equally engaged, and broad, nonsectarian left. To think it will just emerge out of struggles is as mistaken as the inverse, namely, thinking that socialism will be the product of an energized and radical minority. Both are bound up with and depend on each other. And without a broad, deep, and durable alliance between them, a socialist future is a pipe dream.

Reflection 5: The struggle for democracy (economic and social as well as political) is at the core of the struggle for socialism. It's not a diversion or a second-order task. Of overriding importance in this regard is the struggle against racism and male supremacy and for equality. Not only do these interrelated struggles bring long overdue justice to tens of millions, but they are also a cornerstone of higher levels of unity and understanding in the working-class and people's movements at every stage of struggle, socialist included.

Reflection 6: We have seen over the past four decades an unrelenting ruling-class offensive, the rise of right-wing extremism and neoliberalism, and large-scale economic transformations in the global economy and the size and structure of the working class (including a historically unprecedented expansion of the pool of cheap, unprotected, and exploitable pool of labor worldwide). But to turn this new socio-economic environment, in which organized labor is fighting for its life, into a rationale for bidding farewell to the working class as a political actor in the 21st century is wrongheaded.

There is no way to win radical democracy and socialism without labor figuring prominently in the leadership of the broader movement. What other social constituency has labor's resources, institutional strength, and power?

Reflection 7: A socialist movement needs a revolutionary theory. At its core is Marxism, but it must also include our country's revolutionary-democratic traditions and other schools of radical social theory. But theory becomes a guide to action only if creatively applied and developed, only if it captures the complexity, contradictions and contingency in everyday life. Cut-and-dried formulas, simplistic answers, and high-sounding slogans with no reflection in concrete reality are of little help.

If the left hopes to evolve into a major political player in the politics of the U.S., practical engagement in everyday struggles is an absolute necessity. But at the same time, that is not enough, and never will be. The left has to distinguish itself at the level of ideas as well as practice. And that takes hard work and study, collective and individual, a robust infrastructure and a culture that builds theoretical capacities every bit as much as organizational ones. As a someone once said, humans do not live by bread alone; they also need ideas, understanding and inspiration.

Reflection 8: There is considerable resistance on the left to embracing the concept that the struggle goes through phases and stages, each with its own particular balance of power and particular class and democratic tasks. It's as if political will and a resistance alone are enough to bring us to socialism.

A case in point is the near refusal by many radicals to acknowledge differences of any consequence between the Republican and Democratic parties. A while ago, I read an editorial in a left journal introducing a special edition on strategy. There was not a single mention in that editorial of the rise of right-wing extremism, which, among other things, dominates the Republican Party, controls roughly 25 state governments, and is one election away from controlling every branch of the federal government.

Now if this article were the exception, I wouldn't bring it up, but it isn't. The analysis of many on the left boils down to this: both parties have "blood on their hands" and bow down to Wall Street.

These are neither brilliant insights nor good guides to action. Indeed, they obscure the differences between the two capitalist parties on a whole range of questions, their very different social bases, and the utterly anti-working-class, racist, misogynist, super-militarist, anti-immigrant, deeply reactionary and authoritarian worldview and program of the Republicans.

Understanding these differences and their strategic and tactical implications is essential if the left is to assist in moving the country beyond the current political impasse to the higher ground of substantive social justice, sustainability, and eventually socialism.

Thinking of the major turning points in our nation's history makes me believe that socialism in the U.S. will never become a reality without stages of struggle, changes of tack, compromises, unreliable and conditional allies, and tensions between competing tasks. It will never happen without taking advantage of rifts in the ruling and political elite, without a keen sense of mass moods (not our mood), without experienced, modest, and astute leaders, leading organizations that are transparent, democratic, and able to activate people at the grassroots, without a big and lasting footprint in the legislative and electoral arena, and without a sustained and broad-scale struggle for democracy. Isn't it ridiculous in the extreme to think otherwise?

Thus the left - not to mention the larger movement - has to allow for complexity, contradiction, and a shifting terrain of struggle on which it elaborates and re-elaborates its strategic, tactical, and class and democratic tasks to fit changing conditions of struggle. The point of political engagement isn't to feel righteous or conjure up "get socialism quick schemes." It is to change the world.

Reflection 9: Socialism must give priority to sustainability, not growth without limits, not growth that degrades the natural conditions that make the production and reproduction of life and human society in its infinite variety of forms possible.

Humankind now faces changes in our planet's climate that could not only make socialism a mere dream, but make the Earth itself uninhabitable. If there is a more defining struggle in this century I'm not sure what it is.

But while its full resolution will require socialism, humanity - and certainly socialist-minded people - can't wait for socialism to address the dangers of climate change as well as environmental degradation. These dangers must be front and center now! We are approaching tipping points which if reached will give global warming a momentum that human actions will have little or no control over.

Standing in the way of any mitigation of climate change - not to mention every other progressive change on the political agenda - is, in the first place, right-wing extremism and powerful global energy corporations. Only a broad and diverse movement stands a chance of defeating this entrenched and powerful political bloc and, in doing so, taking a first and absolutely necessary step to protect and sustain Earth and life on it - and the possibility of a socialist future.

This winter solstice week we see the return of the light as the days start to get longer. I hope my nine reflections on socialism shed some light as well at this turn-of-the-year season. I'll continue to ponder them through the holidays and beyond, and hope you do too.

Photo: Karl Marx memorial at Highgate Cemetery, London. (Duncan) CC 2.0

Your mailman delivers Santa magic each Christmas season

Tue, 23 Dec 2014 11:47:00 +0000

In the lobby of the Royal Oak Post Office stands a very special wooden container. Festively painted white, red, and green with the words "LETTERS TO SANTA" boldly emblazoned on the front, this is the vessel into which the hopes and wishes of many children are deposited each Christmas season. It has become a grand annual tradition in Royal Oak to not only collect these letters written by the nimble minds of the younger generation, but to pass them along to the Big Man himself, good ole S.C., so that he can give each one a handwritten response.

Now, I'm gonna let you in on a little secret. The Big Man gets a little overwhelmed this time of year with the thousands of letters he gets, so he chooses to delegate some of this responsibility. He formed committees throughout the country. I am proud to have been anointed as the chair of the Royal Oak Elves Committee. Our job is to answer the letters from the area as if the Big Man was doing it himself. I had to get certified! Please, do not blab about this on Facebook. What I am telling you is top secret. What happens in Santa's world stays in Santa's world. Kapeesh?

One night, as the Elves Committee convened to do our special work, Dashing Dave (a very peculiar elf) yells over to me, "Cementhead, we got a hot one. High alert, this has to get your immediate attention." The envelope slides my way. I find one letter written by a child, but underneath it is another letter. This one is written by an adult.

Dear Santa,

I haven't written you a letter in over 30 years. Sorry about that. Over the last three decades I think I forgot that it is OK to ask for something when you need it. Maybe pride has prevented me from reaching out, or shame. Maybe both. I figured that since I have to get used to asking I would start with you since you are giving.

My request isn't for myself, it's for my son, Danny (his note is attached). His father and I are divorcing after 10 years and I fear that, with all the changes that are taking place, he may be struggling with maintaining his belief (in you) and with finding joy (and joy in giving) this holiday season.

I ask that you please give me the strength to overcome apathy and pessimism and to rise above negativity and resentment. In return, I promise to do my best to spread holiday cheer even when I am tired of the music and advertisements. I will do my best to make sure that this Christmas is just as special for Danny as those in the past in spite of a lack of resources.

Thanks so much, your faithful servant, Tammy.

The letter stopped me in my tracks. We always get one letter a year that does that. The one special letter that transcends and inspires. An adult writing to Santa, does she expect a response? Or is this just a therapeutic exercise, a catharsis for her troubled psyche? She did get a response; her very own handwritten letter from Santa.

Dearest Tammy,

Thank you so much for taking the time to write me. It has been a long, long time since I've heard from you! While I am so delighted to get a letter from you, I am also so very sorry to hear of your dilemma. Please always remember this: when you are in need, you should never be afraid or ashamed to ask for help. At some point in all of our lives, even including mine, we need some form of assistance from those who surround us. That is what makes us human, and even humane.

I have no doubt that you will get through this holiday season with strength and resolve. I can sense that from your steady penmanship and fortitude of spirit. Adversity can do one of two things; it can break you or make you stronger. You will become stronger from this experience, and you will have so many happier years in front of you.

I read your letter three times, Tammy. It made my heart crinkle. I hope you don't mind, I even shared it with Mrs. Claus. We have had our share of personal travails, thankfully we live at the North Pole where no one can hear our bickering. No one, that is, except those eavesdropping elves!

I again want to thank you for this very personal letter. I was feeling a bit overburdened and depressed because of my responsibilities, but after reading your message I feel revitalized. I guess we both need each other, and that is magical. You have given me the energy and enthusiasm to get through another maniacal Christmas season. It is true, we all have a certain amount of Santa DNA!

Your friend, Santa Claus.

Her Santa letter was mailed to her house, as well as a letter from Santa to Danny. He asked Santa for just a few toys, but also included a list for his dog Buddy. He asked Santa to bring white slippers for Mom, and for Dad this one word: Peace. Two days before Christmas Eve, a special delivery was made to Tammy and Danny's house. A letter carrier from the United States Postal Service delivered a stack of wrapped gifts for Tammy and Danny. There were even a few things for their dog, Buddy. With one simple letter, the mundane became magical. The human spirit leaped over the crevice of crass commercialism that invades this most mystical season. Don't stop believing!

May this New Year be the happiest of your life,

John "Elf Cementhead" Dick

Photo: Kids wait on the steps of the Royal Oak Post Office with their Santa letters. (Jackie Dick)

Ten bright spots for hope in 2014

Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:24:00 +0000

Hope seemed in short supply in a year in which ISIS beheadings and Ebola deaths screamed from headlines on high. But a look closer to the ground where workers and people are struggling shows plenty of reason for the theme that dominated the first years of the Obama presidency and still grips the hearts of hundreds of millions. Here are ten moments in 2014 that give us reason to continue to hold hope's banner high.

1. Low wage and fast food strikes: Twice this year workers all across the country went on strike demanding union recognition and a living wage. The movement is growing and with it new possibilities for building the trade union movement and improving people's lives.

2. The birth of a new movement for racial justice: All across the country people are rising up in unprecedented numbers and political breadth to protest the police murders of Michael Brown and Eric Garner. #HandsUpDontShoot and #ICantBreathe hav become rallying cries of truly mass movement.

3. The election of Newark, N.J., Mayor Ras Baraka and other progressive city officials. Mayor Baraka was the latest of a number of local officials - that include the 2013 election of New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio - who have been elected to office running on pro-people progressive platforms.

4. President Obama's executive action on immigration. Refusing to allow the GOP to continually block immigration reform, the president has prevented the deportation of millions of immigration and laid the basis for a path to citizenship.

5. The Cuba Ebola medical intervention. The decision of Cuba to send hundreds of doctors, nurses and other health workers to Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea to fight the Ebola epidemic was a humanitarian intervention far and above that of any other country and showed the basic decency that motivates the socialist republic.

6. The fight for a $15 minimum wage. The struggle for a living minimum wage won several legislative victories as several city councils passed resolutions to increase the minimum salary paid workers, proving once again it takes a fight to win.

7. Paid sick days won big last November. Massachusetts; Montclair and Trenton, N. J.; and Oakland, Cal. - all passed ballot initiatives guaranteeing paid sick days!

8. The heating up of the struggle for climate change. The climate-change agreement between the U.S. and China was a big step forward, no doubt inspired by protests like the march in New York City.

9. Restoration of diplomatic ties between the U.S. and Cuba. Obama's decision to normalize relations between the U.S. and Cuba was a big step forward. Ending the blockade is next!

10. Frack fracking. Governor Cuomo's decision to ban fracking in New York state was a big step forward and will hopefully put other parts of the country in a "New York state of mind" on this important issue.

Let's keep hope alive this holiday season and into the New Year with the hope and expectation that lasting victories are possible!

Photo: People's Climate March. | Antonio Acuña/Flickr (CC)

Sanctions against Venezuela: Colossal hypocrisy

Tue, 16 Dec 2014 13:24:00 +0000

Both houses of the U.S. Congress have voted to impose sanctions on Venezuela to punish it for what right-wing Congress members claim are violations of human rights by the leftist government of President Nicolas Maduro.

The accusations against Venezuelan officials stem from violent street rioting, not peaceful protests, that took place from February to June of this year. There were 43 deaths and many injuries, as right-wing opposition leaders in Venezuela called on their supporters to oust President Maduro. The vast majority of the deaths were at the hands of opposition activists, and most victims were pro-Maduro activists, security officers or bystanders. Some police officers who were involved in deaths were fired and/or are being prosecuted.

The rationale for the sanctions is also based on the prosecution by Venezuela of two opposition leaders, Leopoldo López and María Corina Machado. There seems to be legitimate evidence of illegal actions by these two characters, including instigation of violence in which, besides the deaths, public buildings and buses were set on fire. Yet U.S. media and politicians have put out a distorted view, portraying the rioters as victims of a despotic regime.

The sanctions passed are mostly directed at 56 individuals connected with President Maduro's government, including state governors and police officials. If President Obama signs the bill, which it is generally believed he will do, the U.S. government is instructed to cancel visas for these individuals, deport them if they are in the United States, and seize their assets.

Venezuela and its allies have reacted strongly to what they call an attack on Venezuela's national sovereignty.

In fact, the Congressional vote is a case of breathtaking hypocrisy.

In the very same week that these sanctions were voted, the following things also happened:

*The U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee released its report on abuses, including torture, which the Central Intelligence Agency perpetrated against prisoners the United States got its hands on in George W. Bush's "War Against Terrorism." It makes for revolting reading. And as the C.I.A. has clearly indicted, it thinks torture is a good thing to do and in the future is likely to do it again - as it had been doing long before 9/11/2001.

*All over the United States, unprecedentedly large demonstrations have been going on for weeks, on the subject of police brutality and especially the killing of African Americans by racist police. This has been going on for a very long time, as Angela Davis has noted, since slavery days. Nobody, however, has tried to impose sanctions on the United States.

*In Brazil, a report by the nation's Truth Commission indicated that while the U.S.-supported military dictatorship ruled Brazil from 1964 to 1986, hundreds of people were subjected to tortures just as revolting as the ones mentioned in the U.S. Senate report, and more than 400 were murdered. Though it is to the Obama administration's credit that it cooperated with the Brazilian investigation, nevertheless the fact remains that earlier administrations had been fully involved in training Brazilian agents to use sophisticated torture methods. One of the people tortured was Dilma Rousseff, just elected to a second term as president of Brazil.

*In Mexico, 42 of the 43 teacher training students from the college in Ayotzinapa, State of Guerrero, are still missing, as massive demonstrations rock the country under the slogan "They were taken away alive, we want them back alive." It is becoming clearer that the Mexican government's "official story," that the mayor of the small city of Iguala had the students kidnapped and murdered by a drug gang, is probably false. In fact, it appears more and more likely that federal security personnel, police but in collaboration with the army, kidnapped the students and most probably killed them for political motives. The Obama administration has offered the Mexican government technical help in "finding" the students. But still there is no "sanctioning" of Mexico, even though if federal police or army were involved, they were probably using weapons, ammunition and equipment provided to Mexico under the terms of the Mérida Initiative. That agreement was signed in 2008 between then President George W. Bush and the Mexican president, Felipe Calderón of the right-wing National Action Party (PAN). Elected two years earlier, Calderón had sent the army into the streets of Mexican towns and cities, supposedly to fight drug cartels. However, the result was a disaster: Violence and insecurity were greatly increased, and to date there are 24,000 people listed as missing in Mexico, as well as the perhaps 100,000 deaths that are related to the "drug war." But there is no talk of the U.S. Congress voting sanctions against Mexico because of this horrific bloodbath.

At a Monday ceremony celebrating the 15^th anniversary of Venezuela's Bolivarian constitution, President Maduro denounced the sanctions vote, and called for criminal prosecution of U.S. officials responsible for the torture detailed in the U.S. Senate report.

The sanctions bill on the president's desk is S2142 The Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014. To voice opposition to this travesty, readers can contact the White House here.

Photo: Venezuelanalysis.com Facebook

The right’s working class philosopher

Mon, 15 Dec 2014 13:51:00 +0000

Nicknamed the "longshoreman philosopher," Eric Hoffer was the best-known working-class author and intellectual in postwar America.

From the 1950s to the 70s, the cold warrior's essays regularly appeared in newspapers and magazines. President Eisenhower called Hoffer his favorite author. During the Free Speech Movement, the University of California, Berkeley appointed him an adjunct professor.

He was a frequent guest on network television, often praising conservative politicians like then-California Governor Ronald Reagan. In his first and most influential book, The True Believer, Hoffer criticized mass movements of all stripes, especially communism, and lauded the government's containment policy.

Yet Hoffer was a walking contradiction. Despite his rightist politics, Hoffer belonged not just to the country's most powerful leftist union, the International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union (ILWU), but its most militant local, the San Francisco Bay Area's Local 10.

The central paradox of Hoffer's life is even more striking because it was precisely the left-wing militancy of the ILWU that provided him the good fortune (yes, fortune) and time to write nearly a dozen books and hundreds of articles condemning radicalism, civil rights, and the social advances of the 1960s.

Hoffer worked as a longshoreman in San Francisco before and after becoming a successful author and public figure. During World War II, he had drifted up to the Bay Area from southern California, quickly finding work on the waterfront because the war effort had created a huge labor shortage.

Similar to the autoworkers, steelworkers, and packinghouse workers who formed militant, anti-racist, progressive unions in the 1930s, the ILWU was born out of the working-class anger, leftward turn, and rebelliousness that erupted during the Great Depression. Instrumental in securing the ILWU's impressive gains were the cadre of communists and other leftists (including Wobblies and Trotskyists) who founded the union.

For longshore workers, the seminal event was The Big Strike, a 1934 work stoppage across the West Coast that exploded into a San Francisco-wide general strike after police repression left two dead on "Bloody Thursday" (henceforth, a legal holiday under the union's contract). Ultimately, employers - under pressure from the Roosevelt administration - recognized the workers' right to unionize, and the ILWU was born soon thereafter.

The ILWU wielded its power via repeated and countless "quickie" strikes during the late 1930s and 1940s. These actions forced employers to accept additional concessions related to work performance, including maximum weight on each sling of cargo. By the time Hoffer found his way to the Embarcadero, the ILWU had revolutionized labor relations in San Francisco, and members proudly embraced the nickname "the lords of the docks."

West Coast longshoremen were "lords" because they earned high wages by blue-collar standards, were paid overtime starting with the seventh hour of a shift, and had protections against laboring under dangerous conditions. They even had the right to stop working at any time if "health and safety" were imperiled. Essentially, to the great consternation of employers, the union controlled much of the workplace.

The hiring hall was the day-to-day locus of union power. Controlled by each local's elected leadership, the hall decided who would and wouldn't work. Crucially, under the radically egalitarian policy of "low man out," the first workers to be dispatched were those who had worked the least in that quarter of the year.

In the words of Herb Mills, a retired Local 10 member:

The hiring hall was indeed "the union." It was the institution whereby the reality of community could be fashioned and maintained by men who had agreed to structure and divide their work on a fair and equal basis and who, through great strife and conflict, had won the right to do so.

In a real sense, sailors and dockers were the world's first proletarians, toiling under corporate-controlled shipping lines in the first global industry. And like some of the pirates of yesteryear, the ILWU had created a system that spread the wealth among all its members.

In addition to this largesse, Hoffer also benefited from the tremendous flexibility ILWU members had won. In essence, rank and filers could decide when - and if - they wanted to work on a particular day. He also had the advantage of location: While there were no guarantees of a ship to work, San Francisco had long been the largest and busiest port on the coast.

All Hoffer had to do to maintain his union membership was report to the hall a certain number of days each quarter, attend monthly meetings, and pay his union dues. Thus, the "longshore philosopher" could work three days a week, write the other days, and know that he would get dispatched when he showed up at the hall. Or, he could work six straight days and take a week off to think and write, as he often did. And if that didn't provide him enough latitude, union members like Hoffer could decide that they wanted to work in another ILWU-controlled port.

It was into this union that Hoffer stumbled, making (for a writer) an incredibly soft landing. He then proceeded to lambast the politics of the Left that had made his life so rich in money, safety, and workplace power.

Hoffer deeply appreciated the working conditions created by his powerful union, calling them "millennial" on numerous occasions. Yet he refused to praise the union and its leftist leadership, including president Harry Bridges. Bridges and the ILWU membership were highly critical of US foreign policy, especially its military interventions in Asia.

As a result of their politics, hundreds - perhaps thousands - of ILWU members were investigated for "communist sympathies." Bridges himself was likely the single most persecuted labor leader during the McCarthy era - both by the government and a rightward-shifting CIO, which expelled the ILWU in 1950. However, he survived due to the tremendous loyalty of ILWU members, most of whom were not communists but almost all of whom loved what Harry and the other "'34 men" had done to create such a great job for working people.

Even in his private journals, some of which later were published, Hoffer rarely credited the union, and never Bridges. Though the man wrote constantly and voluminously, he rarely wrote about the union that made the selfsame writing possible.

He occasionally commented in his journals on the work he did - unloading transistor radios for eight hours at Pier 34 or working with a Portuguese partner while talking about his family. But the "longshoremen philosopher" never seemed to reflect deeply on the ILWU nor his role in it. For a while he became interested in automation and its impacts on workers, but largely was sanguine, hopeful, and arguably naïve about the benefits of capitalism for ordinary people.

The man lived a rich life of the mind - reading on the job during breaks, taking half-day walks to ponder particular intellectual conundrums, journaling fastidiously, and writing for publications. However, he never changed his views that politicians like Nixon and, especially, Reagan (first as governor, later as president) were noble and his union leaders dupes, "true believers" of false idols who demonstrated their own lack of self-confidence by joining a mass movement. Based on the limited record, Hoffer never spoke at meetings, never ran for any union office, and never volunteered in the union to help his fellow workers.

Ironically, the best-known working-class American of the Cold War era was a conservative who was lucky enough to find a job represented by the most powerful leftist union in postwar America. As such, his life represents the cognitive dissonance of many working Americans today: profiting from - albeit less so than in the past - the great gains of the labor movement yet unwilling to become union advocates.

As for Hoffer's legacy, history can be cruel even to those who appreciate its fickleness. Today, few people know of Hoffer and fewer read him (though the term "true believer" still carries some rhetorical weight). The "longshoremen philosopher" was a powerful thinker, and the fact that he was a literary celebrity during the Cold War and consistently identified as "working class" is noteworthy.

While historians commonly associate the conservative ascendancy with Nixon and Reagan, they rarely note that the influential writings of the slightly older Hoffer predicted and praised the rise of the New Right. Scholars of Hoffer (generally conservatives themselves) inevitably note his working-class bonafides, but they don't mention or analyze the irony of his membership in the leftist ILWU. In that way, they're similar to all those, Hoffer included, who forgot that the labor movement brought us the weekend and much more.

This article originally appeared in Jacobin.

Editor's note: Ironically, People's World columnist and economist Vic Perlo won Notable Mention in the reference category of the 2007 Eric Hoffer Awards for short prose and independent books for his People Vs. Profits II published by International Publishers.

Photo: Lewis Hine | Wikimedia Commons

The limits of charity

Thu, 11 Dec 2014 15:27:00 +0000

With the expensive mid-term elections followed by Thanksgiving and Black Friday, followed by Cyber Monday, you'd think that people wouldn't have much money left over for Giving Tuesday. But if current trends continue, charitable contributions this year may actually match pre-Great Recession levels. We won't know about 2014 for a while, but the results are in for last year: Americans gave $335 billion in nonprofit, tax-deductible gifts in 2013.

The vast majority of that money did not come from rich people. Yes, occasionally a Mark Zuckerberg will give away a billion or so, which certainly ups the total. But on the whole, those in the top 20 percent give away about 1.3 percent of their income while those in the bottom fifth donate about 3.2 percent of their incomes. That's unfortunate because America's "ultra-rich" population grew by about six percent last year. Meanwhile, corporations, which seem to be on a roll this year in profits and stock prices, actually decreased their giving last year. Among the top 100 companies headquartered in Los Angeles, only five involve themselves in "formal philanthropy," according to the Los Angeles Business Journal.

And what did all these donors give most of their money to support? Charity, not change. Only 41 percent of charitable giving went to fulfill the obligation to create a just society. The rest went to put Band-Aids on serious matters far beyond the capacity of charity to remedy.

Charity cannot solve the problems of clean water, health care, education or safer living conditions. Peter Buffett, son of the famous Oracle of Omaha, wrote as much in a New York Times piece. As a scion of formalized philanthropy, he argued that it just "kicks the can down the road." He might have added hunger or homelessness or mental illness. Only government has the resources to address problems of this magnitude. Only government has the power to regulate against these threats to our common life. Charity only applies bandages to prop up the system that causes these problems, it doesn't fix them.

Charity also keeps people dependent. The standard sociological solution to repair a poor neighborhood is to get a grant. I've done that. I have started nonprofits as a boon to neighborhoods short on social and financial capital investment, and doing it takes money. But I never believed it was a substitute for change. An effective remedy for poor communities would shift the causes of poverty itself toward a livable income for working families; universal health care; empowering low-income neighbors to develop a voice for their communities. Those are the ways, as Buffett puts it, to stop "the perpetual poverty machine."

Charity simply cannot come close to solving the problems facing Americans, much less the world. A few hundred billion dollars is a lot of money - but it is a star in the cosmos compared to the investment necessary to stabilize the lives of so many poor and working families in this country, not to mention people starving across the Earth. What the government provides necessarily dwarfs what charity can do.

Furthermore, major gifts by the rich tend to support the interests of the rich. Zuckerberg's donation will support educational and environmental projects in the Silicon Valley, one of the richest regions in the country. The rich especially like to give money to education - often at the institutions that educate their own children.

Moreover, the rich who contribute to their favored projects receive a higher rate of income tax deduction than do lower-income families. A family reporting an income of $450,000 gets back 40 percent of its donations from the tax man, while a middle-class family earning $70,000 receives only 15 percent. Families reporting incomes less than $50,000 contribute about 19 percent of total charitable dollars, but receive only five percent of the tax write-offs. Giving, in other words, receives unequal treatment that is skewed to the rich.

I believe in charity, but it is no substitute for government resources and policies. That's why I urge people to support change agents rather than "jingle the red kettle" of established charities. Lots of people will give to a hospital but will not support making health care available to all. They will serve turkey on Thanksgiving to people living on the streets, but they don't advocate for food security or affordable housing. They give to the latest crisis - Ebola or mudslide relief - but they don't, as Peter Buffett puts it, "support systemic change." Charity is commendable, but supporting change - that's the giving that makes a difference.

Rev. Jim Conn is the founding minister of the Church in Ocean Park and served on the Santa Monica City Council and as that city's mayor. He helped found Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice, Los Angeles, and was its second chair, and was a founder of Santa Monica's renter's rights campaign.

Reprinted by permission of the author and Capital and Main.

Photo: Homeless advocate Arnold Abbott, 90, director of the nonprofit group Love Thy Neighbor Inc., center, serves food to the homeless with the help of volunteers from a public parking lot next to the beach, Nov. 5in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Abbott was later issued a summons to appear in court for violating an ordinance that limits where charitable groups can feed the homeless on public property. Abbott was also recently arrested along with two pastors for feeding the homeless in a Fort Lauderdale park. (AP Photo/Lynne Sladky)

In Ferguson, a prosecutor manipulates the justice system to prevent indictment

Mon, 08 Dec 2014 15:00:00 +0000

From Truthout: View article at original source.

Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson never went to trial for killing Mike Brown, but he had one of the best attorneys anyone in his situation could have had. St. Louis prosecutor Robert McCulloch not only helped Wilson in the legal proceedings but proved himself a skilled manager of public relations, which in a case that had this much national attention was an important part of making sure that Wilson would never be charged with a crime.

McCulloch's first successful public relations move was to create the impression for many people that it was the grand jury who decided not to indict Wilson. In fact it was McCulloch who made this decision; as in the case of nearly all grand juries, the prosecutor decides what to present to the grand jury and how to present it, in order to get the result that he or she wants. In an unusual move, Wilson was one of the first witnesses and testified for four hours, which helped set the narrative as against other, conflicting accounts.

As the New York Times noted, "the prosecutors rarely asked skeptical questions of Officer Wilson and frequently let testimony supporting him pass unchallenged, while boring in on the statements of witnesses whose accounts conflicted with the officer's."

Of course, the grand jury proceeding is not a trial, and its purpose is not to determine the guilt or innocence of anyone. It is to decide whether there is probable cause to charge someone, in this case Darren Wilson, with a crime. This is a low standard, and on the face of it, wouldn't be hard to meet in a case like this.

Sixteen of the 18 witnesses who answered the question said that Mike Brown had his hands up when he was shot. There were conflicting accounts, but those are the kinds of things that get sorted out in a trial.

As for Darren Wilson's story, it was not only contradicted by numerous witnesses, it is also not an easy story to believe. To accept it, you have to believe that Mike Brown, who ran away from the police car to avoid being killed, suddenly turned around and embarked on a suicide mission. Like the suicide bombers that we read about every week in Afghanistan or Iraq, he had decided to die, charging toward a hail of bullets even after some had already wounded him. As far as we know, there is nothing in his past that indicates suicidal impulses or even mental illness, nor did he carry the explosives that suicide attackers normally have to at least cause damage to their enemies as they sacrifice their lives for a deeply held cause.

McCulloch's presentation of the grand jury decision was also a skilled public relations effort. It probably convinced millions of people who are not familiar with the U.S. legal system that the grand jury proceeding was some kind of trial. Whatever one thinks of the idea of letting a group of ordinary citizens determine the guilt or innocence of one of their peers, at least in a criminal trial it is done through an adversarial process, with numerous procedures designed to help the jury get to the facts of the matter. This was nothing of the sort, and the jury - having already worked with McCulloch - was pre-disposed to get the result he wanted. What he wanted was no indictment, and all he needed was four of the 12 jurors to vote for that; nine of them were white.

St. Louis attorney Jerryl T. Christmas noted that this grand jury was a "holdover" jury (staying beyond its normal term) that had "already developed a close relationship with the prosecutor's office and also understands that this case has been presented differently than previous cases. They realize that the office normally gives them a charge to indict on, and never before have they been told to figure it out themselves."

Many observers have pointed to McCulloch's family background, his father having been a police officer and killed by a black man, etc., as evidence of bias. But this was not necessary. He works with the police every day and needs their co-operation. If he had gotten an indictment against Darren Wilson, he would have been seen by these police as literally a traitor, like a soldier who goes over to the side of the enemy. That is why he would not consider recusing himself from the case, which would similarly have been seen as an act of betrayal. Not to mention what it would do to any political ambitions he might have.

McCulloch was criticized for announcing the verdict at night, thus making rioting more likely. But this was a good move for him and for his client too; the news coverage for the rest of the evening was mostly about burning and looting, and not about the jury's decision.

Wilson's interview with George Stephanopoulos was also well-executed and helped establish his account of events as the dominant media narrative. It was obviously exaggerated, as when he said he felt "like a five-year-old holding onto Hulk Hogan," when grappling with Brown in his car. Not to mention that Brown looked like a "demon." Wilson was the same height as Brown, and at 215 pounds and with police training, not exactly helpless. When asked why he went for his gun instead of a non-lethal taser, he said that he didn't carry a taser because it was bulky and uncomfortable.

The right-wing media has run with McCulloch's and Wilson's public relations efforts, but even the more centrist media seems to have been influenced by it. For example, the New York Times reported that "Officer Wilson testified, and both bruises and DNA evidence indicate, that Mr. Brown struck him and tried to wrest his gun away early in their encounter." But while the DNA evidence and bruises could support the account of a tussle between the two when Wilson was still in his car, there is no physical evidence supporting Wilson's allegation that Brown "tried to wrest his gun away."

This claim was repeated as fact on TV talk shows.

As another example of how badly the whole case was handled, one can look at the original instructions given to the grand jury. As MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell pointed out, the jurors were at first given a 1979 Missouri statute that said that a police officer was allowed to use whatever force he or she "reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest." This law was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1985, and rightly so, since it effectively gave police a "license to kill" any fleeing suspected felon, whether such person was a threat to anyone or not. Three months later, the assistant prosecutor withdrew the unconstitutional statute, but it's not clear how much the jury understood the change of instruction.

The original instruction coincides with the way that the police and their advocates - including McCulloch - see this case. In their view, Brown was responsible for his own death, and the details don't matter so much. Wilson included the obligatory "reaching into his waistband" by Brown - has there ever been a cop that shot an unarmed person who didn't somehow look like he was reaching for a weapon? - but it was hardly necessary. The case was decided when McCulloch refused to recuse himself and Missouri governor Jay Nixon decided not to appoint a special prosecutor.

If it wasn't for the huge public outcry and protests in cities across the country, Mike Brown would have been just another one of a long list of young black men shot dead by a police officer with impunity. But this case is not going away that easily, even if McCulloch has successfully avoided bringing criminal charges. There are tens of millions of Americans - of all races -- who can see that this process was a farce.

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. (www.cepr.net ). He is also president of Just Foreign Policy (www.justforeignpolicy.org )

Photo: In this caricature of Bob McCulloch throws his hands up trying to say he has no responsibility in the grand jury proceedings. The artist names his work "Hands Up Don't Indict." (DonkeyHotey/Flickr/CC)

“With liberty and justice for all someday”

Fri, 05 Dec 2014 14:59:00 +0000

I don't know about you, but over the last few years I've become more aware of patriotic expression in our public life. Sometimes it feels intrusive. I think this new wave began after 9/11. It takes many forms. Remember when they tried to get us to stop saying "French fries" because France didn't join the coalition of the coerced (oh, sorry, I meant of the willing) in shock-and-awe bombing Iraq for the WMD it didn't have. Probably no one under 25 even remembers the new-fangled term "freedom fries" that was supposed to slice, dice, and cut the Frenchies.

Of course we all know about the National Security Agency and the mass collection of metadata that's supposed to keep our country safe from terrorism, but that in reality more serves the corporations gathering information on our spending habits. I was surprised - well, mildly shocked, I admit - a few weeks back when Los Angeles County, for which I volunteer conducting civil marriages (over 300 each year), obliged all of us Deputy Commissioners (read: justices of the peace in many jurisdictions) to get our fingerprints electronically scanned (and instantly available to law enforcement agencies), and sign a release allowing the County to obtain our arrest records. I know that other volunteers for the County work in a number of capacities dealing with children, or perhaps in medical facilities, so I can imagine the usefulness of screening out molesters and druggies. But the wide reach broadly sweeps up all volunteers; so there I was in 2014 actually writing on paper that yes, I was convicted and did time in New Orleans Parish jail back in 1970 for anti-war activity (the charge was public obscenity, said activity involving an inappropriate finger). That was almost half a century ago!

Then there's the whole military thing. "Thank you for your service," we're encouraged to say to anyone in uniform. Speaking for myself, the military adventures of our nation since World War II, the "good war," have been undistinguished in the annals of liberty, and we really never entirely won any of them anyway. Of course, they weren't wars, you understand, just "actions" and "operations" with collateral damage. Oh, yes, there was Grenada, we sure showed them a thing or two. Imagine, inviting the Cubans in to help them build a new airport runway! But Korea, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Afghanistan, Iraq, to name a few? I'm not sure I'm so thankful for that service. Nothing against the individuals personally, mind you; I just think we coulda stayed at home and saved a lot of lives and limbs. That was my patriotism. Trying to save American lives. Halliburton, General Electric, Dow Chemicals, and the rest of the corporate military bandits, now they have a lot to be thankful for! Gosh, could it be that's why we fight these wars???!!

I'm not unpatriotic. Really, I'm not. I go to many classical music concerts and, being the biographer of two American composers (Marc Blitzstein, Earl Robinson) who often had trouble getting their concert works programmed, I'm acutely aware of the Eurocentrism in most standard venues. I love American music! And I love our multi-racial, multi-cultural population that gives us dance and song and writing and art and cuisine all the way from the gentle Pacific Islands to the wild Alaskan shores to the liberal West Coast, the Big Sky Country, the soul of the South, Midwest industry, and the historic East Coast all the way up to the lobsterful seas of Maine. Not to mention all the immigrant groups, from every part of the world, who have settled here, as my own ancestors did just a couple of generations back, and made this country rich and great.

What a beautiful land! I like sitting in a window seat flying coast-to-coast, viewing the snow-capped Rocky Mountain ridges, the farmlands of the Plains, the bright lights of cities in the urban Northeast, and the gorgeous, sinuous rivers and shining lakes that paint the passing landscape canvas better than any artist could possibly render. To that was I born, to that am I loyal.

I accept hearing "The Star-Spangled Banner" to open the concert season, and maybe to close it as well. Of course there'd be no point arguing against it at each game of our national sport. But lately I've been hearing it at every classical concert at the Hollywood Bowl. In fact, just a few weeks ago, quite unexpectedly, at an oldies revue with The Four Preps and The Chordettes. Dutifully, the whole audience stands, places their hands reverently over their hearts, and sings. "Oh, say can you see...the bombs bursting in air?" Then on to the Beethoven, Brahms, and maybe some born-American Bernstein. Or "Mr. Sandman."

I've taken to not standing up for it any more. The music isn't American anyway - it's a British drinking song with new lyrics from the War of 1812 period. And what lyrics! I am just not going to ruin my larynx screaming about "the rockets' red glare." Not while at the very moment when we are about to enjoy a 100-piece orchestra and a master soloist performing a stirring concerto, half a world away there literally are bursting bombs and rockets dropping from the skies over the hapless people our American leaders have chosen to name our current enemy.

As the late award-winning writer Paul Monette liked to remind us, the United States has the only national anthem in the world that ends with a question: "O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave / O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?" I don't even know how I'd answer that question. Do you? I'm not feeling so free these days. And those uniforms sitting in a military bunker in Nevada aiming precision drones down on Afghan wedding parties? In my eyes, not so very brave.

There's another reason I don't sing the national anthem. Or recite the Pledge of Allegiance either. And that's cuz I don't have to. Court cases have been won over that issue, thanks to the Jehovah's Witnesses back in the World War II era who objected to swearing allegiance to any other power than God. That was a constitutional victory for every citizen's civil liberties, for each of us to seriously think about who we owe our allegiance to. I forget if I've ever been asked to sign or swear a loyalty oath, but they're still around, and still used to weed out nonconformists and possible troublemakers. I believe the record is somewhat mixed on that issue, but in some important cases the oath has been thrown out.

I express my allegiance in myriad ways, without needing an obligatory anthem or pledge forced on me at more and more public occasions. I vote, I help to elect candidates to office, I write, volunteer for civic organizations, sing Christmas carols at nursing homes, officiate at low-cost civil marriages, chair my local union chapter, demonstrate with fast-food and Walmart workers for fair wages, and so forth.

My allegiance is not just to my nation, but to the health and welfare of the Earth. When the unmistakable chords of "The Internationale" strike up, I stand. For the working people of the whole world. Capital is international, and so is labor. If the Socialists of England, Germany, France, Italy, Austria, and Russia had kept the spirit of that song in their hearts instead of caving in to their native patriotism, we wouldn't be commemorating the centennial of World War I today. I stand for the Partisan Hymn also, the World War II song of the Jewish resisters that has become an anthem of liberation for my people: "Because the time for which we've yearned will yet appear / And our marching step shall thunder: We are here!"

I feel conflicted at times. Some of the union meetings I attend begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. Do I remain seated? Do I stand? And if I stand, do I recite it? And if I recite it, do I include the 1954 addition of the words "under God" which are so undemocratic, and so offensive to my sense of separation of church and state? Well, honestly, I usually do stand in those situations, just not to make a scene and shift the focus off the agenda of the day. It's not the time or place to get into a touchy personal debate about my loyalties.

But I liked what John Burton said, presiding at the opening session of the California Democratic Party Convention of 2011, which I attended as a delegate: "Let's all now recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and when it's finished, please add 'Some day.'" Yeah, that I could go for: "with liberty and justice for all some day."

Photo: Carlos Osorio/AP

How long before that arc bends towards justice?

Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:30:00 +0000

Almost 50 years ago, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. stood on the steps of the Capitol in Montgomery, Alabama, and asked the question "How long?" We ask today: How long will it take before America realizes its promise of equal justice before the law? How long will it take before racial prejudice and hatred no longer pollute the land of amber waves of grain, the purple mountains of majesty above such a fruited plain?

Fifty years is a long time. A lifetime. And with all too much frequency, black men do not even reach that age because their life has been cut short by a governmental department sworn to "serve and protect," often by a bullet bought and paid for by taxpayers and an employee who is "just doing his job."

How long before this disgrace will end?

Almost a week after the outrageous announcement from Ferguson, Mo., another grand jury announces that the New York City police officer responsible for the homicide of Eric Garner, who was 43 years old, will not be held to account.

There's a popular saying in the legal world that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich." Apparently, that ham sandwich did not come with a badge and the legal protection to be judge, jury and executioner. The ham sandwich was not trained to use lethal force first and ask questions later, all OK'd by policy and legal fiat. Prosecutors can get a grand jury to indict anybody - or anything - but not one of their own. They are above the law, out of reach, untouchable. The real indictment is of the entire legal system - it is rotten.

The criminal justice system has no justice. It is and has been riddled with racial, class, and gender inequality since this country's inception. Because we live in a perpetual state of forever making this a "more perfect union," movements leading to political and legal reforms have alleviated some of these inequalities. Yet, inequality before the law still remains and is giving rise to the movement to change it.

Fifty years ago, King's actual words ring as true today as ever:

"I know you are asking today, 'How long will it take?' Somebody's asking, 'How long will prejudice blind the visions of men, darken their understanding, and drive bright-eyed wisdom from her sacred throne?' Somebody's asking, 'When will wounded justice, lying prostrate on the streets of Selma and Birmingham and communities all over the South, be lifted from this dust of shame to reign supreme among the children of men?' Somebody's asking, 'When will the radiant star of hope be plunged against the nocturnal bosom of this lonely night, plucked from weary souls with chains of fear and the manacles of death? How long will justice be crucified, and truth bear it?' I come to say to you this afternoon, however difficult the moment, however frustrating the hour, it will not be long, because 'truth crushed to earth will rise again.' How long? Not long, because 'no lie can live forever.' How long? Not long, because 'you shall reap what you sow.'"

The country is reaping what it sowed with right-wing policies and politics that have intensified class, racial and gender oppression, exploitation and corporate rule. With it a new Jim Crow, along with the brutality and inhumanity of the prison-industrial complex has grown too. Mass incarceration, racial profiling, police crimes, and militarization throughout our society are the result. But so is the movement to end it. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

When King asked "How long?" he answered, "Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." In the moral universe, the forces for justice get their strength from unity. All of us have a stake in ending this intolerable situation: white, black, Latino, Native, Asian Pacific Islander, young and old, women and men, LGBTQ. An injury to one is an injury to all. Not one more death. No justice. No peace.

Photo: New Yorkers march through the streets around Times Square in response to the grand jury's decision in Eric Garner case. Seth Wenig/AP

Correction: In a previous version of this editorial the age of Mr. Garner was incorrect. We regret the error.

Twenty-five years later, the Cold War still blows hot

Wed, 03 Dec 2014 15:54:00 +0000

A quarter century ago today on a ship off the coast of Malta, George H. W. Bush, and Mikhail Gorbachev declared an end to the Cold War.

It was an event that sparked hope in the hearts of tens of millions across the globe.

Ever since the declaration of the Cold War by Winston Churchill in a speech at Fulton, Missouri, in 1945, it was an unmitigated disaster. Domestically it laid the basis for the McCarthy witch-hunts that ruined the lives of tens of thousands and derailed the labor, peace and left movements for decades. Internationally it resulted in the death of perhaps millions as the United States and its NATO allies attempted to contain and roll back movements for national independence, democracy and socialism.

The arms race and drive for nuclear superiority wasted untold billions while children in the U.S. and around the world wanted for adequate food, clothes and textbooks.

The hope, however, that the resources devoted to the perfection of instruments of death would be turned into a "peace dividend" and reinvested in jobs, health care and schools proved short-lived. What was promised in word failed to materialize in deeds. Confrontation, military diktat and intervention continued unabated as imperialism's need for new markets trumped, time and again, the growing demand for new directions on the environment, health, and growing inequality.

It's no surprise that the collapse of the USSR failed to slow down these growing crises and in fact may well have accelerated them.

Twenty-five years later, corporate profits still determine politics and policy in our country. In Washington, hostility toward socialism and even socialist orientations remain the order of the day as indicated by the ongoing blockade of Cuba and attempts to isolate and undermine Venezuela. And even though President Obama has on occasion shown some pushback against the most hawkish elements, U.S. policy in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia remains embedded in the fallacy of the U.S.'s "indispensable role."

But, as recent crises attest, a dramatic change in direction away from confrontation and towards cooperation is necessary. Indeed, the challenges of Ebola, climate change, and combating terrorism in all its forms cry out for it.

And while such change does not come easy, history still holds out the promise that when workers and people get involved and take initiative it will in fact come.

Photo: Wikimedia (CC)

Remembering Volodya and the Soviet war dead

Wed, 03 Dec 2014 15:03:00 +0000

I was staying at the Yunost Hotel in Moscow in early December, 1967. It was a layover for about three days before I flew with other fraternal delegates from around the world to Ulan Bator where the Mongolian Communist Youth League was holding its convention.

At dinner in the hotel dining room, one evening, I was joined by my traveling companion, Somaratne, from Sri Lanka, and by our interpreter, Volodya, who was also a leader of the Komsomol (Soviet Communist Youth League).

The Yunost Hotel, in fact, was owned by the Komsomol and was filled with youth from all over the USSR and the world. We were talking excitedly about world events. Somehow, the assassination of president John F. Kennedy came up. I reached in my pocket and pulled out a shiny JFK half dollar. Volodya was fascinated and sat studying the profile image of JFK.

Volodya wanted to know my opinion of Kennedy's assassination and I told him I did not believe the official story that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I was convinced that reactionary, pro-war forces, like FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover, notorious for his venomous hatred for the Kennedys, were behind the plot to murder our president.

Volodya sat nodding in agreement as I spoke.

"You can have it. It's yours," I told him when he handed the coin back to me. Volodya was over the moon, thanking me profusely for the gift. Then he reached in his pocket and pulled out a one ruble coin. It was the "Soldier Liberator" coin celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Red Army liberation of Berlin.

It features an image of the Red Army soldier cradling a German child in his arm. His boot is resting on the broken image of the Nazi swastika. He is holding a sword that has slashed apart the swastika.

It was my turn to be "over the moon." I have this coin, still, one of my treasured possessions. It was among the first of many times I experienced the intensity of the anti-war emotions Soviet citizens felt because of their loss of a father, brother, cousin, or another family member in the Great Patriotic War. Virtually every person I met on that first and subsequent trips to the Soviet Union had endured these losses.

On that same trip, Somaratne and I took the overnight train to Leningrad. Among the places we went were the Piskariovskoe Cemetery where many thousands are buried, among the nearly one million who perished in the Nazi siege of Leningrad. As we stood in the snowbound park among the gravesites, we could hear the somber notes of Chopin's funeral dirge from a public address system in the park.

We also were flown to Stalingrad---now Volgograd---where we visited the war memorial on Mount Mamayev where Soviet soldiers fought to defend their city and their nation with the slogan, "Not One Step Back." The memorial was just being completed. A long flight of steps rises on Mount Mamayev with walls on each end sculpted with the haggard faces of Red Army soldiers who defended the city.

The giant statue of "Mother Russia," had just been completed. Her mighty arm is flung back over her shoulder; she is holding a sword, as if summoning the people to rise in defense of their nation against the Nazi invaders.

However moving these images were, I was struck even more in the years that followed by the devotion of ordinary Soviet men, women and children to the memory of their war dead. On a trip to the USSR in 1974, my wife Joyce and I went strolling in a park in Kiev on the bluff overlooking the Dnieper river. In the middle of this park was a modest statue honoring the Soviet soldiers who died in the defense of Kiev and in the battle later to drive out the Nazis who had invaded the city.

There was a lovely young couple at the memorial. The groom a tall awkward young man, the bride in her white satin trousseau, a veil covering her face. She was bending down and laying a bouquet of flowers at the memorial.

Our interpreter told us, "It is a tradition now. Married couples, as soon as they have exchanged vows, come to the war memorial and lay flowers honoring those who died defending our country."

In November 1994, just 27 years after Volodya gave me that coin, I went on assignment to Berlin to cover the 5th anniversary of the liquidation of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). My host, Klaus Steiniger, took me to Treptower Park where 5,000 Red Army soldiers are buried representing the 50,000 Soviet soldiers who died in the liberation of Berlin. There was the original, an enormous bronze statue of the "Soldier Liberator." It was sculpted by Soviet sculptorYeygeny Vuchetich and unveiled in 1949.

It is based on a real incident, Nikolai Maslov, who fought in defense of Stalingrad, and battled all the way west to Berlin, had crawled out on a bridge over the River Spree and rescued a little German child. SS troops, defending this approach to Hitler's bunker in the Tiergarten, were laying down a deadly machine gun fire. They did not care if they murdered the little German girl and her Russian rescuer.

I am looking at my treasured coin and wondering about Volodya. As I recall, his father died in the defense of Moscow.

Photo: Memorial to Soviet soldiers in Berlin's Treptower Park. Wikipedia (CC)