text:
tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-72713822014-10-24T06:09:01.921-05:00Keep On Keepin' On...Political-Social-Spiritual Commentary, Musings and Items of Interest by Cyber-Radical, Carl DavidsonCarl Davidsonhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7271382.post-82588777739783471412014-05-09T11:09:00.001-05:002014-05-09T11:09:06.216-05:00Jackson Rising: An Electoral Battle Unleashes a Merger of Black Power, the Solidarity Economy and Wider Democracy

Photo: Closing session of Jackson Rising

By Carl Davidson

SolidarityEconomy.net

Jackson,MS - Nearly 500 people turned out over the May 2-4, 2014 weekend for the 'Jackson Rising' conference in Jackson, Mississippi. It was a highly successful and intensive exploration of Black power, the solidarity economy and the possibilities unleashed for democratic change when radicals win urban elections.

The gathering drew urban workers and rural farmers, youth and the elderly, students and teachers, men and women. At least half were people of color. About 50 were from the city of Jackson itself, and most were from other Southern states. But a good deal came from across the country, from New York to the Bay area, and a few from other countries—Quebec, South Africa, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

The major sponsors included Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, the Federation of Southern Cooperatives, Praxis Project, Southern Grassroots Economies Project, US Solidarity Economy Network, and the US Social Forum. Funding came from Community Aid and Development, Inc., Mississippi Association of Cooperatives, Coalition for a Prosperous Mississippi, Fund for Democratic Communities, Ford Foundation, Wallace Action Fund, Surdna Foundation, and the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation.

But to grasp the meaning and significance of this meeting, a step back to see how it began—and why it almost didn't happen—is required.

The conference was the brainchild of Jackson's late Mayor Chokwe Lumumba and one group of his close supporters, the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement (MXGM) soon after he was elected on June 4, 2013 and had placed his people in a few key city positions. They had initiated the conference, which was then endorsed by the city council, to help shape and economic development plan for the city and the outlying Black majority rural areas, known as the 'Kush.'--hence the name of the overall project, the 'Jackson-Kush Plan.'

Chokwe Lumumba was rooted in the Black revolutionary organization, the Republic of New Afrika (RNA), which claimed the Black majority areas of several states in the Deep South. He was one of its leading members, and a widely respected civil rights attorney. The RNA also had an economic outlook, a form of cooperative economics through the building of 'New Communities'—named after the concept of 'Ujamaa', a Swahili word for 'extended family,' promoted by former Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere. The new mayor connected this core idea with the long-standing role of cooperatives in African American history, the experience of the Mondragon coops in Spain, and the solidarity economy movement that had emerged and spread from the Third World in recent decades. Together, all these ideas merged in the mayor's project, 'Cooperation Jackson.'

Lumumba's election had taken Jackson's political elite off guard. Making use of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party to run as an independent in the Democratic primary, he defeated the incumbent and forced a runoff. Given that Jackson is an 80% Black city, he then won overwhelmingly. So when he died suddenly of heart failure Feb 25, 2014, with his supporters in a state of shock, his opposition moved quickly to counterattack. The MXGM, the Peoples Assembly and other pro-Chokwe groups now had two tasks, trying to get Chokwe's son, Chokwe Antar Lumumba, elected mayor while continuing to plan the conference, but with city support on hold.

Lumumba, 31 years old, lost to Tony Yarber, 46% to 54%. Chokwe Antar received over 65% of the Black vote, but the turnout had dropped. The Yarber team immediately moved to fire all the Choke sympathizers from city government, and tried to sabotage the conference. Local rightwing web publications attacked it as "thinly veiled communism."

A Tale of Two Cities

What is behind this antagonism? Jackson is indeed a tale of two cities, on the cusp of two competing visions. Given its demographics, any mayor is likely to be Black, but what that can mean is another matter. Just driving around the city gives you a quick glimpse of the problem. While the largest city in the state and the Capitol, replete with major government buildings, the city is eerily quiet and empty. There are a few upscale areas, but also large areas of older, wood-framed housing of the unemployed and the working poor. There are huge fairgrounds, but little in the way of basic industry.

So two paths emerged. One was neoliberal, and aimed at exporting as much of the Black poor as possible, in order to open up wider areas from gentrification attracting the better-paid servants of the businesses that served government. The other was progressive, the Jackson Cooperation plan, which aimed at growing new worker-owned businesses and new housing coops that worked in tandem with the Black farmers of the 'Kush.' It also stressed democratized city services, while creating new alternative energy and recycling startups and also taking advantage of the city's position as a major regional transport hub. It's a conflict not unique to Jackson and shared by many cities around the country. Here's the four points summing up 'Cooperation Jackson':

Cooperation Jackson is establishing an educational arm to spread the word in their communities about the distinct advantages and exciting possibilities of mutual uplift that business cooperatives offer.

When Mayor Chokwe Lumumba was still in office, Cooperation Jackson planned to establish a "cooperative incubator." providing a range of startup services for cooperative enterprises. Absent support from the mayor's office, some MXGM activists observed, a lot of these coops will have to be born and nurtured in the cold.

Cooperation Jackson aims to form a local federation of cooperatives to share information and resources and to ensure that the cooperatives follow democratic principles of self-management that empower their workers. We've always said "free the land," observed one MXGM activist. Now we want to "free the labor" as well.

Finally Cooperation Jackson intends to establish a financial institution to assist in providing credit and capital to cooperatives.

The conference project thus found itself in the eye of a storm. But with luck and some judicious tactics, one key figure, Jackson State University President Carolyn Meyers, decided to stick with MXGM and allowed the conference to continue its plans on her campus, using the huge Walter Patton Center and two classroom buildings. A last minute fundraising blitz pulled in enough resources to squeeze through and make it happen.

Opening plenary: John Zippert, Jessica Gordon Nembhard, Ed Whitfield, Kali Akuno

When the hundreds of registered participants poured into the huge hall Friday evening and saw it filling up, one could sense the excitement and rising spirit of solidarity amidst diversity. The opening plenary keynote speakers included Jessica Gordon Nembhard of the US Solidarity Economy Network (SEN), Wendell Paris of the Federation of Southern Coops (FSC) Land Assistance fund, Cornelius Blanding, Special Projects Director of the FSC, Ed Whitfield of the Southern Grassroots Economies Project based in North Carolina, and Kali Akuno of Jackson's MXGM.

Gordon-Nembhard started off. A professor at John Jay College in New York, she recently published Collective Courage: A History of African American Cooperative Economic Thought and Practice, a groundbreaking study on the topic.

"Courage is a word I had to use,' she explained. 'Everywhere I turned, from the early efforts of free Blacks to buy others in their family out of slavery, to the Underground Railroad, to burial societies and other clandestine forms of mutual aid; it took courage to motivate all these cooperative forms of resistance to slavery and white supremacy, from the beginning down to our own times."

She gave the example of Fannie Lou Hamer in the battles in Mississippi in the 1960s, well known as a founder of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. "But do we know her as a coop member, a group that sustained her when she was denied an income. As Ms. Hamer put it, 'Until we control our own food, land, and housing, we can't be truly empowered.'"

Wendell Paris who, as a young SNCC worker mentored by Ms. Hamer, continued the theme: "Land is the basis for revolution and it is important for us to hold on to our land base." He described the workings of the Panola Land Buyers Association in Sumpter County Alabama. "Freedom isn't free. In the training to run coops successfully, you learn more than growing cucumbers. You learn organizing and administration, the training ground for taking political offices."

At different times during introductions, or even in the remarks of speakers, the chant, 'Free the Land!' would rise from the participants, accompanied by raised fists. This came from the RNA tradition, referring to an older battle cry of self-determination for the Black areas of the Deep South. It clearly still had resonance, and was often followed with 'By Any Means Necessary!'

The opening session was closed out by comments from Ed Whitfield and Kali Akuno. "All successful enterprises produce a surplus," said Whitefield, "and our empowerment runs through retaking the surplus we have created, and putting it to uses that best serve us. We're not here making excuses. We're here making history. As long as we accept the current economic structures and approaches to development that flow from those structures and paradigms, we can't get out of bondage."

"It's an uphill climb here in Mississippi," added Akuno. "The Republican Tea Party government we have on a state level is not in favor at all of what we're trying to push through cooperative development. There was a bill supporting cooperatives that they killed earlier this year. On a municipal level, we are looking to transform all of the procurement policies of the city, all of the environmental regulations and standard policies within the city, and particularly all of the land-use policies in the city, that will support cooperatives. On the more practical side, we are launching a new organization from this conference called Cooperation Jackson, and it is going to be the vehicle by which all of the follow-through is going to be carried out."

But the municipal battle, Akuno concluded, would be difficult, given the neoliberal, repressive and pro-gentrification policies of the new team in charge.

All the items presented by the opening speakers expressed the common theme of the conference organizers—Political power in the hands of the Black masses and their allies, then anchoring and using that power to shape and grow a cooperative economic democracy that would serve the vast majority. It was both a tribute to Chokwe Lumumba and an expression of his vision. Winning it, however, would not come easy.

The next day, Saturday, was a different story. Here space was opened up for more than 30 diverse workshops, spread out over three time slots, with two more plenary sessions. Topics included the influence of Mondragon, community land trusts, Black workers and the AFL-CIO, the communes in Venezuela, mapping the solidarity economy, coops on a global scale, waste management and recycling, working with legislatures, and many more. No one report can cover them all, but here's the flavor of a few.

Mondragon and the Union Coop Model.

What were the nuts and bolts of Spain's Mondragon Coops (MCC), and how could unions serve as allies in creating similar enterprises in the U.S.? This was the question posed at an excellent workshop with three presenters: Michael Peck, the U.S. representative of Mondragon; Kristen Barker of the Cincinnati Union Coop Initiative; and Dennis Olson, of the United Food and Commercial Workers.

Peck began with a brief overview of MCC and its 120 coops and their accomplishments. The key point: In MCC, workers own their labor, but rent their capital, rather than the other way around. "But sometimes," he noted, "you can tell more about something by look at one of its failures than all its successes."

He was referring to the fact that a major MCC coop, FAGOR, which made kitchen appliances, recently closed down. "The housing market in Spain and Europe collapsed, and without new homes, new appliance sales sink Plus there was tough price competition from Asia." MCC had carried FAGOR for several years, but could no longer justify it. Despite anger, "the vote of the workers to close it was unanimous." In the regular world, the workers would get their pink slips, and be on the street.

But Mondragon was different. "MCC first set up a solidarity fund with every worker donating 1.5% of their salary, adding up to some 15 million Euros," he explained. "This was to cushion the transition. Then it worked to reassign all the FAGOR workers to other coops, which it has now accomplished for the large majority." Peck added that Mondragon would continued creating new coops both in Spain and around the world, and the true test was not that some would eventually close, which was natural, but what happened when they did.

Kristen Barker, right, at Our Harvest Coop

Kristen Barker then gave the workshop an enthusiastic account of how a small group in Cincinnati, armed with only a few good ideas, had over four years moved to a point where three substantial coops were opening in the city and several more were in the works.

"We were really inspired when we heard of the agreement between Mondragon and the United Steelworkers," said Barker. "Our effort also stands on the shoulders of the Evergreen Coops in Cleveland. To date, Evergreen has launched three co-ops, Evergreen Laundry, Ohio Cooperative Solar that offers energy retrofits and solar panel installation, and Green City Growers that grows high end lettuce for hotels and restaurants in Cleveland. They have dozens of potential cooperatives in the pipeline. We are partnering with the major players of this initiative including the Ohio Employee Ownership Center for our unique project."

The first three coops in Cincinnati, Barker added, were Sustainergy, a building trades coop to retrofit buildings to better environmental standards; the Cincinnati Railway Manufacturing Cooperative, which will make undercarriages for rail cars, and partnered with both the United Steel Workers and the local NAACP; and Our Harvest, a food hub coop which starts with local farms and takes their produce to a central site for packaging and marketing. It's partnered with the UFCW union and other agricultural groups. Dennis Olson explained how the UFCW was particular helpful in connecting growers through the distribution centers to the unionized grocery chains, as opposed to Wal-Mart.

"We only had a small study group to start—some community organizers, some Catholic nuns, a few union people," concluded Barker. "But we did a lot of research, made partners and got the word out in the media. Soon we had more people calling with more ideas, like coop grocery stores in 'food desert' areas, jewelry makers' coops and so on. We started getting some interest from the city, and now things are taking off."

Starting Coops in Jackson and the 'Kush'

This session was chaired by John Zippert of the Federation of Southern Cooperatives. He started with an excellent short summary of 'Cooperatives 101,' but quickly turned to drawing out the workshop participants on their concerns. Most were Black women from Jackson—one was interested in whether an African hair care products and services was possible; another wanted to start a coop of home health care workers. One man from Memphis said he had a small business distributing African products to small Black stores in the surrounding states, but he was getting on in years. How could he turn it into a coop that would live after him? Everyone shared ideas and legal options

 As the session ended, I ran into Ben Burkett, a Black farmer locally active the Indian Springs Farmers Association, part of the 'Kush.' I knew he was also president of the National Family Farm Coalition, but asked him more about his local operation.

"Well, I don't do cotton anymore, not much cotton in Mississippi these days," he explained. 'I do many vegetables, and sweet potatoes are a good crop. But it's one thing for a farmer to grow and dig sweet potatoes. It's quite another to have the equipment to scrub them, cut them into French fires, and then bag and store them, while getting them quickly to your markets. That's where the value of the coop comes in. We can pool our resources for these things, and it makes a big difference. We'd be in bad shape without the coop."

Waste Management, Recycling and City Politics

The politicss of garbage was the main topic here. Chaired by Kali Akuno, this workshop gave the most insight into what was going on in Jackson as a new and backward regime was replacing that of Chokwe Lumumba. "Waste Management serves the city poorly," said Akuno. "It often ignores our neighborhoods. It does no recycling; it dumps the waste in a landfill in a small city to the North of here, gives them a payment, and that's the end of it."

Akuno explained they had a different plan. Since a large part of the city budgets deal with services like these, they wanted to break them into smaller pieces so local contractors or coops could bid on them, then recycle the waste into a revenue stream. In addition to helping the environment and employment, it would keep the money circulating locally.

"Another piece was setting up an incubator to foster the development of cooperatives," Akuno added. "The government can't run the co-ops. It won't build them, but it can set the table. For most of the past 20 years, even though there has been a succession of black mayors, 90-95 percent of contracts to people who don't live in Jackson. It was all about hiring people in Jackson."

"Now everything is going to be a fight,' he added. "Even if your plan is reasonable and sustainable, it won't matter if it's stepping on the wrong toes."

Saturday also included two mealtime plenary sessions, one, at lunch, featuring the diverse organizations taking part, and the other, at dinner, giving everything an international dimension.

The lunch plenary included Omar Freilla of Green Workers Cooperatives, Steve Dubb of the Democracy Collaborative, Michael Peck of Mondragon USA, Ricky Maclin of New Era Windows, and Saladin Muhhamad of Black Workers for Justice and MaryBe McMillian, Secretary Treasurer of the North Carolina AFL-CIO.

"Community cooperatives," said Steve Dubb, "can be considered part of a long civil rights movement that fights for both racial and economic justice. For example, Dr. Martin Luther King in the last year of his life helped launch the Poor People's Campaign for an Economic Bill of Rights. The return of cooperatives to the movement, as illustrated by what's happening here, is a welcome development."

MaryBe McMillian stressed the importance both of labor and the concentration of forces in the South. "Why organize in the South? Because what happens in the South affects the entire nation." Speaking for Black workers, Saladin Mummamad added, 'We need power not just democracy; we need power that shapes what democracy looks like. When plants shut down workers, should seize control and turn them into cooperatives."

The evening session started with a tribute to Chokwe Lumumba by his son, Chokwe Antar Lumumba. "We are victorious because we struggle. I'm not afraid of the term revolutionary. We need to be as revolutionary as the times require. Free the land! The struggle my father started is not over, but only beginning. It continues, by any means necessary."

Also featured were Francoise Vermetter of Chantier in Quebec, Pierre LaLiberte on the International Labor Organization in Switzerland, Mazibuko Jara of AMandela! Magazine in south Africa, Elbart Vingwe, Organization of Collective Cooperative in Zimbabwe, Omar Sierra, Deputy Counsel General of Venezuela-Boston, and Janvieve Williams-Comrie, Green Worker Coops in the U.S.

"Freeing the land has given our people a new sense of belonging," said Omar Sierra, of Venezuela. "Chokwe Lumumba extended his solidarity to us in a time of need. Our people are saddened by his passing, and will not forget him."

William Copeland, a cultural organizer from Detroit. Summed up the spirit of the crowd: "These presentations demonstrate the international significance of the Black Liberation Movement and Southern movement building."

On Sunday morning, those who hadn't had to leave early for the airport, gathered in a large session of the whole that closed out the weekend. One after another, people stood up and testified to how their consciousness had been altered by their discussions and new experiences over the weekend. Emily Kawano of the Solidarity Economy Network made the point of understanding that the projects ahead, while including coops also reached beyond them to other forms, such as participatory budgeting, public banks and alternative currencies. Finally, at an auspicious moment, an African American women rose and in a strong church choir voice, began singing an old civil rights anthem, "Organize, organize, organize!" Everyone was on their feet, hands clapping, fists raised, and interspersing 'Free the Land! with the chorus. It couldn't have had a better closing moment.

From 'Keep On Keepin' On' at http://carldavidson.blogspot.com Of special interest those those who want to know more about CyberRadicalism, the Solidarity Economy and a Socialism for the 21st Century
Carl Davidsonhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7271382.post-68362354950515677782014-04-17T12:43:00.001-05:002014-04-17T12:43:46.591-05:00James Dean and the Birth of Modern Masculinity

A life mesmerizingly truncated, James Dean left behind only three films, and the gaping absence of the career that might have been.

Even though he only made three films, James Dean introduced Hollywood to a new kind of man: Photo above: Hulton Archive/Getty Images

by India Ross

New Statesman

17 April, 2014 - In Rebel Without A Cause, from 1955, a 24-year old James Dean, red-jacketed and tight-jeaned, climbs behind the wheel of an old black Mercury. To his right, the opponent he will race to the edge of a cliff hangs out of his driver-side window for a last slug of bravado: "Hey Toreador!", he jeers. "First man who jumps is a chicken." Re-inserting a trademark cigarette, Dean flicks on his headlights and hits the gas, and the two cars accelerate towards the brink. Frames from the edge, Dean glances right, grabs for the door and rolls out onto the turf. His adversary, jacket sleeve caught on his door handle and jammed into his driver's seat, slips wrenchingly over the edge with his car.

 Less than a year later, the real life James Dean, whose legacy is the subject of an upcoming retrospective at the BFI, was to die in an echoing event, flipping a race-car on a bend on a California highway. A life mesmerisingly truncated, he left behind only three films, and the gaping absence of the career that might have been. It was a sequence of events morbidly inkeeping with the themes of doomed youth his characters embodied.

The word "iconic" is tossed around ad nauseum, but if ever it were to apply, in the sense of an individual and a star whose off-screen persona outshines the sum of their roles, who bends the fabric of the society in which they live, Dean would surely qualify. In life, and even more so in death, the bee-stung darling of early Technicolor has held the awe of the movie-going public.

But facial anatomy and excellent hair were not the traits for which Dean was influential. Hollywood does not suffer a shortage of cheekbones. He slotted into a blurry interlude following the second world war but before the flowering of the Beat movement, in which the role of a man in society was under sudden and unsuspected dispute. A generation primed for combat found itself at a loss of purpose, and gender roles that were without meaning overnight began to merge and reconfigure themselves.

Dean was a new kind of man. His characters cried and struggled and screamed in frustration at the blurry world they had to live in. They were awkward and uncertain, grappling with sexuality and the disappointment in older men around them. "What can you do when you have to be a man?", screams Jim, the tortured hero of Rebel Without A Cause, at his impotent father.

The cut of the male star was formerly more robust: Charlton Heston, Humphrey Bogart, Clark Gable – these were men's men, manoeuvring from the Alexandrian chariot to the Western Front with a raised eyebrow in place. But the type of machismo with which Hollywood used to cash cheques, which slipped so easily into the rhythm of day-saving and woman-placating, is now all but redundant. George Clooney is perhaps the only contemporary relic of that 1940s flavour of heterosexuality. With a Cary Grant jawline and non-threatening cool, Clooney lingers as a housewives' favourite, occasionally modernising his brand with political activism and dips into independent pictures. He banks on a nostalgia for the screen heroes that preceded him.

But the successors to James Dean are in evidence everywhere. From the contemplative Ryan Gosling to the part-time poet James Franco, the Emotional Man is now a marketable asset. Matthew McConaughey, 2014's case in point, has lived an entire spectrum of masculinity, latterly dropping frat-boy kilos to become a thoughtful shadow of himself – a feminised brand that has been remunerated well beyond his Oscar.

In Hollywood today, a "male icon" is a contradiction in terms. Where fame has become all but genderless, a new batch of androgynous stars has fumbled its way to the surface. From Michael Cera to Jesse Eisenberg, the cinema is synonymous with a group of loping, hobbit-haired boys so divorced from masculinity that their characters actively mock the idea of sexual power. A swelling interest in superheroes, as an object of ironic admiration by the tech generation, is not coincidental, as fanboys reflect on a lost type of man, so distant from themselves.

James Dean opened a door for the re-imagining of the male star. An awkward icon, he gave early shape to a model that would take decades to take hold. A man not just uncomfortable in himself but in the very idea of what a man represents, alongside Elvis Presley and Johnny Cash he broke a cycle of sexual dogma, laying the tracks for a half-century of flexible, sensitive masculinity. From the Beatles to The Graduate, The Smiths to Superbad, another type of man entirely was to dominate a soft, new horizon.

From 'Keep On Keepin' On' at http://carldavidson.blogspot.com Of special interest those those who want to know more about CyberRadicalism, the Solidarity Economy and a Socialism for the 21st Century
Carl Davidsonhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7271382.post-1291936560224237092014-04-08T15:42:00.001-05:002014-04-08T15:42:17.019-05:00'Lost Writings of SDS' Reviewed…
Revolutionary Youth & the New Working Class: The Praxis Papers, the Port Authority Statement, the RYM Documents and Other Lost Writings of SDS (Carl Davidson, Editor, Pittsburgh: Changemaker Publications, 2011)

 By George Fish

Socialism and Democracy

Revolutionary Youth & the New Working Class is an important collection of documents from a crucial period, 1967-1970, in the history of SDS [Students for a Democratic Society]. It is of both historical and present political interest. Carl Davidson, himself an old SDSer who has remained politically active on the left up to the present, is to be congratulated for his perspicacity in compiling it. As he notes in his Foreword, only one of the reprinted documents – the original manifesto of what went on to become Weatherman, "You Don't Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows" – is readily available; he collected the others in order, as he says, "to keep an important piece of the history of the 1960s New Left from going down the memory hole." His instinct at preservation is unerring: the collection will become an essential reference. Although the analyses presented in these documents are of uneven quality, they all have some usefulness. That holds for even the least of them, Noel Ignatin's "Without a Science of Navigation We Cannot Sail the Stormy Seas," which is an able discussion despite its overall stilted and dogmatic 1930s Communist Party USA approach (Ignatin is a former CPUSAer who became a Maoist, so he is at least being "true to his heritage").

It is important to remember that these documents were written 42-45 years ago, during a time of capitalist prosperity. So it is not surprising that some of the politics and analyses will seem remote from present-day concerns. On the whole, though, the analyses hold up much better than might be expected. Other changes since they were written include: the decline of US power and influence first brought about by the defeat in Vietnam, and continuing with the economic ascendancy of China and the openly left electoral victories in Latin America; the decline of the "affluent worker" in advanced capitalism as wages have stagnated or declined for the last 40 years, and unions have weakened; new militancy of workers joining that of other social strata beginning in the US in the 1970s and continuing today in the anti-austerity movements in Europe and worker protests in China; the at-least-formally-given death knell to Meany-Kirkland guns-and-butter trade unionism by the election of John Sweeney and later Richard Trumka to head the AFL-CIO, and by the active presence of left activists now in many unions; and the partial victories of the civil rights movement which, while not doing much to alleviate the poverty and desperation of the African American working class, have opened doors of opportunity previously nonexistent, and have created a larger black middle class and even, ironically, a layer of prominent black conservatives such as Herman Cain, Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice and others who oppose many of the civil rights movement's gains. Many of these changes could not have been anticipated—which only enhances the political value and perspicacity of the analyses contained in this collection.

The centerpiece of the volume is clearly the long paper, "Toward a Theory of Social Change: The 'Port Authority Statement'," a rigorous attempt by SDS activist scholars David Gilbert, Robert Gottlieb and Gerry Tenney to present a New Left analysis of capitalism and US empire, and to posit a political direction for young activists of that time. This is an impressive work, no matter how much one might question its New Working Class thesis of a displaced traditional proletariat, its seeing the locus of power for social change in the underclass, or its view that capitalist "post-scarcity" could essentially go on forever. The Port Authority Statement is worthwhile reading even today, and should join with the much better known and available Port Huron Statement as powerful manifestos that articulate the New Left viewpoint.

Also of value, though less so, is the 1968 statement of early feminism written by Naomi Jaffe and Bernardine Dohrn, "The Look Is You: Rising Feminism vs. Mass Media." This paper offers a strong critique of the exploitation of women through consumption, although its then-fashionable implication (associated with the philosopher Herbert Marcuse) of an all-pervasive social control and domination was given the lie precisely by the vibrant movements of the 1960s, including that of the feminists themselves. In this same vein of articulating strategies that subvert control and domination is the last article in this volume, Carl Davidson's 1970 "Toward a Critical University: Counter-Hegemony in Education." Furthermore, and very much to its credit, this collection presents the entirety of Noel Ignatin's and Ted Allen's long-unavailable collection of essays on white supremacy, "White Blindspot." The white supremacy thesis was one of the most significant ideological developments within the New Left milieu, although my own experience leads me to question the idea that the racism of white workers reflects any actual privilege as distinct from (to use the older left expression) misguided white chauvinism.

Distributed through online publisher lulu.com (http://tinyurl.com/lostsdswritings);

Bulk orders from Carl Davidson (firstname.lastname@example.com)

Reviewed by George Fish
writer, poet, stand-up comic
Indianapolis, Indiana
email@example.com

From 'Keep On Keepin' On' at http://carldavidson.blogspot.com Of special interest those those who want to know more about CyberRadicalism, the Solidarity Economy and a Socialism for the 21st Century
Carl Davidsonhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7271382.post-6795067757231833852013-12-27T12:09:00.001-06:002013-12-27T13:20:43.251-06:00Brownfields, Cleanups and Anti-Union Cranks

By Carl Davidson
Keep On Keepin' On

My home town of Aliquippa once hosted one of the largest steel mills in the world. Now, after the shutdowns and job exporting of the 1980s, it has one of the largest 'brownfields' in the world. That's seven miles of highly polluted empty land along the Ohio, It's hard even for weeds to grow there.

So Aliquippa had the good luck Dec 24, Christmas Eve, to be on the receiving end of a $3 million grant from the state to help clean it up, in order to prepare for new industry. Most people praised our Mayor, Dwan Walker, for helping it along. But not some, such as one letter-writer in our local paper who asserted that retirees of the 'greedy union' should clean it up, since they made the mess and 'profited' from it.

The notion of 'greedy unions' tells us all we need to know about this guy.

The workers at this steel mill and others earned every cent they got, and then produced the profits for the bosses as well. Where do you think wealth comes from? And some paid a heavier price—I had a grandfather and a cousin killed there.

In the last days, the union, nearly to a fault, made every concession it could to keep the mill open. But the owners decided they wanted to gamble in oil futures instead. 'I'm in business to make money, not steel' was the famous boss quote of the day.

That tells you the nature of finance capital vs. productive capital. They 'make money' but they do not make wealth. Same as the folks who own casinos and race tracks. They make money, but no real wealth.

Cleaning up this 'brownfield' creates infrastructure that can attract some productive capital—and labor along with it—to make new wealth.

Whether workers are hired locally and get a decent wage and a union is a point of struggle. We've always had to organize and fight to get anything. Otherwise, we'd still be working for slave masters or bowing down on our knees to Kings, Queens and the Lords on the Manor.
The workers did indeed see the land being poisoned, and most supported the EPA rules against it. It was the owners who exported mills to Brazil and others places without EPAs.
Why do you think the frackers are afraid of union labor? Because union members have the backing and the backbone to report on toxic spills. Why are they afraid of local labor? Because the families of local workers live here too, and they also thus have good reason to oppose toxic dumping.

But perhaps our 'greedy union' critic is right in a backhanded way. It may very well be that we can't have capitalism along with jobs for all, a living wage and a healthy environment—not because it can't be done theoretically, but out of sheer greed and stupidity. If so, I thank him for making my case for moving to socialism of the 21st century.

From 'Keep On Keepin' On' at http://carldavidson.blogspot.com Of special interest those those who want to know more about CyberRadicalism, the Solidarity Economy and a Socialism for the 21st Century
Carl Davidsonhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7271382.post-30686257247545968372013-12-06T14:27:00.001-06:002013-12-06T14:27:42.767-06:00Strategy and the US Six-Party System
<img height="257" alt="STRATEGY, the Left and Doing Battle in the Electoral Arena. A new Slide Show in our ‘Study Guides’ section prepared by Carl Davidson, National Co-Chair, Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, CLICK TITLE ABOVE TO DOWNLOAD.To get regular updates, be sure to ‘Like’ us at http://facebook.com/ouleft.org You can also ‘subscribe’ to our FB page and send in articles for our blog at the OUL main site, http://ouleft.org/" src="http://25.media.tumblr.com/5026b39012840f30e9a579de8e1164e8/tumblr_mxcohrUbyK1qhlguyo1_500.jpg" width="386" />

STRATEGY, the Left and Doing Battle in the Electoral Arena. A new Slide Show in our 'Study Guides' section prepared by Carl Davidson, National Co-Chair, Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, CLICK TITLE ABOVE TO DOWNLOAD THE SLIDESHOW THAT GOES WITH THE ARTICLE BELOW.

Strategic Thinking on the U.S. Six Party System

Congressional Progressive Caucus presenting its platform

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt; if you know Heaven and know Earth, you may make your victory complete."
—Sun Tzu, The Art of War

By Carl Davidson
Keep On Keepin' On

Successful strategic thinking starts with gaining knowledge, particular gaining adequate knowledge of the big picture, of all the political and economic forces involved (Earth) and what they are thinking, about themselves and others, at any given time. (Heaven). It's not a one-shot deal. Since both Heaven and Earth are always changing, strategic thinking must always be kept up to date, reassessed and revised.

To make a political assessment of the forces commanded by the U.S. bourgeoisie and its subaltern allies and strata, it helps to make an examination of Congress, the White House and other Beltway institutions, as well as voting trends and others political and cultural among the masses. And to get an accurate estimation, we must often tear away, set aside or bracket misleading labels and frames, as well as assess varying economic resources and voting results. We want to illuminate an intentionally obfuscated landscape, like when a flash of lightning at night does away with shadows and renders the landscape in sharp relief.

The primary conventional wisdom we want to dissect here is that the U.S. has a two-party system.  First, the nature of political parties in the US today is rather unique; they are not parties in any European parliamentary sense, where members are bound to a program or platform with some degree of discipline, and mass party organizations exist at the base. Second, the Republicans and the Democrats in the US are largely empty shells locally, consisting mainly of incumbents and staffers, and their retained lawyers, fundraisers and media consultants. There is some variation from state to state—state committeemen and women will pass resolutions and certify ballot status and positions, but there's not much of a mass character save for an occasional campaign rally. Third, at the Congressional level the two-party structure, to some degree, still allows for dividing the spoils of committee assignments, but even these are often warped by other considerations.

A few also like to argue that the US has only one party, a capitalist party, with two wings, the bad and the worse. But this is reductionist to a fault, and doesn't tell you much other than that we live in a capitalist society, which is rather trivial.

Some also hold out hope for a 'third party' that is noncapitalist. But given the 'winner take all' rules in most elections, along with the amount of money and resources required to mount credible campaigns, these are long shots, save for periods of crisis and upheaval, like the period just before the U.S Civil War, where the Whigs imploded, the Liberty Party had a role, and a new 'First Party' formed, the GOP. Another period worth a deeper look is 1944-48, when the rising forces of the Cold War and Southern racism led to a four-way race in 1948 between the Dixiecrats (Strom Thurmond), the Democrats (Harry Truman), the GOP (Thomas Dewey) and the Progressive Party (Henry Wallace).

Our Six-Party System

But today, we'll do better to get a more accurate picture of our adversaries if we set aside the labels of 'two-party system', 'Democrats' and 'Republicans' and the other nuances mentioned above.  Instead, I'll offer an alternative working hypothesis, that we live under a six-party system with two labels, and that this will give us a closer and more realistic view of the relation and balance of forces with which we have to deal. But even here, it's important to note that we are discussing 'parties' as clusters of colluding and contending blocs of interests, economic views and social coalitions, not unified and disciplined ideological formations strictly bound to a platform. The six 'parties' described here below, however, do come closer to these kinds of constructs than the larger 'two labels' they operate under.

So who are they?

The Tea Party. So far, only the most far right group has been given the label 'party' in the mass media, even though it operates as a faction within the GOP. It generally represents anti-globalist nationalism with a prominence given to the 'Austrian School' economics of classical liberalism and, in some cases, the self-interest philosophy of Ayn Rand. It also merges with paleo-conservative traditionalists, which serves as a cover for defending white and male privilege and armed militia groups. It appeals to about 10-20 percent of the electorate, with greater support in the South and West. It is currently locked in a fierce factional struggle with the other wing of the GOP. While a minority in the House overall, they dominate the GOP House Caucus, and thus, as reported widely on 24-hour news cycles, they can and do block many bills from coming to the floor. Tea Party incumbents have been aided in gaining and retaining their seats by GOP-led redistricting on the level of the states they control, breaking up districts electing Democrats and forming new one with more homogenous rightwing majorities. This was begun by Paul Weyrich of the 'New Right' under Reagan, and continues to this day

The Republican Multinationalists. These are the neoliberal moneybags of the GOP (and the neoconservative subset termed 'The War Party' by Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul from the right)-the Bushes, Cheney, Karl Rove, the Koch brothers and others with fortunes rooted in petroleum, defense industries and other US businesses with global reach. Their neoliberal economics became hegemonic with Reagan's ascendancy via the anti-Black and anti-feminist 'Southern Strategy' alliance with the forces that later came to make up the Tea Party right. The Koch brother's money also helped form ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, thus allowing business lobbyists to write uniform reactionary legislation, mainly on the state level, across the country. Despite statewide gains, the GOP label's current dilemma is that the Tea Party's more inane, backward and proto-fascist views on social and cultural issues is causing the GOP tickets to lose national elections, deadlock the Congress and strain the alliance. On the other hand, if the 'Country Club' Republicans dump the Tea Party, the GOP itself may implode

The Blue Dogs. This caucus in the Democratic Party is tied to 'Red State' mass voting bases-the military industrial workers, and the Southern and Appalachian regions. They are neo-Keynesian on military matters, but neoliberal on everything else. Their 'party' frequently sides with the GOP in Congressional voting. The Blue Dog Coalition has recently shrunk from 27 to 14 members, often having paved the way to self-defeat by backhandedly encouraging GOP victories in their districts by attacking Obama and other Democrats.

The 'Third Way' New Democrats. This 'party' of the center right is mainly the U.S. electoral arm of global and finance capital, with the Clintons and Rahm Emanuel as the better known public faces. Formed to break with 'economic populism' of the old FDR coalition, and assert a variety of globalist 'free trade' measures and the gutting of Glass-Steagall banking regulations, this new post-Reagan-Mondale grouping decided to put distance between itself and traditional labor allies. While neo-Keynesian on most matters, it also 'triangulates' with neoliberal positions. Started as the Democratic Leader Council and the 'New Democrat Coaltions. John Kerry is a member of the DLC but President Obama has claimed 'no direct connection,' even though the grouping lists Obama as one of its 'rising stars' The DLC/'New Democrats' essentially speaks for some of the more powerful elements of finance capital under the 'Democratic' label.. It is the dominant view among the Senate Democratic majority.

Old New Dealers.  This 'party' is represented by unofficial wealthy Democratic groups like Americans Coming Together, plus the AFL-CIO's Committee on Political Education and others. They take a Keynesian approach to economic matters, and are often critical of finance capital and the trade deals promoted by the globalists. They are also wary of deep defense cuts that would cause layoffs among their membership base. They maintain, however, strong alliances with some civil rights, women's and environmental groups. Their main value to Democratic tickets is their independent get-out-the-vote operations, which can be decisive in many races. They also work closely with the Alliance for American Manufacturing, a business-based anti-free trade lobby that works with labor.

PDA/Congressional Progressive Caucus. While the largest single caucus in the House, the CPC 'party' is still relatively small, representing 80 out of 435 votes. Its policy views are Keynesian and, in some cases, social-democratic as well.  Its recent 'Back-to-Work Budget' serves as an excellent economic platform for a popular front against finance capital. It also largely overlaps with the Hispanic and Black Caucuses, and is the most multinational 'Rainbow' grouping in the Congress. It also includes Senator Bernie Sanders, the sole socialist in Congress, who was an initial founder of the CPC. It has opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, under the Progressive Democrats of America banners of 'Healthcare Not Warfare' and 'Windmills Not Weapons.' It has recently gained some direct union support from the militant National Nurses United and the Communications Workers of America. Many, but not all, CPC members are also members of Progressive Democrats of America, an independent PAC dubbed the 'Tom Hayden/ Dennis Kucinich' Democrats at the time of their founding in 2004. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is the closest political group the US has that would parallel some of the 'United Left' socialist and social democratic groups in European countries

What Does It All Mean?

With this brief descriptive and analytical mapping of the upper crust of American politics, many things begin to fall in place. Romney, a very wealthy representative of the Multinational GOP group, defeated all the Tea Party candidates in the primaries, and consequently, could never convince the Tea Party he was one of them, simply because he wasn't. This led to a drop in GOP voter enthusiasm that couldn't even be overcome with 'dog whistle' appeals to racism and revanchism in the campaigns.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, at its core, represents an alliance between the DLC 'Third Way' and the Old New Dealers, while also pulling along the PDA/Congressional Progressive Caucus as energetic but critical secondary allies. The Blue Dogs found themselves out in the cold from the wider Obama coalition, and shrank accordingly. Barbara Lee of PDA and the CPC, moving from a minority of one on Afghanistan at the start of the invasion, finally got a majority of House Democrats to oppose and push Obama on the wars, but to little avail in any immediate sense, being thwarted by both the DLC and the Multinational GOP.

This 'big picture' also reveals much about the current budget debates, which are shown to be three-sided-the extreme austerity neoliberalism of the Tea Party Ryan budget, the 'austerity lite' budget of the DLC-dominated Senate Democrats, and the left Keynesian progressive 'Back to Work' budget of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The 'Old New Dealers' were caught in the middle, with only 20 or so coming over on the Black Caucus version of the 'Back to Work' budget, which was still in the minority.

While all this shows why and how Obama was able to pull together a majority electoral coalition, it also reveals why he is still thwarted on pulling together an effective governing coalition. Likewise, it shows how the Tea Party, with only 10-20 percent of the electorate, is able to water down or completely bloc common-sense measures on gun control with 70-90 percent support among the general population.

Finally, the fact that there is only one avowed socialist in Congress tells us something about our own position in the overall balance of forces. Socialist candidates are only able to draw 2% to 5% of the votes in this period, save for Sanders, and we all know that Vermont has some unique features that made it possible, not that Sanders didn't do yeoman work in pulling together a progressive majority that elected him.

In summary, here are a few things to keep in mind.  If you decide to intervene in electoral work to build independent working class grassroots organizations, you don't go 'inside the Democratic Party'. There's not much of an 'inside' there anymore. What you do instead is join or work with one of the two factions/'parties' that are left of center.  Your aim is to make either of these stronger, preferably the PDA/Congressional Progressive Caucus. Then to shift the overall balance of forces, your task is to defeat the Tea Party, the Multinational GOP, and the Blue Dogs. At present, not a single piece of progressive legislation is going to get passed without driving a wedge between the two parties under the GOP label and weakening both of them.

We have to keep in mind, however, that 'shifting the balance of forces' is mainly an indirect and somewhat ephemeral gain. It does 'open up space', but for what? Progressive initiatives matter for sure, but much more is required strategically. We are interested in pushing the popular front vs. finance capital to its limits, and within that effort, developing a socialist bloc. If that comes to scale, the 'Democratic Party Tent' is likely to collapse and implode, given the sharper class contractions and other fault lines that lie within it, much as the Whigs did in the 19th Century. That demands an ability to regroup all the progressive forces into a new 'First Party' alliance able to contend for power

An old classic formula summing up the strategic thinking of the united front and popular front is appropriate here: 'Unite and develop the progressive forces, win over the middle forces, isolate and divide the backward forces, then crush our adversaries one by one.' In short, we have to have a policy and set of tactics for each one of these elements, as well as a strategy for dealing with them overall. Finally, a note of warning from the futurist Alvin Toffler: 'If you don't have a strategy, you're part of someone else's strategy.'

From 'Keep On Keepin' On' at http://carldavidson.blogspot.com Of special interest those those who want to know more about CyberRadicalism, the Solidarity Economy and a Socialism for the 21st Century
Carl Davidsonhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7271382.post-78679668047958652872013-10-17T11:34:00.001-05:002013-10-17T11:34:47.651-05:00Purge the Tea Party, Save Democracy

By Carl Davidson
Keep On Keepin' On

It's time to take the gloves off and purge the Tea Party. I'm sure we can fit extortion and obstruction of the Constitution into 'high crimes and misdemeanors' and get the ball rolling with Articles of Impeachment--which, you know, isn't limited to something done to Presidents. If not that, we need to prepare now to expunge them at the polls in 2014.

Not a single decent or progressive thing is going to get through Congress until we do.

I'm not even talking about their racist shenanigans on the Mall last week, demagogically trying at a vets' rally to blame Obama for shutting down the WW2 Memorial they had shut down. Nor the anti-Muslim tirade and waving of the Confederate flag as they marched on the White house.

That was simply reactionary farce. More sinister was their action in the House early this month when they changed the rules, stripping every Member of Congress on one of their rights, and handing it over only to Rep. Ed Cantor 'or his designee." It was exposed on the House floor by Rep. Chris van Hollen (D-MD). According to CNN reporter Jake Tapper Oct 14, quoting van Hollen:

"Under the Rules of the Hous Standing Rules of the House so only Cantor or his designee could bring up Senate bill for a vote. I am told that we never played with this Rule when we were last in Majority and we are looking into the earlier history of this matter. In other words, they shut down the government and then changed the House Rules to keep it shut down.'"

In other words, the GOP-dominated House Rules Committee just told 434 House members to sit down and shut up, and that they had no rights the Tea Party was bound to respect.

To the rest of us, the clear message is that they don't give a damn it the economy is wrecked and the working class suffers. They want to destroy the first Black Presidency at any cost, even if it means going against their Bankster backers on Wall St for a spell.

We need to put the heat on the offices of every Member of Congress, of either party, left, center or right. Strangle this proto-fascist maneuver in its crib. Don't give them an inch, or we'll regret it further down the line. Rather than 'compromises' like cutting Social Security or Medicare, now is the time for steel backbones and fierce organizing.

From 'Keep On Keepin' On' at http://carldavidson.blogspot.com Of special interest those those who want to know more about CyberRadicalism, the Solidarity Economy and a Socialism for the 21st Century
Carl Davidsonhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7271382.post-67395957754210781802013-08-09T14:34:00.001-05:002013-08-09T14:34:45.303-05:00Digging In, Reaching Out…

Student and teachers from the Convention 'School for Young People'

CCDS 7th Convention Debates Growth

of the Left and the Progressive Majority

in Combating Austerity, War and the Right

[This report was assembled by Carl Davidson, with considerable and valuable help from Cheryl Richards and Ellen Schwartz, our recorders. Others who added a lot were Janet Tucker, Harry Targ, Ted Reich, Pat Fry, Will Emmons, Randy Shannon, Anne Mitchell and Duncan McFarland. Photos by Ted Reich]

Nearly 100 delegates, observers and friends gathered in Pittsburgh, PA for the 7th Convention of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism over the July 18-21, 2013 weekend. The goals of the gathering were to take stock of the political battles since their last convention in 2009, to assess the organization's strengths, weaknesses and ongoing challenges, and to chart a path of unity and struggle for the upcoming period.

The participants came from all sections of the country: from California to Florida, from Texas to Boston, and many points in between. Almost all were deeply embedded in mass struggles—trade unions and community organizations, women's groups, civil rights organizations and peace and justice coalitions. Many had also taken part in a variety of independent electoral battles against the GOP and the right, and everyone had been in the streets during the battles against the wars, the Occupy upsurge and for justice in the Trayvon Martin case.

Kicking off the meeting was a "School for Young People." That innovation started a day before the main sessions of the convention. The presence of 20 young activists—men and women, of several nationalities, fresh from many battles, especially in the South—added a dynamic quality to all the discussions for the entire weekend.

"We appreciated the steps CCDS has made to accept the need for youth leadership in the socialist left and progressive movements," said Will Emmons of Kentucky. The students saw the school as a "good first start," and looked forward to more and better efforts in overcoming the intergenerational divide in much of the socialist movement.

The convention itself was organized into five plenary sessions and 16 workshops, with a cultural event and dinner on Saturday evening. It opened for the youth school and other early arrivers Thursday evening with the showing of the new film, "Anne Braden: Southern Patriot," an inspiring story of the battles of Anne Braden and her husband, Carl Braden of Kentucky, in decades of battles against white supremacy and other fronts in the class struggle across the South. Filmmaker Anne Lewis from Texas was on hand to lead a discussion that followed.

All the convention's deliberations were organized around a "main resolution," with the various plenaries and workshops dealing with its different sections. The five plenary topics were 1) assessing the concrete conditions, 2) the terrains of struggle against austerity, 3) the climate change crisis, 4) strategic formations and the progressive majority, and 5) the quest for left unity.

Time of Day: The Opening Plenary on Concrete Conditions

 "What time is it?" asked Mildred Williamson, a CCDS national committee member from Chicago, in her remarks opening the first plenary session, which was chaired by Randy Shannon of Western PA. "It's a time of economic, social, environmental, and racial injustice on steroids." she continued, "a time of no respect for humanity." She proceeded to spotlight the full range of current conditions with the lens showing the inter-connection of class, race and gender. "What time is it?" she repeated, "As long as Black and brown lives are thought of and treated as disposable, in a 21st century-three-fifths-of-a-person fashion, it will be impossible to achieve working class power in this country. Economic and social policies are literally destroying Black and brown lives, and simultaneously further weakening working class power…. we must fight with humility and purpose to strengthen and promote radicalized thought and action in the quest for social justice, human rights and working class power. This requires a fresh look at what it means to be 'Left' in this phase of capitalism."

Williamson concluded by posing the most poignant questions to the delegates:

"What is the winning strategy to reduce the number of white working class people from voting against their own class interests, especially since fewer are unionized and fewer live in integrated communities? What will be the winning strategy to achieve left unity - and just what does that mean today? How can we build respect for youth in leadership of social justice movements while still showing simultaneous respect for elders? How do we fully move our thought and action from the multiracial unity 'slogan' to normalized, genuine demonstrations of respect for multiple cultures, gender expressions and sexual orientations? These questions--and more tough ones--need answers in order to chart the path forward in the quest for working class power. Let's work on them at this convention and thereafter."

Militarism and Climate Disasters on the Rise

Other topics for this session were militarism and war, along with the climate change crisis. Harry Targ of Indiana addressed the former, stressing the new forms of war and new developments in the "national security state," while David Schwartzman, from Washington, DC, summarized the science around the climate and the need for a "Green New Deal" to challenge "the military-industrial-carbon-burning complex."

Discussion from the floor was mainly focused on a substitute motion submitted by Duncan McFarland, and the CCDS Peace and Solidarity Committee. He argued that the brief reference to war and militarism in the main resolution was woefully inadequate. After some debate, the committee's resolution was adopted as an addition to the main text.

Photo: Carl Redwood from Pittsburgh

 The convention was structured so that four breakout workshops followed each plenary, with one of these workshops designated for continuing discussion of the main plenary topic. In this case, the 'Concrete Conditions' workshop, also chaired by Randy Shannon, featured Carl Redwood, a Pittsburgh community organizer from the Hill District, the city's main African American neighborhood, and Guillermo Perez, an organizer with the United Steel Workers working on immigration issues.

"These two guys were great," said one workshop participant. "Redwood gave us a great picture of the impact of race and class oppression in the neighborhoods, while Perez had a very clear view of the intricacies of the immigration fight. I learned something new from both of them."

Breathing In, Breathing Out: Radical Education and Organizing

CCDS's Socialist Education Project did a concurrent workshop highlighting the role of socialist education in organization building, especially discussion circles and study groups for workers and youth. It started with a slide show on radical politics and pedagogy put together by Carl Davidson. The presentation combined the ideas of Antonio Gramsci, Father Jose Maria Arizmendi of the Mondragon Coops in Spain, and Ella Baker, the famed educator of the SNCC generation of young civil rights fighters. Tina Shannon supplemented this with a discussion of Paulo Freire's "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" and Harry Targ discussed current battles in the "contested terrain" of the universities.

Carl Davidson speaking at Socialist Education Project workshop

There were two other workshops in this slot. One continued the discussion from the School for Young People from the previous day. The other continued the discussion on how to use the Anne Braden film for radical education in organizing efforts. Presentations were made by Jim Branson, Janet Tucker, Frank Chapman, Ted Pearson, and the maker of the film, Anne Lewis.

The topic of the second plenary was the terrains of struggle against austerity, and was chaired by CCDS national co-chair, Pat Fry. It also had a "left unity" dimension, in that the main presenters were Carl Bloice from CCDS, Judith LeBlanc from the CPUSA, Paul Garver from the Democratic Socialists of America, and Paul LeBlanc from the International Socialist Organization. Bloice was unable to attend personally for health reasons, but his presentation was read by Pat Fry.

Austerity: Neoliberalism's Class Warfare

"Call it 'austerity,' or its larger more systemic designation 'neoliberalism,'" Bloice began, "this class warfare is a major element in the massive upsurges today in countries and regions across the globe. Everywhere people on the left are aware that the root of this campaign is traceable to the effort to salvage capitalism in the midst of crisis and that the world needs more socialism.

"I would argue." he continued, "that the path ahead must lead in that direction and that the key to the growth and increased influence and relevance of the socialist left lies in unity in action in defense of democracy and the well-being of working people everywhere. This must involve the day to day and militant defense of social programs such as Social Security, Medicare, food and housing assistance, aid to needy children, Head Start and environmental protection.

"Moreover, a program of a united left must offer an alternative view of politics and economics; one that encompasses greater economic democracy, advancement of the true interests of the 99 percent and an equitable sharing of the wealth of nations. It would require a lot of hard work, and debate and exploration that cannot be accomplished in one day but we can do it, together."

Judith LeBlanc opened by describing the fightback as it was emerging in various parts of the country, especially the "Moral Monday" events in North Carolina and union drives throughout the South. But a special emphasis of her talk was on the problem of economic conversion from a polluting war economy to a sustainable "clean and green" economy of peacetime production.

"Local resolutions on conversion are appearing in city councils," she explained. "and although the right continues to thwart these efforts, we need to fight for transition now, being mindful that cuts in the military budget might adversely affect communities, therefore we must advocate options like green jobs. In Connecticut, for example, a machinist union hired a retiree to help draft a call for an economic conversion commission, and the Communist Party is helping to get it passed She concluded by stressing that the left had to work on popular education programs that help people understand all that needs to be done.

Pat Fry chairing plenary on austerity, with Paul Garver of Democratic Socialist of America on the left.

DSA's Paul Garver started by calling austerity "the death by a thousand cuts," and noted that "the practice of leftists fighting for turf had begun to recede, and instead, in a number of cases, we have begun to coalesce." He gave the "budget for all" campaign in Massachusetts, as well as the election of two progressive politicians, Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, as examples. More left cooperation was needed, however, to build organizations like Progressive Democrats of America in order to defend democracy.

ISO's Paul LeBlanc opened by recounting his impressions of Obama's campaign speeches in Pittsburgh. "They were quite good, and most interesting to me was that the crowds cheered the loudest when the most pro-working class and progressive points were made. Of course, once you're captured by the Democratic Party, you're in no position to implement hardly any of this." LeBlanc went on to explain that this story showed a new openness to socialist ideas and mass organization and mass insurgency at the base, which he saw as an area for cooperation on the left. He gave the examples of the large mobilization in Pittsburgh around global capital's G20 gathering, as well as smaller mass campaigns, like Pittsburgh's worker-and-community based campaign to defend mass transit.

The plenary discussion quickly turned to the designated section of the main resolution, particularly those referring to a variety of arenas of struggle. Zach Robinson, of North Carolina, speaking from the floor, presented the thinking of the Program Committee that drafted the document.

"One of the most political words in our vocabulary is 'vote,'" he asserted. "But the Occupy movement added a new word to our vocabulary." He cited the spirit of Gramsci and asked, "What do we mean by politics? In what arenas are politics conducted? The electoral arena is often most important but Gramsci also pointed to civil society including the cultural struggle. Occupy showed the powerful impact that a movement can make on the whole country."

Robinson added that politics is also in the arena of the Internet as part of the struggle for "the commons." The "Moral Mondays" in North Carolina, he added, had also emerged as an important arena using civil disobedience.

Janet Tucker of Kentucky, moved an addition to the resolution opposing the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act and the ensuing mass disenfranchisement of voters in state laws and the voting rights of felons. Robinson added a friendly amendment on "corporate personhood," and the measure passed unanimously.

Four breakout workshops also followed this plenary— one continuing the convention school for youth, one continuing the discussion of austerity and political terrain, Of the remaining two, one focused on focused on trade unions and the other on foreign policy and the U.S. 'pivot to Asia.'

The workshop continuing the previous discussion on austerity had 15 participants engaged in three areas. First, the crisis in health care and the consequences of states deciding to reject participation in the Affordable Care Act was examined. It was pointed out that the lack of access to health care for large percentages of poor working people, particularly in the Midwest red states, constituted a threat to human survival.   Second, some workshop participants argued that as we organize we give greater consideration to religious allies and matters of spirituality. Those who raised the issue argued that many people are motivated by a kind of spirituality that is not necessarily tied to religiosity but more a sense of the connectedness between people and people and nature. Third, the workshop addressed the need for highlighting the environmental crisis and developing a rigorous conception of "eco-socialism." While the workshop drifted from some of the ideas presented in the plenary session, informal setting allowed for rich discussion and extensive group participation.

Labor Workshop: Feedback to the AFL-CIO

Photo: Paul Krehbiel from Los Angeles at labor workshop

 Next was a workshop on "The Future of Labor" was chaired by Paul Krehbiel of Los Angeles, retired from SEIU, and a former auto parts worker. It drew over 20 participants, nearly all of whom were trade unionists. The session was also seen as a response to a recent call by the AFL-CIO for "listening sessions" for gathering new ideas on how to expand the power and reach of labor.

Sandy Eaton, of National Nurses United in Boston, started off talking about the role of the left in labor, and especially in issue-oriented multi-union formations, such as Labor Campaign for Single-Payer (health care), US Labor Against the War, Black Workers for Justice, and others.

Robin Alexander, International Affairs Director of United Electrical workers (UE), from Pittsburgh, talked about the international corporate assault on workers globally, and how unions had to build international labor solidarity. She talked specifically about a long-term relationship that UE has with the FAT (Frente Auténtico del Trabajo) workers federation in Mexico and how they helped each other make gains in each country.

"We've been taking on the Penguins," said Carl Redwood, a community organizer in Pittsburgh's Hill District, long victimized by sports arenas and "urban removal." He talked about their campaign for jobs, neighborhood revitalization, and housing--and for equality across the board. They hoped to gain some community funding via a surcharge on parking at Penguins hockey games, situated on land formerly in the heart of their community. He explained how building coalitions with unions have strengthened both labor and the community. He talked about the importance of identifying where union members lived and community activists lived so they could "map out" concentrations and unite forces in local coalitions.

Krehbiel talked about the massive independent labor-led mobilization of 400,000 union members and union households to defeat the right (Romney) in the last presidential election, and to re-elect President Obama. He said a similar mass mobilization must take place now to strengthen workers on the job and in their unions through building Stewards Councils to increase worker's strength on the job and in the community.

In the discussion, participants offered a number of good suggestions, including work for international labor solidarity in the Clean Clothing Campaign, Students Against Sweatshops and others. Others talked about the development of Next Up, a Labor Bill of Rights, workers centers, organizing in the South. The workshop will send a report to the AFL-CIO as part of its "listening sessions" project.

U.S. Hegemonism in Asia

The "Pivot to Asia" workshop was organized by the CCDS Peace and Solidarity Committee. "The Obama administration's current strategy," said Duncan McFarland of Boston, chair of the session, "is to rebalance global strategic priorities to the Asia/Pacific region, while maintaining a strong presence in the Persian Gulf." This long term shift in US policy is based on the rapid economic development of Asia and the decision of US imperialism to be a dominant player in the region. Air and naval forces are being moved into location, especially to bases surrounding the South China Sea. "Tensions are increasing as a result," McFarland noted, "while the interests of the people are to work for friendship and cooperation."

Randy Shannon described the Trans Pacific Partnership, a proposed NAFTA-like trade deal that would include the US, Japan and many of the other countries on the Pacific rim, but probably not include China. "The TPP is being negotiated in secret by representatives of major multinational corporations and government trade officials," Shannon explained. "US labor has different perspectives on TPP but there is more and more skepticism about the deal. A principle demand now is for transparency, that the negotiating process be opened up and made public."

Minetaka Shimada and Randy Shannon speaking on trade in the Pacific

A correspondent from the Japanese newspaper Akahata of the Japanese Communist Party, Minetaka Shimada, also spoke. He talked of Japanese subordination to US imperialism because of the US-Japan mutual defense Treaty. "The pivot to Asia/Pacific and the TPP will deepen Japan's dependency," he said, "and thus are opposed by the Japanese people." Shimada also spoke of the importance of defending Article 9 of the Japanese constitution which prohibits Japanese troops from fighting in wars overseas. Prime Minister Abe and rightist forces, encouraged by the US pivot, want to change parts of the constitution to allow for more Japanese military activity. The workshop also wrote a resolution on its work, to be presented at the next day's plenary.

Climate Disasters: A Clear and Present Danger

The third and last plenary session on Friday was on climate change. Chaired by Marian Gordon of Los Angeles, the presenters were Zach Robinson of North Carolina, and Ash-Lee Henderson of Tennessee.

Robinson began by talking about aspects of the matter that were not widely known, such as US military planning to handle millions of displaced persons in the event of extreme climate change and the rise of sea levels wiping out entire coastal cities in some countries. He spoke of climate as always a dynamic system, mentioning fossils showing that there were plants and animals where glaciers now exist, and that change is not always gradual:

"We also need some new metaphors. Take the Lion's Mane jellyfish. Taken alone, it's quite deadly, ensnaring and gobbling up nearly everything in its reach, even more so when it works in clusters. Then take the lowly sea anemone. When it gathers in collective formations, firmly anchored, and the giant jellyfish run into them, it's no contest. The jellyfish is devoured.

"The lesson for us? Coalitions work, and they definitely work better than working alone. Organization in tune with nature is essential."

 Ash-Lee Henderson took a different approach, speaking concretely about the impact of pollution and toxic waste in Tennessee. "Heavy metals from mining and mountain top removal," she explained, "are having a profound effect on jobs and health." The environmental inequities are creating movements advocating justice. There are concrete ways to force change – marching, demonstrating, lobbying the EPA. "The left needs to figure out how to impact regulation of the climate industry now," she urged, certainly if there are only five or so years left. "Coalitions are being built; alliances can be made."

There was extensive discussion on two motions: a substitute motion submitted by Ted Pearson and a resolution submitted by the CCDS Climate Change Committee. David Schwartzman also moved to amend the main resolution to include the point: "The priority for an effective prevention program to avoid catastrophic climate change is a rapid phase out of fossil fuels with the highest carbon footprint, namely coal and unconventional petroleum, tar sands, and fracked shale gas, with conventional petroleum being used to facilitate a full global transition to wind and solar." His amendment was adopted by a large majority.

The two competing substitute motions, however, were a cause of some debate and confusion. Randy Shannon opposed the notion of substituting the term 'eco-socialism' for socialism. John Case of West Virginia argued that a lack of carefully spelled out "conversion alternatives" would cause a negative reaction among unions and workers in energy industries. A number of people speaking from the floor expressed both agreement and disagreement with both alternatives, and suggested they be sent back to the committees for more work, and final resolution by the new NCC after the convention. This was agreed to by a solid majority.

Energized by the lively and democratic debate, the delegates took off for informal discussions in the evening. A good number, about 40, partook of an excellent Indian restaurant a few miles down the road; others enjoyed Pittsburgh's array of clubs and night life.

Saturday morning opened with a Credentials Committee report and instructions for elections of the NCC and Co-Chairs. Under its rules, CCDS elects three to five co-chairs at its convention, along with 15 of 30 national coordinating committee members. Any member can run, with a nominating petition signed by five members. Voting is done via a form of preferential balloting, where a delegate can rank their choices, including giving more than one candidate the same rank. The remaining 15 NCC members are elected two months after the convention by mail ballot of the entire membership, with those failing the first round automatically re-nominated, and further nominations allowed. The idea behind the two stages is to allow the organization greater flexibility in insuring diversity and geographic spread in the leadership's composition. So far, it has worked quite well.

Sharp Debate: The Progressive Majority and Strategy

The fourth plenary session, on the question of strategic formations—the progressive majority, rainbow coalitions in elections, poplar fronts and so on—began promptly after the credentials report. It was chaired by Meta Van Sickle of South Carolina, and featured Zach Robinson, Pat Fry and Jay Jurie of Florida, as presenters. Besides the general topic, at issue was a passage in the main resolution that sought to re-examine and update the CCDS strategic concept of the "progressive majority" in a deeper and bolder way. An alternate substitute resolution, signed by Pat Fry and Janet Tucker, had been placed on the floor.

Zach Robinson started by referring to the socialist and communist movement's worldwide experiences in the history of resistance to fascism. He explained that the popular front, as a multi-class alliance, was a large group, and the united front, mainly of workers' organizations, was smaller, and the organized left, smaller still. He said that strategy was usually described in military terms—main forces, allies, terrain and so on--but that he wanted to use a metaphor Carl Davidson borrowed from Buckminster Fuller. Fuller used the metaphor of the rudder of a ship and the ship as society, and especially noted the smallest piece of a rudder, the trim tab, the little "rudder within a rudder." Fuller argued that using the full rudder to turn the ship was often too difficult to do directly, hence the 'trim tab,' the small rudder that moved the larger one with more precision and speed. Zach concluded that the organized left served as 'trim tab', with a broad united and popular front, to move society in the direction of workers' power.

Pat Fry began her remarks by asserting that the main resolution was an attempt to replace the progressive majority strategy with a new and narrower strategy of the workers 'united front,' and she disagreed with it. She went on to describe the strategy of the progressive majority adopted at the last convention in 2009 after four earlier years of discussion in CCDS and in the larger progressive movement. She said it should be reaffirmed by this convention. She continued that the section of the main resolution on "New Alignments and New Strategies" moved away from the core strategy of the progressive majority, which has proved to be correct, evidenced by the sharpening of the class battles being fought throughout the US and in state capitals in response to the politics of austerity and the far right wing agenda.

Fry also argued that the pertinent section of the main resolution downplayed the intersection of race, class and gender, and took a negative view of trade unions.

"The interconnectedness of class, race and gender is key to the strategy of the progressive majority." Asserting that a workers' united front was too narrow, she explained that "African Americans, Latinos, and all oppressed by racism, and women oppressed by sexism are objectively the sectors most invested and have the most to gain in the struggle for democracy. Oppressed nationalities and women are all-class sectors of the progressive majority. They comprise non-working class sectors. The struggle for equality is inseparable from the struggle against capital because inequality is key to its sustenance."

On the matter of unions, she added "…in my view it is particularly disturbing to see the negative characterizations of trade unions in the main convention resolution. They are described as 'fee for service' organizations dominated by business-unionism suffering from Cold War anti-communism. While there are certainly valid critiques of labor unions to be made, the main convention resolution emphasizes the weaknesses without recognizing the new and extremely important developments within organized labor."

Fry also made reference to the progressive majority and electoral work: "The progressive majority strategy cannot be construed to mean that President Barack Obama is part of the progressive majority. The Obama administration is not a social force. It is the executive branch of government, one that certainly has an uneven record at best on domestic and foreign policies. Sectors of the progressive majority overlapped with the electoral coalition to elect and re-elect Obama but the progressive majority survives that electoral coalition and potentially stands as a permanent and growing force for progressive change."

In his opening remarks Jay Jurie said that he lived in Florida near Congressman Alan Grayson, whom he called "exemplary" as a progressive lawmaker. He went on to talk of the social face of the progressive majority: "We need to include the unorganized, the unemployed, students, certain professions." He said organizers can't impose their views by fiat. "People must be asked what they think, what they are about. We need to do surveys and research, to develop, obtain, and maintain sophisticated polling for social change." The role of revolution, he added, is to spark mass upheaval, as seen globally in the Arab Spring, and also what happened in Ohio and Wisconsin. "We need to sustain and defend gains made like abortion and voting rights. We need to be mindful of the 24 'one-party' states, mostly Republican, and target resources for local initiatives that look at who can benefit from local projects, and support common popular agendas."

The discussion that followed saw a number of sharp exchanges.

David Schwartzman offered an early amendment from the floor: "Implementing a Green New Deal is imperative to confront the convergence of the economic, social and climate crisis. In the U.S. the synergy of an inside and outside political strategy has the potential to make the Green New Deal a reality. Inside refers to influencing the Democratic Party and the outside refers to strengthening the Green Party and other political formations. We should work to make organized labor a leading force in these efforts recognizing the role of the Blue-Green alliance and other initiatives for conversion of the economy from war to a peace economy." This was passed with a large majority.

"We need an approach that includes moving the center to the left," commented Mildred Williamson. "Gerrymandering has resulted in Republican super majorities, and the GOP in power led to the mass protests in Wisconsin, Ohio and other states. But many people who protested had earlier voted for Republicans. It has to be acknowledged that regarding this issue of moving people from the center to the left, it is very important to get them to understand their real class interests in voting. This has to be the strategy for 2014 and 2016 elections."

The Obama Coalition and the Progressive Majority

Mark Solomon of Boston said the main resolution set up schisms and conflicts within the progressive majority that do not exist. It confuses it with the Obama coalition, which is dominated in large measure by the so-called liberal wing of finance capital. "There may be allies in the capitalist class, but they are not part of the progressive majority," he said.

Carl Davidson spoke next from the floor, taking a different approach. He said he was prepared to support both the original main resolution and the substitute resolution from Fry and Tucker. But he meant to disagree strongly with Fry's arguments in defense of the alternative.

"None of us are rejecting the progressive majority strategy; we are trying to update and improve upon it. A number of new things have taken place in the last four years—the 2010 and 2012 elections, the Occupy movement, the blockade of Congress by the Tea Party. We need to consider these. The Marxists of the 1930s have no monopoly on defining 'united front' and 'popular front.' All of us grasp the importance of the intersection of race, class and gender, and understand the alliance between the working class and all of the oppressed, people of color and women, as the core of that alliance, even as it includes other sectors. All of us know that the unions have a left, center and a right, and we have to talk about all of them to make a good analysis. All of us here favor a broad, multi-class alliance, and I would call the 'progressive majority' an expression of a popular front against finance capital, war and the right. Clearly the discussion suggests there are some differences here, but I'm not yet sure exactly what they are."

Several comments followed. Sandy Eaton said our role is to help the labor movement and its allies in communities to reach its full potential. In the unions, we have to promote democracy and a sense of struggle. Without this, corruption develops. We have class struggle and class collaboration trade unionism. Ted Pearson said both statements under-estimate the fact that democracy is under attack. There is a coming together of a number of things – surveillance and the national security state, racism which is at the center of the attack on democracy as well as anti-immigrant racism. Tina Shannon said she didn't see opposition between the progressive majority and the united front. "I work with people who are the progressive majority and we have had success in this direction but we need to take another step and discuss socialism. People also want to know what socialism is. That is why I support the Draft Convention Resolution."

Podium Poster summing up tasks

'Interpenetration of Contending Forces for Leadership'

Randy Shannon said he did not support either proposal. "The progressive majority is a theory of the social formations that develop and it is a great advancement in our thinking. But there are two weaknesses: there is not an overlap, as Pat put it, but an inter-penetration between the forces of capital, which are hegemonic, and the progressive majority, as it becomes more of a social force. A strategy has to look at how to deal with this interpenetration, and that is one of the issues that agitates the left around the Obama campaign."

"The other part missing in our Goals & Principles document," Shannon added, "is that there is not much of a discussion of what forms need to be developed in building the left. CCDS has not grown in the last four years. We haven't really developed a good theory of the formations that Zach characterized as the united front, and that may not be the best way to put that, and it was not really developed appropriately in the main resolution. I think both should be defeated and improved."

Harry Targ had the last word in this round. "It's terribly important that Pat raised the history of CCDS and how the discussion on the progressive majority developed. In terms of the popular front and united front, I believe that the document condenses too much history and there are a lot of complications that need to be addressed."

As time had run out, a procedural motion to adjourn, move on to the workshops and continue the discussion on Sunday passed.

The final two rounds of four workshops were held back-to-back. The first topics covered Strategic Formations, Progressive Platforms, Climate Change, and Civil Rights Trade Unionism and the South. The second covered the Democracy Charter, the War on Women, Politics and Culture, and the Middle East.

Civil Rights Trade Unionism

One of the best-attended and dynamic workshops of the convention focused of civil rights unionism and the South. Anne Mitchell of New York chaired and talked about the key role of labor in the 1963 March on Washington and the crisis situation of the labor movement 50 years later. "Now is the time to talk about the role of the civil rights movement, the labor movement and the strategic importance of the South," said Mitchell.

Scott Marshall and Judith LeBlanc, from CPUSA, in labor workshop

Scott Marshall, chair of the Labor Commission of the Communist Party USA and leader of his United Steelworkers of America retiree chapter in Chicago, IL talked about the new developments in organized labor and a growing class consciousness. He pointed to the national discussion on the future of labor organized in preparation for the AFL-CIO convention in September and urged the left to play its crucial role in advancing the discussion. Pointing to the UAW Nissan campaign in Mississippi involving the community and civil rights as well as the United Steelworkers global organizing, Marshall said "unions are beginning to speak for the whole working class - not just about workers in the plant, it is speaking for the whole community."

Tina Shannon, a CCDS leader and chair of the Progressive Democrats of America in the Pittsburgh area, spoke of the importance of the left showing progressives in peace and environmental movements how to work with the labor movement. Through efforts that began in working together with the Obama campaign in 2008, the labor movement and the PDA chapter attend each other's events - a film series and social evening hosted regularly by PDA and an annual Human Rights banquet of the Labor Council that connects issues of labor, democracy and equality.

Kathy Sykes, Lead Field Organizer for the Mississippi Immigrant Rights Alliance (MIRA) and board member of the Mississippi Alliance for Fairness at Nissan (MAFN), spoke about her work as a community activist and CWA member in Mississippi in support of the eight-year-long UAW organizing campaign in Canton, MS.

Several issues face the mostly African American workforce in Canton--wages are $2 less an hour than the mostly white Nissan workforce in Tennessee and there are unsafe working conditions at the plant. The UAW is determined to win with an alliance based on fairness, equality and the right to organize a union as a human right guaranteed by the International Declaration of Human Rights.

Sykes talked about the international solidarity of Nissan workers from Japan, South Africa, Brazil, Australia and Russia. "We hope you will join us in our struggle - we need as many organizations as possible around the country to show solidarity," said Sykes.

Ash-Lee Henderson, a union and environmental activist in Chattanooga, TN, opened with "greetings from the Volunteer State where we are encouraged to volunteer our labor for miniscule wages." Henderson told the story of her arrest along with six other members of the Chattanooga Organized for Action, CWA campus workers who disrupted a state senate hearing on four anti-worker bills.

Her story conveyed the importance of organizing in the South. "It is not a political ideology - it is a question of survival," said Henderson. Through a mass campaign in their defense, they connected the attack on workers and unions, the environment, immigrants, women and LGBT people in class terms - a coordinated drive by the rich to consolidate their wealth and power. The message, said Henderson, "spread like wildfire. Organizations who had nothing to do with the protest were talking about it. The next thing we know, AFSCME is raising funds for our defense, throwing parties. The former Speaker of the State House gets up and says, those kids are patriots. The left pole was created and the Democrats had to move."

Jim Grant, a member of Black Workers for Justice and CCDS in North Carolina, talked about the "Moral Monday" mass protests at the North Carolina state capitol since April in response to "regressive and idiotic" bills "trying to take this thing back to the 1890s." They have actually upset large portions of the people in the state who I didn't think would ever consider getting arrested, nearly 1,000 people since April. Six months ago, you would never have thought this possible," said Grant. "We will continue to push the envelope as far as we can push it," he said.

There was a common thread expressed: the necessity of winning the whole country to the strategic importance of winning the South. "This is a serious battle," said Sykes, "We have got to win in the South." Marshall highlighted the stake for the trade union movement in organizing in the South in conveying what UAW President Bob King told delegates to his union's convention: "if we don't organize the South and put the necessary resources into it, we won't have a union."

The workshop of climate change continued the discussion from the previous day's plenary. It was chaired by Steve Willet who, along with Carl Davidson, was also a presenter. One of the debates here was on the question of growth. Willet made the case that continuing growth in the current fashion of capitalism had to be curbed, especially in wasteful, carbon-burning production. Davidson made a different point. "One sector of the economy, the "knowledge and high design sector," needs to grow without limit, since it's through high design that we can improve the quality of life for all with a lighter and more sustainable footprint in all the other sectors."

The 'War on Women' workshop, chaired by Janet Tucker, focused on the broad and varied attacks on women and the fightback. Mildred Williamson spoke to the economic hardships on women and particularly women of color. Health disparities continue and deepen. The increased incarceration rate and the war on drugs has broken up families and increased poverty. Short films showed how deportation and detention rate has affected families. With many families being broken up and many children sent into foster care. Meta Van Sickle spoke of the effects of the war on women in education. April Browning of Kentucky addressed the economic effects of the present crisis on women and the work of Kentuckians Against the War on Women. Jim Branson from Texas spoke of the recent fightback in that state against the reactionary legislation against reproductive rights.

Culture and Politics

The workshop on Culture and Politics was chaired by Harry Targ, and featured film maker Anne Lewis, and blues and labor singers Ben Shannon and Anne Feeney as presenters. It addressed several issues. First, it was argued that culture, broadly defined, has been and should continue to be a tool in the struggle against ideological hegemony. Two of three speakers, Shannon and Feeney, used music as an example of a tool that has played a significant role in building mass movements. The third, Anne Lewis, showed video clips to illustrate how film could help inform progressives.

One video clip, combining music and action, documented militant protest in the Texas statehouse against the newly passed draconian anti-abortion law. In addition, panelists discussed the necessity of activists understanding that cultural performers are in fact workers and should be recognized as such. In terms of public policy, it was suggested that progressives should demand state support for the arts, much as had been done in the 1930s. Discussion was rich and some attendees felt that it would be useful for CCDS to develop a Culture and Politics task force or committee to continue the dialogue.

Building Left Unity

 The fifth plenary of the convention had "left unity" as the topic. Chaired by Carl Davidson, it took a different form, with Davidson first posing questions to presenters, and asking for short answers, then opening the discussion to the floor. The "interviewees" were Mark Solomon of CCDS, Judith LeBlanc of the CPUSA, and Larry Moskowitz of the Left Labor Project in New York City.

"Left Unity is a concept going back to the beginning of CCDS," said Davidson in his opening remarks. Our aim has always been to replace ourselves with something far larger and more effective." He spoke about a new upsurge in class struggle, and the response of the left in states like Wisconsin, Ohio, and North Carolina, and in movements like Occupy. He said that out of more than 300 million Americans, only about 20,000 at most belonged to groups that had communist, Marxist, or socialist in their names. "Many folks are interested in socialism, a very large number even call themselves socialists, but not very many are organized, certainly less than one in a 100. Our task is to find ways to encourage them to join our organizations, and we need to develop the infrastructure that helps them to do so."

His first question was to Judith LeBlanc: "What do you say when people say they can't join because they're too busy with mass work, and don't have time for one more meeting in their life? Her answer used the metaphor of soft boiled eggs. "You can't separate the two. The white hard part is the democratic process and the yellow yolk keeps us going; it is gooey, not tidy, but we must think long term."

Davidson then noted the success of the Left Labor Project in New York as an excellent example of left unity work, and asked Larry Moskowitz, "Why can't we replicate its work in a dozen or so other cities? What's holding us back?"

Moskowitz responded that the LLP is just four years old and it has forerunners in other progressive labor organizations peculiar to New York. He said the LLP is explicitly socialist, that women and people of color are in the forefront, that it doesn't interfere in the internal affairs of participating organizations, and the meetings always end by 8PM. There are several thousand on the email list, and he is proud of LLP's openness. "It hopefully will be possible to develop groups like it in other cities, but frankly, it won't be easy," he concluded.

Davidson then made reference to a number of "ideological struggles" in the left's past, which were receding into history, and asked Mark Solomon if people on the left had to have theoretical unity before they could unite politically and organizationally.

"No, is the short and best answer," Solomon replied. "Young people today don't care that much about ideology. Alliances should be inclusive, not exclusive, and left unity needs to be seen as concentric circles, permitting alliances to join campaigns as needed. There is no single perfect road to socialism; there are always going to be arguments." LeBlanc agreed, and added: "All our organizations are too small, and must grow. And the smaller the USSR appears in the rearview mirror, the more agreement we can often find. We need to share our experiences, seeing that the whole is greater than the sum if its parts."

When the discussion was opened to the floor, many convention participants joined, sharing their experiences and opinions. Some spoke to the importance of building multinational unity from the 'get go.' Others noted that the anarchist trend among many young people wasn't that much of an obstacle, expressing more of a stance of rebellion than hardened theory.

Davidson asked for closing remarks. LeBlanc offered that "leadership of left organizations can't get ahead of its membership" and that it is important to note that Charlene Mitchell is an important and great leader of the Left, the Communist Party, and CCDS." Solomon offered "it is a question of urgency. Alliances must begin now. The questions of today — voting rights, working people's oppression—all need a concrete response, and we need a school developed to build an intergenerational dialog." Moskowitz concluded: "Organizing any sector is not mystical. We need to build relationships and organize for joint projects."

Two substitute motions on left unity were on the floor. After friendly and minor amendments, both were adopted. It was left to the incoming NCC to see that they were harmonized in a final statement.

By Saturday evening, all the participants were ready for a change of pace and spirit. It was announced that Carl Bloice, Carl Davidson and Pat Fry had been re-elected by acclamation as national co-chairs, but that other election results would be announced Sunday morning.

An Evening of Solidarity

Getting ready for dinner

Saturday evening's dinner gathering had a number of features, including excellent food. A music video of Bay Area cultural worker Jon Fromer's "Gonna Take Us All" was both inspiring and sobering, since he had recently passed on from cancer. A slide show memorial to other deceased comrades since our last convention was projected—Manning Marable, Eric Quesada, Brandon Wallace, Fred Hicks, and Toshi Seeger.

Pat Fry shifted the mood by reading a number of greetings and solidarity messages. These included statements the South African Communist Party, the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation (associated with the The Left Party of Germany, Die Linke), the Vietnam Women's Union, and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Fry also mentioned that she would soon be meeting the President of Vietnam, and would see that he received copies of the new CCDS book summing up our visits with the Vietnam Women's Union, "Vietnam: From National Liberation to 21st Century Socialism."

Photo: Ann Feeney, 'Hell Raiser'

 The best was saved for last, a spirited and fiery performance by Anne Feeney, a native Pittsburgher and famed self-described "union maid, hell raiser and labor singer."

"I've been 'comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable' since I graduated from high school in 1968. The Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement shaped my conscience and consciousness. It has been my privilege to spend most of my waking hours with people who are trying to make a difference in this world."

Feeney treated the convention to a variety of songs, old and new, stressing labor battles and women's rights. As a close she had everyone on their feet for a rousing rendition of the Internationale.

Organization Building: A Central Task

Sunday morning began with an informal breakfast meeting, organized by Harry Targ, on how to involve members in isolated areas without chapters, or with small chapters meeting irregularly. A background document for the discussion, an 'Organizational Report,' reviewing all of CCDS's national committees, projects and chapters had been prepared by Carl Davidson.

"We've had good success in the Midwest," explained Harry Targ, when we would hold regional meetings two or three times a year, drawing together a few small chapters and outlying members. It helped us share ideas and experiences, and kept the organization going." Janet Tucker mentioned that the array of CCDS standing committees—labor, peace and solidarity, socialist education and so on—met online via WebEx, a video conferencing service, that allowed people to see each other remotely as they talked. Members and friends from anywhere were welcome to take part in these. It was also possible to set up virtual meetings for people in a designated area as a means for trying to pull together a face-to-face meeting.

Davidson added another point. "The bottom line from our organizational report is that where we meet and study politics together, we grow. When we don't do these two things, we stagnate and shrink." He went on to explain how CCDS had developed a number of resources, such as the Online University of the Left and a number of films and slide shows, to help in these efforts.

Photo: Steve Willet announcing election results

The final plenary session Sunday morning was all about the business of dealing with resolutions. But first, the 15 people elected to the new NCC were announced: Ann Beighley of Western PA, Anne Mitchell of New York, Harry Targ of Indiana, Janet Tucker of Kentucky, Jay Jurie of Florida, Karl Kramer of San Francisco, Marian Gordon of Los Angeles, Meta Van Sickle of South Carolina, Mildred Williamson of Chicago, Paul Krehbiel of Los Angeles, Randy Shannon, of Western PA, Steve Willett of the Bay Area, Ted Reich of New York, Tina Shannon of Western PA and Will Emmons of Kentucky. Within two months, 15 more will be elected, with four people – Ellen Schwartz of Sacramento, Ira Grupper of Kentucky, Sharon Pittman of Los Angeles, and Ted Pearson of Chicago—already in nomination.

The Home Stretch: Passing Resolutions, Resolving Differences

Carl Davidson and Randy Shannon worked together chairing this session to most efficiently get through as many resolutions as possible, without over-burdening the work of the new incoming NCC down the road.

A resolution defending Cuba and the Cuban Five passed without opposition, as did a resolution from the Asia-Pacific workshop on the dangers of militarism in that region. A resolution on Trayvon Martin, defense of voting rights and for changes in "stand your ground" laws also carried overwhelmingly.

There was some debate on a resolution from the 'progressive platform' workshop over whether to include mention of the Green Party as well as Progressive Democrats. The amendment was deemed "unfriendly,' but carried in the floor vote anyway. The amended resolution passed. A resolution from the Middle East workshop put CCDS on record as supporting the 'Boycott, Divest, Sanctions' campaign to end Israel's occupation of Palestine. With a friendly amendment, it passed.

One resolution was an amendment to the CCDS by-laws, which had the aim of solving a problem with vacancies among the co-chairs. With a friendly amendment, it allowed for the NCC to fill any vacancies between conventions. It passed.

One resolution presented, on labor organizing in the South, was simply the text of a resolution of the Savannah Central Regional Labor Council prepared for the upcoming AFL-CIO convention. After some debate, it was agreed that it was not appropriate for CCDS to simply adopt this as its own. Instead, a number of people were assigned the task of re-writing the resolution as our own, but keeping the substance of the message. This was accepted

The two outstanding resolutions were on Climate Change and Strategic Formations. The Climate change issue was dealt with rather easily, with the Climate committee, together with the NCC, instructed to find a way to merge them. This carried.

Finally there was more debate and amendments of two statements concerning strategy and the progressive majority. A number of people spoke, again finding strengths and weaknesses in both documents. Pat Fry again argued that Obama was not part of the progressive majority, and the "united front" meant a "united front of workers only." Carl Davidson said we could drop the term "united front," if we liked, since we all were really talking about a popular front. As for Obama, while he was not directly part of the progressive majority, he certainly was indirectly as an object of our strategy and tactics in the elections. This meant inter-penetration and contention for leadership in all the forces of the progressive majority, and why we needed a stronger left. Zach Robinson noted that the leadership of the "Moral Monday" campaigns in North Carolina called their efforts a "united front" regardless of what old definitions might say.

There was a clear desire on the part of the body for the NCC to find a way to reconcile these views as best as they could. That was agreed to, and the convention then came to a close.

Singing the Internationale

In the end, the CCDS convention organizers considered the gathering successful. It met its goals in terms of planned turnout of delegates. It initiated a new process, the convention school, to involve a younger generation. It carried out radical education in the sixteen workshops, all on timely and important subjects. It initiated new committees on culture and resurrected old one on health care. Most important, it debated important differences openly and democratically, and achieved a wider degree of unity for the battles going forward. But we clearly have our work cut out for us, and some uphill battles. Everyone will have to lend a hand.

From 'Keep On Keepin' On' at http://carldavidson.blogspot.com Of special interest those those who want to know more about CyberRadicalism, the Solidarity Economy and a Socialism for the 21st Century
Carl Davidsonhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7271382.post-21223462516755272692013-06-03T15:35:00.001-05:002013-06-03T15:35:57.288-05:00Carl Davidson's Sessions at the Left Forum in NYC, June 7-9, Pace University
 LEFT FORUM SESSIONS

WITH CARL DAVIDSON and his related groups—the Online University of the Left, Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, and the Solidarity Economy Network

11 Talking Points on 21st Century Socialism
Session 3     E326     Sat 03:40pm - 05:20pm

A Slide Show presentation by Carl Davidson on the core features of socialism in today's world, followed by responses and discussion. Issues will include technology, human rights, the role of markets, mixed economies and strategic allies.

Sponsoring Journal:
Online University of the Left

Speakers: Carl Davidson, Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism; David Schwartzman, DC Statehood Green Party; Dario Cankovic, Northstar.org

--------------

Shift Change: potential and limits of worker cooperatives in building a sustainable future
Session 4     W615     Sat 05:30pm - 07:10pm

In SHIFT CHANGE, a new documentary that visits coops in the US and Mondragon, worker owners share some practical challenges of a democratic workplace, and how coops can help build a more just and sustainable society. Clips from the film will be shown, with comments from panelists, and discussion involving workshop participants about broad issues of economic democracy and a more ecological future.

Panelists include:
Gar Alperovitz, author, What Then Must We Do;
Carl Davidson, Solidarity Economy Network
Mark Dworkin & Melissa Young, filmmakers

---------------

Left Third Party Organizing: Challenges and Opportunities
Session 6     W211     Sun 12:00pm - 01:50pm

In an age of two-party domination and neoliberal hegemony, what opportunities exist for left electoral politics through third party campaigns? Why and when should leftists focus on third party campaigns, as opposed to Democratic Party primaries? Where should the left focus its electoral resources, and how might it overcome division? Should third-party politics be thought of in terms of consciousness-raising, or is the left in a position to affect public policy by taking power?

Sponsoring Journal:
The North Star
Seamus Whelan, Socialist Alternative
Tim Horras, Philly Socialists
Carl Davidson, CCDS
Ursula Rozum, Green Party

From 'Keep On Keepin' On' at http://carldavidson.blogspot.com Of special interest those those who want to know more about CyberRadicalism, the Solidarity Economy and a Socialism for the 21st Century
Carl Davidsonhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7271382.post-15009228236787832202013-05-02T14:28:00.001-05:002013-05-02T14:28:09.151-05:00Nearly 500 Celebrate May Day in Pittsburgh with a Colorful and Festive March and Rallies

By Carl Davidson
Beaver County Blue

Nearly 500 workers and community actvists marched through the streets of Pittsburgh's South Side May I celebrating the international workers holiday. The main theme of the event was linking a defense of worker's rights with immigrant rights, and backing the passage of a just and comprehensive immigration reform bill in Congress.

 'Everyone here is an immigrant or the sons and daughters of immigrants,' declared Leo Gerard, USW President, speaking from the back of a truck. 'We can't separate worker's rights and immigrant rights, they're one and the same.!

The main organizers of the celebration were Fight Back Pittsburgh and United Steel Workers Local 3657. The United Federation of Teachers, the United Electrical Workers, SEIU, IBEW, the USW's 'Women of Steel' and other unions also took part.

This was the first May Day event backed by Pittsburgh unions in some years, and it was also promoted nationally by Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO. It marks the beginning of a more militant response by labor against austerity and in defense of wider democracy for all of its allies.

The day started with a rally at the UFT headquarters, followed by a mile-long march along Carson Street, ending with another rally, with music and food, at the IBEW headquarters.

Community organizers from One Pittsburgh and the resident groups also played an important role, bringing out Latinos, Middle Eastern and African immigrants. Activists from Beaver County's Progressive Democrats of America, Beaver County Peace Links and Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism also took part.

From 'Keep On Keepin' On' at http://carldavidson.blogspot.com Of special interest those those who want to know more about CyberRadicalism, the Solidarity Economy and a Socialism for the 21st Century
Carl Davidsonhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7271382.post-18363614209124366152013-04-13T08:11:00.001-05:002013-04-13T08:11:42.115-05:00Camus: Resistance, Rebellion, and Writing

Albert Camus's dispatches on the Algerian crisis appear in English for the first time

By George Scialabba

Bookforum, April/May 2013

"People expect too much of writers," Albert Camus lamented in the late 1950s. At the time Camus was writing, the Algerian rebellion had grown into a full-scale guerrilla war for independence, and while his initial sympathy for the uprising led the French Right and the French Algerian settlers to denounce him as a traitor, he also came in for frequent polemical attacks from the French Left for not energetically and unequivocally supporting the insurgents. Criticism also came from the Algerian militants themselves. Frantz Fanon, the best-known Algerian writer, derided him as a "sweet sister." Sartre, formerly his close friend, mocked Camus's "beautiful soul."

Camus's complaint does him credit. He agonized over his political pronouncements in a way that the more brilliant, mercurial, doctrinaire Sartre never had to. In 1957, as the war ground on and positions hardened on both sides, Camus was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. Despairing of the Algerian situation but determined to answer his critics and, with the prestige of the Nobel behind him, make one final effort for peace and reconciliation, Camus assembled a short collection of his writings about Algeria, which was published in 1958. It appears now in English for the first time, ably translated by Arthur Goldhammer.

Algerian Chronicles spans two decades. In 1939, when Camus was a young journalist in Algeria—where he was born in 1913, to impoverished and barely literate working-class parents—a severe drought struck the region of Kabylia. Camus traveled there to report on it, and was horrified. He wrote a series of vivid and powerful dispatches, with which Algerian Chronicles begins.

Barricades on the streets of Algiers during the Algerian War of Independence, January 1960.

Kabylia was a populous province that, like many other underdeveloped areas, derived a large proportion of its income from the remittances of émigré workers. During the Depression of the 1930s, when unemployment soared in France, many Algerian immigrants were sent home and new emigration was discouraged. Kabylia was already economically depressed when the drought hit, and the results were devastating. Hunger and unemployment were general, wages were below subsistence level, and there were few schools for poor children to attend. Some public subsidies and private charity arrived from France but made hardly a dent.

Camus supplied statistics, anecdotes, and indignation, all in generous quantities. He also made specific and sensible recommendations: guaranteed credit for small farmers; experiments with new crops, such as cherries and carob, and new techniques, such as drying houses for figs; the introduction of self-governing Arab communes under the supervision of French colonial authorities. More generally, he attacked the greed of the large colonial landowners, the grands colons, and called on the French government to make good on its long-standing promise to extend the rights of Frenchmen to native Algerians. The latter suggestion was particularly unpopular among his fellow French settlers in Algeria, the pieds-noirs, 80 percent of whom were poor, but not as poor as the natives, and who at least enjoyed the legal and political rights of French citizens. The reports were widely read—first in Algeria and later as a small book in France—but with little practical result. However, France's Algerian community found that they provided ample cause to vilify Camus, and eventually forced him into exile.

Camus never again lived in Algeria, but it always dominated his literary imagination—The Stranger, The Plague, Exile and the Kingdom, and The First Man are all set there—and haunted him politically as well. (To an Algerian militant, an old friend, he wrote after one of the innumerable atrocities by both sides: "Believe me when I tell you that Algeria is where I hurt at this moment, as others feel pain in their lungs.") During the Nazi occupation of France, he became the editor of Combat, the newspaper of the French Resistance, where his (anonymous) wartime writing was widely acclaimed. In 1945, with France newly liberated and political renewal in the air, Camus traveled for three weeks to Algeria and published a series of essays in Combat calling for a new relationship between France and her colony.

There was a depressing resemblance between these reports (which make up the middle section of Algerian Chronicles) and Camus's dispatches from Kabylia. Drought, wartime austerity, and the cessation of practically all imports meant another raging famine, this time countrywide. More statistics, anecdotes, and indignation from Camus. France must immediately send 240 ships, he insisted, each with five thousand tons of grain, and "if necessary, demand that the world provide the necessary ships. When millions of people are suffering from hunger, it becomes everybody's business."

There was, however, a difference in Camus's analysis of the political situation. In 1939 he had pleaded for the long-promised assimilation of native Algerians. At that point, nearly 80 percent of the indigenous population wanted to become French citizens. By 1945 the promise had been too long delayed; scarcely anyone believed in it anymore. Moreover, as Camus pointed out, "hundreds of thousands of Arabs have spent the past two years fighting for the liberation of France." It seems incredible in retrospect that a new French government thought it could simply resume the old colonial relationship with only minor modifications, but that is evidently what it assumed. This was folly, Camus protested. The French would "have to conquer Algeria a second time," and "this second conquest will not be as easy as the first."

Arab public opinion had shifted from assimilation to federation and a modified form of independence. Camus strongly supported this position, though he carefully couched his support in a patriotic appeal to French wisdom and grandeur. He knew all too well the intransigence of the French Algerian community; he also recognized—almost uniquely among French intellectuals—that his fellow pieds-noirs, though dismayingly many of them were pigheaded racists, nevertheless had rights, too, and were just as much oppressed as they were oppressors.

The French government continued to dither. In 1948 it allowed elections for two separate assemblies, French and Muslim, but when it looked like the pro-independence parties would dominate the latter, the colonial administration rigged the elections and began arresting the leaders. Predictably, this led to further Arab protest, which led to further French repression. A National Liberation Front (FLN) formed, demanding complete independence. It was, of course, outlawed. In late 1954, the FLN launched a guerrilla offensive, to which the French government responded by escalating its repression. In August 1955, the FLN massacred 123 French and Muslim civilians, and the French Army (along with paramilitary groups of pieds-noirs) went on a rampage, killing thousands of guerrillas and Arab civilians. The Algerian War had begun in earnest.

Camus was distraught, not least because his family, including his elderly mother, and many close friends, French and Arab, were caught between two armed forces employing indiscriminate violence. In a series of essays published in late 1955 and early 1956 (also reprinted here), he denounced the large-scale use of torture by the French Army and of terror by the FLN. In January 1956, he traveled to Algiers to give a speech. With a mob of pieds-noirs outside howling for his scalp, barely restrained by almost equally disapproving armed guards from the FLN, which had guaranteed his safety, he delivered an eloquent plea for a civilian truce, a promise from both sides not to attack civilians. It was perhaps his finest moment politically. But the men with the guns, on both sides, ignored him.

Moral imagination is not to be expected, perhaps, from politicians or military commanders. But even the intellectuals of Paris and Algiers failed to respond, preferring partisan commitment. Camus was profoundly discouraged, and moreover bore many scars from earlier Parisian polemics. Further ridicule was in store: At a press conference in Stockholm after the Nobel ceremony, Camus made a statement widely misreported as "I believe in justice, but I will defend my mother before justice." Goldhammer and Alice Kaplan—in her introduction to this edition—perform a considerable service in pointing out that Camus said nothing so simplistic. What he said was: "People are now planting bombs in the tramways of Algiers. My mother might be on one of those tramways. If that is justice, then I prefer my mother." He was not sentimentally exalting his mother above justice; he was rejecting the equation of justice with revolutionary terrorism.

But by the time he put together Chroniques algériennes the following year, his bridges to his fellow intellectuals had been burned. In the preface he complained of "a peculiar French nastiness" and announced: "I have decided to stop participating in the endless polemics whose only effect has been to make the contending factions in Algeria even more intransigent and to deepen the divisions in a France already poisoned by hatred and factionalism." He kept to this public silence for the short remainder of his life. But he intervened privately on nearly 150 occasions to urge clemency for political prisoners. Some of this correspondence, along with a few letters to journals and newspapers, is included here.

The problem of revolutionary violence was perhaps the most fateful question of political morality in the twentieth century. Two texts are indispensable to anyone wanting to engage that question: Camus's "Neither Victims nor Executioners" (1946) and Sartre's introduction to The Wretched of the Earth (1961), written one year after Camus's death but clearly addressed to him. As Sartre acknowledged in a generous obituary for his friend and adversary: "One lived with or against his thought. . . . He had to be avoided or fought: indispensable, in a word, to this tension which makes the life of the mind." That tension is everywhere in evidence in Algerian Chronicles.

George Scialabba is a contributing editor of The Baffler and the author of What Are Intellectuals Good For? (Pressed Wafer, 2009) and For the Republic (Pressed Wafer, forthcoming in April).

From 'Keep On Keepin' On' at http://carldavidson.blogspot.com Of special interest those those who want to know more about CyberRadicalism, the Solidarity Economy and a Socialism for the 21st Century
Carl Davidsonhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7271382.post-16622893631483314642013-04-04T07:15:00.001-05:002013-04-04T07:38:30.847-05:00Strategic Thinking on the U.S. Six Party System

Congressional Progressive Caucus presenting its platform

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt; if you know Heaven and know Earth, you may make your victory complete."
--Sun Tzu, The Art of War

By Carl Davidson Keep On Keepin' On

Successful strategic thinking starts with gaining knowledge, particular gaining adequate knowledge of the big picture, of all the political and economic forces involved (Earth) and what they are thinking, about themselves and others, at any given time. (Heaven). It's not a one-shot deal. Since both Heaven and Earth are always changing, strategic thinking must always be kept up to date, reassessed and revised.

To make a political assessment of the forces commanded by the U.S. bourgeoisie and its subaltern allies and strata, it helps to make an examination of Congress, the White House and other Beltway institutions, as well as voting trends and others political and cultural among the masses. And to get an accurate estimation, we must often tear away, set aside or bracket misleading labels and frames, as well as assess varying economic resources and voting results. We want to illuminate an intentionally obfuscated landscape, like when a flash of lightning at night does away with shadows and renders the landscape in sharp relief.

The primary conventional wisdom we want to dissect here is that the U.S. has a two-party system. First, the nature of political parties in the US today is rather unique; they are not parties in any European parliamentary sense, where members are bound to a program or platform with some degree of discipline, and mass party organizations exist at the base. Second, the Republicans and the Democrats in the US are largely empty shells locally, consisting mainly of incumbents and staffers, and their retained lawyers, fundraisers and media consultants. There is some variation from state to state--state committeemen and women will pass resolutions and certify ballot status and positions, but there's not much of a mass character save for an occasional campaign rally. Third, at the Congressional level the two-party structure, to some degree, still allows for dividing the spoils of committee assignments, but even these are often warped by other considerations.

A few also like to argue that the US has only one party, a capitalist party, with two wings, the bad and the worse. But this is reductionist to a fault, and doesn't tell you much other than that we live in a capitalist society, which is rather trivial.

Some also hold out hope for a 'third party' that is noncapitalist. But given the 'winner take all' rules in most elections, along with the amount of money and resources required to mount credible campaigns, these are long shots, save for periods of crisis and upheaval, like the period just before the U.S Civil War, where the Whigs imploded, the Liberty Party had a role, and a new 'First Party' formed, the GOP. Another period worth a deeper look is 1944-48, when the rising forces of the Cold War and Southern racism led to a four-way race in 1948 between the Dixiecrats (Strom Thurmond), the Democrats (Harry Truman), the GOP (Thomas Dewey) and the Progressive Party (Henry Wallace).

Our Six-Party System

But today, we'll do better to get a more accurate picture of our adversaries if we set aside the labels of 'two-party system', 'Democrats' and 'Republicans' and the other nuances mentioned above. Instead, I'll offer an alternative working hypothesis, that we live under a six-party system with two labels, and that this will give us a closer and more realistic view of the relation and balance of forces with which we have to deal. But even here, it's important to note that we are discussing 'parties' as clusters of colluding and contending blocs of interests, economic views and social coalitions, not unified and disciplined ideological formations strictly bound to a platform. The six 'parties' described here below, however, do come closer to these kinds of constructs than the larger 'two labels' they operate under.

So who are they?

The Tea Party. So far, only the most far right group has been given the label 'party' in the mass media, even though it operates as a faction within the GOP. It generally represents anti-globalist nationalism with a prominence given to the 'Austrian School' economics of classical liberalism and, in some cases, the self-interest philosophy of Ayn Rand. It also merges with paleo-conservative traditionalists, which serves as a cover for defending white and male privilege and armed militia groups. It appeals to about 10-20 percent of the electorate, with greater support in the South and West. It is currently locked in a fierce factional struggle with the other wing of the GOP. While a minority in the House overall, they dominate the GOP House Caucus, and thus, as reported widely on 24-hour news cycles, they can and do block many bills from coming to the floor. Tea Party incumbents have been aided in gaining and retaining their seats by GOP-led redistricting on the level of the states they control, breaking up districts electing Democrats and forming new one with more homogenous rightwing majorities. This was begun by Paul Weyrich of the 'New Right' under Reagan, and continues to this day

The Republican Multinationalists. These are the neoliberal moneybags of the GOP (and the neoconservative subset termed 'The War Party' by Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul from the right)-the Bushes, Cheney, Karl Rove, the Koch brothers and others with fortunes rooted in petroleum, defense industries and other US businesses with global reach. Their neoliberal economics became hegemonic with Reagan's ascendancy via the anti-Black and anti-feminist 'Southern Strategy' alliance with the forces that later came to make up the Tea Party right. The Koch brother's money also helped form ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, thus allowing business lobbyists to write uniform reactionary legislation, mainly on the state level, across the country. Despite statewide gains, the GOP label's current dilemma is that the Tea Party's more inane, backward and proto-fascist views on social and cultural issues is causing the GOP tickets to lose national elections, deadlock the Congress and strain the alliance. On the other hand, if the 'Country Club' Republicans dump the Tea Party, the GOP itself may implode

The Blue Dogs. This caucus in the Democratic Party is tied to 'Red State' mass voting bases-the military industrial workers, and the Southern and Appalachian regions. They are neo-Keynesian on military matters, but neoliberal on everything else. Their 'party' frequently sides with the GOP in Congressional voting. The Blue Dog Coalition has recently shrunk from 27 to 14 members, often having paved the way to self-defeat by backhandedly encouraging GOP victories in their districts by attacking Obama and other Democrats.

The 'Third Way' New Democrats. This 'party' of the center right is mainly the U.S. electoral arm of global and finance capital, with the Clintons and Rahm Emanuel as the better known public faces. Formed to break with 'economic populism' of the old FDR coalition, and assert a variety of globalist 'free trade' measures and the gutting of Glass-Steagall banking regulations, this new post-Reagan-Mondale grouping decided to put distance between itself and traditional labor allies. While neo-Keynesian on most matters, it also 'triangulates' with neoliberal positions. Started as the Democratic Leader Council and the 'New Democrat Coaltions. John Kerry is a member of the DLC but President Obama has claimed 'no direct connection,' even though the grouping lists Obama as one of its 'rising stars' The DLC/'New Democrats' essentially speaks for some of the more powerful elements of finance capital under the 'Democratic' label.. It is the dominant view among the Senate Democratic majority.

Old New Dealers. This 'party' is represented by unofficial wealthy Democratic groups like Americans Coming Together, plus the AFL-CIO's Committee on Political Education and others. They take a Keynesian approach to economic matters, and are often critical of finance capital and the trade deals promoted by the globalists. They are also wary of deep defense cuts that would cause layoffs among their membership base. They maintain, however, strong alliances with some civil rights, women's and environmental groups. Their main value to Democratic tickets is their independent get-out-the-vote operations, which can be decisive in many races. They also work closely with the Alliance for American Manufacturing, a business-based anti-free trade lobby that works with labor.

PDA/Congressional Progressive Caucus. While the largest single caucus in the House, the CPC 'party' is still relatively small, representing 80 out of 435 votes. Its policy views are Keynesian and, in some cases, social-democratic as well. Its recent 'Back-to-Work Budget' serves as an excellent economic platform for a popular front against finance capital. It also largely overlaps with the Hispanic and Black Caucuses, and is the most multinational 'Rainbow' grouping in the Congress. It also includes Senator Bernie Sanders, the sole socialist in Congress, who was an initial founder of the CPC. It has opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, under the Progressive Democrats of America banners of 'Healthcare Not Warfare' and 'Windmills Not Weapons.' It has recently gained some direct union support from the militant National Nurses United and the Communications Workers of America. Many, but not all, CPC members are also members of Progressive Democrats of America, an independent PAC dubbed the 'Tom Hayden/ Dennis Kucinich' Democrats at the time of their founding in 2004. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is the closest political group the US has that would parallel some of the 'United Left' socialist and social democratic groups in European countries

What Does It All Mean?

With this brief descriptive and analytical mapping of the upper crust of American politics, many things begin to fall in place. Romney, a very wealthy representative of the Multinational GOP group, defeated all the Tea Party candidates in the primaries, and consequently, could never convince the Tea Party he was one of them, simply because he wasn't. This led to a drop in GOP voter enthusiasm that couldn't even be overcome with 'dog whistle' appeals to racism and revanchism in the campaigns.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, at its core, represents an alliance between the DLC 'Third Way' and the Old New Dealers, while also pulling along the PDA/Congressional Progressive Caucus as energetic but critical secondary allies. The Blue Dogs found themselves out in the cold from the wider Obama coalition, and shrank accordingly. Barbara Lee of PDA and the CPC, moving from a minority of one on Afghanistan at the start of the invasion, finally got a majority of House Democrats to oppose and push Obama on the wars, but to little avail in any immediate sense, being thwarted by both the DLC and the Multinational GOP.

This 'big picture' also reveals much about the current budget debates, which are shown to be three-sided-the extreme austerity neoliberalism of the Tea Party Ryan budget, the 'austerity lite' budget of the DLC-dominated Senate Democrats, and the left Keynesian progressive 'Back to Work' budget of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The 'Old New Dealers' were caught in the middle, with only 20 or so coming over on the Black Caucus version of the 'Back to Work' budget, which was still in the minority.

While all this shows why and how Obama was able to pull together a majority electoral coalition, it also reveals why he is still thwarted on pulling together an effective governing coalition. Likewise, it shows how the Tea Party, with only 10-20 percent of the electorate, is able to water down or completely bloc common-sense measures on gun control with 70-90 percent support among the general population.

Finally, the fact that there is only one avowed socialist in Congress tells us something about our own position in the overall balance of forces. Socialist candidates are only able to draw 2% to 5% of the votes in this period, save for Sanders, and we all know that Vermont has some unique features that made it possible, not that Sanders didn't do yeoman work in pulling together a progressive majority that elected him.

In summary, here are a few things to keep in mind. If you decide to intervene in electoral work to build independent working class grassroots organizations, you don't go 'inside the Democratic Party'. There's not much of an 'inside' there anymore. What you do instead is join or work with one of the two factions/'parties' that are left of center. Your aim is to make either of these stronger, preferably the PDA/Congressional Progressive Caucus. Then to shift the overall balance of forces, your task is to defeat the Tea Party, the Multinational GOP, and the Blue Dogs. At present, not a single piece of progressive legislation is going to get passed without driving a wedge between the two parties under the GOP label and weakening both of them.

We have to keep in mind, however, that 'shifting the balance of forces' is mainly an indirect and somewhat ephemeral gain. It does 'open up space', but for what? Progressive initiatives matter for sure, but much more is required strategically. We are interested in pushing the popular front vs. finance capital to its limits, and within that effort, developing a socialist bloc. If that comes to scale, the 'Democratic Party Tent' is likely to collapse and implode, given the sharper class contractions and other fault lines that lie within it, much as the Whigs did in the 19th Century. That demands an ability to regroup all the progressive forces into a new 'First Party' alliance able to contend for power

An old classic formula summing up the strategic thinking of the united front and popular front is appropriate here: 'Unite and develop the progressive forces, win over the middle forces, isolate and divide the backward forces, then crush our adversaries one by one.' In short, we have to have a policy and set of tactics for each one of these elements, as well as a strategy for dealing with them overall. Finally, a note of warning from the futurist Alvin Toffler: 'If you don't have a strategy, you're part of someone else's strategy.'

From 'Keep On Keepin' On' at http://carldavidson.blogspot.com Of special interest those those who want to know more about CyberRadicalism, the Solidarity Economy and a Socialism for the 21st Century
Carl Davidsonhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7271382.post-79639622862905243162013-02-02T10:35:00.001-06:002013-02-02T10:35:52.393-06:00Short Answers Given Repeatedly Dept…

By Carl Davidson

"…The beginning of wisdom in economics is understanding that there is no such thing as a fully planned economy nor fully free markets.

Under socialism, we will have a mix of the two, until the length of the working day approaches zero and the amount of labor time in any given commodity approaches zero, ie, full cybernation. Then the conditions will exist for states, markets and classes, including the working class, to 'wither away.'

In the meantime, we do our best to apply intelligence in managing and living with them under the mixed transitional class society called socialism, the bridge between the current order and a classless society farther down the pike."

From 'Keep On Keepin' On' at http://carldavidson.blogspot.com Of special interest those those who want to know more about CyberRadicalism, the Solidarity Economy and a Socialism for the 21st Century
Carl Davidsonhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7271382.post-29762323196867734722012-12-30T12:02:00.001-06:002012-12-30T12:02:36.387-06:00'Django Unchained' in Context…
Spaghetti Communism? The Politics of the Italian Western

Sept 1, 2011 - If Westerns allegorize a mythical space of gradual resolution and order, the western all'italiana explodes the American dream of stabilizing prosperity with excessive violence and explicit anti-colonial themes. Benjamin Noys argues for a deeper analysis of an intensely political cinematic genre

By Benjamin Noys
Mute Magazine

Cleaning up the Whole World

Gilberto Perez remarks that 'the Western doesn't just tell violent stories, it tells stories about the meaning, the management of violence, the establishment of social order and political authority'.1 Perez elsewhere concedes that the Western runs 'a gamut of political persuasions',2but is keen to emphasise that in the classical American Western this 'management of violence' takes the form of a 'vital dialectic'3 in which is synthesised a 'civilized violence'.4 Serving his deliberately provocative re-imagination of the 'frontier' as equivocal site of liberty, Perez regards the Western as the romance of the birth of a new political order through the, often literal, marriage of East and West, in which violence plays the role of a 'vanishing mediator'. Such an argument hardly seems to hold for the Italian Western of the 1960s and 1970s, often known affectionately or derogatorily as 'Spaghetti Westerns', in which the excessive hyper-violence associated with the form makes it difficult to see how it might be pressed into service for a 'vital dialectic' of 'civilised violence'. The very excess of the violence on display, as well as its displacement from the 'mythological' place of America, fragments any dialectical sublation of violence within a national or political order.

This suggests a very different 'political persuasion', and very different questions concerning the 'management of violence'. In fact, objections to Spaghetti Westerns, often by critics enamoured of classic American Westerns (or 'Hamburger Westerns'5, in Christopher Frayling's mischievous suggestion), were usually founded on their 'excess' of violence. Philip French, writing in 1972, describes a filmography of continental Westerns as 'to me read[ing] like a brochure for a season in hell.'6A surprisingly apposite comment as we will see. Spaghetti Westerns, in fact, constructed a form of violence that carried a rather different and more intense charge. Franco Nero, who played the eponymous 'Django' in the seminal Spaghetti Western, remarked:

Spaghetti Westerns were for a certain kind of audience - the workers, I think. Mainly workers, boys... yes, all kinds of workers - and the workers they fantasize a lot, and they would like to go to the boss in the office and be the hero and say 'Sir, from today, something's going to happen.' And then - bam, bam! they want to clean up the whole world.7

A rather extreme example of the refusal of work, although if one considers the strategies and intensity of conflict in Italy between 1968-1977 - 'Our Comrade P.38' as one anonymous tract had it - 'clean[ing] up the whole world', gains a prescient resonance.8

This is reinforced by Johanna Isaacson's argument that the genre films of the late '60s and '70s belong to a 'moment when it was taken for granted that genre film was political to the bone, reflecting the subjectivity, anger and tastes of a radicalized proletarian sensibility.'9The question of violence, in terms of audience, turns here on sensibility: bourgeois or proletarian? The Spaghetti Western is, I would argue, exactly the archetypal film form of this moment, to quote Isaacson again, 'appealing to both [the] proletarian desire for spectacle and for representations of political repression.'10Although this schema of divided sensibility is too simplistic, not least in its supposition of a unified 'proletarian sensibility', it draws attention to the 'class' charge of violence emergent in these films. While this often takes overtly and unequivocally political forms, as we will see, what I want to focus on here are a small number of films that take their 'representations of political repression' into the realms of what Gail Day, in a very different context, has identified as a 'left-oriented nihilism'.11 These are Sergio Corbucci's Django (1966) and The Big Silence (1969) (also known as The Great Silence), and Guilio Questi's gothic horror Spaghetti Western Django Kill! / If You Live Shoot (1967). Produced and shown on the cusp of the eruption of the most militant workers' movement in Europe, these films display a striking nihilist politics that internalises and prefigures the experience of defeat.

Popular Excessive Violence

First, some context: between 400 and 450 Italian westerns were made, according to Christopher Frayling, in the period from 1963 to the mid-1970s.12 The most familiar are obviously the works of Sergio Leone, who broke out from the 'ghetto' of popular filmmaking into the category of auteur. The 'other Sergio' - Sergio Corbucci (1927-1990) - is perhaps a more representative figure of the cycle, especially with his work Django. It should be noted that although Spaghetti Westerns are often regarded as hyper-violent works, a large number were 'guns and gadgets' Westerns, heavily indebted to the Bond movies and with a comic streak, such as the charming Sabata (1969), starring Lee Van Cleef complete with four-barrelled derringer.

Broadly to characterise the whole 'cycle' of Italian Westerns, we can borrow Philip French's comment on post-Wild Bunch American Westerns:

At a social level the movies are reflecting current concerns and anxieties; from a commercial point of view a profitable subject is being exploited that seems to go down well at the box office; viewed aesthetically, the cycle of movies is offering a cumulative series of variations upon an established theme.13

In terms of the aesthetic 'variations' it is worth noting that many of the instances that seem most singular to the Italian Western, especially of masochistic violence, in fact occurred previously in American Westerns or in the immediate source material for Spaghetti Westerns: Kurosawa's Yojimbo (1961). Yojimbo, its plot almost certainly derived from Dashiell Hammett's novels The Glass Key (1931) and Red Harvest (1929) (Hammett was an anti-fascist who joined the American Communist Party in 1937, pleaded the Fifth in a case linked to the communist witch hunts in 1951, served time in prison for contempt of court, and was later blacklisted), literally set the pattern of the lone hero playing off two gangs against each other to their mutual destruction, and also the tendency to quasi-homosocial or homoerotic torture scenes.

So, we are talking here of what Christopher Frayling calls 'formula cinema', but at the same time we have to recognise that this was an intensely political genre cinema.14 Obviously, as I've just noted, its source material is broadly left-wing, with Hammett's account of corruption and collusion linking to the general 'populist' politics of the Western (although we should well note, as Philip French does, the limits of that 'politics': 'the Western is ill-equipped to confront complex political issues in a direct fashion. The genre belongs to the American populist tradition which sees all politics and politicians as corrupt and fraudulent'.15) Also, to court the 'intentional fallacy', many of the directors and writers of these films were men, and yes men, of the left; either communists or sympathisers often energised by the emergent struggles of the 1960s, especially the Cuban revolution and the struggle of the Vietnamese against the Americans.

In the extensive debate on the politics of the possibilities of 'popular' film versus more Brechtian and modernist strategies of alienation that took place in the late 1960s and early 1970s, it may be surprising now to realise that Spaghetti Westerns played a key role. Pierre Baudry, writing in Cahiers du Cinema during its most haut-Marxist period, noted, in 1971, the shifting and recurring patterns of these genre films, especially in their exploration of the dynamics of colonialism and revolution through moving from the 'Gringo'/Bandit pairing to the 'Gringo'/Mexican revolutionary pairing. Ultimately he found wanting this 'commercial' cinema, preferring the austere path that was to be taken by Jean-Luc Godard and Jean-Pierre Gorin's Brechtian critique of the Western, Vent D'Est (1970).

In fact, much of the political discussion of the Spaghetti Western has focused on these 'pairing' films, which contain obvious reflections on Vietnam, as well as Italy's own situation. The best of these is probably A Bullet for the General (1967), which was scripted partly by Franco Solinas, who was also responsible for writing The Battle of Algiers (1966), and for the script for what we could consider as the finest film on this theme of coloniser/colonised pairings: Queimada / Burn! (1969), which were both directed by Gillo Pontecorvo. Solinas' impeccable political credentials, his deliberate decision to work in the popular medium of the Western as a political act, and his sophisticated inclusion of Fanonian themes, all make the politics of these films striking and evident. What I am concerned with are films with a rather less direct politics, a politics in which the excess of violence is not placed in a 'revolutionary' or anti-colonial context, but operates in a more 'free-floating' and ambiguous form.

Epic Nihilism

Key to my analysis is the conjugation of 'epic nihilism', derived from Badiou's analysis in The Century where he remarks: 'may your force be nihilistic, but your form epic.'16 We can find this conjunction already encoded in the Ur-work of the Spaghetti Western genre: Sergio Corbucci's Django. Here, the epic form of the Western is, literally, dragged through the mud - in its striking opening sequence in which Django drags a coffin through the mud; a coffin, as we later find out, that contains the machine gun with which he will exterminate his adversaries. The town at the centre of the usual plot of playing off rival gangs is bathed in mud, and the film ends in a gunfight in a cemetery in which Django, with smashed hands, painfully and finally manages to shoot his chief tormentors after mounting his gun on a grave cross. It is not difficult to identify the mud as an allegory of the practico-inert, with Django becoming mired in the inertia that seems to afflict the supposedly decisive Spaghetti Western hero.17

This is reflected in the constant delay of revenge which affects Django, and many of the other heroes of these films. Once they become involved in double-crossing the competing gangs, these heroes persistently fail to act and as a result are usually tortured before exacting 'final' revenge. The films themselves, despite their bursts of hyper-violent action, are also tortured in their following of this repetitive path of delay and finally action. Of course, we could make the usual references to Hamlet, or to psychoanalytic explanations based on the displacement of murderous desires, but it strikes me how these films also mimic the affective texture of the working day. Django's own 'mechanical' killing, carried out with the Gatling gun, is over promptly, but seems to leave him as mere 'appendage' of the machine (to use Marx's phrase). The freelance 'labour' of the gunfighter is filled with longueurs, in a state of a kind of proto-precarity awaiting a new contract, or failing to execute a supposedly personal and pressing desire. What we have here is a strange tempo of labour that retards and confines action to sporadic outbursts of 'acting out', which appears to require the extremities of torture to 'activate'. Even the recurrent trope of the usually deliberately inflicted injury to the hero's gun hand, which can be found in Django and other films, seems to have the echo of the industrial accident. Despite the 'hopeful' ending of Django, in which the hero escapes with his life, his time as a gunslinger is presumably over.

In fact I wonder if these films do not take place in the 'factory-universe' described by Maurice Blanchot.18 This is a space of infinite repetition, excess, and the vacancy of Being. The deliberately hellish towns which our heroes tarry in figure this space. As Blanchot puts it, of the factory:

There is no more outside - you think you're getting out? You're not getting out. Night, day, there's no difference, and you have to know that retirement at sixty and death at seventy will not liberate you. Great lengths of time, the flash of an instant - both are equally lost.19

The factory is the space of infinite excess, of 'the infinite in pieces', figured in the broken and ruptural spaces through which the Spaghetti Western hero drifts, or becomes mired.20 These enclosed towns are not the wide open plains or vistas of monument valley, or even Almería, but have no more outside; are circles of hell (a metaphor literalised by Clint Eastwood in his post-Spaghetti Western High Plains Drifter (1973), as his hero has the town road sign painted red and renamed 'Hell').

Interminable Inertia

In Corbucci's later The Big Silence it will be snow that performs a similar function of signifying this inertial time. These two films by Corbucci are, to borrow Maurice Blanchot's phrase, 'condensed around thick living substances, which are at once over-abundantly active and of an interminable inertia.'21 We can take this as a certain coagulation of living labour in dead labour, and dead time, in which the performance of virtuosity is only ever fleeting, and forever punished. The 'production line' of killing runs on receding amounts of living labour, as value production is mechanised into the machine gun. Taking this motif of inertia to the extreme, The Big Silence also takes the usual taciturn Western hero to the limit, with the character of 'Silence' (played by Jean-Louis Trintignant), who is mute due to mutilation by bounty hunters (or 'bounty killers' as the film usually prefers) when he was a child. Again, we have the tempo of freelance labour, as Silence intervenes in a small-scale war between the 'bounty killers', who 'operate according to the law', in pursuing the former townspeople and farmers who have been driven into banditry by the actions of Pollicutt, the banker and Justice of the Peace.

This political fable, which follows closely the usual script of political populism - good people driven to 'social banditry' by a corrupt law - is complicated by the film's own seeming lack of faith in this story. Silence works for money, but works, again, in a lackadaisical and intermittent fashion. In contrast, the leading bounty killer Tigrero (an excellent performance by Klaus Kinski), is a model of sadistic efficiency: killing in the most expedient fashion, loading his dead victims onto the stage, and assiduously collecting his 'reward' (with a cut going to the banker Pollicutt). Upbraided by the new sheriff, Tigrero remarks: 'Every business has its own risks and rules'. Later, after having got the drop on the sheriff, who has lectured him on justice replacing violence, Tigrero kills him and remarks the only law is 'survival of the fittest': Homo homini lupus, although, as Tigrero notes to his friends 'when are wolves afraid of wolves?'

Of course the true destruction of this fable of populism, and proof of the power of the 'representation of political repression', is the film's ending. The comedic sheriff character is drowned in a frozen river when Tigrero shoots out the ice from under him to ensure an 'accidental' death. The town's prostitute matron, who had a touchingly comic and halting relationship with the sheriff, is shot by Tigrero after he has baited her with news of the sheriff's death. Although the sheriff had planned to feed the 'bandits' pending an amnesty this plan now turns into a fatal trap as Tigrero's men capture them when they come for the food. Silence, his hands ruined in a fight, and his female companion, wife of one of the men he is avenging, are gunned down by Tigrero after Silence refuses to flee and chooses instead to fight. As a result the 'bandits', tied-up in the saloon, are massacred. The 'civilising vital dialectic' of violence is broken, but, as Tigrero says, 'all according to the law'. He and the bounty killers plan to return to collect their now considerable bounties, as the distinction of law-making and law-preserving violence is broken through the 'law' of original accumulation that pays for the necessary violence required at all points.

Foul Gold

These thematics reach their baroque extreme in Guilio Questi's Django Kill!. Questi was not interested in making a Western. Instead, when offered such a project he took the opportunity to make a more personal film that dealt with his experiences as an anti-fascist partisan: 'I wanted to recount all of the things, the cruelty, the comradeship with friends, the death, all the experiences I had of war, in combat, in the mountains.'22 The result is a work of convulsive and violent beauty. If Jansco's The Round-Up (1965) is a film of the balletic choreography of physical repression, Django Kill! is a film of violence, sexual and physical, as carnivalesque, and the non-sequiturs of repressive desublimation.

It begins with the hand of the central character, the stranger (played by Tomas Milian), emerging from a grave to a surprisingly jaunty Western tune. In a series of bizarrely edited flashbacks (at one point a body appears to roll uphill in a reverse of the actual shot), we learn he was betrayed by a gang of outlaws led by the racist Oaks after their successful robbery of a gold shipment. Rescued by highly unlikely mystical-hippy 'Indians', who smelt his share of the gold into bullets, the stranger determines to take revenge on the gang.

The outlaws, meanwhile, have arrived in quite the most disturbing town, which makes Dogville look like a good choice for a holiday, and is known by the Indians as 'the unhappy place'. Riding in they see a naked boy playing with himself, a girl twisting the hair of a playmate, a man retching, a young girl under the boot of 'uncle Max', a woman threatening to bite her husband, and a crippled hedgehog (!). Soon recognised by the townspeople, the outlaws are killed in a carnivalesque episode of 'civilising' violence; complete with beatings, hangings, stringing-up bodies, drowning, and close-up head shot executions. Arriving in time to find Oaks holed up in a store and fighting for his life, the stranger agrees to take $500 for killing him. Confronting Oaks, who remarks, 'you've come back from hell', they engage in a quasi-comedic shoot out. Oaks is left bullet-ridden but still alive. A local criminal boss Zorro (or Sorro - the dubbing is unclear) realises gold is at stake and wants Oaks alive for interrogation. Digging the bullets out of him (the 'doctor' remarks 'you won't feel a thing' to the groaning and screaming of Oaks), 'honest citizens' tear him apart when they realise these are gold bullets.

Structured by the 'factional' pattern, with the hero moving between them, we have three 'groups' in the town. The barman Tembler, initially in alliance with the Alderman, but who later split over the gold, creating the 'faction' of Alderman and his mad wife, and finally Zorro, with his black clad and often open-shirted gang, which, Questi points out somewhat redundantly, as fascisti. The stranger stays with each of these groupings in the course of the film, moving from Tembler's saloon to Zorro's hacienda, then to Alderman's domestic gothic. In each case these surrogate families are constructed through an hysterical and excessive sexuality: at Tembler's, his son Evan's violent rejection/desire for his father's mistress, Flory, is expressed by his slashing her clothes; at Zorro's, a now kidnapped Evan, being used to extract the gold from Tembler, is sexually-abused, off screen, by Zorro's gang, who have been taught by Zorro to 'enjoy good things'. Evan commits suicide in the morning and, in one of the more sinister remarks in a remarkably sinister film, Zorro says 'He didn't want to be a man... a man who can take on responsibilities, a man who does what he must and accepts it.' Finally, at the Alderman's house the stranger is seduced by the Alderman's deranged wife who, in full Bertha Mason mode, will later burn the house down.

These 'sexual' exchanges are mirrored in the film's use of the stolen gold as the 'object' that inscribes a lack and excess, equivalent to the structuralist mana, the dummy hand, Othello's handkerchief, Poe's purloined letter; the empty object that 'circulates' in the structure, and everywhere brings death and passes through death and corpses. Seized in the massacre of the soldiers guarding the shipment, then the execution of the 'disposable' members of the gang, the smelting of the gold bullets from the share interned with the stranger, the 'liberation' of the rest of the shipment through the killing of the bandits, the literal extraction of the gold torn from the still-living flesh of Oaks, the gold which then leads to Evan's sexual abuse and suicide, which is stashed in his coffin, and finally the half share that melts in the fire set by Alderman's mad wife and encases him as a living gold corpse.

The gold has the function of motivational value but, if not quite converted into the Freudian equivalent of excrement, has the levelling, if not nihilist, function of equivalence through death and the 'abusability' of bodies. To use one of Marx's favourite quotes from Shakespeare's Timon of Athens:

Gold? Yellow, glittering, precious gold? No, gods, I am no idle votarist: roots, you clear heavens! Thus much of this will make black white; foul, fair; Wrong, right; base, noble; old, young; coward, valiant.

The 'common whore of mankind' is, precisely, the 'quilting point' (le point de capiton) of sexual and social violence, to use the Lacanian term.23 Gold functions in Django Kill! as the 'floating signifier' par excellence, it is the term that unifies the ideological field and texture of the film's universe. At the same time, within that universe, we see demonstrated the excess violence implicit in this ideological structure that is usually concealed by the seeming 'neutrality' of money as 'general equivalent'. In Marx's terms gold is rendered as the 'visible God', but the 'alienated capacity of mankind', in Marx's words, has no possibility of return or recovery.24

Unbroken Inward Rebellion

What we have in these works is the displacement of the epic towards Badiou's inscription of an 'epic nihilism' that is inflected by the passion for the real. That 'passion' is not simply the revolutionary passion, but rather the 'passion' of the everyday brutality and enmity of capitalism. In Engels' memorable characterisation, from the Condition of the Working Class in England:

When one individual inflicts bodily injury upon another, such injury that death results, we call the deed manslaughter; when the assailant knew in advance that the injury would be fatal, we call his deed murder. But when society places hundreds of proletarians in such a position that they inevitably meet a too early and an unnatural death, one which is quite as much a death by violence as that by the sword or bullet; when it deprives thousands of the necessaries of life, places them under conditions in which they cannot live - forces them, through the strong arm of the law, to remain in such conditions until that death ensues which is the inevitable consequence - knows that these thousands of victims must perish, and yet permits these conditions to remain, its deed is murder just as surely as the deed of the single individual; disguised, malicious murder, murder against which none can defend himself, which does not seem what it is, because no man sees the murderer, because the death of the victim seems a natural one, since the offence is more one of omission than of commission. But murder it remains.25

The Spaghetti Western, in its political guise, gives form to this violence as literal murder - deriving from the explicit violence of original accumulation a figuration of inexplicit everyday violence.

This experience was raw in an Italy that had witnessed large scale internal migration from the rural South to the newly industrialising North during the 1950s and 1960s. The influx of young male workers, no doubt the viewers Franco Nero had in mind, experienced both a 'late' form of 'primitive' or better, 'original accumulation', and the immersion in the new inertial world of factory labour. The Spaghetti Western, probably inadvertently, mediates this experience that binds together these experiences - displacement, the rural, inertial labour, and the precarious violence that composes the 'rule of (capitalist) law'.

The excess of the Spaghetti Western's violence reveals the violence encrypted in labour: in the subsumption of living labour, the pumping out of value, and the replacement of living labour with dead labour. This 'epic' takes a tragic form; Marx remarks in the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts: 'Wages are determined by the fierce struggle between capitalist and worker. The capitalist inevitably wins.'26 The Spaghetti Western is the film of defiance in the face of an awareness of the experience of defeat unfolding through militancy and the acceleration of armed struggle.27 This is a radicalised proletarian sensibility that is not simply a joyous celebration of violence against the bosses, though it is that, but also awareness of the logic of repression, and resistance to the epic tone of prophesying or fantasising victory, and denying defeat, that took hold in certain factions of the movement, armed and otherwise, of the 1970s.

This epic nihilism, given a more elegiac tone in Peckinpah's work, now seems to figure the crisis of labour, a long drawn out defeat, the de-energising of nihilism into the superfluity of labour. In fact, we might revise or question the projective fantasies that could attach to such a sensibility, and see instead something more austere in that excess, a registration of historical defeat in advance that depends on the incorporation of such defeats at the bodily level.

Engels recognised that the violence of the capitalist class resulted in a counter violence:

There is, therefore, no cause for surprise if the workers, treated as brutes, actually become such; or if they can maintain their consciousness of manhood only by cherishing the most glowing hatred, the most unbroken inward rebellion against the bourgeoisie in power.28

His prophesy was that communism would mitigate and civilise this violence, providing it with its dialectic. The communist aim to do away with class antagonisms displaced it from embracing a bloody war of classes: 'In proportion, as the proletariat absorbs socialistic and communistic elements, will the revolution diminish in bloodshed, revenge, and savagery.'29

The Spaghetti Western, in the instances I've traced, does not seem so sanguine about this dialectic, and in fact aligns the experience of hatred and nihilism in the experience of defeat that is everyday experience. Lacking faith in the victory of proletarian violence over the technological and politically inflated violence of the capitalist state and capitalist economy it resonates in registering an antagonism, but is less hopeful that the solution to the riddle of history can be achieved.

Benjamin Noys <firstname.lastname@example.com> is a theorist living in Bognor Regis. His most recent book is The Persistence of the Negative: A Critique of Contemporary Continental Theory, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010. His blog is http://leniency.blogspot.com

Footnotes

1 Gilberto Perez, 'House of Miscegenation', review of Hollywood Westerns and American Myth, by Robert Pippin, London Review of Books, 32 no.22, 2010, pp.23-26, http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n22/gilberto-perez/house-of-miscegenation.

2 Gilberto Perez, The Material Ghost: Films and their Medium, Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998, p.241.

3 Ibid., p.247.

4 Ibid., p.234.

5 Christopher Frayling, Spaghetti Westerns: Cowboys and Europeans from Karl May to Sergio Leone, London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 1998, p.xix.

6 Philip French, Westerns, London: Secker & Warburg/The British Film Institute, 1977, p.9.

7 In Frayling, op. cit., p.xi.

8 Anon., 'Let's Do Justice to Our Comrade P.38', in Italy: Autonomia, Post-Political Politics, Sylvere Lotringer and Christian Marazzi (Eds.), Semiotext(e) III.3, 1980, pp.120-121.

9 Johanna Isaacson, 'You Just Tarried with the Wrong Mexican: Machete and the Aesthetic Politics of Negation', Lana Turner Journal Blog, 2010, http://www.lanaturnerjournal.com/online/49-film/135-you-just-tarried-wit...

10 Ibid.

11 Gail Day, Dialectical Passions: Negation in Postwar Art Theory, New York: Columbia University Press, 2011, p.3.

12 Frayling, op. cit., p.x.

13 French, Westerns, p.43.

14 Frayling, Spaghetti Westerns, p.xxi-xxii.

15 French, op. cit., p.43.

16 Alain Badiou, The Century, trans., with commentary and notes, Alberto Toscano, Cambridge, UK, and Malden, MA: Polity, 2007, p.85.

17 The 'practico-inert' is a term coined by Jean-Paul Sartre in Critique of Dialectical Reason (1960), defined as a field of activity, which, despite being the outcome of a successful struggle by some group, has ceased to be responsive to that group's needs. Bureaucracy is the classic example of a 'practico-inert'. From http://www.marxists.org

18 Maurice Blanchot, ''Factory-Excess', or Infinity in Pieces', in Political Writings, 1953-1993, trans. and intro. Zakir Paul, foreword Kevin Hart, New York: Fordham University Press, 2010, pp.131-132.

19 Ibid., p.131.

20 Ibid., p.132.

21 Maurice Blanchot, Lautréamont and Sade, trans. Stuart Kendall and Michele Kendall, Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press, 2004, p.68.

22 In Alex Cox, 10,000 Ways to Die, Harpenden: Kamera Books, 2009, p.143.

23 Slavoj Žižek, The Sublime Object of Ideology, London: Verso, 1989, p.87.

24 Karl Marx, Early Writings, intro. Lucio Colletti, trans. Rodney Livingstone and Gregor Benton, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1975, p.377.

25 Friedrich Engels, Condition of the Working Class in England, 1844, Chp.7, Marxists Internet Archive, http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/....

26 Karl Marx, op. cit., p.282. 27 I owe this point to Giovanni Tiso. 28 Engels, op. cit., Chp.7. 29 Engels, op. cit., Chp.13.

From 'Keep On Keepin' On' at http://carldavidson.blogspot.com Of special interest those those who want to know more about CyberRadicalism, the Solidarity Economy and a Socialism for the 21st Century
Carl Davidsonhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7271382.post-54938802507170597322012-12-21T11:45:00.001-06:002012-12-21T11:45:26.686-06:00Gun Control and the Lesser Known Reasons for the 2nd Amendment

By Carl Davidson
Keep On Keepin' On

I'm a 2nd Amendment guy from a semi-rural area of Beaver County in Western PA. Most folks around here have guns, but my guess, judging from the debate in our local paper's letter's page, is that most of them are also reasonable on gun control, not to mention horrified by the latest school slayings.

None of the Amendments in Bill of Right is absolutist dogma, including the 2nd Amendment. A line has to be drawn somewhere, unless you want to insist of anyone's 'right' to own Bazookas or Stinger shoulder-fired missiles that can readily take out tanks, helicopters or jetliners taking off from the airport.

Where do you want to draw it? I say ban these military capacity weapons and their large magazines, but keep our deer rifles and shotguns--for those of sound mind who want to keep them. I'm also for thorough  registration, full background checks-all to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, those convicted of violent crimes and those under 'orders of protection' regarding domestic violence.

But waging the 'gun control' debate often misses a deeper question that need to be highlighted. The main purpose of the 2nd Amendment, when it was adopted, had little to do with deer or varmint hunting or individual home defense.

The 'well-regulated militia,' in the eyes of many of the Founders, was for several purposes: putting down slave insurrections, seizing land and destroying threats from native peoples, and defending local governments, usually pro-slavery, against the possible 'tyranny' of a federal government that might become inclined against slavery.

In our modern age, this purpose carries over among our rightwing populists. A good number of them, to read their blogs, want military-style weapons as 'defense' against Black or Mexican 'hordes', or a government 'too left' to their liking. A handful of them have been brazen enough to state this openly on a few talk shows, but only rarely.

It remains, however, the main reason the NRA core leadership and others of their ilk insist of their right to weapons with a military-scale capacity. That's the real reason behind what seems to be the unreason and stubbornness you heard at the NRA's press conference.

I have no fear whatsoever of 'hordes' of people of color; however, I do worry about those who do, especially if they're organized in modern-day 'militias.' Finding a compromise will be tougher than it seems, and this bit of hidden backward thinking is one of the key obstacles. But all of us with any sense have got to put our shoulders to the wheel.

From 'Keep On Keepin' On' at http://carldavidson.blogspot.com Of special interest those those who want to know more about CyberRadicalism, the Solidarity Economy and a Socialism for the 21st Century
Carl Davidsonhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7271382.post-55099123567514638242012-11-14T10:46:00.001-06:002012-11-14T10:46:13.662-06:00How the Left Can Become a True Political Force to Be Reckoned With

By Bill Fletcher & Carl Davidson
Progressive America Rising via Alternet.org

Nov 13, 2012 - The 2012 elections may prove to have been a watershed in several different respects.  Despite the efforts by the political Right to suppress the Democratic electorate, something very strange happened: voters, angered by the attacks on their rights, turned out in even greater force in favor of Democratic candidates. The deeper phenomenon is that the changing demographics of the USA also became more evident—45% of Obama voters were people of color, and young voters turned out in large numbers in key counties.

Unfortunately for the political Left, these events unfolded with the Left having limited visibility and a limited impact—except indirectly through certain mass organizations—on the outcome.

The setting

On one level it is easy to understand why many Republicans found it difficult to believe that Mitt Romney did not win the election.  First, the US remains in the grip of an economic crisis with an official unemployment rate of 7.9%.  In some communities, the unemployment is closer to 20%.  While the Obama administration had taken certain steps to address the economic crisis, the steps have been insufficient in light of the global nature of the crisis.  The steps were also limited by the political orientation of the Obama administration, i.e., corporate liberal, and the general support by many in the administration for neo-liberal economics.

The second factor that made the election a 'nail biter' was the amount of money poured into this contest.  Approximately $6 billion was spent in the entire election.  In the Presidential race it was more than $2 billion raised and spent, but this does not include independent expenditures.  In either case, this was the first post-Citizen United Presidential campaign, meaning that money was flowing into this election like a flood after a dam bursts.  Republican so-called Super Political Action Committees (Super PACs) went all out to defeat President Obama.

Third, the Republicans engaged in a process of what came to be known as "voter suppression" activity.  Particularly in the aftermath of the 2010 midterm elections, the Republicans created a false crisis of alleged voter fraud as a justification for various draconian steps aimed at allegedly cleansing the election process of illegitimate voters.  Despite the fact that the Republicans could not substantiate their claims that voter fraud was a problem on any scale, let alone a significant problem, they were able to build up a clamor for restrictive changes in the process, thereby permitting the introduction of various laws to make it more difficult for voters to cast their ballots.  This included photographic voter identification, more difficult processes for voter registration, and the shortening of early voting.  Though many of these steps were overturned through the intervention of courts, they were aimed at causing a chilling impact on the voters, specifically, the Democratic electorate.[1]

So, what happened?

Prior to the election, we argued that what was at stake in the 2012 elections was actually the changing demographics of the USA (along with a referendum on the role of government in the economy).  What transpired in the elections was very much about demographics.

The percentage of white voters dropped from 74% to 72% between 2008 and 2012.  Romney received 59% of the white vote.

Yet something else happened and it took many people by surprise.  Despite the intimidation caused by the voter suppression statutes—and the threatened actions by right-wing groups—African Americans, Latinos and Asians turned out in significant numbers, voting overwhelmingly for the Democrats.[2] 93% of African Americans went with Obama, as did 71% of Latinos (which represented an increase over 2008) and, despite the fact that Asians are only 2-3% of the electorate, they went 73% in favor of Obama (which was a jump from 62% in 2008).  The youth vote, by the way, increased to 19% of the electorate, over 18% in 2008, and went overwhelmingly for Obama.  Labor union members went for Obama at a rate of 65%, and unions themselves played a major role in many key states in terms of voter mobilization.  By the strategic mobilization of these voters in a well-organized 'ground game,' Obama won 332 Electoral College votes compared with Romney's 206.  Obama's popular vote total was also 2.6% head of Romney.

The Romney/Ryan camp was entirely unprepared for this.  While it is the case that the popular vote total was not overwhelming for Obama, there was nothing particularly unusual in US history for such a result.  The bottom line is that Obama clearly won both the Electoral College vote and the popular vote and, as such, can claim a mandate for his next steps.

It is important that one understands that the African American/Latino/Asian turnout, along with the long-lines waiting to vote (including in the days of early voting) represented an audacious defiance of the forces that sought to suppress the vote.  This audaciousness also represented a response to the increasingly racist attacks on Obama, attacks that were taken very personally by people of color generally and African Americans in particular.[3]

What was equally interesting about the November 6th elections were those in the House of Representatives and the Senate.  Contrary to many expectations, the Democrats not only held onto the Senate, but slightly increased their margin of control.  Within that expansion was the election of Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts to the seat once occupied by the late Teddy Kennedy.  Warren, who gained a strong reputation in the fight to control Wall Street, promised actions on behalf of working people.  Independent Senator Bernie Sanders, a socialist in Vermont, also decisively won reelection.

In the House of Representatives, Democrats increased their totals, but Republicans still dominate.  This is mainly the result of the gerrymandering carried out by Republican state legislators during redistricting.  The legacy of this gerrymandering may last at least a decade, part of the fallout which resulted from lower voter turnout combined with the Republican mobilization in the 2010 midterm elections.

Of particular note in the elections was the increased presence of women, especially progressive women, being elected to office, including the first openly gay Senator (from Wisconsin, Tammy Baldwin).  The state of New Hampshire now has women in all of the top governing positions.

Additionally several progressive ballot initiatives passed in various states, including on same-sex marriage and the decriminalization of marijuana.  An interesting initiative in the state of Michigan to alter the state constitution in order to protect the right of workers to collective bargaining was defeated after a major and concerted attack by pro-employer groups.

What to make of the elections?

We return to our earlier conclusion, i.e., that what was at stake in 2012 was not Obama's record but instead 2012 was a referendum over demographics and the role of government with the far right.  Some on the Left found this assertion worthy of ridicule rather than introspection, and dismissed it, claiming that of course Obama's record was central to the debate.

The results of the election conform much more to our conclusions.  The vote for Obama, particularly by people of color, could not possibly have been the result of the conclusion that Obama's record made him the great leader.  Certainly his record was better than the interpretation projected by Romney/Ryan, but it was also the case that Obama's record was complicated if not problematic.  After all, we had witnessed an economic stimulus that, while significant by historical standards, was insufficient to the task; a healthcare reform package that, while bringing healthcare to millions, was based on a corporate model first elaborated by Mitt Romney when he was Governor of Massachusetts; a failure to close Guantanamo; the continuation and escalation of the Afghanistan/Pakistan war, including the usage of drone strikes; and the failure to adopt a clear policy to address systemic racial injustice in the USA.  While there were a number of reforms that were introduced that were of significance, this was all far less than most of Obama's supporters had hoped would be introduced.

So, what then could one say motivated the vote? We return to demographics and the role of government.  Obama's very existence represents the problematic future for the political Right; it's not that he's an individual whose birthplace is alleged by them to not be in the USA.  This insane propaganda from the Birther movement is designed to distort the point entirely.  The Birthers[4] and their off-spring hate Obama not because of where he was born but because he was born here.  His very existence illustrates the changing demographics of the USA and its move away from being a 'white republic' governed by a broad 'white' front. Instead, we are moving more towards something else, toward a more openly multi-ethnic/multi-racial society, if not politically then at least numerically.

The election thus represented a repudiation of the right-wing irrationalists seeking to turn the clock back, and not just on race, but gender and class as well.  In this sense it was not so much about what Obama had accomplished as it was about what sort of society 61 million people did not want.  That retrograde society, which was rejected, was a neo-apartheid order of domination that condemned at least 47% of the population (according to Romney's calculations) to marginalization, and condemned at least 90% of society to continued economic distress and submission.

Romney was proposing to reduce the role of government even further, at least when it came to supporting something approaching a social safety net.  61 million people recognized the barbarism contained in his message and program, and responded accordingly.

In sum, the November 6th elections were not a referendum challenging Obama's course from the Left, but rather rejecting a challenge from the Right, since there was no viable Left alternative.  At the same time there was an additional interesting feature of the elections as identified in various opinion polls: Democratic voters, while not as starry-eyed as many were in 2008, are looking for Obama to fight for them, or at least fight on their behalf.  Frustration with Obama's premature compromising in the name of so-called bi-partisanship wins the President few accolades within his base.  The electorate is looking for something very different.

The Left in the elections: Building mass organizations vs. the mouths that screeched

Contrary to those who suggest that no Left exists in the USA, it is better to understand that there are two and a half Lefts in the USA.  There is the organized Left, which takes the forms of very small political organizations, some of them calling themselves political parties, which are anti-capitalist and generally for some sort of socialism.  There is also what Chilean Marxist Marta Harnecker would describe as the "social movement Left," which are forces involved in left-leaning mass organizations and non-profits, more often than not single-issue or based within a specific sector.  There is finally what we could term the 'half' Left, that is, the 'Lone Rangers,' the rather large number of independent individuals who self-identify as leftists but are unaffiliated with any left-wing project, with the possible exception a job with social impact, such as writers or teachers or health care workers.  In each case these individuals and formations are anti-capitalist and seek a social transformation of the USA, but with varying degrees of organization, insurgency and effectiveness.

The US Left has historically had a difficult time addressing electoral politics.  There are several reasons--the complications that arise from the undemocratic nature of the US electoral system; the size of the USA; the lack of attention to strategy; and most important, ambivalence when it comes to race.  As a result the Left frequently sways back and forth between what could, perhaps, be described as apocalyptism on the one hand (i.e., waving the red flag so that the masses see us before the whole system collapses and, therefore, they know where to go), to reformist/incrementalism, on the other (i.e., believing that the best that can be done is to submerge into the Democratic Party and help move change until the system reaches a point where quantitative change morphs into qualitative change).

There is currently no significant and unified effort within the Left(s) toward building a self-conscious, broad radical Left project that has the objective of winning power.  The bulk of the US Left does not think politically.  Rather it engages in ideological or moral struggle and often thinks that ideology or morality is identical to politics.  Rather than conceptualizing a protracted struggle for power based on the need to build a majoritarian bloc, too many individuals and organizations on the Left remain trapped in a self-satisfying world of small sects and Facebook tirades rather than the hard work of building the alliances of grassroots groups necessary to win.

The limitations of the Left's approach to the fight for power can be illustrated in any number of places, but, for the moment, let's reflect upon the electoral realm.  Consider the following.  In 1920 Eugene V. Debs ran, for the fifth time, for the Presidency.  Though in jail at the time (as a result of political repression), he received nearly one million votes.  In the famous 1948 campaign of Progressive Party candidate Henry Wallace, the candidate received 1,157,328 votes and no Electoral College votes.  In the same election, Dixiecrat candidate Strom Thurmond received more popular votes and 39 electoral votes.

Now, in 2012, Green Party candidate Jill Stein received 402,125 votes.  This is going the wrong way.  But it reflects, more than anything, not the character of Stein or her supporters but the approach toward electoral politics taken by the Green Party and many of their followers.

Independent presidential candidacies in the modern era reflect what can be described as a flag-waving/protest mode rather than a struggle for power/bloc-building mode.  In other words, they aim to express both outrage and reasoned critique at the system and frustration with the toxicity of democratic capitalism.  They have no hope of gaining power either because they do not believe in struggling to gain power or because they believe that power is gained when the ship sinks and we, on the Left, are positioned in the proper lifeboats prepared to save the mass of distressed passengers.

This is only on the electoral side.  The various small organizations of the organized Left which do not engage in electoral politics in their own names seem relatively content being small and of little consequence.  In the absence of an effort at building a majoritarian bloc they can remain comfortable in their particular niche(s) and not feel the cold winds that often accompany entering into unexplored demographic or geographic territories. They remind us of the old Clifford Odet's play, 'Waiting for Lefty.'

At the same time, over the last 5-10 years there has developed a new interest in electoral engagement in the social movement Left.  Sprouting up in different parts of the USA have been progressive—rather than explicitly Left—political formations that have either engaged in what has come to be known as "civic engagement" work, i.e., voter registration, education, voting rights, electoral law reform, and/or actual electoral engagement.  The strength of this work is that its orientation can be described as left/progressive in that these are mass-based projects attempting to reach out to a broad array within our natural base.  Organizations ranging from Progressive Democrats of America to the Virginia New Majority and Florida New Majority fall into this camp, though the list is quite a bit longer than just these organizations.

In the lead up to the 2012 elections the Left was badly divided over how to respond.  One segment, which we will describe as the "mouths that screeched" were adamant that Obama had betrayed progressives; that he was not progressive; that he represented the empire; and therefore not only should not be supported but that it was ideological treason to suggest any level of support or even just to give him a vote without any implied support.

The vitriolic attacks coming from this sector masked the fact that this segment of the Left is actually becoming irrelevant.  They had no visible impact on the elections and their protests were largely ignored.  Unfortunately, one of the key things that this segment missed was the racial element of the 2012 elections and the need for voters of color, along with a good number of white allies, to push back at the 'demographic' attacks that were underway from the political Right.  By focusing on all that Obama did incorrectly, this segment of the Left ignored, as well, that the Left and progressives are on the strategic defensive in the USA and that they need alliances that will provide some level of space within which we can operate.

The segment of the Left that actually made a difference was those within the organized Left and the social movement Left who engaged their mass organizations and non-profits in electoral activity.[5] Whether it was voter registration; voter education efforts; electoral infrastructure work; or Get Out The Vote efforts, many of these organizations proved themselves to be very effective campaign organizations.  They appear to be in the process of laying the groundwork for the sorts of progressive alliance building that will be necessary to respond to the next electoral realignment that hits the USA.

What is missing entirely, however, is a coherent, self-identified Left, taking either the form of a united front, alliance, or political organization that can serve as a pole for independent, radical yet grounded Left politics.  The mass base for such an effort exists.  The opinion polls that demonstrate that roughly one third of the population are open to directions other than capitalism means that approximately 90 million people are seeking alternatives.  Consider that 90 million figure when you review the stats for the Green Party's votes in 2012.  The Occupy Movement also evidenced a political fissure that is certain to widen as the class struggle intensifies, though admittedly Occupy did not result in the formation of one or several credible Left organizations (no criticism implied).

Moving forward

The challenge for the Left then becomes two fold.  One, there must be a self-identified, self-aware, mass radical Left formation that openly and unapologetically advocates against capitalism and for environmentally friendly socialism.  Whether such an organization is called a political party, alliance or some other name is secondary to what it must do and what it must avoid.  What it must avoid is the idea that it can or should compete in the electoral realm on the presidential level at this time. That is a no-win scenario.  What it can do, however, is to unite and train the existing leaders in mass movements and develop an anti-capitalist program and ultimately an anti-capitalist project.  We term this notion of a new, self-conscious and organized Left—inspired by the approach taken by and expression used by Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci—to be the "Modern Tecumseh."[6] Second, the Left can also help to build a progressive front—perhaps a popular front against finance capital that unites disparate forces—that gains electoral expression in the form of an organization (rather than a third party) that runs candidates within the Democratic Party or, runs them independently if conditions exist (such as in Vermont where the candidacy and leadership of Senator Sanders needs to be supported).

As long as the progressive forces in the USA are on the defensive there will be tactical alliances that take place that are not satisfying but are nevertheless necessary.  These should not be treated as matters of principle but rather as expressions of necessity of the moment.  Further, we on the Left must pay much greater attention to what is transpiring among the people themselves.  The fact that so many on the Left would have focused on Obama's record and virtually ignored the intense racist offensive against Obama (and its broader implications) demonstrated that many of our friends are out of touch with reality.

Reality, however, is a good and necessary starting point if one ever wishes to build a majoritarian bloc and win power. We fully expect to see an intensification of class struggle in the near term. We need to assert a new culture of organizing capable of meeting the demands it will place on us, and now is the time to begin.

[1] The issue of voting rights remains critical since there are cases before the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge critical features of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, features that were part of the Department of Justice's arsenal to overturn certain voter suppression legislation.

[2] It is important to note, however, that voter turnout was down in comparison to 2008 except for nine states.  As of this writing it is not clear as to the sources of the decline.

[3] Attacks such as Donald Trump's insulting demand that President Obama turn over his college transcripts.  The suggestion of such an action is almost unbelievable.  Nothing along those lines would have been tolerated when it came to former President George W. Bush, an individual who was not half the student that was Obama in college.

[4] The right-wing, irrationalist political movement that asserts that Obama was not born in the USA and is, therefore, not the legitimate president of the USA.

[5] To be clear, not all forces in the organized Left or the social movement Left engaged in left/progressive electoral organizing.  We are simply noting that there were forces from within these sectors that did, in fact, choose to engage.

[6] Tecumseh: Shawnee leader in the first decade of the 19th century.  Recognized that Native Americans would never defeat the USA by fighting as individual tribes or fighting through the creation of a confederation.  He was the advocate for a Native American nation-state, i.e., uniting the tribes and fusing their efforts.  He was killed in 1813 at the Battle of the Thames in Canada.

Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a racial justice, labor and international writer and activist.  He is a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum, an editorial board member of BlackCommentator.com, the co-author of Solidarity Divided, and the author of the forthcoming "They're Bankrupting Us" – And Twenty other myths about unions.  He can be reached at email@example.com

Carl Davidson is a political organizer, writer and public speaker. He is currently co-chair of Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, a board member of the US Solidarity Economy Network, and a member of Steelworker Associates in Western Pennsylvania. His most recent book is 'New Paths to Socialism: Essays on the Mondragon Cooperatives, Workplace Democracy and the Politics of Transition.' He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.com.

From 'Keep On Keepin' On' at http://carldavidson.blogspot.com Of special interest those those who want to know more about CyberRadicalism, the Solidarity Economy and a Socialism for the 21st Century
Carl Davidsonhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7271382.post-69879814797874768892012-11-10T06:57:00.001-06:002012-11-10T06:57:49.061-06:00Lessons for 21st Century Socialism from Buddhism
Buddhism and ecology both refuse to separate the human and natural worlds – and demand that we act accordingly

Vultures at a Tibetan sky burial ritual in Dari county in northwest China's Qinghai province 27 November 2009. Photo by Alex Lee/epa/Corbis

By David P Barash
Aeon Magazine

Nov 5, 2012 - Once, while waiting for a wilderness permit at a ranger station in North Cascades National Park, Washington state, I overheard the following message, radioed into headquarters by a backcountry ranger: 'Dead elk in upper Agnes Creek decomposing nicely. Over.' This ranger was not only a practical and profound ecologist, she also possessed the wisdom of a Buddhist master. The 'over' in her communication seemed especially apt. For Buddhists, as for ecologists, all individual lives are eventually 'over', but their constituent parts continue 'living' pretty much for ever, in a kind of ongoing process of bio-geo-chemical reincarnation.

People who follow ecological thinking (including some of our hardest-headed scientists) might not realise that they are also embracing an ancient spiritual tradition. Many who espouse Buddhism — succumbing, perhaps, to its chic, Hollywood appeal — might not realise that they are also endorsing a world view with political implications that go beyond bumper stickers demanding a free Tibet.

Plenty of us recognise that Buddhist writings and teachings — especially in their Zen manifestation — celebrate the beauty and wisdom in the natural world. A monk asks a master: 'How may I enter in the Way?' The master points to a stream and responds: 'Do you hear that torrent? There you may enter.' Walking in the mountains, the master asks: 'Do you smell the flowering laurel?' The monk says he does. 'Then,' declares the master, 'I have hidden nothing from you.'

Part of this sensitivity to nature is a Buddhist grasp of suffering, whose existence constitutes the first of Buddhism's Four Noble Truths. It is no coincidence that Henry David Thoreau, America's first great environmentalist, was also a student of Indian religion and the first translator of the 'Lotus Sutra' into English. In this classic teaching, Shakyamuni Buddha compares the 'Dharma' — the true nature of reality — to a soothing rain that nourishes all beings.

The pioneering ecologist Aldo Leopold wrote that to have an ecological conscience is to 'live alone in a world of wounds'. The Buddha urged his followers to be sensitive to the suffering of all sentient beings. His First Precept is to commit oneself to ahimsa, or nonharming. The Mahayana Buddhist ideal is to go further, and to become a bodhisattva, an enlightened individual who vows to relieve the suffering of all beings. In the 'Metta Sutta', Theravada monks and lay adherents vow to practise loving kindness: 'Even as a mother protects with her life her child, her only child, so with a boundless heart should one cherish all living beings.' And here is the first verse of 'The Bodhisattva Path', by Shantideva, a revered eighth-century poet: 'May I be the doctor and the medicine/And may I be the nurse/For all sick beings in the world/Until everyone is healed.'

For Buddhists and ecologists alike, we are all created from spare parts scavenged from the same cosmic junk-heap

However, for me, as a scientist, there is something much more in the Buddhist tradition than an injunction to care for other living things. This meeting of the minds, Buddhist and ecological, results from similar insights into the nature of reality itself — which is indistinguishable from the reality of nature — and of our place in the whole business.

'If you are a poet,' writes the contemporary Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh, 'you will see that there is a cloud in this sheet of paper. Without a cloud, there will be no rain; without rain, the trees cannot grow; and without trees, we cannot make paper.' He goes on to include the logger who cut the trees, the logger's mother, and so forth. If you, too, can see the cloud in a sheet of paper, then perhaps you too are a poet, a Zen master — or an ecologist. Regardless of who sees it, there really is a cloud in a sheet of paper, as well as a bark beetle, a handful of soil, a bit of bird poop, even the gasoline that powered the logger's chain saw. It is similarly possible that if you were to chronicle the history of those atoms that constitute the electronic screen from which you are now reading, you would find that they were once part of Peter the Great, a woolly mammoth, or (and!) a Komodo dragon.

The interconnected and interdependent nature of things is the heart of ecology. It is also remarkably similar to the fundamental insight of Buddhism: 'dependent co-arising' or prati-tyasamutpa-da in Sanskrit; paticcasamuppa-da in Pali. Traditional Tibetan Buddhists repeat, over and over, that all things have at some time been our mothers, just as we have at some time been theirs. In both the Theravada and Mahayana schools of Buddhism, the key teaching is 'compassion', which means something quite different from empathy, sympathy, doing good, being nice, or easy phrases about 'feeling your pain'.

The touchstone, instead, is a Buddhist idea that is among the most difficult for Westerners to accept: the concept of anatman, or 'no-self'. Let's be clear: Buddhists do not claim that people do not exist. When the Dalai Lama flies to a symposium in Geneva or London, he obtains a ticket with the name 'Tenzin Gyatso', and his body occupies a seat. However, for Buddhists there is no self in the deeper sense that no one exists as a singular, permanent structure distinct and isolated in any meaningful way from the rest of the world. This is entirely in line with an evolutionary and ecological approach to our origins and our embeddedness in natural processes.

Each of us arises in conjunction with others, dependent on and inseparable from those others. Trying to locate an inviolate particle of selfhood within anyone (or indeed, in any living thing) is not like finding a solid pit inside an apricot. It is more like peeling an onion: we are layers within layers, with nothing at the centre. Or, like an eddy in a river, each of us can be identified and pointed to, but nonetheless, there isn't any persistent 'us': just a constantly moving pattern of flow, with everyone composed entirely of non-self stuff, all of it passing through. For Buddhists and ecologists alike, we are all created from spare parts scavenged from the same cosmic junk-heap, from which 'our' component atoms and molecules are on temporary loan, and to which they will eventually be recycled.

So our existence is not a distinct and separable phenomenon. Genuine compassion, in the sense of suffering with, should be easy — in fact it is unavoidable — since no one is distinct from the recipient of his or her concern. The 19th-century conservationist John Muir glimpsed the same principle: 'When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.' For ecologists, no less than for poets or Buddhists, it is the fundamental rule, whether you call it connectedness, inseparability or, in the language of science, food webs, trophic levels, and community interactions.

At one point in The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin speculated playfully that, by keeping cats, English spinsters made London a more pleasant and flower-full place. Here is his reasoning: cats, as everyone knows, eat mice. Mice, as fewer people realise, occasionally destroy the nests of bumblebees, which are typically dug into the ground. And bumblebees, of course, pollinate flowers. So more cats, fewer mice. Fewer mice, more bumblebees. More bumblebees, more flowers. Therefore: more English spinsters with cats means more flowers. No one has tested Darwin's proposal. But these surprising interlinked chains of cause and effect are very familiar in ecological science, as they are in Buddhist metaphysics.

In a recent experimental example, a project was conceived to investigate the causes of periodic infestations of gypsy moths, an introduced pest from Europe that, about one year in 10, causes great damage to forests in eastern North America. Researchers at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies in Millbrook, New York suspected that there might be a connection between these periodic gypsy moth outbreaks and the abundance of acorns, because of the intervention of white-footed deer mice, common rodents in eastern forests. Deer mouse numbers skyrocket following a good acorn crop, which happens about every two to five years. And white-footed deer mice don't eat only acorns. They are also major predators on the pupae of gypsy moths. So, it seemed reasonable that in the immediate aftermath of a heavy acorn production there would be a large mouse population. This, in turn, would keep the gypsy moths in check. Similarly, following poor acorn years, there should be relatively few mice and therefore, relatively more gypsy moths.

The Dalai Lama (a self-proclaimed admirer of Western science) has recently confirmed that he no longer believes all that business about the world being flat with a giant mountain at its centre

During one summer of the study — after a very heavy acorn crop — mice were abundant in the study site, an upstate New York forest. The ecologists removed most of the mice from three patches of forest, each measuring about 2.7 hectares (no small task). They proceeded to compare the numbers of gypsy moth pupae in these experimental areas with similar forest plots from which mice had not been removed. Sure enough, fewer mice yielded more moths; 45 times more, in fact.

The next step was to simulate a bumper acorn year. With the help of a local troop of Girl Scouts, they scattered nearly four tons of acorns over the experimental, mouse-depleted plots — which rapidly refilled with mice. This demonstrated that more acorns do indeed mean more mice. Which is a good thing if we want to prevent gypsy moth outbreaks. But the story isn't over yet.

White-footed deer mice are not only consumers of acorns and of gypsy moth larvae. They are also a major reservoir for the parasitic organism that causes Lyme disease — a tick that lives on mice in its larval stage, and on deer as an adult. More acorns didn't only mean more mice. There were also higher numbers of deer, attracted by the acorns, which brought along their burden of adult ticks, which bred and bestowed their larvae upon the flourishing mice. Mice occupying acorn-enriched plots had about 40 per cent more tick larvae than did the denizens of normal, control forests.

Even the first set of causations in that 1998 study — more acorns, more mice, and fewer gypsy moths — is complex enough. But the web of interdependent causes is much more subtle when we add the disease vectors. What are the practical implications? Foresters might be tempted to try to distribute additional acorns, inhibiting gypsy moth outbreaks in order to improve lumber yields. But this might bring about Lyme disease epidemics: more mice mean fewer gypsy moths, but also more ticks. Alternatively, public health officials who want to reduce Lyme disease might look into various ways of chemically suppressing mast production, which might in turn bring about gypsy moth infestations. Finally, it's possible that Lyme disease outbreaks might be correlated, oddly enough, with how many acorns are produced that year by the forest.

Everything, it seems, is connected; the Buddha would understand.

All the same, we shouldn't assume that the parallels between Buddhism and ecology are too exact, with either one mapping readily and completely onto the other. For me — an unrepentantly atheist scientist — there are many aspects of Buddhist tradition that seem downright ridiculous.

High on the list of such absurdities are the phenomena of iddhi, supernatural events that are supposed to be generated by extremely skilful and committed meditation. They appear often in Buddhist texts, and I don't believe a word of them. Higher meditators are claimed to possess various supernatural abilities, becoming invisible on demand, walking through walls, on water, through the air, hearing people and other beings very far away, mind-reading, recalling past lives, even possessing 'divine eyes' that permit them to see the arising and passing away of karma.

The Buddha himself, immediately after he was born, is said to have taken seven steps and announced that this was the last time he would be reborn. When he died, lying on his side between two sal trees, they immediately and miraculously burst into bloom, out of season. The Buddha made it clear that he was not a god and should not be worshipped as one, yet this is violated every day by millions of people who persist in giving his teachings all the trappings of rigidified religion.

Traditional Buddhist cosmology is very complex, and more than a little weird, with the world composed of 31 levels, the lowest being a kind of hell, followed in turn by animals, ghosts, titans, humans, five different tiers of lesser gods, 15 of higher gods, after which one encounters, in turn, 'infinite space', 'infinite consciousness', 'nothingness', and finally 'neither perception nor non-perception'. The Dalai Lama (a self-proclaimed admirer of Western science) has recently admitted that he no longer believes all that business about the world being flat with a great mountain — Mount Meru — at its centre. I don't know about the beliefs of other leading Buddhists in this regard.

Neither is 'Buddhism' a monolithic whole. Some argue that 'real' Buddhism should be based on the early teachings of the Pali canon. But this is quite different from the Buddhism whose vision is so similar to modern ecology. The historical Buddha seems to have been more concerned with ending human suffering and encouraging individual enlightenment than with promoting environmental sensitivity. Instead of revelling in connectedness, early Buddhist thought focused on the downside of being 'misled' in maya, the illusory sense of the material world's importance.

Just as Tibetan Buddhists practise 'sky burials', returning the human body to the vultures, so too does ecology celebrate the decomposing elk in the forest

To be sure, the science of ecology is divided as well: ecology has a double meaning, being used to refer both to the quantitative science and to a broad sense of ethical responsibility towards a complex natural world.

Even so, there are many striking and subtle connections between Buddhist metaphysics and ethics on the one hand and an ecological orientation on the other. Modern Buddhism, especially as promoted and practised in the West, has undergone something of an intellectual makeover. It now places more emphasis on social and environmental responsibility than the Buddha or his immediate followers seem to have favoured — perhaps in part due to the influence of Zen.

What of the West's own spiritual traditions? Dichotomous thinking is basic to Western thought, deriving, perhaps, from the Greek Platonic constructs of ideal versus real and intellect versus emotion. These dualities were a powerful influence on the Judeo-Christian world view: God vs creation, spirit vs flesh, sin vs redemption and — most important for our purposes — humanity vs nature.

Although most spiritual traditions have some sort of ethical responsibility to the natural world built into them (from Christian stewardship to shamanic identification), the unfortunate reality is that, for the Abrahamic religions in particular (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), separateness — of soul from body, individuals from each other, heaven from hell, human beings from the rest of the natural world, and so forth — is the primary operating assumption.

Ecology was traditionally defined as the study of the interrelations between organisms and their environments, which is still somewhat dualistic. Significantly, ecologists now modify this definition to emphasise the fundamental identity of subject and surroundings. We cannot separate the bison from the prairie or the spotted owl from its coniferous forest. Since any such distinction is arbitrary, the ecologist studies the bison-prairie, owl-forest unit. Food webs, such as those connecting mouse, acorn and gipsy moth, are not mere descriptions of who-eats-whom, but outlines of their very being. The Buddhist suggestion that an organism's skin does not separate it from its environment but, rather, joins the two, could just as well have come from a 'master' of physiological ecology.

With dualism overcome and the world seen in its complicated, organic wholeness, it is absurd to consider any natural process as 'wrong'. It is what it is. 'A duck's legs, though short, cannot be lengthened without dismay to the duck, and a crane's legs, though long, cannot be shortened without misery to the crane.' Western thinking has generally been more Procrustean, seeking to amputate, stretch, or otherwise deform the natural world to suit our desires: to make it beautiful, picturesque or charming. Just as Tibetan Buddhists practise 'skyburials' to return the elements of the human body to the vultures and, eventually, the earth in an unsentimental recognition of our physical reality, so too does ecology celebrate the decomposing elk in the forest. Along the way, ecologists have argued with land managers until they have eventually come to the (Buddhistic) realisation that decomposition, predation, even forest fire, all have a place in maintaining healthy ecosystems.

Even our traditional Western notions of cause-and-effect have been re-evaluated, with systems analysis and complex flow charts representing numerous inputs and a bewildering array of interconnections, a kind of 'neural net' writ large. Embedded in an ecological world view is a notion of things in flux (or, in Buddhism, 'impermanence' or anitya), which is especially convivial to an evolutionary perspective — the recycling of life, the profound and unexpected consequences of interdependence. In fact, there are elements in Buddhism that seem to prefigure the most recent view of ecological systems as changeable, dynamic and prone to disturbance yet also highly interconnected and resilient.

In reaching for ways to describe such complex systems, Buddhist tradition has created many metaphors and images. Take 'Indra's net', a structure described in the Avatamsaka Sutra. The story goes that the emperor Indra had a net spun, or woven, perhaps for the amusement and entertainment of his daughter. In any event, the net was infinitely large, and contained a pure and perfect jewel at each intersection of threads. If you looked closely at any one of these jewels, you could see, reflected therein, all the other jewels (remember, the net is infinite). On the surface of each jewel, all the others are reflected; when you peer into any one, you see all the others reflecting all the other others, in turn. 'To see a world in a grain of sand,' as William Blake put it, 'and a Heaven in a wild flower'.

Not surprisingly, verbal analysis, with its unavoidable linearity, is inadequate for ecologists just as it has long been disdained by Buddhist masters. Where the Buddhist master plays with poetic imagery, the ecological imagination turns to modelling and metaphors of its own.

Ecology is many things: a science, a world view, a cautionary tale. It can be nearly incomprehensible in its mathematical thickets, downright tedious in its verbal pomposity, theoretically abstruse yet dirty-under-the-fingernails practical, often ignored and derided although desperately needed as a voice for basic planetary hygiene and a practical corrective to human hubris. It has been called the 'subversive science', since it subverts our egocentric insistence on separateness, and with it, our inclination to ride roughshod over the rest of the natural world. Buddhism is no less subversive, its ecological implications in particular carrying the serious practitioner far beyond giddy adoration of the Dalai Lama, or a fascination with celebrity Buddhists such as Richard Gere.

To EM Forster's celebrated injunction, 'only connect', Buddhists and ecologists would add that we are already connected. Our job is to recognise this connection, and to act accordingly, paying attention to our breadth and not just our breath. But the ecological implications of Buddhism — or the Buddhist implications of ecology — are not easy. They require stout-hearted action, not mere sentiment. Shortly after the First National Economic Development Plan was drafted in Thailand in 1961, the Bangkok government imprisoned monks for teaching santutthi (contentment with what one has), out of fear that this Buddhist ideal would interfere with short-sighted economic development. And of course it would, and did.

This is the point of spiritual-religious-ethical perspectives: they make demands upon us. Martyrdom is out of fashion these days, but when we think of the murder of 'that low-born cleric' Thomas Becket in the cathedral, or of Burmese monks resisting the junta in 2007, we might remember that toughness in the face of power is part of a principled worldview. When it comes to the interpenetration of Buddhism and ecological wisdom, the consequences of serious 'practice' might be less dire, although equally significant. Instead of losing a life, we just might expand ours.

David P Barash is an evolutionary biologist, aspiring Buddhist, and professor of psychology and biology at the University of Washington. His most recent book is Homo Mysterious.

© Aeon Magazine Ltd 2012 Privacy policy » Designed by MagCulture, built by The Church of London.

From 'Keep On Keepin' On' at http://carldavidson.blogspot.com Of special interest those those who want to know more about CyberRadicalism, the Solidarity Economy and a Socialism for the 21st Century
Carl Davidsonhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7271382.post-47700879046845255072012-10-28T17:34:00.001-05:002012-10-28T17:34:46.409-05:00GOTV in Aliquippa: Walking with Walker

Tough times in Western PA's Aliquippa

By Carl Davidson

I door-knocked on the streets of Aliquippa for getting out the vote yesterday, Saturday Oct 27. My walking partner was our new mayor, Rev. Dwan Walker.

People complain about discouragement and analyze every which way, but it looks different down here on the ground.

 We talked almost entirely with the African American working class and their youngsters. I have never seen such determination, steadfastness and vision among a group of voters. They are very realistic about Obama, but even more about the GOP and Romney. They know exactly what to do, and they are well aware that it's only the beginning, with far heavier battles ahead.

I wish I could say the same of some of my other friends and people I know. Let's 'get 'er done,' comrades and friends, then take it from there.

From 'Keep On Keepin' On' at http://carldavidson.blogspot.com Of special interest those those who want to know more about CyberRadicalism, the Solidarity Economy and a Socialism for the 21st Century
Carl Davidsonhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7271382.post-30531020135917597042012-10-24T16:12:00.001-05:002012-10-24T16:12:43.638-05:00Debates, the 'Yellow Peril,' and Tibet

Tibetans celebrating emancipation of serfs.

By Carl Davidson

I get turned off when the Presidential 'Debates' hit on the topic of China. Some worthwhile points  may be made about trade relations, but I'm informed enough to know there's more than one side to that story. The US has done more than its share of 'dumping' and other unequal and unfair economic dealings with the world far more and far longer than China.

What really worries me, however, is the lurking and old 'Yellow Peril' chauvinism seeking into the working class. It's mainly a diversion to mask real problems with government policy at home. It's not China's fault, for instance, that the U.S. lacks a decent industrial policy.

But harsh anti-China views also emerge in left and progressive circles, often around the question of Tibet. It's a complicated issue in some way, and in other ways, not complicated at all, at leas on a few things. Following are some items from a discussion on Facebook:

CarlD: Folks, Tibet is part of China. Whether you consider that true or false, right or wrong, anything else is a non-starter.

Same for the other 50 or so minority nationalities within its borders. Even the Dalai Lama holds to regional autonomy, not separation or independence.

Within that context, there is a just battle vs Han chauvinism, and gains can be made on it. But given China's relatively recent history, where the imperialist powers of the West sought to divide it up and carve out their own privileged sections, the Brits and French in Shanghai, the Brits in Hong Kong and elsewhere, the Germans with their chunk, and so on--there is simply no way China will tolerate even the slightest suggestion of separation.

The Opium Wars are a too bitter memory, one often forgotten here, but not in China.

Al-Quaeda is making an effort among to Uighurs and and other Muslim nationalities in China's far West, and China rightly moves to smash them. To their credit, they have also punished Han settlers for anti-Muslim pogroms in the area.

China, because of its history of being both an Empire AND subject to colonialism itself, never accepted the Comintern's approach to self-determination. They won't even let the Vatican have the decisive say on who gets to be a Chinese Catholic bishop. It holds to regional autonomy internally, and relatively strict non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries.

I think they would be wise to make a deal with this Dalai Lama, and there are some currents in the leadership who seem to think so as well. But simple demanding 'Free Tibet' will only put you in a camp with many half-hidden and unsavory allies--and I don't mean the Tibetans themselves.

Jay: Some years ago I had some experience with the "Free Tibet" people in my area, and in answer to the question "where else is that coming from," at that time it was two-fold. One camp consisted of countercultural Tibetan Buddhism adherents and supporters of the Dalai Lama, and the other camp was composed of right-wing anti-Communists. These two camps seemed to get along relatively easily. Now, "Free Tibet" may be more racist in nature, since I haven't been in contact with any of these folks in a while, I don't know.

I've also been to Tibet, and as a result, I must be one of Carl's "non-starters." There is no question but that the Tibetans are an ethnically, linguistically, and culturally distinct people. Tibet is not part of China.

However, it may be politically impossible at this point in history to make Tibet independent from China, which is a problem faced by a number of ethnically-distinct or indigenous populations, such as the Hawaiians.

CarlD: I agree that Tibetans are a distinct nationality--in every way but one: politically. In that respect, they have been 'part of China' going back a very long time. And given their strategic position in the Himalayas, their only access to the outside world is through China or India, with a degree of dependence either way. Each for their own reasons, the Nazis, the Brits, the Indians and the CIA have all tried to dislodge them from China to one degree or another, to no avail. Genuine regional autonomy within China, included respect for Tibetan Buddhism's efforts to maintain itself, is the only practical and reasonable way to go, IMHO.

Casey: The Tibetans disagree with your view of their nationality as part of China, Carl. Seems to me it's up to them, not you. But the position you outline, regional autonomy within China with respect for cultural identity, is HHDL and the government in exile's, position. No one is saying "Free Tibet" now except young Tibetan activists. The objection to the destruction of Tibetan cultural identity comes from respect for Tibetan culture and identity, Roxanne. It's not about race. I don't know where you find hatred in this issue. Can you identify a source? I don't see any in the Friends of Tibet, and HHDL has consistently preached and practice forgiveness. As does the leading Tibetan in Arizona, Garchen Rinpoche, who was a political prisoner for 20 years, still crippled from being tortured in prison. Both of you are quick to point out and critique the same issues as they exist in in capitalist countries while defending them in China. Perhaps it is Marxist romanticism. I can't see any other reason.

CarlD: Casey, I've seen human thigh bones of prisoners in Tibet's feudal prisons and torture chambers made into flutes by the monks of the old theocracy. The old Tibet was no Shangri-la for the Tibetans. It's connection with China goes back to the 7th Century, until the Brits and Indians broke it away temporarily. With the victory of the Chinese revolution, the Chinese reasserted control, and assisted Tibetan serfs in 'standing up.' Many crimes were committed by the Han vs the Tibetans, especially during the 'cultural revolution,' when Red Guards were smashing everything Buddhist or Confucian all across China, including Tibet. Whether a new and more just Tibet emerges remains to be seen. I think it can, and as a student of Zen myself, I certainly hope so. But I also think it will remain 'part of China.'

This is only a small opening to a long discussion. Feel free to offer your own views…

From 'Keep On Keepin' On' at http://carldavidson.blogspot.com Of special interest those those who want to know more about CyberRadicalism, the Solidarity Economy and a Socialism for the 21st Century
Carl Davidsonhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7271382.post-13736414142086974182012-10-23T16:19:00.001-05:002012-10-23T16:19:06.326-05:00Pondering Strategy: The 4th Option

By Carl Davidson

Gregory Wilpert is an intellectual of the left now teaching political science at Brooklyn College, after some time spent in Venezuela. He recently wrote a long interesting piece on Z-Net about our electoral system, mentioning Bill Fletcher and myself in passing. He was perplexed as to finding a way forward, and spelled out these options:

In short, we could call these three positions about electoral politics, non-participation (or boycott), lesser evil voting (with or without Democratic party takeover), and third party voting.

Each of these three positions makes important points that are convincing and difficult to refute.

How can one counter the main argument of lesser-evil voting, that we have a moral obligation to prevent the worst from happening to the most oppressed? On the other hand, if that lesser evil is also involved in atrocities, as is all too often the case with the foreign policy of Democratic presidents, then wouldn't lesser-evil voting perpetuate evil?

But doesn't the solution of voting for a third party seems equally hopeless, since the third party candidate might just take votes from the marginally better candidate and enable the election of the even worse candidate? There seems to be no easy solution to this debate. One possible compromise solution has been to urge people to vote for the lesser evil in state where the races is close, but to vote for third party candidates in races where progressives are unlikely to make a difference in the outcome (a position that very many prominent U.S. progressives advocated in 2004 and in 2000).

Also, given that each side has convincing arguments, this helps explain why the progressive movement is so weak in the U.S.: the diversity and depth of conviction of attitudes towards electoral politics makes unity within the left nearly impossible.

What this strategy debate points to is precisely the undemocratic nature of the U.S. political system. This is the kind of debate you would expect to see in countries with profoundly dysfunctional democracies.

If the U.S. had a more democratic system, there would be a general consensus among progressives to participate in the democratic process. The reason you do not see this kind of debate in the democracies of Western Europe or of Latin America (at least not since the 1970's in Western Europe and since the 1990's in Latin America) is that these countries, by and large, have far more democratic political systems than the U.S. does.

I thought this was too restricted, and that there was a fourth option, and wrote this reply:

Wilpert does a fair job of summarizing the system, and I have no quarrel with his suggestions for reforms in the electoral system.

But I think there in a 4th option--the one I hold to. That is to build a 'party within a party' among Democratic voters at the base, much as PDA does, but not with the illusion that we are going to 'move the Democrats to the left.' I think Wilpert is right that this isn't very realistic Rather, the approach should be to build our strength in that context, along all the fault lines in the clusters and coalitions of forces under the Dem umbrella, until the whole thing implodes and shatters. The aim is to get rid of it, not reform it--but in a way that helps the left more than the right.

The precedent is what happened to the antebellum Whig party.

Then forces on the outside, our forces on the former 'inside,' and new emerging forces, can come together to make a new 'first' party.

Again, the precedent is the GOP, spurred by the Radical Republicans and base group tied to the First International, under Lincoln,

Of course capitalism today is not quite the same as in the crisis of the 1860s. Slavery will be replaced by finance capital, austerity and war as the organizing focus.

Others may have better ideas. If so, I'm all ears.

Feel free to post your two cents on the matter…

From 'Keep On Keepin' On' at http://carldavidson.blogspot.com Of special interest those those who want to know more about CyberRadicalism, the Solidarity Economy and a Socialism for the 21st Century
Carl Davidsonhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7271382.post-42169753993142193172012-10-22T16:41:00.001-05:002012-10-22T16:41:04.913-05:00Beaver County and the 'Cracker' Debate

Potential site for major new 'cracker' plant near Monaca in Beaver County, PA

By Carl Davidson

Our county was was hit hard and early by globalization and the export of jobs. Our towns were largely formed around mills, and when the mills were closed in the 1980s, the towns were stressed to the extreme. Many workers moved away or retired, and those remaining in the towns themselves were largely poor and Black with few options.

Now with the new natural gas boom creating by dubious and dangerous deep underground 'fracking' explosions, Shell Oil wants to build a new 'ethylene cracker' plant that turns natural gas into plastics. Fewer than 1000 people would work in the new $1.2 billion facility, but 10,000 people would be hired over five years to build it, and perhaps another 7000 more for new plastic manufacturing plants draw to be created alongside it.

For the county, it means two things. First, a complete turnaround for employment and new small business and new orders for the tube mill still running. Second, since hundreds of new 'fracking' gas wells would be needed to feed the 'cracker,' there is serious danger to the county's water supply and many other health and environmental issues.

So we have a big ongoing debate. Are you for or against the 'cracker.' Are you opposed to fracking? Or do you just want to tax and regulate it? And what about clean and green energy?

Natural beauty of our townships soon to be 'fracked.'

The issue keeps coming up in various forums, including our Beaver County Marcellus Awareness Committee page on Facebook. I had posted some pictures to it showing the natural beauty of our area, which led some to say it could all be ruined by the 'cracker'. Here's my brief reply:

'Beauty' looks one way out in the townships. But in the deindustrialized mill towns along the rivers, you see something else--the impact of joblessness is not so pretty. You have to view these things strategically, meaning the whole, not just the part, the future, not just the present, and who are the key engines of change as your allies, if not the unemployed and underemployed. In order to unite the many to defeat the few, you have to find ways to unite people who disagree on many things--no easy task, but it's demanded of us.

Query to me: Why haven't jobs come to Beaver County? The skilled left the area for better jobs and now the perfect storm. I do not know the percentages of skilled or college grads or even people who only have a high school diploma or just a GED in Beaver County.

CarlD: The lack of opportunity means we already have exported a good number of our youth, or at least those with options and prospects. We are demographically now one of the oldest counties, if not the oldest, even though we still have many distressed young people among us, under-employed and unemployed. We have the means to create skills--BCCC, Robert Morris, Geneva and Penn State Beaver--and we have done so.

But I know younger folks in my own family, educated, who have moved away for lack of new industry. For those remaining, the fracking jobs, the trucker jobs related to it and the construction jobs related to the 'cracker' are viewed by them as a Godsend, or potentially so.

Our task is first, to defend clean water, and second figure out a positive way to deal with this developing industry. I doubt that it's going to be stopped, but it can be modified and a share of the profits from it can be diverted toward green renewables in the longer run. The devil is in the details, of course, but I don't think we do well simply to avoid those details with an abolitionist stance not likely to get very far and likely to separate us from real friends. Even people working at building a 'cracker' have an interest in clean water…

Don't look for this debate to be resolved easily. The opinion and suggestion box is now open! Feel free to comment.

From 'Keep On Keepin' On' at http://carldavidson.blogspot.com Of special interest those those who want to know more about CyberRadicalism, the Solidarity Economy and a Socialism for the 21st Century
Carl Davidsonhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7271382.post-40438594898529932462012-10-03T11:43:00.001-05:002012-10-03T11:43:53.227-05:00'Lazy' People, Voting Rights and Republicans Caught with Their Pants Down

Our march on Harrisburg, PA to protest voter suppression.

By Carl Davidson
Keep On Keepin' On

Sometimes Republicans just can't help themselves. Put a little heat on them, and they blurt out the truth, showing what they're really thinking.

The latest case in point: The retrograde Pennsylvania 'Voter ID' law was rejected today, Oct. 2, at least in part, by a state judge, Robert Simpson, allowing people to vote normally at least on this Nov. 6. The decision was a victory for labor, the NAACP, retiree groups and all who care about defending civil rights and liberties.

 The main author of the bill, State Rep Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler), however, chimed in with this comment:

 "Justice Simpson's final decision is out of bounds with the rule of law, constitutional checks and balances for the individual branches of state government, and most importantly, the will of the people. Rather than making a ruling based on the constitution and the law, this judicial activist decision is skewed in favor of the lazy who refuse to exercise the necessary work ethic to meet the commonsense requirements to obtain an acceptable photo ID."

Yes, you heard that right. This guy thinks those objecting to this bill are 'the lazy who refuse to exercise the necessary work ethic.'  And all of us here in Western PA not fresh out of the pumpkin patch know exactly who he thinks he's talking about. When Gov. Romney went over the top in a recent closed session with his upper crust friends talking about a 47% of the population who wouldn't 'take responsibility' for their lives, I thought things had pretty much hit bottom in the racist dog whistle department. Little did I know!

Metcalfe has done us all a favor in self-exposing the racist mindset behind this GOP voter suppression effort, and revealing exactly why they thought that, if implemented, it could tip the state to Romney. Now they've been monkey-wrenched, at least for the time being.

But here's an interesting thought. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, even though I've studied it some. Where does it or our state voting laws suggest, anywhere, that lazy people or people with a hampered work ethic, don't have the same right to vote as energetic workaholics?

The wealthy have best be careful here. As the saying goes, most people work for their money, but a few people are able to let their money work for them. They can laze about, enjoying the good life of the idle rich. There's a slippery slope here they may want to avoid for the future.

Carl Davidson is a member of Steelworker Associates. He lives in Western Pennsylvania and writes for BeaverCountyBlue.org, the website of the 12 CD Progressive Democrats of America.

From 'Keep On Keepin' On' at http://carldavidson.blogspot.com Of special interest those those who want to know more about CyberRadicalism, the Solidarity Economy and a Socialism for the 21st Century
Carl Davidsonhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7271382.post-39036569361362114422012-08-14T07:32:00.001-05:002012-08-14T07:32:49.689-05:00What to Do in November, and Beyond
The 2012 Elections Have Little To Do With Obama's Record … Which Is Why We Are Voting For Him

The 2012 election will be one of the most polarized and critical elections in recent history.

By Bill Fletcher, Jr. and Carl Davidson
Progressive America Rising via Alternet.org

August 9, 2012 - Let's cut to the chase. The November 2012 elections will be unlike anything that any of us can remember.  It is not just that this will be a close election.  It is also not just that the direction of Congress hangs in the balance.  Rather, this will be one of the most polarized and critical elections in recent history.

Unfortunately what too few leftists and progressives have been prepared to accept is that the polarization is to a great extent centered on a revenge-seeking white supremacy; on race and the racial implications of the moves to the right in the US political system. It is also focused on a re-subjugation of women, harsh burdens on youth and the elderly, increased war dangers, and reaction all along the line for labor and the working class. No one on the left with any good sense should remain indifferent or stand idly by in the critical need to defeat Republicans this year.

U.S. Presidential elections are not what progressives want them to be.

A large segment of what we will call the 'progressive forces' in US politics approach US elections generally, and Presidential elections in particular, as if: (1) we have more power on the ground than we actually possess, and (2) the elections are about expressing our political outrage at the system. Both get us off on the wrong foot.

The US electoral system is among the most undemocratic on the planet.  Constructed in a manner so as to guarantee an ongoing dominance of a two party duopoly, the US electoral universe largely aims at reducing so-called legitimate discussion to certain restricted parameters acceptable to the ruling circles of the country. Almost all progressive measures, such as Medicare for All or Full Employment, are simply declared 'off the table.' In that sense there is no surprise that the Democratic and Republican parties are both parties of the ruling circles, even though they are quite distinct within that sphere.

The nature of the US electoral system--and specifically the ballot restrictions and 'winner-take-all' rules within it--encourages or pressures various class fractions and demographic constituency groups to establish elite-dominated electoral coalitions.  The Democratic and Republican parties are, in effect, electoral coalitions or party-blocs of this sort, unrecognizable in most of the known universe as political parties united around a program and a degree of discipline to be accountable to it. We may want and fight for another kind of system, but it would be foolish to develop strategy and tactics not based on the one we actually have.

The winner-take-all nature of the system discourages independent political parties and candidacies on both the right and the left.  For this reason the extreme right made a strategic decision in the aftermath of the 1964 Goldwater defeat to move into the Republican Party with a long-term objective of taking it over.  This was approached at the level of both mass movement building, e.g., anti-busing, anti-abortion, as well as electoral candidacies.  The GOP right's 'Southern Strategy' beginning in 1968 largely succeeded in chasing out most of the pro-New Deal Republicans from the party itself, as well as drawing in segregationist Democratic voters in the formerly 'Solid South.'

Efforts by progressives to realign or shift the Democratic Party, on the other hand, were blunted by the defeat of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party in 1964, and later the defeat of the McGovern candidacy in 1972, during which time key elements of the party's upper echelons were prepared to lose the election rather than witness a McGovern victory.  In the 1980s a very different strategy was advanced by Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow insurgencies that aimed at building—at least initially—an independent, progressive organization capable of fielding candidates within the Democratic primaries.  This approach—albeit independent of Jackson himself—had an important local victory with the election of Mayor Harold Washington in Chicago.  At the national level, however, it ran into a different set of challenges by 1989.

In the absence of a comprehensive electoral strategy, progressive forces fall into one of three cul-de-sacs: (1) ad hoc electoralism, i.e., participating in the election cycle but with no long-term plan other than tailing the Democrats; (2) abandoning electoral politics altogether in favor of modern-day anarcho-syndicalist 'pressure politics from below'; or (3) satisfying ourselves with far more limited notions that we can best use the election period in order to 'expose' the true nature of the capitalist system in a massive way by attacking all of the mainstream candidates.  We think all of these miss the key point.

Our elections are about money and the balance of power

Money is obvious, particularly in light of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision.  The balance of power is primarily at the level of the balance within the ruling circles, as well as the level of grassroots power of the various mass movements.  The party that wins will succeed on the basis of the sort of electoral coalition that they are able to assemble, co-opt or be pressured by, including but not limited to the policy and interest conflicts playing out within its own ranks.

The weakness of left and progressive forces means we have been largely unable to participate, in our own name and independent of the two party upper crust, in most national-level elections with any hope of success.  In that sense most left and progressive interventions in the electoral arena at the national level, especially at the Presidential level, are ineffective acts of symbolic opposition or simply propaganda work aimed at uniting and recruiting far smaller circles of militants.  They are not aimed at a serious challenge for power but rather aim to demonstrate a point of view, or to put it more crassly, to 'fly the flag.' The electoral arena is frequently not viewed as an effective site for structural reforms or a more fundamental changing of direction.

Our politics, in this sense, can be placed in two broad groupings—politics as self-expression and politics as strategy. In an overall sense, the left needs both of these—the audacity and energy of the former and the ability to unite all who can be united of the latter. But it is also important to know the difference between the two, and which to emphasize and when in any given set of battles.

Consider, for a moment, the reform struggles with which many of us are familiar.  Let's say that a community is being organized to address a demand for jobs on a construction site.  If the community is not entirely successful in this struggle, it does not mean that the struggle was wrong or inappropriate.  It means that the progressives were too weak organizationally and the struggle must continue.  The same is true in the electoral arena.  The fact that it is generally difficult, in this period, to get progressives elected or that liberal and progressive candidates may back down on a commitment once elected, does not condemn the arena of the struggle.  It does, however, say something about how we might need to organize ourselves better in order to win and enforce accountability.

In part due to justified suspicion of the electoral system and a positive impulse for self-expression and making our values explicit, too many progressives view the electoral realm as simply a canvass upon which various pictures of the ideal future are painted.  Instead of constructing a strategy for power that involves a combination of electoral and non-electoral activity, uniting both a militant minority and a progressive majority, there is an impulsive tendency to treat the electoral realm as an idea bazaar rather than as one of the key sites on which the struggle for progressive power unfolds.

The Shifts within the Right and the Rise of Irrationalism

Contrary to various myths, there was no 'golden age' in our country where politicians of both parties got along and politics was clean.  U. S. politics has always been dirty.  One can look at any number of elections in the 19th century, for instance, with the Hayes-Tilden election of 1876 being among the more notorious, to see examples of electoral chicanery.  Elections have been bought and sold and there has been wide-spread voter disenfranchisement. In the late 19th century and early 20th century massive voter disenfranchisement unfolded as part of the rise of Jim Crow segregation. Due to gains by both the populist and socialists is this era, by the 1920s our election laws were 'reformed'—in all but a handful of states—to do away with 'fusion ballots' and other measures previously helpful to new insurgent forces forming independent parties and alliances.

What is significant about the current era has been the steady move of the Republican Party toward the right, not simply at the realm of neoliberal economics (which has also been true of much of the Democratic Party establishment) but also in other features of the 'ideology' and program of the Republicans.  For this reason we find it useful to distinguish between conservatives and right-wing populists (and within right-wing populism, to put a spotlight on irrationalism).  Right-wing populism is actually a radical critique of the existing system, but from the political right with all that that entails.  Uniting with irrationalism, it seeks to build program and direction based largely upon myths, fears and prejudices.

Right-wing populism exists as the equivalent of the herpes virus within the capitalist system.  It is always there--sometimes latent, at other times active—and it does not go away.  In periods of system distress, evidence of right-wing populism erupts with more force.  Of particular importance in understanding right-wing populism is the complex intersection of race, anti-immigrant settler-ism, 'producerism,' homophobia and empire.

In the US, right-wing populism stands as the grassroots defender of white racial supremacy.  It intertwines with the traditional myths associated with the "American Dream" and suggests that the US was always to be a white republic and that no one, no people, and no organization should stand in the way of such an understanding.  It seeks enemies, and normally enemies based on demographics of 'The Other'.  After all, right-wing populism sees itself in the legacy of the likes of Andrew Jackson and other proponents of Manifest Destiny, a view that saw no inconsistency between the notion of a white democratic republic, ethnic cleansing, slavery, and a continental (and later global) empire. 'Jacksonian Democracy' was primarily the complete codification and nationalization of white supremacy in our country's political life.

Irrationalism is rising as an endemic virus in our political landscape

Largely in times of crisis and uncertainty, virulent forms of irrationalism make an appearance.  The threat to white racial supremacy that emerged in the 1960s, for instance, brought forward a backlash that included an irrationalist view of history, e.g., that the great early civilizations on Earth couldn't have arisen from peoples with darker skins, but instead were founded by creatures from other planets.  Irrationalism, moreover, was not limited to the racial realm. Challenges to scientific theories such as evolution and climate change are currently on the rise.  Irrationalism cries for a return to the past, and within that a mythical past.  A component of various right-wing ideologies, especially fascism, irrationalism exists as a form of sophistry, and even worse. It often does not even pretend to hold to any degree of logic, but rather simply requires the acceptance of a series of non sequitur assertions.

Right-wing populism and irrationalism have received nationwide reach anchored in institutions such as the Fox network, but also right-wing religious institutions.  Along with right-wing talk radio and websites, a virtual community of millions of voters has been founded whose views refuse critique from within.  Worse, well-financed and well-endowed walls are established to ensure that the views are not challenged from without.  In the 2008 campaign and its immediate aftermath, we witnessed segments of this community in the rise of the 'birther' movement and its backing by the likes of Donald Trump.  Like many other cults there were no facts that adherents of the 'birthers' would accept except those 'facts' which they, themselves, had established.  Information contrary to their assertions was swept away.  It didn't matter that we could prove Obama was born in the US, because their real point, the he was a Black man, was true.

The 2012 Republican primaries demonstrated the extent to which irrationalism and right-wing populism, in various incarnations, have captured the Republican Party.  That approximately 60% of self-identified Republicans would continue to believe that President Obama is not a legitimate citizen of the USA points to the magnitude of self-delusion.

The Obama campaign of 2008 at the grassroots was nothing short of a mass revolt

The energy for the Obama campaign was aimed against eight years of Bush, long wars, neoliberal austerity and collapse, and Republican domination of the US government.  It took the form of a movement-like embrace of the candidacy of Barack Obama.  The nature of this embrace, however, set the stage for a series of both strategic and tactical problems that have befallen progressive forces since Election Day 2008.

The mis-analysis of Obama in 2007 and 2008 by so many people led to an overwhelming tendency to misread his candidacy.  In that period, we—the authors of this essay—offered critical support and urged independent organization for the Obama candidacy in 2008 through the independent 'Progressives for Obama' project. We were frequently chastised by some allies at the time for being too critical, too idealistic, too 'left', and not willing to give Obama a chance to succeed.  Yet our measured skepticism, and call for independence and initiative in a broader front, was not based on some naïve impatience. Instead, it was based on an assessment of who Obama was and the nature of his campaign for the Presidency.

Obama was and is a corporate liberal

Obama is an eloquent speaker who rose to the heights of US politics after a very difficult upbringing and some success in Chicago politics.  But as a national figure, he always positioned himself not so much as a fighter for the disenfranchised but more as a mediator of conflict, as someone pained by the growth of irrationalism in the USA and the grotesque image of the USA that much of the world had come to see.  To say that he was a reformer does not adequately describe either his character or his objectives.  He was cast as the representative, wittingly or not, of the ill-conceived 'post-Black politics era' at a moment when much of white America wanted to believe that we had become 'post-racial.' He was a political leader and candidate trying to speak to the center, in search of a safe harbor.  He was the person to save US capitalism at a point where everything appeared to be imploding.

For millions, who Obama actually was, came to be secondary to what he represented for them.  This was the result of a combination of wishful thinking, on the one hand, and strongly held progressive aspirations, on the other.  In other words, masses of people wanted change that they could believe in. They saw in Obama the representative of that change and rallied to him.  While it is quite likely that Hillary Clinton, had she received the nomination, would also have defeated McCain/Palin, it was the Obama ticket and campaign that actually inspired so many to believe that not only could there be an historical breakthrough at the level of racial symbolism—a Black person in the White House—but that other progressive changes could also unfold.  With these aspirations, masses of people, including countless numbers of left and progressive activists, were prepared to ignore uncomfortable realities about candidate Obama and later President Obama.

There are two examples that are worth mentioning here.  One, the matter of race.  Two, the matter of war.  With regard to race, Obama never pretended that he was anything other than Black.  Ironically, in the early stages of his campaign many African Americans were far from certain how 'Black' he actually was.  Yet the matter of race was less about who Obama was—except for the white supremacists—and more about race and racism in US history and current reality.

Nothing exemplified this better than the controversy surrounding Rev. Jeremiah Wright, followed by Obama's historic speech on race in Philadelphia.  Wright, a liberation theologian and progressive activist, became a target for the political right as a way of 'smearing' Obama.  Obama chose to distance himself from Wright, but in a very interesting way.  He upheld much of Wright's basic views of US history while at the same time acting as if racist oppression was largely a matter of the past.  In that sense he suggested that Wright's critique was outdated.

Wright's critique was far from being outdated.  Yet in his famous speech on race, Obama said much more of substance than few mainstream politicians had ever done. In so doing, he opened the door to the perception that something quite new and innovative might appear in the White House.  He made no promises, though, which is precisely why suggestions of betrayal are misplaced.  There was no such commitment in the first place.

With regard to war, there was something similar.  Obama came out against the Iraq War early, before it started. He opposed it at another rally after it was underway. To his credit, US troops have been withdrawn from Iraq.  He never, however, came out against war in general, or certainly against imperialist war.  In fact, he made it clear that there were wars that he supported, including but not limited to the Afghanistan war.  Further, he suggested that if need be he would carry out bombings in Pakistan.  Despite this, much of the antiwar movement and many other supporters assumed that Obama was the antiwar candidate in a wider sense than his opposition to the war in Iraq.  Perhaps 'assumed' is not quite correct; they wanted him to be the antiwar candidate who was more in tune with their own views.

With Obama's election, the wishful thinking played itself out, to some degree, in the form of inaction and demobilization.  Contrary to the complaints of some on the Left, Obama and his administration cannot actually be blamed for this.  There were decisions made in important social movements and constituencies to (1) assume that Obama would do the 'right thing,' and, (2) provide Obama 'space' rather than place pressure on him and his administration. This was a strategic mistake. And when combined with a relative lack of consolidating grassroots campaign work into ongoing independent organization at the grassroots, with the exception of a few groups, such as the Progressive Democrats of America, it was an important opportunity largely lost.

There is one other point that is worth adding here.  Many people failed to understand that the Obama administration was not and is not the same as Obama the individual, and occupying the Oval Office is not the same as an unrestricted ability to wield state power.  'Team Obama' is certainly chaired by Obama, but it remains a grouping of establishment forces that share a common framework—and common restrictive boundaries.  It operates under different pressures and is responsive--or not--to various specific constituencies.  For instance, in 2009, when President Zelaya of Honduras was overthrown in a coup, President Obama responded--initially--with a criticism of the coup.  At the end of the day, however, the Obama administration did nothing to overturn the coup and to ensure that Honduras regained democracy.  Instead the administration supported the 'coup people.' Did this mean that President Obama supported the coup? It does not really matter.  What matters is that his administration backtracked on its alleged opposition to the coup and then did everything in their power to ensure that President Zelaya could not return.  This is why the focus on Obama the personality is misleading and unhelpful.

No Struggle, No Progress

President Obama turned out not to be the progressive reformer that many people had hoped.  At the same time, however, he touched off enough sore points for the political Right that he became a lightning rod for everything that they hated and feared.  This is what helps us understand the circumstances under which the November 2012 election is taking place.

As a corporate liberal, Obama's strategy was quite rational in those terms.  First, stabilize the economy.  Second, move on health insurance.  Third, move on jobs.  Fourth, attempt a foreign policy breakthrough.  Contrary to the hopes of much of his base, Obama proceeded to tackle each of these narrowly as a corporate 'bipartisan' reformer rather than as a wider progressive champion of the underdog.  That does not mean that grassroots people gained nothing.  Certainly preserving General Motors was to the benefit of countless auto workers and workers in related industries.  Yet Obama's approach in each case was to make his determinations by first reading Wall Street and the corporate world and then extending the olive branch of bi-partisanship to his adversaries on the right.  This, of course, led to endless and largely useless compromises, thereby demoralizing his base in the progressive grassroots.

While Obama's base was becoming demoralized, the political right was becoming energized

It did not matter that Obama was working to preserve capitalism. As far as the right was concerned, there were two sins under which he was operating: some small degree of economic re-distributionism and the fact that Obama was Black.  The combination of both made Obama a demon, as far as the right was concerned, who personified Black power, anti-colonialism and socialism, all at the same time.

The Upset Right and November 2012

We stress the need to understand that Obama represents an irrational symbol for the political right, and a potent symbol that goes way beyond what Obama actually stands for and practices.  The right, while taking aim at Obama, also seeks, quite methodically and rationally, to use him to turn back the clock.  They have created a common front based on white revanchism (a little used but accurate term for an ideology of revenge), on political misogynism, on anti-'freeloader' themes aimed at youth, people of color and immigrants, and a partial defense of the so-called 1%.  Rightwing populism asserts a 'producer' vs. 'parasites' outlook aimed at the unemployed and immigrants below them and 'Jewish bankers and Jewish media elites' above them. Let us emphasize that this is a front rather than one coherent organization or platform.  It is an amalgam, but an amalgam of ingredients that produces a particularly nasty US-flavored stew of right-wing populism.

Reports of declining Obama support among white workers is a good jumping off point in terms of understanding white revanchism.  Obama never had a majority among them as a whole, although he did win a majority among younger white workers. White workers have been economically declining since the mid-1970s.  This segment of a larger multinational and multiracial working class is in search of potential allies, but largely due to a combination of race and low unionization rates finds itself being swayed by right-wing populism.  Along with other workers it is insecure and deeply distressed economically, but also finds itself in fear—psychologically—for its own existence as the demographics of the USA undergoes significant changes.  They take note of projections that the US, by 2050, will be a majority of minorities of people of color. They perceive that they have gotten little from Obama, but more importantly they are deeply suspicious as to whether a Black leader can deliver anything at all to anyone.

Political misogynism—currently dubbed 'the war on women'---has been on the rise in the US for some time.  The 'New Right' in the 1970s built its base in right-wing churches around the issue in the battles over abortion and reproduction rights, setting the stage for Reagan's victory.  In the case of 2012, the attacks on Planned Parenthood along with the elitist dismissal of working mothers have been representative of the assertion of male supremacy, even when articulated by women.  This in turn is part of a global assault on women based in various religious fundamentalisms that have become a refuge for economically displaced men and for gender-uncomfortable people across the board.

The attack on 'slacker,' 'criminal' and 'over-privileged' youth, especially among minorities, is actually part of what started to unfold in the anti-healthcare antics of the Tea Party.  Studies of the Tea Party movement have indicated that they have a conceptualization based on the "deserving" and "undeserving" populations.  They and many others on the right are deeply suspicious, if not in outright opposition, to anything that they see as distributing away from them any of their hard-won gains.  They believe that they earned and deserve what they have and that there is an undeserving population, to a great extent youth (but also including other groups), who are looking for handouts. This helps us understand that much of the right-wing populist movement is a generational movement of white baby-boomers and older who see the ship of empire foundering and wish to ensure that they have life preservers, if not life-boats.

The defenders of the 1% are an odd breed.  Obviously that includes the upper crust, but it also includes a social base that believes that the upper crust earned their standing.  Further, this social base believes or wishes to believe that they, too, will end up in that echelon.  Adhering to variations of Reaganism, 'bootstrapping' or other such ideologies, they wish to believe that so-called free market capitalism is the eternal solution to all economic problems.  Despite the fact that the Republican economic program is nothing more or less than a retreading of George W. Bush's failed approach, they believe that it can be done differently.

Empire, balance of forces and the lesser of two evils

The choice in November 2012 does not come down to empire vs. no-empire.  While anyone can choose to vote for the Greens or other non-traditional political parties, the critical choice and battleground continues to exist in the context of a two-party system within the declining US empire.  The balance of forces in 2012 is such that those who are arrayed against the empire are in no position to mount a significant electoral challenge on an anti-imperialist platform.

To assume that the November elections are a moment to display our antipathy toward empire, moreover, misses entirely what is unfolding.  This is not a referendum on the "America of Empire": it is a referendum pitting the "America of Popular Democracy"—the progressive majority representing the changing demographics of the US and the increasing demands for broad equality and economic relief, especially the unemployed and the elderly—against the forces of unfettered neoliberalism and far right irrationalism.  Obama is the face on the political right's bull's eye, and stands as the key immediate obstacle to their deeper ambitions.  We, on the left side of the aisle, recognize that he is not our advocate for the 99%.  Yet and quite paradoxically, he is the face that the right is using to mobilize its base behind irrationalism and regression.

That's why we argue that Obama's record is really not what is at stake in this election

Had the progressive social movements mobilized to push Obama for major changes we could celebrate; had there been progressive electoral challenges in the 2010 mid-term elections and even in the lead up to 2012 (such as Norman Solomon's congressional challenge in California, which lost very narrowly), there might be something very different at stake this year.  Instead what we have is the face of open reaction vs. the face of corporate liberalism, of 'austerity and war on steroids' vs. 'austerity and war in slow motion.'

This raises an interesting question about the matter of the "lesser of two evils," something which has become, over the years, a major concern for many progressives.  Regularly in election cycles some progressives will dismiss supporting any Democratic Party candidate because of a perceived need to reject "lesser evil-ism", meaning that Democrats will always strike a pose as somewhat better than the GOP, but remain no different in substance. In using the anti-'lesser evil-ism' phraseology, the suggestion is that it really does not matter who wins because they are both bad.  Eugene Debs is often quoted—better to vote for what you want and not get it, than to vote for what you oppose and get it. While this may make for strong and compelling rhetoric and assertions, it makes for a bad argument and bad politics.

In elections progressives need to be looking very coldly at a few questions:

Are progressive social movements strong enough to supersede or bypass the electoral arena altogether? Is there a progressive candidate who can outshine both a reactionary and a mundane liberal, and win? What would we seek to do in achieving victory? What is at stake in that particular election?

In thinking through these questions, we think the matter of a lesser of two evils is a tactical question of simply voting for one candidate to defeat another, rather than a matter of principle.  Politics is frequently about the lesser of two evils.  World War II for the USA, Britain and the USSR was all about the lesser of two evils.  Britain and the USA certainly viewed the USSR as a lesser evil compared with the Nazi Germany, and the USSR came to view the USA and Britain as the lesser evils.  Neither side trusted the other, yet they found common cause against a particular enemy.  There are many less dramatic examples, but the point is that it happens all the time. It's part of 'politics as strategy' mentioned earlier.

It is for these reasons that upholding the dismissal of the 'lesser evil-ism' is unhelpful.  Yes, in this case, Obama is aptly described as the lesser of two evils.  He certainly represents a contending faction of empire.  He has continued the drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  His healthcare plan is nowhere near as helpful as would be Medicare for All.  He has sidelined the Employee Free Choice Act that would promote unionization. What this tells us is that Obama is not a progressive.  What it does not tell us is how to approach the elections.

Approaching November

The political right, more than anything, wishes to turn November 2012 into a repudiation of the changing demographics of the US and an opportunity to reaffirm not only the empire, but also white racial supremacy.  In addition to focusing on Obama they have been making what are now well-publicized moves toward voter suppression, with a special emphasis on denying the ballot to minority, young, formerly incarcerated and elderly voters.  This latter fact is what makes ridiculous the suggestion by some progressives that they will stay home and not vote at all.

The political right seeks an electoral turn-around reminiscent of the elections at the end of the 19th century in the South that disenfranchised African Americans and many poor whites.  This will be their way of holding back the demographic and political clocks.  And, much like the disenfranchisement efforts at the end of the 19th century, the efforts in 2012 are playing on racial fears among whites, including the paranoid notion that there has been significant voter fraud carried out by the poor and people of color (despite all of the research that demonstrates the contrary!).

Furthermore, this is part of a larger move toward greater repression, a move that began prior to Obama and has continued under him.  It is a move away from democracy as neo-liberal capitalism faces greater resistance and the privileges of the "1%" are threatened.  Specifically, the objective is to narrow the franchise in very practical terms.  The political right wishes to eliminate from voting whole segments of the population, including the poor.  Some right-wingers have even been so bold as to suggest that the poor should not be entitled to vote.

November 2012 becomes not a statement about the Obama presidency, but a defensive move by progressive forces to hold back the 'Caligulas' on the political right.  It is about creating space and using mass campaigning to build new grassroots organization of our own.  It is not about endorsing the Obama presidency or defending the official Democratic platform. But it is about resisting white revanchism and political misogynism by defeating Republicans and pressing Democrats with a grassroots insurgency, while advancing a platform of our own, one based on the 'People's Budget' and antiwar measures of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. In short, we need to do a little 'triangulating' of our own.

Why do we keep getting ourselves into this hole?

Our answer to this question is fairly straight forward.  In the absence of a long-term progressive electoral strategy that is focused on winning power, we will find ourselves in this "Groundhog Day" scenario again and again.  Such a strategy cannot be limited to the running of symbolic candidates time and again as a way of rallying the troops.  Such an approach may feel good or help build socialist recruitment, but it does not win power.  Nor can we simply tail the Democrats.

The central lesson we draw from the last four years has less to do with the Obama administration and more to do with the degree of effective organization of social movements and their relationship to the White House, Congress and other centers of power.  The failure to put significant pressure on the Obama administration--combined with the lack of attention to the development of an independent progressive strategy, program and organizational base--has created a situation whereby frustration with a neo-liberal Democratic president could lead to a major demobilization. At bottom this means further rightward drift and the entry into power of the forces of irrationalism.

Crying over this situation or expressing our frustration with Obama is of little help at this point. While we will continue to push for more class struggle approaches in the campaign's messages, the choice that we actually face in the immediate battle revolves around who would we rather fight after November 2012: Obama or Romney? Under what administration are progressives more likely to have more room to operate? Under what administration is there a better chance of winning improvements in the conditions of the progressive majority of this country? These are the questions that we need to ask.  Making a list of all of the things that Obama has not done and the fact that he was not a champion of the progressive movement misses a significant point: he was never the progressive champion.  He became, however, the demon for the political right and the way in which they could focus their intense hatred of the reality of a changing US, and, indeed, a changing world.

We urge all progressives to deal with the reality of this political moment rather than the moment we wish that we were experiencing.  In order to engage in politics, we need the organizations to do politics with, organizations that belong to us at the grassroots. That ball is in our court, not Obama's. In 2008 and its aftermath, too many of us let that ball slip out of our hands, reducing us to sideline critics, reducing our politics to so much café chatter rather than real clout. Let's not make that mistake again.

Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a racial justice, labor and international writer and activist.  He is a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum, an editorial board member of BlackCommentator.com, the co-author of Solidarity Divided, and the author of the forthcoming "They're Bankrupting Us" – And Twenty other myths about unions.  He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.com

Carl Davidson is a political organizer, writer and public speaker. He is currently co-chair of Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, a board member of the US Solidarity Economy Network, and a member of Steelworker Associates in Western Pennsylvania. His most recent book is 'New Paths to Socialism: Essays on the Mondragon Cooperatives, Workplace Democracy and the Politics of Transition.' He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.com.

From 'Keep On Keepin' On' at http://carldavidson.blogspot.com Of special interest those those who want to know more about CyberRadicalism, the Solidarity Economy and a Socialism for the 21st Century
Carl Davidsonhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7271382.post-14729044351969521702012-07-27T11:12:00.001-05:002012-07-27T11:12:43.048-05:00'We're Fired Up!' - Protestors in Harrisburg Vow to Defeat GOP Voter Suppression Law

Photos by Bill Allen

By Carl Davidson
Beaver County Blue

Nearly 500 people gathered on the steps of Pennsylvania's State Capitol in Harrisburg on the hot afternoon of July 24 to deliver a warning to the GOP-dominated legislature-all their efforts to suppress the right to vote will be met with stiff resistance.

The rally was organized by the NAACP, trade union, women's and church groups. Its tarrget was the GOP's so-called 'VoterID' law, which may forbid nearly nine percent of the electorate, from voting in November.

 "Do you want to know where the voter fraud has occurred? I'll tell you right now where the vote fraud has occurred?" declared Rep. Ron Waters (D-Philadelphia). "It occurred when the people who wanted to disenfranchise the many 758,000 who are already registered to vote but do not possess a PennDOT-issued Photo IDs. They want to make sure that this is a way to get the candidate of their choice elected."

Opponents of the law expose it as entirely unnecessary since voters already identify themselves, and sign in to vote, where their signature is checked against the registry. Requiring a new official photo ID puts an undue financial burden on the elderly born at home without birth certificates, on young voters, on anyone with parking tickets, and many others-all of whom will have difficulty amounting to an unconstitutional poll tax is getting an acceptable ID by November. GOP politicians, including House Majority leader Mike Turzai (R-Allegheny), are already bragging that the law will give the states' electoral votes to Romney.

"We're fired up! We're Ready to Go!", the crowd chanted repeatedly between a dozen or so speakers. Richard Bloomingdale, Pres. Pennsylvania AFL-CIO spoke and condemned the law. So did Fred Redmond, International VP of the United Steel Workers. John DeFazio, USW District 10 Director and Chairman of the Allegheny County Board of Elections spoke. He said that the Allegheny County Board of Elections is planning to sue to overturn the law.

Two busloads of about 100 people came to the event from Beaver and Lawrence counties in Western PA. Sponsors and organizers included the local NAACP, SEIU, Progressive Democrats of America and Beaver County Commissioner Joe Spanik.

"This has to be said," stated Spanik. 'This is just racist. They're trying to suppress mainly older and minority voters. We can't let them get away with it."

From 'Keep On Keepin' On' at http://carldavidson.blogspot.com Of special interest those those who want to know more about CyberRadicalism, the Solidarity Economy and a Socialism for the 21st Century
Carl Davidsonhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7271382.post-32824229384995563312012-07-20T16:36:00.001-05:002012-07-20T16:36:41.432-05:00July 28 - Worker Coops at Aliquippa Coffee House
 Download Flyer as PDF to print

From 'Keep On Keepin' On' at http://carldavidson.blogspot.com Of special interest those those who want to know more about CyberRadicalism, the Solidarity Economy and a Socialism for the 21st Century
Carl Davidsonhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7271382.post-67848664399518424672012-05-24T13:20:00.001-05:002012-05-24T13:20:29.175-05:00Introducing the Online University of the Left
 Check Out This Project And Prepare To Be Amazed!

By Carl Davidson
Keep On Keepin' On

Many people know the internet is full of instructional treasures for educating activists new to the left--and for the ongoing education of elder comrades as well.

One problem, however, is that these little gems are scattered far and wide, often in obscure places. It's a tedious task, even with Google and other research tools, to find and sort through them, making them handy and useful to key audiences.

Enter the `Online University of the Left,' a new `Left Unity' project initiated by the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. It's core orientation is Marxist, but it contains teaching resources reflecting the full range of views on the wider left. About 50 left academics are involved in the core group so far-Richard Wolff, David Schweickart, Rose Brewer, Tim Johnson, Gregory Morales, William Tabb, Ellen Schwartz, Jerry Harris, Linda Alcoff, Dana Cloud, Gar Alperovitz, to name a few.

One of the OUL's key aims is to solve this problem of scattered resources, creating a web portal that will bring much of this valuable material together in one spot in cyberspace. The link is http://ouleft.org, and you can also search for its Facebook page by name-and be sure to `like' it on Facebook, if you do. More `likes' expand the features available to it.

The core idea is that anyone with a smartphone, a laptop, a large computer screen or, best of all, a digital projector connected to any of these, can now run any mixture of hundreds of video lectures and documentary films on a wide range of topics. Whether for individuals, small groups or large classes, it offers a multimedia dimension to revolutionary education at no cost.

That's only the beginning. One marvelous feature will be the ability to hold lectures, classes and discussion groups in real time. The participants will be able to hear and see each other via video-conferencing, permitting back-and-forth dialogue. These can also be recorded, edited for improvement and added detailed, then preserved as on-line `webinars' for future repeated use. The OUL will likely charge a small fee, or require a low-cost subscription, however, for access to this particular feature.

This raises an important question: how will the OUL be sustained financially? For the moment, it's being supported by a small grant that will launch it and keep it going for a year or so. After, that, it will have to find or create a number of revenue streams to keep it rolls. One example is the subscriptions and fees for real-time events mentioned above. Another is the `Bookstore' tab, which connects the viewer to our `shelf' at Powell's, one of the country's major unionized booksellers. If you go to Powell's through this OUL link and purchase anything there, a small percentage in commission for the sale goes to the OUL.

The site is organized into academic departments-each with dozens of video lecture and documentaries, achieves with the entire range of theory and analysis of hundred of writers, and study guides and course outlines.

Make use of it! In the future, we will also pursue the usual package of fundraising efforts-donations, small and large, grant writing, public events, benefit dinners and so on. In the meantime, lend a hand by using the `Donate' button at http://cc-ds.org.  Once again, check out the site itself at http://ouleft.org. If you want to link your own materials to it or make suggestions, contact Carl Davidson at email@example.com

From 'Keep On Keepin' On' at http://carldavidson.blogspot.com Of special interest those those who want to know more about CyberRadicalism, the Solidarity Economy and a Socialism for the 21st Century
Carl Davidsonhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com