The Corporate Attack on Pension Plans

While George W. Bush’s attempt at privatizing Social Security famously failed, private industry has largely been successful at shifting their group pension plans into individual private accounts. In fact, for many people, traditional defined benefit employer-sponsored pensions are something they are not even familiar with. Most of us are used to 401(k), IRA, or other defined contribution plans, if we even have such a plan. These individual accounts (sometimes employers match funds up to a certain amount, many times they don’t contribute anything at all) are almost always invested in the volatile stock market. They essentially absolve companies of any financial risk associated with retirement and firmly place that risk on the back of each individual employee.

Because of the large amount of non-unionized industries, and the class-collaborationist ideology of many union bureaucrats in the industries that are, there have been few attempts to fight this blatant rollback of gains made in the past by the Labor Movement. Many of these individual retrement accounts were legalized, with little to no opposition, in the late 70s as a supplement to existing pension plans. Companies, however, soon realized they could use them to undermine the government-guaranteed benefits provided by pensions. Management set up separate retirement accounts for them, accounts that guaranteed them healthy returns, and shifted rank and file workers into these newly legalized private individual accounts that are subject to the chaos of the stock market, where returns are uncertain at best. By the 1990s, corporations typically paid less than half of what they used to for their employees’ retirement accounts. Since then, it has only gotten worse.

Even if you are one of the few to have kept your traditional pension plan, companies are using the current crisis of Capitalism as an excuse to freeze pension accounts and even steal money from them in order to subsidize their market mishaps. If all else fails, companies simply declare bankruptcy and have their workers, as well as other workers across the country, bail them out with public tax dollars.

Nine of the ten largest pension defaults in history have happened since 2000, leaving the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, which was set up by the government in order to protect retirements benefits against such practices, deeply in debt.

With the Federal government, as well as many individual states and local governments, facing a huge budget crisis, workers with pensions find themselves in the precarious situation of bailing out their old employers with tax dollars in order to keep their promised benefits, while at the same time seeing many of the social programs that benefit the general public defunded to the point of being ineffective and sometimes completely shut down. Big Business and their political servants use this to divide the working class by blaming “greedy union workers” for demanding what is rightfully theirs, and should be the right of all workers.

When issues like this are brought up, by the mainstream press or even by friends and family, it is often assumed that the capitalist class has a role to play in finding a solution. Union leaders have also told us this for years, that we all should get together, sit down at a giant metaphorical table, and find something that works for all. When this happens, the “right” of the corporations to make a profit is never even questioned. Why is this?

When we ask ourselves this question, it becomes clear that Capitalism itself is the problem. Our interests are in direct contradiction with those of our bosses. The capitalist class must make a profit off our labor in order to ensure their economic, social and political power. Obviously, this is an over-simplification of class relations in society, but it is a basic point we can bring up as we explain our ideas on a daily basis. Instead of simply asking for a seat at that table, we need to demand the whole thing. After all, we made it.

"Small Thing"

While listening to internet radio (Pandora), I heard the following song by Barton Carroll (listen to it before you read on):

http://bartoncarroll.com/pages/listen.php?f=SmallThing.mp3&title=Small%20Thing

The first thing that struck me about the song was that it's from the viewpoint of a German during WWII. Yes, she was a civilian, and yes, she was young, but I was already thinking about her role in one of the most vile societies ever created. She admits to being "naive enough to survive." Is that a reference to the Germans in Berlin basically going on with daily life while the Russians were advancing? Hitler was insanely calling on nonexistent units to guard the city while Fascist loyalists were rounding up anyone who could hold a gun (and shooting anyone who couldn't or wouldn't). Those who were able to simply ignored their former leaders, clearly seeing the bankruptcy of their ideology. Or is it referencing earlier times, when defeat wasn't certain, when many who benefited from having the Nazis in power simply chose to ignore their atrocities, if not participate in them? In this case, is being "naive" an excuse?

Soon it became clear I was way off. She was telling the story of her being raped by the Soviet troops. I didn't catch it right away, but on second listen it was extremely obvious right from the beginning. The song isn't about the politics, at least not in a direct sense; it's simply about one girl who was one of the many victims, all across the world, of a horrendous war crime that still happens on a regular basis today. She was "naive enough to survive" her rape, not Nazi Germany. Moreover, when she mentions this, it's to imply her mother was also raped and never really fully recovered from the violation.

I picture her sitting down with her son to explain to him who his real father is, or, perhaps more accurately, which group of men his father may have been one of.

"Lord God let the walls melt into the door. Let my skin grow o'er and heal my sore."

What makes this song so brilliantly written, is what isn't written. The unspoken context. Carroll no doubt wrote this from a German woman's perspective on purpose. It isn't hard to feel sympathy for a victim that's on your side. We can all do that. But what about the other side? WWII is one of the rare historical situations where nearly everyone is in agreement that Nazi Germany needed to be destroyed. And by God, it sure as hell did. But we don't like to dwell on what that actually meant. We aren't told anything of the storyteller or her family's politics. Perhaps they were Nazis and active within the party? Maybe they were apolitical and just "going with the flow"? Or, which would add a horribly tragic twist to the story, maybe they were anti-Fascists and actively participating in the resistance? The question Carroll wants us to ask ourselves is this: Does it matter?

My initial reaction made me think about that question. Indeed, the Russians were on the right side of history, especially when it came to sacking Berlin. Despite the terrible leadership of Stalin (whose betrayal of the German working class was one of the major reasons the Nazis were able to take power in the first place), the Soviet Union played the leading role in defeating Fascism. No single country sacrificed more. This, of course, doesn't excuse the actions of many of the Soviet soldiers entering Berlin. Some accounts say 90,000 women were treated for rape in Berlin hospitals, and there's no telling how many were raped but didn't seek treatment. Just thinking about the sheer size of the crime is so daunting it's tough to comprehend that it actually happened. Lootings and robberies were also rampant. The city was completely destroyed. I was in Berlin in 2006 and there were still marks left from the battle.

"I heard that our brothers and our fathers did the same on their side. I heard that all brothers and all fathers do the same during war time."

I would like to say with one hundred percent certainty that if I would've been there I would've pulled my comrades off the helpless German girls and women; I would've drawn my weapon to make sure no one was shooting unarmed civilians; I would not have allowed the smashing of Nazism to forever be soiled by the uncivilized actions of bloodthirsty hooligans ignorant of the historical significance of the situation and hellbent on pillaging the enemy's capital simply because they can. But, in all honesty, I don't think I can. At least not with one hundred percent certainty. I think of my brother, shot in the back of the head by a German solider during the occupation because he looked up while being marched to a prison camp. I think of my sister, raped by multiple German soldiers as they passed through what's now Belarus on their way to Moscow. I think of my best friend, a man I'd known since he was a child, who I watched spend his last few weeks in agony coughing and moaning until he finally died of pneumonia fighting on the Eastern Front. All of them are walking beside me as I march into Berlin. All of them demand their revenge. Am I strong enough to tell them no? Why should I? The Germans could have said no, but they didn't.

And so on and so on millions of times over....

War is a crime, and the context is the culprit. It is a crime against the unwritten laws of human nature, not of any passing government. Yes, it's true, in this society, sometimes we need to commit crimes. But unless we have a clear understanding of the context, the crime of war is the worst possible crime. It makes us act in ways that aren't natural. War can make our friendly neighbor down the street order the massacre of an entire village. It can make a family man, a church going man, earn a living as a guard at concentration camp. It can make the computer whiz you went to high school with spend his days firing missiles from a drone into a family's living room thousands of miles away, only to drink beer and watch football with friends minutes later. They may be called heroes, evil-doers, allies, or enemies, but they are really just criminals.

History tells me I'm in no way immune from such a crime. And it says the same thing to you. We just have to make sure our crimes are in the right context.

"I was a child. I was on the wrong side. I was broken in by broken men with draining eyes. War sleeps deep in a man, long after guns are gone. He loses care for small things, and I, I was a small thing."

Wall Street has got a brand new bag

From the NY Times:

The bankers plan to buy “life settlements,” life insurance policies that ill and elderly people sell for cash — $400,000 for a $1 million policy, say, depending on the life expectancy of the insured person. Then they plan to “securitize” these policies, in Wall Street jargon, by packaging hundreds or thousands together into bonds. They will then resell those bonds to investors, like big pension funds, who will receive the payouts when people with the insurance die.

No fooling us

Americans: We're sick, poor, undereducated, and overworked. But, forget all that, we're happy about it. I think this is a collective case of the man in us being too proud to ask for directions when we are clearly lost.

http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Awfulness.html

Elections in Afghanistan: What Now?

On Thursday, August 20, 2009, Afghanistan held its provincial and presidential elections. This is the second presidential election since the occupation of the country began in 2001. While a winner has yet to be declared, many have predicted that incumbent Hamid Karzai would win outright in the first round of the runoff election, although recent reports suggest a second round of voting is probable. Regardless of who is elected, they will be backed by the U.S. led NATO occupation forces, who aren’t planning on leaving any time soon. A few days before the election, Barack Obama made it a point to reiterate that the war in Afghanistan “won’t be quick.” Towards the beginning of the year the administration ordered thousands of more troops to the region, and early reports are suggesting Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s upcoming assessment of the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan is going to call for even more troops (up to 45,000 more). The reports of possible further escalation are coming right as a recent poll suggests that a majority of Americans are now, for the first time, against the war.

It is impossible to talk about the current situation in Afghanistan without talking about the U.S. led NATO occupation. According to NATO’s own website, there are 64,500 foreign troops occupying Afghanistan soil, with nearly half of those troops coming from the U.S. and the rest coming mainly from the UK, Germany, Italy, France and Canada. These figures, however, don’t take into account the large number of “private contractors” (i.e., mercenaries) in Afghanistan, which is said to be around 70,000. This puts the total foreign troop presence in Afghanistan over 130,000. Many Afghans view the propping up of the Karzai regime as the main task of these occupying forces. Given Karzai presides over what is widely considered one of the most corrupt governments in the world, this destroys whatever credibility the “pro-democracy” forces might have had. On top of this, history tells us the Afghan people are less than receptive to foreign control of their land, regardless of the invading force’s stated intentions.

Back in 2001, after the relative ease of early U.S. operations, Alan Woods warned the war was far from over. He explained, “The Taliban have lost their grip on power, but not their potential for making war. They are very used to fighting a guerrilla war in the mountains. They did it before and can do it again. In the north, they were fighting in alien and hostile territory. But in the villages and mountains of the Pushtoon area, they are in their own homeland. The prospect opens up of a protracted guerrilla campaign which can go on for years.” This view, which has subsequently been proven correct, was nearly absent from the mainstream media, who had praised the swift defeat of the Taliban and dubbed Afghanistan the “good war.” Many of the so-called “anti-war” activists and politicians spouted similar nonsense, with some going as far as arguing against sending troops to Iraq because they wanted to keep them in Afghanistan.

Much like the presidential election in late 2004, Afghanistan’s recent election was held under foreign occupation, with the Taliban threatening violence to anyone who votes. In the days before the election, there was an onslaught of attacks. The Taliban managed to fire rockets at the presidential palace as well as orchestrate various suicide attacks across the capital Kabul. While the government played down the events, they also forbade journalists from covering any violent actions during the day of the election. Despite the government censorship, Al Jazeera reported that at least 26 people were killed in 135 incidents. Understandably, voter turn out was lower than many expected. Despite what officials may say, this played well for Karzai, who is receiving somewhat of an unexpected challenge from former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah. Only days before the election, Karzai was able to secure the return of feared warlord General Abdul Rashid Dostum. Dostum is to turn out the ethnic Uzbek vote for Karzai in exchange for influence in the new government. This was not unexpected, as Karzai’s senior vice presidential candidate is a Tajik warlord named Mohammad Qasim Fahim. With many people staying home because of the violence, the votes the warlords were able to bring in could very well give the election to Karzai.

So what is to make of all this? First off, it is important to acknowledge the obvious disconnect between the imperialist power and their local Afghan representatives. While Obama has been using Afghanistan to prove his hawkishness since the beginning of his run for president, all the major Afghan presidential candidates have made it clear dialogue with the Taliban is key to their candidacies. NATO bombing missions, which appear to be the Obama administration’s specialty, are clearly not as popular in Afghanistan as they are in Washington. Also, it is important not to forget about the Afghan people. They are largely being lost in the grand schemes of both local, and foreign, leaders. Sonali Kolhatkar, an author and advocate for Afghan women, addressed this fact on a recent “Democracy Now” episode. She said, “…I think we really need to remind ourselves that these elections are happening in the context of this occupation that’s now gone on for nearly eight years, what it ends up looking like in context of these elections is one set of warlords—that’s us—protecting a second set of warlords—that’s Karzai and his cohorts—from a third set of warlords, which are the Taliban.” Right now, the people of Afghanistan are seen as pawns. The imperialist invaders are largely clueless and view them as “collateral damage,” while the local warlords, from whichever variety, view the people as cannon fodder and are only interested in brute control.

This isn’t to say the situation is hopeless, however.

The question of “Socialism or barbarism” is perhaps stated at its most acute relevance in Afghanistan. Clearly, the solution for the Afghan people doesn’t lie within the artificial borders of their country (which many have never accepted anyway). The fate of Afghanistan is tied to neighbor countries like Iran, and most notably, Pakistan. The people of Afghanistan see the Iranians rising up against their brutal theocratic regime and they are also no doubt aware of their country’s deep ties with Pakistan. But what conclusion are people drawing from these relationships? Due to both misinformation and the actions of those who control these countries, many Afghans are getting a distorted view of their neighbors. The Taliban almost went to war with Iran and it is common knowledge that Pakistan’s infamous intelligence service, the ISI, has been a source of support for the Taliban (with the U.S. providing much of the resources during the war with the Soviets). Right now, education is key. Groups like “The Struggle” (the IMT’s section in Pakistan) understand this well, as they set up Marxist educational relief camps during the brutal attacks on the Pushtoonkhwa area of Pakistan earlier this year. It is hard to overstate the importance of such actions. Once the peasants and workers decide to take power, there will be no stopping them.

Of course, this lesson isn’t just for Afghanistan and its neighbors, but is also a lesson for those of us across the rest of world. Ultimately, only the world’s working class can end the wars, occupations, and brutal dictatorships that plague our society. As the situation in Afghanistan tells us, it is urgent we do so.

Free advice to Democrats

First off, my real advice to anyone who is a Democrat, or anyone who voted for Obama for that matter, would be to leave the Democrats and help form a Labor party. The Democratic party is fundamentally a party of business and it represents the interests of the ruling class. We, the working class, need class independent political representation more than anything in this country right now.

Having said that, I still wonder why the Democrats can't figure out they have political power. Right now they control both the House and the Senate (with Al Franken becoming the magic filibuster-proof number sixty in the Senate), the White House, and they even recently got a judge appointed to the Supreme Court. Yet, reading the papers one would think poor President Obama has his back against the wall. Huh?

Here is my free advice* to the Democrats: Go on the offensive! Stand up for yourselves for Christ sakes! Tell all the semi-fascists at these cute little town hall meetings to go fuck themselves. They lost the election, an election where change was an obvious rally cry, so they can prepare to see the country go in a direction they might not like. Yell, scream, rant and rave; it's just too bad. Teach those "Blue Dog" Democrats a little party discipline. You don't want to vote with your party? Fine, no more chairs of committees, no more DNC money, etc. They'll cave, they like their jobs.

You see, as Mick Jagger once said, "you can't always get what you want." Sometimes people's viewpoints are in the minority. In a democracy, even one as undemocratic as this one, this means that sometimes a portion of the population loses and policies get implemented that they might not like, in fact, sometimes they might downright hate the policies. The sooner these cry babies figure that out, the sooner we can take their bib off, sit them up at the grown-ups table, and have a real fucking conversation. (Preferably one that doesn't bring up Nazi Germany every time their no-history-knowing-asses are struggling to find context.)

I know, I know, I sound a bit naive. Did the Democrats ever really intend to change anything? No, of course not. Even the horrid health care "reform" bill, which already tasted like sugarless kool-aid, is being watered down more. Employee Free Choice Act? Well, take out the card-check provision and maybe they'll think about it. No, the Democrats can't even be called "progressives." I harbor no illusions about them. It's just that, and perhaps as I grow older I'm getting a bit more sensitive, I'm sick of watching these spineless cowards get beat to a political pulp by a group of proudly ignorant buffoons and not even fight back.

Actually, now that I think about it, the best thing may be for Pa to take the Dems out back behind the shed and put 'em out of their misery.


* It is worth noting that I am giving this advice despite my sheer hatred of this political party.

Paper Heart

I saw a screening of "Paper Heart" tonight. I liked it. The whole movie depends on whether or not you buy the lead actor's "I may come off as a bit naive but I'm actually probably more aware of things going on around me than you are" shtick. I did. (She was at the theater, along with the dude who played the director, and answered questions after the show. Her personality doesn't appear to be an act.)

Humdinger!

This sounds like the last trip I made to my hometown! (It was the quasquicentennial celebration.)

Disillusionment with Barack Obama Growing

This was written for the upcoming issue of Socialist Appeal.

With the much ballyhooed “first 100” days of Barack Obama’s Presidency long past, we are starting to see signs of disillusionment from many of his more vocal supporters. Obama, the man who was supposed to usher in a new era of “change,” is now increasingly being seen as “more of the same.”

In July’s issue of Harper’s, a liberal monthly magazine, Kevin Baker’s cover story directly compares Obama to Herbert Hoover. He writes, “Obama’s failure would be unthinkable. And yet the best indications now are that he will fail, because he will be unable—indeed he will refuse—to seize the radical moment at hand.” (Emphasis in the original.) Nobel Prize winning economist and NY Times Op-Ed columnist, Paul Krugman, has also famously already been at odds with the Obama Administration. In a recent column regarding Obama’s “overhaul” of the economy Krugman says, “In short, Mr. Obama has a clear vision of what went wrong, but aside from regulating shadow banking — no small thing, to be sure — his plan basically punts on the question of how to keep it from happening all over again, pushing the hard decisions off to future regulators.” Even Bill Maher, the popular anti-Bush comedian, devoted several minutes of his HBO show to chastise Obama for being more of a celebrity than a leader. It appears Obama’s elegant platitudes about the “irresponsibility” of corporate America are proving insufficient even for those who are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

There is a material reason why Obama is no longer wooing many of his previous allies. From his campaign promise to fundamentally revamp the health care system, to his promise to shut down the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, very little has actually been done. Take health care for example. Despite the majority of Americans wanting a universal, socialized system similar to those in other industrialized countries, Obama has ruled out any such proposal. Recently, while speaking to the American Medical Association, Obama made it clear that the “public option” in his unnecessarily complex health care plan is not a “Trojan horse” for a single-payer system. In other words, forget about it.

Obama was also the “anti-war candidate.” Not only has Obama done little to nothing to end the occupation of Iraq since he has taken office, he has actually expanded military operations in Afghanistan, as well as increased cross border attacks into Pakistan. On top of all this, the Obama Administration has kept many Bush-era “anti-terrorism” policies, including the above mentioned failure to close Guantanamo Bay. Jeremy Scahill, best-selling author and independent journalist, was recently asked about these policies on Bill Moyers’ PBS show. He pointed out that not only have prisons not been closed, they have expanded. According to Scahill, “The fact is that, at Bagram, we see an expansion. They’re spending $60 million to expand that prison. You have hundreds of people held without charges. You have people that are being denied access to the Red Cross in violation of international law. And you have an ongoing position, by the Obama administration, formed under Bush, that these prisoners don’t have right to habeas corpus.”

One of the most important “historic changes” promised was Obama’s “pro-labor” stance, or so we were told. While running for office, Obama did give pro-union legislation, such as the Employee Free Choice Act, some lip service. Since taking office, however, he has yet to use the power of the bully pulpit to rally support for the bill. The campaign to pass EFCA has been organized labor’s top priority for several years now. A tremendous amount of time, effort, and money has been spent by Labor to bring about a Democratic-controlled Congress as well as having a Democrat in the White House. Now that these goals have been realized, we see the Democrats making no substantial effort to pass even this modest legislation. While Obama has remained quiet, other Democrats have come out openly against the bill, effectively killing it and saving Obama the embarrassment of having to completely renege on his word. As Josh Lucker wrote in these very pages, “The unions nationally contributed $450 million in the last election to the Democratic Party, and what do their members have to show for it? More job losses, continued loss of pay, no universal health care, bailouts for the bosses, and now, the final nail in the ‘hope’ coffin seems to have been driven. A central point for the union support of the Democrats in the 2008 elections, EFCA, appears to have been an empty promise.”

Many of these policies have our well-meaning liberal friends scratching their heads in bewilderment. Many first time voters are beginning to wonder how much their vote really matters. None of the changes they voted for are even being attempted, let alone implemented. Since well before Obama took office, Socialist Appeal predicted there would be no fundamental change in policies. This isn’t because we own a crystal ball, or are privy to any secret information; it is the result of our class-based analysis of U.S. society. Put simply, Barack Obama is a representative of the ruling class, and the policies he puts forth will benefit the class he represents. While there very well may be some cosmetic changes (which, interestingly enough, have yet to happen), Obama and the Democratic Party are simply incapable of implementing any real fundamental change.

Above all, Obama’s election highlights the need for political class independence. Even the most “progressive” candidate is no match for the political machine of our business-controlled two-party system. In order to implement the changes that many people desire, a mass party of labor based on the unions is needed, fighting for a socialist program. These societal changes inevitably will meet resistance. After all, the colossal wealth and power of a privileged minority is at stake. The crisis we are living through is not simply the result of bad policies, bad leaders, and corporate greed. It is at root the result of the internal contradictions within Capitalism. This is exactly why the Workers International League advocates class independent political action. And in the final analysis, in order to achieve real change, we must end Capitalism.

The "truthers" are at it again

After the events of 9/11, it was likely only a matter of minutes before somebody, somewhere, starting talking about how it was an "inside job." The idea of a small group of Arabs hijacking an American plane and flying it into an American landmark was just too much. It had to have been an inside job; only we are capable of doing such a thing.

We are seeing a similar sort of twisted nationalism at work again.

Now many of these same folks would have us believe the people in Iran are incapable of standing up to their own brutal fundamentalist regime. The C.I.A. must have orchestrated the Revolution, as Iranians simply couldn't do such a thing. The Basij, Iran's friendly neighborhood paramilitary thugs, are really being framed by crafty old Uncle Sam. Damn us! We are so conniving! The United States is the supreme controller of all the worlds and universes known and unknown! Alas, if only we were a force for good...

Essentially, this group has a world view akin to George Bush's, only they disagree on who the good guys are.

Of course the United States is the world's foremost imperialist power, and the C.I.A. is a very important part of that imperialist apparatus- I'm not trying to make light of this fact. It is also a near certainty that the C.I.A. has its dirty hands in Iran's business and is trying to spin the situation in a way that is favorable to American imperialism. This is true. But the idea that the Iranian masses, who are literally risking their lives on the streets, have all been duped by the United States, is ridiculous. Are we then to believe the thousands of trade unionists that the Islamic Republic has murdered have also been fooled? Are the homosexuals that Iran has executed simply misinformed? Perhaps some of these Western "leftists" will enlighten them so they can all crawl out of their graves?

What's going on in Iran is the beginnings of a Revolution (which is a process, not an event). The elections were simply a spark that set off a fire that has proven much more difficult to control than the regime, as well as a host of others, ever expected. Alan Woods, who has been on top of this issue from day one, said this:

What we have witnessed over the last two weeks is only the first act in the revolutionary drama. It is a scenario that is very familiar to all students of the history of revolutions. At the beginning of every revolution, when the working class does not play the leading role but is submerged in the “masses”, the latter bring their prejudices into the movement, creating a phase of “democratic illusions.” This is an absolutely inevitable phase in the Iranian Revolution, as was the February Revolution in Russia, April 1931 in Spain and even the first eighteen months of the Great French Revolution.

While the working class has started to take a more pronounced role, as of yet there have been no calls for a general strike. Iran's working class lacks revolutionary leadership strong enough to have an immediate influence. That, however, doesn't mean the Revolution is doomed. It is helpful to remember it was only thirty years ago that the Iranian working class booted out the Shah. The Mullahs, who stole that Revolution, have been shown to be just as corrupt and repressive as the Shah. Now, as the people continue to press for change, it will become clear that the entire establishment, as well as the societal structure, must go in order to implement any sort of fundamental change. This will clash with the will of both the reformers within the regime and the liberals outside of it. Inevitably, the people will need to take direct control of the State, as well as industry, to fulfill their demands. In other words, a socialist Revolution must happen. This is what the United States, and its allies, really fear. There is no conspiracy theory needed.

Iran

Marxist.com has been on top of the situation in Iran from the start, and in my opinion, is offering the best analysis. Unfortunately, we have seen some on the "left" come to a tacit, if not outright, support of the Islamic Republic (this is interesting). I ran into similar views at a recent forum on North Korea. This position is completely incorrect. If the enemy of your enemy is the enemy of the working class, they are also the enemy of you. Without this principled stance, you are quickly discredited by the masses.

Down with the Islamic Republic and long live the Revolution in Iran!

Iranian Revolutionary Marxists' Tendency

Iranian Workers' Solidarity Network

UPDATE: Statement from the Revolutionary Marxist Current in Venezuela.

The Workers' State

I used to think of the State in very abstract terms. The State was an idea represented by a flag and arbitrary borders; a symbolic existence that has largely outlived its usefulness. While all this is all true, there is also a much more tangible aspect to it. The State is also involved in governing, providing services, taxation, etc. But, as anyone who has been through our justice system can attest, the State is not neutral. Naturally, the State is controlled by the ruling class. It is, at its roots, a tool for one class to dominate another.

This is where confusion sets in and tempers flare. Traditionally, the main disagreement between Anarchists and Marxists is on the question of the State. While Anarchists insist on immediately abolishing it, Marxists argue for taking State power in order to implement Socialism. It was fairly easy for me to understand the Anarchist position (although not so easy to understand what they would replace the State with). It was, however, a bit more difficult for me to understand the Marxist position. By taking State power wouldn't a "red bureaucracy" form, as what happened in the Soviet Union? Instead of Capitalist cops beating us over the head, are we now to have "Marxist" cops beating us over the head?

To answer these questions first we have to understand what Marxists, from Marx and Engels to Lenin and Trotsky, understand as the State. While writing on the Paris Commune, Marx tells us a State controlled by the working class would have to be fundamentally different than a Capitalist controlled State. This has always been the case from one historical epoch to another, with those in charge of the State using it to further their interests:

But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.

The centralized state power, with its ubiquitous organs of standing army, police, bureaucracy, clergy, and judicature – organs wrought after the plan of a systematic and hierarchic division of labor – originates from the days of absolute monarchy, serving nascent middle class society as a mighty weapon in its struggle against feudalism. Still, its development remained clogged by all manner of medieval rubbish, seignorial rights, local privileges, municipal and guild monopolies, and provincial constitutions. The gigantic broom of the French Revolution of the 18th century swept away all these relics of bygone times, thus clearing simultaneously the social soil of its last hinderances to the superstructure of the modern state edifice raised under the First Empire, itself the offspring of the coalition wars of old semi-feudal Europe against modern France.

During the subsequent regimes, the government, placed under parliamentary control – that is, under the direct control of the propertied classes – became not only a hotbed of huge national debts and crushing taxes; with its irresistible allurements of place, pelf, and patronage, it became not only the bone of contention between the rival factions and adventurers of the ruling classes; but its political character changed simultaneously with the economic changes of society. At the same pace at which the progress of modern industry developed, widened, intensified the class antagonism between capital and labor, the state power assumed more and more the character of the national power of capital over labor, of a public force organized for social enslavement, of an engine of class despotism.

After every revolution marking a progressive phase in the class struggle, the purely repressive character of the state power stands out in bolder and bolder relief. The Revolution of 1830, resulting in the transfer of government from the landlords to the capitalists, transferred it from the more remote to the more direct antagonists of the working men. The bourgeois republicans, who, in the name of the February Revolution, took the state power, used it for the June [1848] massacres, in order to convince the working class that “social” republic means the republic entrusting their social subjection, and in order to convince the royalist bulk of the bourgeois and landlord class that they might safely leave the cares and emoluments of government to the bourgeois “republicans." (Marx, The Civil War in France, Chapter 5)

So, what would this State controlled by the workers look like? How would it operate? How would it be different from the State controlled by the "bourgeois republicans"? Marx outlines a Workers' State when he describes the Paris Commune later in that same chapter:

The first decree of the Commune, therefore, was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people.

The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time.

Instead of continuing to be the agent of the Central Government, the police was at once stripped of its political attributes, and turned into the responsible, and at all times revocable, agent of the Commune. So were the officials of all other branches of the administration. From the members of the Commune downwards, the public service had to be done at workman’s wage. The vested interests and the representation allowances of the high dignitaries of state disappeared along with the high dignitaries themselves. Public functions ceased to be the private property of the tools of the Central Government. Not only municipal administration, but the whole initiative hitherto exercised by the state was laid into the hands of the Commune.

Having once got rid of the standing army and the police – the physical force elements of the old government – the Commune was anxious to break the spiritual force of repression, the “parson-power", by the disestablishment and disendowment of all churches as proprietary bodies. The priests were sent back to the recesses of private life, there to feed upon the alms of the faithful in imitation of their predecessors, the apostles.

The whole of the educational institutions were opened to the people gratuitously, and at the same time cleared of all interference of church and state. Thus, not only was education made accessible to all, but science itself freed from the fetters which class prejudice and governmental force had imposed upon it.

The judicial functionaries were to be divested of that sham independence which had but served to mask their abject subserviency to all succeeding governments to which, in turn, they had taken, and broken, the oaths of allegiance. Like the rest of public servants, magistrates and judges were to be elective, responsible, and revocable. (Marx, The Civil War in France, Chapter 5)

In many aspects, particularly in my more abstract understanding, a Workers' State isn't much of a State at all. The army and police are to be disbanded and replaced by armed citizens; the governing bodies are to be made up of worker councils; all public officials are not to receive a higher wage than an average worker; all laws protecting corrupt clergy are to be abolished; all public officials are to be recallable at any time; and so on. Lenin, who is still a boogieman to many, also talked about such measures in his writings about a Workers' State (e.g., The State and Revolution). The following is Lenin writing in 1917, a few months before the October Revolution:

What is the class composition of this other government? It consists of the proletariat and the peasants (in soldiers’ uniforms). What is the political nature of this government? It is a revolutionary dictatorship, i.e., a power directly based on revolutionary seizure, on the direct initiative of the people from below, and not on a law enacted by a centralised state power. It is an entirely different kind of power from the one that generally exists in the parliamentary bourgeois-democratic republics of the usual type still prevailing in the advanced countries of Europe and America. This circumstance often over looked, often not given enough thought, yet it is the crux of the matter. This power is of the same type as the Paris Commune of 1871. The fundamental characteristics of this type are: (1) the source of power is not a law previously discussed and enacted by parliament, but the direct initiative of the people from below, in their local areas—direct “seizure”, to use a current expression; (2) the replacement of the police and the army, which are institutions divorced from the people and set against the people, by the direct arming of the whole people; order in the state under such a power is maintained by the armed workers and peasants themselves, by the armed people themselves; (3) officialdom, the bureaucracy, are either similarly replaced by the direct rule of the people themselves or at least placed under special control; they not only become elected officials, but are also subject to recall at the people’s first demand; they are reduced to the position of simple agents; from a privileged group holding “jobs” remunerated on a high, bourgeois scale, they become workers of a special “arm of the service”, whose remuneration does not exceed the ordinary pay of a competent worker. (Lenin, The Dual Power, Marxists Internet Archive)

Obviously, both Lenin and Marx had similar ideas. It is also obvious that neither man advocated any sort of "red bureaucracy" or "bureaucratic totalitarianism." (It is worth noting Lenin's use of the word "dictatorship" is different than our modern usage. It essentially means majority rule. In a Workers' State there would be a true majority rule, a "dictatorship of the proletariat." In a Capitalist State, like the United States today for example, there is a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.") Most of all, by quoting Marx and Lenin side by side like that, I wanted to point out that neither of them invented the Workers' State! This is extremely important. Both men based their ideas on the Paris Commune. Once again, the ingenuity of the working class comes up with a solution for their situation. In the hands of leaders like Marx and Lenin, these solutions became a formulated plan of attack.

Now, with an understanding of a Workers' State, it isn't hard to see how nationalization has a completely different meaning. This is another topic that many on the left seem to be confused about. Of course nationalization of any industry under a Capitalist State, or a State run by a bureaucratic caste, is not going to give workers control over that industry. This is not what Marxists advocate. In fact, I'm personally not too thrilled with even describing the working class seizure of industry as "nationalization." In many respects it isn't any sort of "nation" taking over industry, but a worldwide class. This brings up another extremely important part of worker control: Internationalism. The Workers' State has no interest in chest-thumping, flag-waving chauvinism. As Marx and Engels so famously said, "Workers of the world unite!"

Unfortunately, due both to Western and Stalinist governments, much of the history of the Workers' State has been distorted or suppressed. Many Stalinist States claimed, among other things, that they had achieved Socialism and were building Communism. In reality, Stalinism, in all its different variations, has little to do with a Marxist conception of Socialism or Communism. Western governments were quick to point out the shortcomings of these bureaucratic caricatures of Socialism in order to discredit anyone advocating a worker controlled society. Tellingly, both the "Communist" and the Capitalist parts of the world didn't have to stretch the truth to come up with horrible abuses committed by the other side.

So is a Workers' State possible? This seems to be the central question. The few times there have been genuine attempts, they have not succeeded. What is to say it ever will? It helps to remember that the bourgeois State is a relatively new invention. And like all inventions, it had to be created. Imagine a commoner arguing for the same political rights as the royalty in feudal Europe. No doubt they were considered radical, "out there" so to speak. But they not only argued for political rights, they fought and took them. They failed many times, but in the end succeeded. There was a material and social basis for this new society. Feudalism was historically rotten. The same applies for Capitalism. Capitalism, and bourgeois society in general, have long ago stopped playing a progressive historical role. They are rotten to the core. Capitalism has continued to "work" because of State intervention, but hardly a decade can go by without a major crisis. These crises are not simply caused by bad policies, or bad leaders, but instead are a result of the internal contradictions of Capitalism itself. (The current crisis, a crisis of overproduction, was explained by Marx well over a century ago.)

It is obvious that a Workers' State is not going to come about overnight. It is also obvious it is not going to form by itself. Of course those who control society today will use all the power they have to fight against any threat to their rule. But despite all their weapons and propaganda, they are on the wrong side of history. This is what convinced me to get involved. I urge you to do the same.

Grizzly Bear

They're coming in June and I've got tickets. Nice.

The Power Question

The Spanish and Russian Revolutions

When I first got involved in "radical" politics, I quickly learned that the Spanish Revolution was the "good" revolution and the Russian Revolution was the "bad" one. While the big names of the "anti-authoritarian" left do a wonderful job of explaining the positive gains in social and property relations during the Spanish Revolution, as well as putting the acts of violence in context, they seem to agree with the Capitalists' version of history regarding the Russian Revolution.

Yes, it is easy to write off such a monumental event if Stalinism is a direct result of "Lenin's vision" and the conflict between Trotsky and Stalin was essentially a conflict of individual personalities. Only understanding the "anti-authoritarian" and Capitalist version of the events, I tended to romanticize the Spanish Revolution (which failed) and had no interest in the Russian Revolution (which succeeded). This didn't allow me to put the our historical situation in its proper context. I, no doubt along with a countless number of others, was setting myself up to expect failure. It is true that both Revolutions were extremely complicated, messy, violent, and full of contradictions; but after reading several accounts of both it is clear the class independent leadership of Lenin and Trotsky, along with the Bolsheviks' willingness to take power, pushed the Russian Revolution forward to success while the class collaborationist leadership during the Spanish Revolution, and their outright refusal to take power, led to its failure.

The "anti-authoritarian" left rightfully wants to distance themselves from the awful degeneration of Stalinism, but in doing so they forfeit the legacy of the greatest event in the history of humanity. This isn't to say the Russian Revolution is a template all subsequent Revolutions must fit into (the Revolution in Venezuela, a Revolution which I fully support, doesn't exactly fit this format), but it does mean that we can learn both positive and negative lessons from the way it was carried out, and it's eventual betrayal.


Power, Leadership, and the Working Class

Power isn't bad. Leadership isn't bad. Although both can be bad, they aren't inherently bad. Like other tools that can be used to restrict the actions of another, they need to be held directly accountable by those who they could potentially affect. Despite the hundreds of essays and books deconstructing both words to the point of them meaning whatever the so-called "expert" desires, the concepts of leadership and power are easily grasped by the average worker. There is no controversy here.

Many also recognize there is a politically advanced layer of the working class. This is an objective fact. For whatever reason, certain people have drawn certain conclusions while others haven't. This doesn't mean the advanced group is better, smarter, or anything of the sort. They do, however, have a more defined role to play. They must be on the front lines making demands Capitalism can't fulfill and simultaneously explain why these demands are only "unrealistic" within the confines of a system that allows a few people dictatorial control over all of industry. It is not their job to "make a revolution." As factory occupations, "bossnappings," and Soviets (worker councils) have shown, workers come up with all sorts of ingenious solutions for their situations. In order to coordinate and best implement these revolutionary changes, the working class needs leaders who are willing and able to take power. Again, despite the babble so many intellectuals have made a career out of spewing, this is common sense to many working people.

It appears for many on the left, largely because of the Stalinist caricature of Socialism, power and leadership have become taboo, something to be avoided. This is a recipe for failure. If our leaders aren't one hundred percent ready to take power, and use that power to implement Socialism, we are forever doomed to activist groups and autonomous movements that offer little more than book opportunities for the usual suspects within leftist circles.

"Bossnapping" - Workers React to the Crisis of Capitalism

Another piece written for Socialist Appeal. It also appears on Marxist.com.

Luc Rousselet, who works for Minnesota-based 3M, recently told reporters that talks between his company and its employees were a good thing. This, however, was only after he was kept in his office for more than 24 hours by workers he was intending to fire. Rousselet, who manages one of 3M’s French factories, was described as a “scoundrel boss” by the workers, who demanded negotiations surrounding their layoffs. This case, along with similar situations across France and in other parts of Europe, has been dubbed a “bossnapping.”

Bossnappings have quickly caught the attention of the world Capitalist class. Recently, Forbes.com went so far as to post an article on how to avoid such an embarrassing ordeal. The article largely reads like the motherly “don’t talk to strangers” speech given to a young child, and no doubt puts executives’ fears to rest when it offers brilliant advice such as, “escaping rather than freezing in a kidnap situation.” There are at least three Belgian Fiat managers who probably wish they had had access to such valuable insight when the workers decided that their bosses could camp out in their office until they agreed to renegotiate job cuts a few weeks ago.

What the business press won’t explain is that workers’ interests are in direct contradiction with those of their bosses. This is the real reason behind bossnappings and other similar actions. Unfortunately, most of the workers’ leaders seem equally confused – or are downright negligent – as they also harbor fantasies about class harmony. While workers around the world begin to exert increasing levels of revolutionary vigor, their leaders continue to ask for a cuter, greener, friendlier Capitalism.

Yes, winning economic reforms are important, but without any political demands, we are simply begging the Capitalist for crumbs off of his or her table. It is great to get a good severance package – but you’re still without a job. It is wonderful to occupy a factory, but if that factory isn’t nationalized under workers’ control you’re still working at the mercy of the Capitalist system, be it in the form a few large shareholders in a traditional business structure or a group of mini-Capitalists in a cooperative.

Without a clear working class political program, most workers don’t draw the necessary conclusions from their situation. Substituting the conscious action of the masses of workers for the actions of a handful of “self-sacrificing” activists will never solve the problem. This has been proved time and time again. Eventually, the protests end, smashed windows get repaired, black face masks are put away, and economies recover. Without a conscious development of the flame sparked by the current global economic crisis, it will burn down to a mere flicker. This is where the revolutionary party comes in. Not to substitute itself for the masses, but to fight as part of the working class, as its most class conscious and dedicated layer.

As the crisis of Capitalism deepens, we are seeing workers in the industrialized countries, as well as in the less developed, react to the attacks on their conditions of life. From the uprising in Greece, to the factory occupations in the UK, to the large protests in Iceland, to the general strike in France, to the continuing Venezuelan Revolution, to countless other actions all across the world; bossnappings are simply the latest working class innovation to deal with the failure of Capitalism. They are another reminder of the awesome power the working class holds.

We, as Marxists, understand we should not only be in the trenches fighting the battles for reforms, but also be explaining the historical role the working class must play in removing the rotting corpse of Capitalism altogether. Armed with an understanding of this dialectical struggle, another world is not only possible, but is our duty to make a reality.