LEFT IN EAST DAKOTA

My favorite Christmas carol

2011-12-10T10:34:00.001-06:00

Anecdotes

2011-12-08T07:48:00.001-06:00

The vertebrate brain seems to operate as a device tuned to the recognition of patterns. When evolution grafted consciousness in human form upon this organ in a single species, the old inherent search for patterns developed into a propensity for organizing these patterns as stories, and then for explaining the surrounding world in terms of the narratives expressed in such tales. For universal reasons that probably transcend the cultural particulars of individual groups, humans tend to construct their stories along a limited number of themes and pathways, favored because they grant both useful sense and satisfying meaning to the confusion (and often to the tragedy) of life in our complex surrounding world.

Stephen Jay Gould- "Jim Bowie's Letter and Bill Buckner's Legs"

Understanding Europe's Debt Crisis

2011-11-05T10:19:00.003-05:00

Generally, I am not in favor of reducing things to their most digestible. We live in a complex world and reducing things to "good vs. bad" is rarely helpful. Topics take time to sift through and understand. This is only natural. Although, I also agree, sometimes a step back to the fundamental issues at hand is helpful. With few notable exceptions (Alan Woods, Martin Wolf), commentary surrounding Europe's debt crisis has been muddled at best and purposefully confusing at worst. If you aren't fluent in the technocratic economic vernacular of the various talking heads, things can get a bit distorted.

First off, it should be noted the crisis in Europe is not simply an "economic" crisis. It is a crisis of a certain kind of economics- a certain way we produce and distribute goods. It is a crisis of Capitalism. What started as a banking crisis in the United States has morphed into a national debt crisis in Europe. This has been complicated further due to the strange economic union European nations have, both formally and informally. The fact that many sovereign nations have given up some amount of sovereignty in order to share a common currency magnifies the woes of a certain otherwise fairly economically insignificant nation.

While there are many specific areas one could follow up on in that last paragraph, let us step back to recognize the inherent crisis. We hear a lot about confidence. Consumer confidence; business confidence; market confidence; etc. (One would think the world is made up of a bunch of teenage boys afraid to cross the dance floor and ask for a dance from the equally unsure teenage girls gathered on the other side.) Consumer confidence is fairly straight forward. Working people are less likely to spend money when they are not so sure they will have more money in the future. For some time credit masked this crisis of consumer confidence, but now that has largely dried up. Business and market confidence, however, are a bit different. Their confidence is more about making certain margins that will satisfy shareholders than any sort of tangible concern for the material needs of their future. They are concerned they can not bring back a certain amount of profit from whatever it is they produce, be it a securitization or a toothbrush. If consumers are timid with their ever increasingly limited finances, profit margins start to decline. This leads us to one of the central, and tragically hilarious, contradictions of Capitalism. What we have is a crisis of overproduction.

We have too much stuff. Not, mind you, too much stuff in the sense that everyone has food, shelter, and security. These needs are not met, not even close. We have too much stuff in the sense that those who own industry can not make a large enough profit off of what is already produced. This is the tragically hilarious part. We have people starving while food rots in storage bins. We have people sleeping on the streets next to perfectly good homes wasting away unoccupied in foreclosures. If someone from another planet was to look at how we produce, distribute, and consume resources, they would probably conclude we are not an intelligent lifeform at all. (Perhaps this is the reason we have yet to be contacted by any extraterrestrials?)

Further compounding this central comedy/tragedy is the inability of the bourgeoisie to work together, even to save their own economic system. Their desire, and objective need, for profit has made them paranoid to an alarming degree. No one is to be trusted. Really, from their perspective, the crisis isn't too difficult to at least find a "working" solution. Either you bail Greece out or you don't. Either you take some of your massive accumulated wealth and invest it, as the Americans did with TARP, in saving your current structure, or you do not. Allowing a default, whether "orderly" or not, did not work with Lehman Brothers and it will not work with Greece. An "orderly" default is completely nonsensical. This is like allowing a glass bottle to fall to the floor and trying to guess where each one of the broken pieces will end up. It simply can not be done. The soap opera over the various half-hearted agreements the leaders of the Eurozone have come up with has been much more confusing than reassuring. This furthers the uncertainty the market hates so viciously.

Regardless, a "working" solution does not resolve inherent contradictions. In the United States this is most clear. The bank bail-out may have stopping the gushing blood, but the disease is still flowing throughout Uncle Sam's veins. Slow growth, high unemployment, and high sovereign debt are obviously issues that don't escape us here in America. Even with this so-called solution, things can not go back to what was normal.

The victim is blamed. The "lazy" Greek worker. The "entitlement culture" working people across the advanced Capitalist countries have grown accustomed to. The bourgeoisie tells us in order for their system to work again, our living standard must be brought down. The post-war boom is over. Austerity is the new "working" solution.

Here is where our confidence, that of the ninety-nine percent, is most needed. This is the confidence we need to gain. It is not the same confidence we hear pundits garble on about, however. It is a confidence in our collective strength. It is a confidence in democracy. It is a belief that those who actually produce the goods and services we all rely on should control them. In reality, the one percent are the lazy ones. They are the ones who do absolute no work which could be considered socially necessary. They have developed an entitlement culture that assumes they deserve massive profits because a piece of paper says they own a factory. They can barely hide their disdain for democracy. (Notice the reaction to the proposed, then rescinded, popular referendum on the bail-out agreement in Greece.)

We need the confidence, and leadership, to intervene in our own history. This is the only solution that really works for the ninety nine percent of us.

Where are the jobs?

2011-10-19T12:20:00.006-05:00

After the debt ceiling debacle, focus has now shifted on how to grow the economy. More specifically, the issue is job creation. What can be done to create jobs? Why aren’t businesses investing in new employees? Both the Democrats and the Republicans seem to be on opposite sides of this debate. Much is made out of this partisan divide. Republicans want less bureaucratic regulations so businesses can feel confident in the economy and start hiring people. They also want to ease the tax burden, primarily on the wealthy, because the more money people have the more they will spend. Democrats agree, but want to boost the economy with some limited government spending and tax millionaires at a higher rate. This mild difference has been highlighted in near hysteria.

The debt debate is also never far away, as Republicans are quick to scream “bloody murder!” at any increase in government spending proposed by Democrats. For their part, Democrats usually cave in three fourths of the wave and hold their ground on one fourth of their argument. But this is all, of course, relative.

Fundamentally, despite the tone of the debate, Republicans and Democrats are in complete agreement. We have a huge amount of debt we must pay off; we are in this together; we must protect our interests at home and across the world; we need to stimulate the economy. Undoubtedly this means a bipartisan attack on the everyday person’s standard of living. Within their narrow constraints, within the rules of their economic system, they are, at least to a degree, correct. Right now, under Capitalism, as poverty in the United States rises to record levels, we are living too well for our own good.

Tax the rich!

In order to fund his latest jobs bill, President Barack Obama is attempting to rally many of the people who supported him initially but are now quite disenchanted with his performance. Dubbed the “Buffett rule” after billionaire investor and somewhat eccentric personality Warren Buffett, Obama is proposing a tax on millionaires (even though they, scared of the right-wing pundits it would seem, call it a “rule” instead ). This tax is to be focused on the income they receive off of dividends and capital gains, that is the money they get for having money stored in a place deemed profitable by the whispers, snickers, and electronic data coming from Wall Street. Although we agree the rich should be taxed more, this move by Obama shows the limitations of this demand. Right now, believe it or not, we have a progressive income tax in this country. Sure, there are a ton of loopholes, but it’s our country’s policy, like most others, to tax the rich. We end up doing it at a lower rate because people who make seven figures, and well over, typically don’t make that money by set salaries and certainly not by hourly wages. They’re often offered compensation in the form of stock options and/or similar securities based payments. In other words, the rich obtain their wealth off of the work of others. This creates undue influence and privilege.

We see privilege best represented by the Republican Party. While the Democrats love to tug on the heartstrings of liberals with short-term memories, Republicans push the boundaries of sanity from questioning the tenants of basic science to flat out rejecting years of hard economic data. Congressional Republicans will publicly throw a tamper tantrum over any social program spending at the same time the Bush tax cuts for the rich they championed, which were extended by President Obama, are adding some 36 billion dollars to the deficit this year alone. While economists generally acknowledge the failure of “trickle down” economics to produce anything other than a few good jokes, Republicans would be more likely to sacrifice their first born to the God of Abraham than raise a single dime of new revenue through increased taxation of their beloved “job creators.”

So yes, of course, there is plenty of room to tax the rich.

But the underlying question is much more interesting. Instead of talking about “taxing the rich” (which they can, have, and will do), we should ask, quite simply, who creates the wealth? Is wealth created during exchange or production? While pundits and analysts spend hours and hours trying to figure out what will please the god of market exchange, not much thought is given to production. A human’s labor power is seen as just another commodity. But every so often, every time our labor power is strategically withheld for example, production catches a few headlines. Then it becomes clear, when the store shelf is as empty as your stomach, who really creates wealth and what really has value. There is little need for a subjective analysis. Wealth is created by human labor interacting with nature. The rich have been, in effect, stealing the profit created by hired labor.

Government spending or government interference?

It is often said we are in the midst of a “financial crisis.” Or, better yet, the “economic crisis,” as if economics itself was in crisis. Really, we have a crisis of one specific way to produce and exchange goods. That is, we have a crisis of Capitalism. What was a bank default crisis is now a nation state default crisis. Public money bailed out the banks in 2008, but there simply isn’t enough left to bail out all the countries that now need it. (Of course, a large chunk of this debt is owned by banks, who again are looking to get bailed out by the public.) But what is more important regarding job creation--paying down debt and securing confidence, or spending money and growing the economy?

At first we heard stories of us spoiled people and our “entitlement culture.” Big government had sustained this hedonistic lifestyle far too long, and it was time to cut it down to size. It was time for some “efficiency.” Us slackers, particularly the Greeks, were dead set on spending our golden years at home with our families instead of wiping down fast food restaurant tables and greeting strangers at ridiculously huge department stores. The nerve! At this time it was open season to attack all the gains the working class had made at crafting somewhat of a decent existence over the years. The word “austerity” was the plunged into our everyday vocabulary. But it wasn’t so easy. Believe or not, people like spending time with their families, not to mention being able to eat, and fought back hard against austerity measures. In the Arab world, despite the on-paper economic growth of many of the countries, we saw, and are seeing, a revolutionary sweeping away of the old guard only a few of us imagined. Many of the intelligent bourgeoisie, from the Financial Times to the Economist, were caught in a dark room with their pants down. They had no clue what to do or say. Their plans didn’t quite go as planned.

Others have been advocating growth promotion through government spending. While certainly the government can spend money and create jobs, there are a few problems with this. First off, where does this money come from? Right now there is a huge Federal deficit, and while bailing out banks is “act first and think about it later,“ coming up with money for jobs is a much bigger Congressional fight. All of the sudden politicians become extremely concerned with our collective pocketbook. Many economists have argued for more spending by pointing out more jobs will create more tax revenue through economic growth. This is true, but we simply haven’t seen that sort of growth, and it is unlikely we will for the foreseeable future. The United States looks more like Japan than China in that we will be saddled with high debt and confined to low growth for a long period of time. This is the nature of most advanced economies.

The other major worry about more spending is inflation. The more dollars out there, the less they are worth, limiting our purchasing power and disrupting the entire dollar-based global economy. Except for recently, the Federal Reserve had basically limited its economic role to fighting inflation.

They’re both right and they’re both wrong. We can’t simply cut our way out of a crisis, as growth will slow until we are back in the negative side again. We also can’t spend our way out of this, as our massive debt creates market uncertainty (as the S&P downgrade reflected) and inflation. They have no solution. In the end, our living standard is attacked. We can’t get a decent education. We can’t find a job.

The audacity of planning

Objectively speaking, there is a whole bunch of work to be done. It isn’t as if we woke up one day and there just wasn’t anything for a chunk of our society to keep busy on. There are basic needs, as well as wants, that still need to be taken care of. Right now corporations are sitting on more profit than they ever have. Productively is through the roof. They still aren’t hiring. While they mumble about “uncertainty,“ we have to realize WE ARE THE JOB CREATORS. Those who own industry are unnecessary. They’re leeches, sucking the economy dry. There are too many cars so we don’t need any more people employed in that industry. This has often been said. But there aren’t too many cars because people no longer need transportation. There’s too many cars because someone can’t make a large enough profit selling them. With a rationally democratically planned economy, this wouldn’t be an issue.

While having a plan is usually the sign for someone who is well prepared, when it comes to the economy the idea of coordinated national, and world, economic planning is met with fierce resistance. Really, if we stop and think about it, businesses all have a plan. They all have a strategy. The problem is their planning and strategies are geared towards competing against each other in order to generate the most profits. This might garner large profits for some, but it stifles the abilities of others. This competition eventually creates its opposite, a monopoly. A relatively small amount of companies effectively control the economy. As a result, today we see very little innovation from the private sector. As Apple and Microsoft fight for market share, they rely on a publicly created internet. Imagine if the intelligent people working for these companies, as well as other blue chip corporations, were working together for a common goal. The potential is nearly unlimited.

Capitalism has played its part. Just like Feudalism, Capitalism had a historical role to play but that role is now exhausted. This current crisis shows that more than anything. Capitalism is failing us, we aren‘t failing Capitalism. Now it is up to us to end it. Unless we inject democracy into the decisions we now leave up to the market, we risk nothing less than our existence.

"The Class, the Party, and the Leadership"

2011-08-28T07:37:00.012-05:00

The Spanish Revolution is in many ways a how-to-guide for how not to take power and implement a revolutionary workers’ democracy. Actually, it is studying the Spanish Revolution that convinced me personally that revolutionary Marxism was correct and revolutionary Anarchism, at least in practice, didn’t exist.

As we know, the Spanish Revolution failed and we saw Fascist reaction not only gain control of Spain, but ultimately most of Europe. So why did the Spanish Revolution fail? Was this a failure of leadership, or were the workers simply not mature enough to carry through a revolution?

In this document [The Class, the Party, and the Leadership] Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky answers that question by verbally body-slamming the editors of Que Faire (What To Do), which was a left-leaning bourgeois intellectual paper published in Paris. It is interesting that Trotsky made sure to write that the paper itself was of no importance, i.e, it wasn’t going to do much other than give a few left liberal types a venue to write their muddle to share amongst themselves (which I think we can draw numerous parallels with today). He was of the opinion that it was of “symptomatic interest.” In other words, it was characteristic of much of the reasons given by those who Trotsky called “puesdo-Marxists” on why the Spanish Revolution failed.

The beginning of the document starts with a quote from Que Faire’s review of a pamphlet entitled Spain Betrayed by Casanova (which was the pen name of a Polish Marxist named Bernstein who was in Spain during the Revolution). At first glance they might seem to be offering an interesting criticism of Casanova’s argument that the leadership of the Communist Party in Spain followed the wrong policy. Instead, Que Faire argues the workers simply weren’t ready for a Revolution and those like Casanova had to blame boogeymen like Stalin and inept Anarchist leaders to cover for the workers’ failure. The following is taken from Que Faire's criticism of Casanova's analysis (via Trotsky's piece):

Why was the revolution crushed? Because, replies the author (Casanova), the Communist Party conducted a false policy which was unfortunately followed by the revolutionary masses. But why, in the devil’s name, did the revolutionary masses who left their former leaders rally to the banner of the Communist Party? ‘Because there was no genuinely revolutionary party.’ We are presented with a pure tautology. A false policy of the masses; an immature party either manifests a certain condition of social forces (immaturity of the working class, lack of independence of the peasantry) which must be explained by proceeding from facts, presented among others by Casanova himself; or it is the product of the actions of certain malicious individuals or groups of individuals, actions which do not correspond to the efforts of ‘sincere individuals’ alone capable of saving the revolution. After groping for the first and Marxist road, Casanova takes the second. We are ushered into the domain of pure demonology; the criminal responsible for the defeat is the chief Devil, Stalin, abetted by the anarchists and all the other little devils; the God of revolutionists unfortunately did not send a Lenin or a Trotsky to Spain as He did in Russia in 1917.

Under closer examination, however, we see that Que Faire’s criticism is nothing but empty rhetoric. (It is quite ironic they refer to Casanova's central argument as a "tautology.") Why were the workers not ready for Revolution? Because the Revolution failed. Why did the revolution fail? Because the workers were not ready for the Revolution. In the end, we are left no closer to understanding what happened in Spain than when we started.

Trotsky goes on to give concrete examples of the “immature” workers being correct and their leadership being wrong. Trotsky writes:

In July 1936, the Spanish workers repelled the assault of the officers who had prepared their conspiracy under the protection of the People’s Front. The masses improvised militias and created workers’ committees, the strongholds of their future dictatorship. The leading organizations of the proletariat on the other hand helped the bourgeoisie to destroy these committees, to liquidate the assaults of the workers on private property and to subordinate the workers’ militias to the command of the bourgeoisie, with the POUM moreover participating in the government and assuming direct responsibility for this work.

Trotsky points out, which I think is extremely important and interesting given this is still a belief held by many Anarchists, that the beginning logic of the “the workers aren’t ready” argument is that there will come a point when the workers will be so ready that they won’t need any sort of leadership. They will simply wake up one day and all decide to take power. When and how this develops under capitalism is left unsaid. I suppose we can assume it is done mainly been reading periodicals such as Que Faire?

Trotsky anticipates the question of “why would the workers subordinate themselves to poor leadership?” and answers it with more concrete examples of the workers not at all being subordinate to their leadership, and in some cases actively fighting against it. He brings up the well known fact that the CNT leadership actually refused to take power, and then bragged about it in several publications. This most certainly wasn’t the wish of the masses who fought, and often times died, for such power. Unfortunately the Spanish workers were unable, in the middle of a war, to produce new leadership that corresponded to the demands of the Revolution. Not just the Stalinists and Anarchists, but also the POUM.

To fully answer the subordination question, we also need to take on the old myth that “people get the government they deserve.” To the social evolutionist liberal, society moves in a straight line from despotism to freedom. Trotsky takes this on quite well and I think it is worth quoting at length. He says:

The secret is this, that a people is comprised of hostile classes, and the classes themselves are comprised of different and in part antagonistic layers which fall under different leadership; furthermore every people falls under the influence of other peoples who are likewise comprised of classes. Governments do not express the systematically growing ‘maturity’ of a ‘people’ but are the product of the struggle between different classes and the different layers within one and the same class, and, finally, the action of external forces – alliances, conflicts, wars and so on. To this should be added that a government, once it has established itself, may endure much longer than the relationship of forces which produced it. It is precisely out of this historical contradiction that revolutions, coup d’etats, counterrevolutions, etc. arise.

This same dialectic approach is needed when dealing with leadership. Again from the text:

A leadership is shaped in the process of clashes between the different classes or the friction between the different layers within a given class. Having once arisen, the leadership invariably arises above its class and thereby becomes predisposed to the pressure and influence of other classes. The proletariat may ‘tolerate’ for a long time a leadership that has already suffered a complete inner degeneration but has not as yet had the opportunity to express this degeneration amid great events. A great historic shock is necessary to reveal sharply the contradiction between the leadership and the class. The mightiest historical shocks are wars and revolutions. Precisely for this reason the working class is often caught unaware by war and revolution. But even in cases where the old leadership has revealed its internal corruption, the class cannot improvise immediately a new leadership, especially if it has not inherited from the previous period strong revolutionary cadres capable of utilizing the collapse of the old leading party.

In Spain, as mentioned, the working class was able to move far beyond their leadership, yet they were not able to actually replace them.

As we can see by the example of the Russian working class, workers’ maturity is not unchanging. At the beginning of 1917, it was basically just Lenin who had a revolutionary understanding of the moment. Many of the other Bolsheviks were scattered around and not sure what move to take next. This highlights exactly how important it is to have revolutionary leadership during revolutionary times. The maturity of workers is relative to the situation and can change rapidly. The same Russian working class who overthrew the Tsar also allowed a bureaucracy to rise from within its ranks and betray the Revolution.

Que Faire goes on to ask why the revolutionary masses, who left their former leaders, now decided to follow the Communist party. Trotsky points out this is a false question. They didn’t leave their former leaders, but they did rally around the Communist Party and its popular front strategy largely because of the authority the Comintern had gained by carrying out the only successful workers’ revolution. It isn’t as simple as the working class going window-shopping for new leadership. Tradition and loyalty play a large role in the decision. It is only through their experiences that workers move to new leadership, and new revolutionary parties can grow very rapidly given the right circumstance mixed with the right policies.

The POUM, while being the left party not linked to Anarchism, refused to reveal the bourgeois nature of the other parties. This was the only way to move the POUM forward, but they refused to do it. Trotsky noted of the POUM, “It participated in the ‘People’s’ election bloc; entered the government which liquidated workers’ committees; engaged in a struggle to reconstitute this governmental coalition; capitulated time and again to the anarchist leadership; conducted a false trade union policy; took a vacillating and non-revolutionary attitude toward the May 1937 uprising.” This, however, isn’t simply a reflection of the Spanish working class; it is a reflection of concrete events. The working class was more revolutionary than the POUM, who in turn was more revolutionary than the bourgeois leadership they subordinated themselves to. Why did the POUM leadership subordinate themselves to the leadership of the bourgeois state? As we can see using a dialectic approach, the leadership had risen above its class and subject to pressures of other classes. When the degeneration of the POUM leadership became known, the working class, in the middle of a revolutionary struggle, was unable to replace them.

It is clear the central point the folks at Que Faire were trying to make is that the workers simply weren’t ready for a revolution. We can see similar arguments today in places like Venezuela, where despite the people being far more revolutionary than their leaders, many academics have blamed the slow pace of the revolution on the maturity level of the workers. We also see shades of this in the United States as cynical liberals berate workers for being stupid and backwards. The left sects abandon mainstream unions because of their poor leadership with some questioning whether developed economies even have workers. This is why we study things like the Spanish Revolution, as events today take such a similar course. The folks at Que Faire liked to think they were Marxists, and they did that by throwing in phrases like “condition of class forces” and “condition of social forces.” This, they thought, gave them a material basis for claiming the workers simply weren’t ready for a revolution. The same goes for countless organizations today (all more or less ignored by your average person). Trotsky addresses this with extreme clarity by saying, “Naturally, the ‘condition of class forces’ supplies the foundation for all other political factors; but just as the foundation of a building does not reduce the importance of walls, windows, doors, roofs, so the ‘condition of classes’ does not invalidate the importance of parties, their strategy, their leadership.”

Que Faire and their present day equivalents won’t tell us how we will know when the working class will be ready for revolution. Someday, off in the distant future, we will all just wake up and spontaneously decide to take power; a divine rapture of sorts. That has been proven to be absolutely ridiculous. We must work to build a political structure that can directly confront the bourgeois state. Working within state structures in order to destroy them is a contradiction, no doubt, but understanding contradictions is central to achieving, and wielding, power. And that is what this is all about- growing and crafting correct, democratically accountable, leadership of the world's working class.

Another day, another crisis

2011-08-25T11:31:00.004-05:00

The following is the best analysis of the current crisis of capitalism I have read so far:

http://www.marxist.com/another-day-another-crisis.htm

Putting North Dakota's Economy in Context...

2011-05-27T07:25:00.016-05:00

"Revenge of the Squares"?

Brandishing the values of "yesteryears," some Mayberryish place that exists only in conservatives' minds, North Dakota is the nation's economic hot spot. Although it ironically has become hip to write little fluff pieces on how refreshing it is North Dakota, being so neglected by America's elite, has managed to stave off Capitalism's latest crisis, a few contextual points are in order.

First off, the oil. North Dakota has oil. Now this point is almost certainly mentioned by the glorymongerers, as it is in the above piece, but this key fact has little to do with culture and lots to do with luck and new technology that allows access to oil that was once unprofitable to be refined. A quick look through history tells us oil is, at most, a finite mixed blessing. Oil, unlike the infamous North Dakota weather, tends to keep the "riff-raff" in.

The State bank. North Dakota is the only state in the country with its own bank. A relic from the WWI era Socialist wave that swept the Midwest (brought by German and Scandinavian immigrants), North Dakota was able to withstand the worst of the credit crunch because they often provided their own credit. Although it's unfortunately ran like a for-profit private bank, it really is an island of economic sovereignty in an ocean of consolidation. There is little doubt the bank kept many North Dakotan small businesses open. This point is never mentioned by the rosy-eyed revisionists.

North Dakota has an extremely small population. To be exact, North Dakota, while the 19th biggest state in area, has only 672,591 inhabitants. Only Vermont and Wyoming have less. Jordan, the neighborhood in Hong Kong my brother and his wife live in, has 150,000 people. (All .4 square mile of it.) This small number is huge. To put it simply, it's much easier to govern less people. Less people equals less problems, at least from a social services point of view, and services for humans is where states spend the vast majority of their money. It's for this reason you know who the mayor of New York City is and not the mayor of Minot.

Federal money. Like many red states, North Dakota takes in more money than it pays out. A lot more. For every $1 a North Dakotan is taxed, they get $1.62 back. That's a pretty good deal! So these big blue states, like New York and California, who routinely catch the ire of small state politicians for having no "common sense," end up subsidizing states like Mississippi, North Dakota, and Alaska. Moreover, despite the oil boom, North Dakota still has an economy based on agriculture. Every five years politicians, both Democrat and Republican, hammer out a Farm Bill that costs the Federal government hundreds of billions of dollars. North Dakota, despite a ban on corporate farming, is carved up by a small number of plantation-like enterprises masquerading as "family farms." Many of the same people who decry Federal money being spent on after-school programs in the Twin Cities happily collect their Farm Bill check year after year after year.

North Dakota is a low wage state, with little opportunity for quality long-term work. This has to do with having no significant metro areas, but it also has to do with its anti-worker laws. It's a "right to work" state. This means that if your coworkers negotiate a contract with your employer, and you don't wish to join the union, you get to reap the rewards of that process without any of the sacrifice. While they paid their union dues, you didn't, and still get the benefits. That's, of course, assuming your workplace has a union, which is a pretty big assumption. It's virtually impossible to unionize in "right to work" states. In North Dakota you will get paid less than non "right to work" states and the "cheap" cost of living (which isn't always that cheap in the bigger towns) doesn't make up for it. That's not a real good incentive to even stay there, let alone permanently back up and move to the state. They are now only now starting to stop the brain drain of the previous several years, and this is largely due to the economy being so bad everywhere else. People graduate and move. This is so common most young people don't even give it a second thought. Politicians, even in the midst of this boom, are forced to acknowledge the scope of this massive problem. The reason for this is obvious, there are more opportunities elsewhere.

North Dakota is beautiful. I was born there and lived there for the vast majority of my life. I am proud of that. But the idea that it has somehow been immune to the underlying contradictions during this current crisis of Capitalism is absurd. North Dakota is in a better situation right now than many other states. This is primarily because of luck, and frankly, its limited economic output. It's in spite of, not because of, the often bizarre, and backwards, politicians that run the state. It's dangerous to think otherwise.

I would like to respectfully offer some kind words of caution to North Dakota voters: Minnesota, where I live now, had a 4 billion dollar budget surplus in the late nineties. (That's larger than the entire budget of ND today.) Now we have an estimated 6 billion dollar budget deficit (when adjusted for inflation). This is the direct result of Republican tax cuts (which are really subsidies for businesses and individuals), both at the state and federal level. Jesse Ventura handed out famous sales tax rebates (your "Jesse check"); Tim Pawlenty is infamous within the state for gimmicky budgeting, which shifted costs to local governments and basically kicked the deficit can down the road to be bigger and badder when we catch up with it. (We did and it is.) The Democrats, for their part, continue to ramble nonsensically about the much fetishized "middle ground," which essentially means a bit less cuts than the Republicans. Their "resistance" to Republican social engineering via budgeting is them highlighting their fundamental agreements with Republican proposals in certain crowds and slightly disagreeing just enough to seem opposed in front of others. Despite what both parties say, this is hardly a spending issue. If Minnesota taxed its citizen at the same rate they did in 1998, there would still be a surplus. Now Minnesota is on its way to becoming Mississippi.

North Dakota would do well to rekindle its past political independence from the two parties of business, particularly now when things are relatively good. I know there was talk, at least at one time, of using part of the budget surplus to create a state oil refinery. This would be a good first step in ensuring resources are used collectively for the benefit of all North Dakotans. Unfortunately, the state is controlled by Republicans and Democrats alike who are intent on selling the state to the highest bidder, ensuring a select few receive obscene profits. North Dakota of 1919 decided to buck the system and do what was in the interest of their citizens, let's hope North Dakota of 2011 does too.

A Brief History of Minnesota's Farmer-Labor Party

2011-05-04T09:15:00.005-05:00

The following was written for issue number 60 of Socialist Appeal.

Minnesota’s Farmer-Labor Party was the most successful labor party in United States history. Starting in 1918, it was a labor party in the true sense, not just a “pro-labor“ party. It was a political federation of labor unions. The Minnesota Farmer-Labor Association, a grouping of associated unions and farmers, provided the organic connection between labor and the party. Before the party merged with the Democrats in 1944, they had elected three governors, four U.S. Senators, and eight members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

1918 was a tumultuous year. The Bolshevik Revolution was being consolidated in Russia. The German Revolution had sprung across Deutschland. In November World War I formally ended. Here at home Woodrow Wilson had signed into law the Sedition Act and used it to throw Eugene Debs in jail. Across the Midwest, as well as the nation, the Socialist Party had influence. The weekly publication “Appeal to Reason” had a circulation of one million. During this era Wisconsin sent Socialist Party founding member Victor Berger to Congress. In Minneapolis a Socialist Party candidate was elected mayor. The Non-Partisan League, a political organization started by Socialists, had gained the governor’s office in North Dakota.

This was also a time of great industrial expansion. America was becoming an industrial superpower. The way of life many had grown accustomed to was changing. Small businesses were getting destroyed by big monopolies. Workers were being sent back to the lands they left to fight a war they had no interest in. Farmers were constantly fighting for a decent price for their crop. While State repression and internal conflict marginalized the influence of the Socialist Party, other class independent political formations arose. It is within this context we see the rise of Minnesota’s Farmer-Labor Party.

As the name would suggest, the party was a merger of rural farmers and urban workers. Many small business owners found a home within the party as well. Nationally this was a time of many populist movements aimed at small business. There was Teddy Roosevelt and his independent run for President, the Populist Democrats, as well as various others. Due to their social existence, many of these farmers and small business owners had a different consciousness level than many of the workers. This created conflict from the beginning until the end of the party. The Republicans, the main bourgeois party in Minnesota, attempted to exploit this division. At this time the party who claimed to be a “friend of labor” was the Republicans. Many of the early supporters, from the Non-Partisan League to the Farmer-Labor party, were at one time Republicans. The Democrats would often come in a distant third in the polls. With no fundamental ties to any organized group other than the wealthy, the two parties of capital can, and often do, switch blocs of voters they lean on for support. Now, as we well know, Republicans court the far right and Democrats masquerade as being pro-labor.

In 1918, during the Minnesota State Federation of Labor convention, Socialists called for a state labor political convention. This was indeed a bold move as the Russian and German revolutions had left many within the American ruling class shaken to their foundation and not at all tolerant of political dissent. Nevertheless, the resolution passed. The formation was called the “Working People’s Political Non-Partisan League.” This was an obvious acknowledgement of the Non-Partisan league and their widening success, culminating in neighboring North Dakota. The name was later changed to the “Farmer-Labor Association” and each group, both farmer and labor, paid yearly dues.

In a wonderful analysis written in 1946, former Secretary of the Educational Bureau in the Farmer-Labor Association, Warren Creel, outlines the Association’s “Declaration of Principals:”

The Farmer-Labor movement seeks to unite into a political organization all persons engaged in agriculture and other useful industry, and those in sympathy with their interests, for the purpose of securing legislation that will protect and promote the economic welfare of the wealth producers.

He went on to say:

It aims to rescue the government from the control of the privileged few and make it function for the use and benefit of all by abolishing monopoly in every form, and to establish in place thereof a system of public ownership and operation of monopolized industries, which will afford every able and willing worker an opportunity to work and will guarantee the enjoyment of the proceeds thereof, thus increasing the amount of available wealth, eradicating unemployment and destitution, and abolishing industrial autocracy.

It became a proper political party when it started running independent candidates against the two parties of capital. The Farmer-Labor Party was not alone. There were several other similar political movements across the nation. But what separated Minnesota was the fact that they had official backing of the labor movement. The unions had, and have, the resources and structure to maintain an independent political presence. This is a huge lesson for us today and a main reason the current Campaign for a Mass Party of Labor calls for the unions to break their fickle ties with the Democrats.

It wasn’t long before the Farmer-Labor Party started gaining seats in the state legislature. With this brought all sorts of contradictions. Petty bourgeois politicians who came running to Farmer-Labor when they smelled a possible career boost constantly attempted to water down the program and, most of all, break the organic tie with labor and turn it into a typical bourgeois political party. Despite these internal battles, Farmer-Labor came in second in governor’s race every election cycle from 1918 until 1930. In 1930, in the context of the Great Depression, the first Farmer-Labor Administration was elected.

While the farmer and labor contingencies of the party worked well on immediate issues, there proved to be disagreements on the overall strategy of the party. Creel gives a first hand view of the problems:

…the genuine farmers as well as pseudo-farmers--small town bankers and lawyers--were an influence for retreat from a working class orientation. When the movement was taking shape there were sharp battles over opportunist steps, such as the nomination of Henrik Shipstead for U.S. Senator in 1922. The farmers, of course, considered themselves as holding the party on the correct middle of the road.

These “middle of the road” tactics ultimately lead to the demise of party. It was on the strength of the “Declaration of Principals” that Farmer-Labor candidates were elected and straying from that turned out to be a death blow. The main problem was the farmer section of the Association had far too much power. While it was founded with an equal farmer-labor alliance, many rural clubs had stopped paying dues and did not at all participate in the internal political process. Unfortunately, due to a poor provision in the Association’s constitution, so long as farmers would show up on election day and vote, they kept their regional delegates. This made the farmers’ influence far greater than their day to day participation.

As far as the labor section, Creel had this to say:

The labor section was basically a political federation of labor unions, a, genuine labor party organization. It had in operation the elementary machinery that is necessary for real working class politics. Political activity started in the affiliated labor union locals, where political discussion, reports of political delegates, and political campaign activity were part of the regular business of each meeting, and payment of per-capita to the labor political organization was a constant part of the budget. Delegates from the unions of each city met in monthly meetings or oftener, as the Farmer-Labor Association city central committee. This went on month after month and year after year.

This is another lesson to be learned. While today farmers don’t have the numbers they once did, they, in the same vein as small business owners, still hold formidable political power. Labor, from the bottom, must have the ultimate say in how their political presence is orchestrated. There must be measures to protect the party platform from being hijacked by coalitions or careerist bureaucrats from within.

The biggest challenge for the integrity of the Farmer-Labor Party came from Floyd B. Olsen. Olsen was a popular man across Minnesota. He was also controversial. From cries that he was a “socialist,” to alleged mob ties, to a well known muckraker nemesis being shot down in the streets of Minneapolis, Olsen captivated Minnesota and gained national attention. He was a wonderful showman and a shrewd politician. In exchange for him running on a Farmer-Labor ticket, he demanded complete control over appointees. With the possibility of a victory in 1930 humming in their ears, the Farmer-Labor Association gave him that power.

In 1930 Olsen was indeed elected. He immediately set up committees outside of the Association consisting of careerist politicians that were loyal to him. His strategy was “vote for me, I’m a good guy.” The program of the party be damned. For years Olsen's main goal was to limit labor’s influence within the party. As many state jobs as he could possibly give out, he gave out to supporters. Despite his attempted undermining of labor’s direct influence, he was forced to recognize its power. I suspect this was the reason Olsen went after the reforms he is known for, much more so than any sort of burning desire “to help the working man” he may have felt within.

Given Olsen’s maneuverings, it’s not at all surprising contradictions were everywhere. For example, it was Olsen who ordered the National Guard to Minneapolis during the famous 1934 Teamster Strike. Some unions, particularly and understandably in the Twin Cities, openly opposed him. The downward spiral of the party was heightened by Olsen’s unexpected death from stomach cancer in 1936.

From then on the party was in ruins. Despite still having a tremendous support based on their earlier program, the party was ousted from the Governor’s mansion by a great margin in 1938. By 1944 the party had officially merged into the Democratic Party. The Stalinists, who had been instrumental in bureaucratically shutting down any disagreeing voice from the unions, had now successfully merged the workers’ party into a bourgeois party. Stalin was on good terms with Roosevelt. Moscow, despite the rhetoric, had absolutely no interest in a true workers’ party, neither here nor there.

There are many lessons we can learn from the experience of Minnesota’s Farmer-Labor Party. Most of all, it shatters the myth that workers in the United States have no interest in political independence. In the final analysis, workers in the United States have the same needs, wants, and aspirations as workers in Venezuela, Egypt, Russia or Germany. This is why we are involved in the Campaign for a Mass Party of Labor. We, the Marxists, know it would prove a costly mistake not to be part of that process. We must help build our political presence. When the mighty working class in the United States moves, the world will tremble.

Libya

2011-03-19T16:45:00.001-05:00

Why is it so difficult, particularly for those supposed "leftists," to understand it is perfectly logically to be against both U.N. imperialism and the brutal dictatorship of Muammar Gaddafi? (Here's the IMT's ongoing analysis.)

Egypt

2011-02-02T16:13:00.012-06:00

Many things come to mind when I think of the Egyptian Revolution. There are a few that stick out and I haven't heard much discussion regarding them, so I thought I'd bring them up.

Many reports have mentioned the neighborhood patrols people have initiated. This doesn't sit well with conventional wisdom. It should. To be quite simple, we don't need a police force. The police are there to protect the privileges of the ruling class. Case closed. Of course there are individual members of the police force who are sympathetic and will join the people, as has happened in Egypt, but as an institution they are not necessary in a truly democratic state. Arm the people. If my neighbor isn't safe, neither am I.

That brings me to my next point. Many believe most of us on the left are anti-gun and soft on crime. Untrue. I would imagine these patrols and checkpoints would be quite worthless without guns. They are needed for defense, both of individuals and of gains made by the masses as a whole. And we should also be clear regarding crime. There is a huge difference between understanding crime, its institutionalization and its relationship to poverty, and justifying it. The difference has been blurred, mostly by right-wing propagandists, but activist academic types on the left ferociously obsessed with identity politics have played their part as well. We protect our personal property. We are concerned with the means of production, the "property" that gives the few their undue privilege and influence over the many. The lumpen scum that serve as the foot soldiers of reaction deserve every inch of fiery wrath someone protecting their home or small shop can give them.

The coverage on IDOM has been excellent.

Ten Best Albums of 2010

2010-12-23T07:25:00.008-06:00

Here are my picks for best albums of 2010. I've done it a few years now, but this year my primary goal was to have a list where Kanye West's waaaaaaaay overrated album isn't on it.

(Here are my lists from 2007, 2008, and 2009.)

10. Yeasayer- Odd Blood

Delightfully weird. This is the sort of music Lady Gaga dresses like she wants to make.

I Remember

9. Aloe Blacc- Good Things

Snubbed by many "best of" lists, Aloe Blacc put out the best R&B album of the year and barely got noticed.

Femme Fatale

8. Dan Mangan- Nice, Nice, Very Nice

This dude can write. But the album isn't the just the stereotypical singer/songwriter guitar and microphone act (not that there's anything wrong with that). It is actually quite funky as well.

Road Regrets

7. Sufjan Stevens- Age of Adz

I was able to see Sufjan while he toured in support of this album. I thought the album just the right mix of electronica and folk-rock. (The show was amazing by the way.)

Now That I'm Older

6. Joanna Newsom- Have One On Me

Joanna Newsom doesn't write songs; she writes epic stories. I recommend getting lost in this one.

Baby Birch

5. Sam Amidon- I See The Sign

Sam likes to take old folk songs and give them new life with lavish string arrangements and crisp production. He did that with the beautiful All Is Well, and now again with his latest album.

Johanna The Row-di

4. Mumford And Sons- Sigh No More

For some reason critics love to hate this band. Is it because they wear their heart on their sleeve a bit too much? Possibly. And perhaps they do. But I buy every word of it. And you've got to be tone deaf to not think this album is catchy as all hell.

The Cave

3. Arcade Fire- Suburbs

This album cements their status as one of the world's elite bands. I was fortunate enough to see them while they were touring for this album as well.

Ready To Start

2. The National- High Violet

This is smart rock and roll for grown ups. It isn't quite as bad now as in the 90s, but it seems like rock has been dominated for such a long time by people trying to be scary or people who are in their mid-thirties lamenting about relationships at a junior high level of complexity. The National are a hit single away from being one of the biggest bands in the United States. And they more than deserve it.

Lemon World

1. The Walkmen- Lisbon

The Walkmen are underrated. Every album I think "this is the one," but yet I still can go see them play shows with a couple hundred people. Cool for me, but I'd like to see them get more attention. An ode to a place, or most likely a woman at that place, I get completely enveloped by this album. These dudes are cool. Like Roy Orbison cool. And, friends, it don't get no cooler than that.

Blue As Your Blood

Abe

2010-12-07T13:22:00.003-06:00

No matter what, everyone has a level of pride they must keep. This is needed to care not just about themselves, but about anything, or anyone. Abe knew this. It’s that same sting that makes a dancer cover herself while picking up the currency hurled her way when she was stark naked only moments before. Without it, we wouldn’t even get out of bed. We wouldn’t even clean ourselves. What’s the point?

Some days Abe had to remind himself he still cared. It was strange. And a bit grandiose. Most people don’t have to sit and wonder if they care. Not about any particular issue, but about anything and everything. This worried him. As I suppose it should.

Just like you and I, Abe was born somewhere. And it was somewhere to a tee. It wasn’t anywhere that needs anymore description than that. To make things even more familiar, Abe didn’t much like his father. We’ve heard this story before. Abe set out on his own. Not so groundbreaking. And not with high ambitions, but with a humming timidity that had a lingering danger in its lull; like a revolver had been fired right next to his head not too long ago. This humming noise would never leave him. Not even as Abe lay dying. Actually, that’s when it was the loudest.

What do average people do when they want to be greater than average? Or, perhaps more accurately, perceived as greater than average? On good days, Abe would fancy himself average. He entertained the idea of joining the armed forces. Nothing says “I care” like a distinguished career shoving the butt of a gun in someone’s face. But then, as is today, only the worst of the worst scoundrel would dare make a career out of being a bully. Abe decided to hit the books. Information is powerful. And, as it turns out, there is a lot of information out there available to someone who simply takes the time to sit down and look it up. The entire judicial system is a vast network of precedents and interpretations that allows someone from somewhere to have a say in the fate of everything and anything from a piece of jewelry to whether or not another someone should live or die. This is good. Abe was thinking.

Sometimes Abe would dream about replacing every mirror in the entire world with one of those distorted fun house mirrors. How long, Abe wondered more than once, would it take for everyone to consider a long warped chin and an indented nose the height of beauty? Or would that become too normal? Who decides who is ugly? Is it our bathroom mirror or our neighbor? Would we convince ourselves we looked like our false reflection, even if others saw us differently? If only such power was available. Abe would take it. There is nothing wrong with using power, Abe thought. In fact, without using it, or at least maintaining the threat of its usage, power would, by definition, cease to exist. The only people who want that are liars.

A lawyer and a politician walk into a bar. Every everyman has a short temper for such careers. That, of course, is until one or the other is needed. Problems are easy to solve when they aren’t your responsibility. Monday morning quarterbacks only throw touchdowns. Back seat drivers never get into accidents. Nobody’s hindsight needs bifocals. Abe loved the high. The debate team is often more competitive than any sports team. The power made people forget. And forgetfulness makes life possible.

“The ambassador is here to see you Mr. President.”

Abe heard a familiar voice wrap around the door.

“Send him in please.”

Abe ran his fingers through his soon to be iconic beard and wiped away an embarrassing amount of liquid from just under his eyes.

2010-11-03T16:11:00.001-05:00

The only democratic body of the United States government is now controlled by a backwards political party based in fear and superstition. This is the result of the "lesser of the two evils" mindset. Inevitably, the greater evil will return. Until we break with this dogmatic viewpoint and build a class independent alternative to the the two-party dictatorship of capital, this shit-show will continue...

JOIN THE CAMPAIGN FOR A MASS PARTY OF LABOR!!

Change

2010-10-29T13:56:00.003-05:00

hunting and gathering to herding and settling

Things haven't always been this way and things won't always remain this way. Much like our underlying knowledge we will someday be no longer, we all understand this but don't particularly care to dwell on it. While we can physically see many of the more tangible things change- like our jobs, friends, homes, physical appearances- we sometimes don't see, or maybe even refuse to see, our institutions, our political realities, our "world," so to speak, change.

For much of the 200,000 years us homosapiens have been around, we've been communists. Now, as far as words in the English language with baggage attached to it go, communism must be close to the top of the list. Let me explain. Of course I'm not talking about the "Communism" we all learned about in school with its gulags, its Stalin, its dreary sunless and Godless skies; I'm talking about hunter-gatherer societies where every able bodied person went to find food and share it with the rest of the group. It took several of us slow, clawless, dull-teethed humans working together with our big brains to catch anything substantial to eat. Everything that was collected was consumed and the few tools and other items crafted were held in common. This went on for a mind-boggling amount of our existence. In fact, modern humans lived this way until the Neolithic Revolution, which is dated around 8000 to 12000 years ago. (So we were communists, albeit primitive ones, for at least 185,000 years!) The Neolithic Revolution ushered in agriculture, which made it possible for us to stop chasing food. Soon (at least historically speaking) the taming of animals provided another much more reliable source of food. From hunters and gatherers, we became herders and settlers.

whose surplus?

Eventually we got pretty good at growing food and raising livestock. We became so good that we produced more than we needed. A surplus started piling up. It didn't take long before someone figured out that if they controlled that surplus, they ruled the roost. This was the beginning of class society. The men who could talk to God argued it was God's will they control it; the warriors demanded they control it or they'll cut your head off; the Royalty argued it was God's will and they'll cut your head off; and so on. Inevitably, power sharing deals were made. Different modes of production brought different ruling classes, with their power still resting on their control of the surplus that was created. This was the case even during times of famine, whether natural or created, when there was no surplus. Once that power was taken, society was built around those relations as if things had always been that way, surplus or not.

But who created the surplus? For much of history, this was a fairly straight forward question. In a slave society, for example, clearly it's the slave who is creating the surplus for the slave owner. During Feudalism, it's the serf who works the land for the nobleman, who in turn is loyal to his King. In both these cases the exploitation, and brutal dehumanization, is clear. But there is also a growing of the productive forces. Both the slave owner and the nobleman were interested in increasing their own wealth and this created rivalries, wars, old Gods dying, new Gods being born, etc. But it also created an ability to produce more of a surplus, that is as mentioned, a growth in the productive forces.

don't tread on me

Eventually a ceiling is hit. There tends to be a lot more slaves than slave owners and sooner or later they often decide they are sick of being worked to death against their will. (Who would have thought?) And as the folks below the Mason-Dixon Line in the United States found out, there is a distinct limit of technological advancement that can be achieved under a slave economy. Technological innovation requires an educated work force and the last thing a slave owner who is attempting to breed tranquility wants is a tech savvy slave. Not to mention the fact that the slave would have exactly zero motivation to use the machines in a way that would be of use for the slave owner. The ruling class also used socially constructed racism, a huge issue still a problem today, as a way to divide the surplus creators and many slave owners no doubt believed their own rhetoric and thought their slaves weren't capable of learning anyway.

We saw a ceiling get hit in economies dominated by Feudal relations as well. A straw, as is said, broke the camel's back. A period of heightened class struggle seemingly erupted out of nowhere, but really was there all along buried under layers of contradictions. Even then the world was getting smaller. Kings from there were consolidating land by marrying queens from here. Skilled craftsman were making much better quality goods and new inventions were making production easier. Along with more goods came more selling of goods, and with that the rising of people who sold them. The merchants that did this found themselves in a historically important role. They also found themselves gaining more and more power. But they still were operating under the economic laws of Feudalism. From village to village within the same kingdom there were different currencies and taxes, creating an obvious nightmare for someone trying to sell goods. The land was tied to the nobility and passed on through birth as opposed to being up for sale. There was no urban work force to speak of as most worked the land as peasants or were craftsmen who specialized in one craft. Things needed to change in order for society to move forward.

capitalism

Obviously, I'm being brief, but the general direction of where I'm heading leads us to where we are now, with the merchants owning industry through a system of market exchange and private ownership of the means of production. This is called Capitalism. Our idea of what a country is was also developed in this period. Capitalists needed uniform currencies and laws in certain areas to govern trade, buying and selling, etc. That isn't to say, however, we made a clean break with times past. History certainly doesn't flow uninterrupted in a straight line. In France, the idealistic fervor of the rising bourgeoisie led to the French Revolution trying to go much further than was historically possible. This ushered in Napoleon, who was the right person at the right place and time (at least from a certain power structure's point of view). In the United States, on the other hand, the pragmatic ideals of many of the leaders allowed a backwards slave society to exist well into the middle of the 19th century, until the Civil War (which would be more accurately called the finale of the U.S. Revolution) finally secured a victory for Capitalism.

Capitalism is tricky. It takes something that is relatively simple- production and consumption of goods- and confuses it to the point of creating complex financial instruments, such as derivatives, that no one seems to really understand. Those very few individuals who own industry are constantly looking for new ways to turn money into more money, and again, as those of us in the U.S. are keen to, this means a shift away from manufacturing actual goods.

Despite the lack of transparency, we can gather that Capitalism isn't any different than other modes of production in the sense that a surplus created. But it is different regarding how it's created. Capitalism needs free laborers, that is people who are free to sell their labor power on the open market. When we go look for a job we are advertising ourselves as someone who can make our employer money. We often give this little thought as it has been our reality our entire existence. But what are the greater implications of the profit motive? And where does profit come from?

Because we distribute goods on the basis of creating profit for private individuals, some things are inevitable. There are those with great amounts of wealth and those with little to none. This is certain so long as we operate under the profit motive. There is no getting around it. It is an endless source of misery and death for millions upon millions of people. We are told much of this comes down to how hard people work. And to some extent, there is truth in this. Certainly Capitalism allows a degree of social mobility. It would be too obvious, like the slave and Feudal systems of old, if it didn't. Within certain contexts people can gain more wealth by putting forth more effort, knowing how to position themselves favorably within certain structures, and so on. This is the same in many organizations- from organized crime, to a multinational corporation, to a totalitarian government. But even a tacit grasp of reality quickly dilutes the significance of this argument. Surely know one can disagree that if I was born a female in the slums of Kinshasa I wouldn't be sitting in an air conditioned room right now with a fridge full of food, car in the drive way, and HD satellite TV in the living room. This is not because of my "work ethic," but because of the environment I was born into. That obviously is an extreme example, but the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" argument conveniently fails to account for even this, let alone the more subtle environmental differences within our own personal communities.

So what about profit? Capitalism demands profit in order to stay in business. But who creates the profit? We are told profit is created by a company selling a commodity for more money than it cost them to acquire or produce it. In other words, profit is made during exchange. Profit is solely dependent on the price of a commodity. This effectively shuts production out of the equation. Production is a mystery, not to be talked about during our economics classes. There is a distinct reason for this. In reality, profit is based off of a commodity's value. Not only its exchange value, but also its use value. (For example, a hammer's exchange value is how much it costs at the Home Depot. Its use value is its ability to pound a nail into the wall.) When we look up the Wall Street Journal's dress, we see that value is actually created during production. Labor, from research and development to the actual transformation of raw materials into a exchangeable commodity, adds value to a substance. A pile of cotton has a certain amount of value. It isn't until labor transforms it into a comfortable yet fashionable t-shirt that its value increases. The price reflects that value. Of course the price is also affected by stuff like supply and demand, marketing driven fads, etc. But in the final analysis, despite how distorted the relationship between price and use value can sometimes be, there's a definite amount of value created by definite amount of socially necessary labor time. (Socially necessary means exactly that. Even if it takes you a day to do something that takes someone else an hour, tough luck, the socially necessary labor time to produce that good is an hour.)

the secret that shook the world

The implications of this are astounding. If labor is what adds value to a good, how come labor isn't reimbursed fully for this? Why is it capital treats labor as just another expense, like a machine or a building? This is the primary contradiction Marx exposed in his famous works entitled "Capital." Because the Capitalists have ownership over industry, they are able to take the surplus value created home for themselves. This allows them to accumulate vast amounts of wealth, wealth that they didn't create. This is how workers are exploited under Capitalism. They are exploited, not only in the moralistic sense, but also in a very scientific sense. Even those who are paid relatively well have to be paid less than the value they create or else there would be no profit for the Capitalist to usurp.

This secret was enough to alter the very foundations of economics. The labor theory of value was scrapped. You won't hear any mainstream economist talk about it today, even though Adam Smith, the father of Capitalism, firmly understood it as a basis of his theories. This is not surprising. During other modes of production there were also loads and loads of charlatans who made quite comfortable livings convincing people things today are how they have always been and how they'll always be. Any sort of real change is to be "unrealistic" or "radical." Today, ours write for the NY Times and talk on CNN.

TINA

There is no alternative. After the collapse of the totalitarian distortion of "socialism" that existed in the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, this was the answer we got if we dared question the omnipotent wisdom of the market. I always thought this was a bit strange given it was coming from the same message machine that also told us we can "be anything we want." The words "anything" and "no alternative" seem to clash a bit. In fact, it's pretty much the exact opposite. We can't be anything we want, a sentiment I believe most children can grasp, and there is an alternative. There always is.

And the alternative isn't the failed example of the Soviet Union, as so commonly is said. There are many reason why Russia turned out the way it did. When the Bolsheviks took power, they intended to be the flicker that started the flame of a world revolution. Just like the Capitalists had done away with Feudalism, they expected the Socialists to do away with Capitalism. But when the spreading of the revolution failed, primarily because of the working class leadership in the developed countries, we saw it degenerate. Similar to the French Revolution allowing a situation in which Napoleon was able to take power, the objective situation following the Russian Revolution allowed Stalin to rise. Without the spreading of the Revolution into the more advanced countries, it would die. The original Bolsheviks knew this, which is why Stalin and his rising bureaucracy had them all executed.

The Stalinist bureaucracy's power was, however, based on a certain economic structure. This was something that went largely unpredicted by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels, the founders of scientific socialism. While the state was in effect a workers' state, meaning the commanding heights of the economy had been nationalized and were potentially able to be controlled by the people who actually did the work, political power rested with a bureaucratic elite. Much like Napoleon charging through Europe abolishing serfdom and replacing it with the economic structure that benefited his rule, the Stalinists shored up as much influence as they could post WWII. There were the more subservient bureaucracies throughout the Eastern Bloc, but there also were some who became independently powerful while adopting a very similar structure. China's peasant revolution, for example, took Russia's ready made degenerated state and basically started where they left off. But this hardly meant the Chinese were pawns of the Soviets, nor were the Vietnamese Stalinists pawns of the Chinese. If they largely owed their liberation to themselves (Tito's Partisans in Yugoslavia are another example) they earned a degree of independence. This was something the Capitalist west failed to understand, and it showed, particularly in Vietnam, put also in various Latin American countries. Given Stalinism, carefully portraying itself as "Socialism" or "Communism," was the only major alternative to the imperial domination of the colonialist countries, most of the anti-colonial struggles ended up adopting some form of this distorted ideology. This confused, and continues to confuse, many of the left in the developed countries.

You suck, but so do you

During the Cold War the Soviet Union and the United States were engaged in a war of propaganda, among other things. What's so interesting about this war of ideas is the glaring fact that both sides really didn't have to make that much stuff up. It's true, the United States was, and is, an extremely financially polarized society that despite being the richest in history fails to provide even basic living standards for many of its citizens. It's also true that the United States is perpetually at war in an attempt to maintain its post-WWII worldwide dominance. This has cost millions of people their lives. In contrast, it's true the Soviet Union was a ruled by a totalitarian bureaucracy that regularly murdered and jailed citizens that dared question the privilege of the ruling stratum. It's not surprising those who benefited from this arrangement had no desire to highlight the fact that U.S. Capitalism at one time, and even more so in western Europe, gave enough concessions to allow a fairly stable standard of living to a sizable chunk of its population. (This period, however, is now over. These are the "good old days" we see the "Tea Party" movement today yearn for in a sad, historically ignorant way.) Nor is it surprising U.S. imperialism had no desire to highlight the enormous gains of the planned economy. Russia went from a backwards peasant country to producing the first satellite to orbit the earth, all within 40 years. That's simply incredible. That would be like Pakistan today placing the first human on Mars a couple generations from now. It's almost unthinkable. But such is the power of humanity harnessed with a rational plan of production.

real change

The Soviet Union failed because they lacked democracy. It's one thing to plan national space program bureaucratically from the top, but it's quite another to produce people's favorite pair of jeans or the toothpaste most would prefer to use. But just as Capitalism shows us the enormous productive power we hold, the "Communist" countries showed us how we could potentially harness that power to make sure every single human has the basic necessities to shape his or her life in the way they see fit. Democracy provides a check and balance to planning. It's needed at every level.

This is the primary concern of those with power. Democracy threatens power. This is why they demonize government, even though our current government governs a state that's primary purpose is to keep current property relations intact. The idea of "big government" is translated to the average person as a long wait at the post office. In reality, the ruling class isn't real concerned with mix-ups at the DMV. They are, however, very much concerned with the theoretical possibility of government being used to take away their privileges.

This is why we must engage in the political process, no matter how corrupt and ridiculous it may be. Right now in the United States we have no political party, but this will have to change. The working class will be forced to enter into politics as Capitalism no longer has the room to offer as many concessions as it did before. (I'm involved in a campaign that calls for a mass party of labor which I urge you to check out.) Apathy is not atrophy, and American workers will move. And when they do, the world will shake.

It's extremely simple, but also unforgivingly complex. For me, and perhaps this isn't so flattering, reshaping society isn't about "the common good" so much as it's about individual freedom. I want a world where much of my life consists of me doing what I want, not what I'm financially compelled to do. If we allocate the world's resources based on need as opposite to profit, we are actually providing the only possible way to have true individual freedom. It simply can't be done so long as the economy is controlled by a few people; be it kings and queens, state bureaucrats, or domineering capitalists. We have got to take power. This is our historical task.

Social Security Under Attack... Again

2010-09-16T21:06:00.001-05:00

From IDOM:

One could easily be forgiven for thinking the Baby Boomers appeared out of nowhere. The way it’s presented in the media, it would seem they just suddenly appeared -- near retirement, of course -- with their hands cupped firmly open, waiting to be paid. They’re going to break Social Security! Ever since I can remember, this has been the spin. Because “big government” can’t do anything right, all the money you paid in is hopelessly lost. This is a fundamental, and cynical, misunderstanding of Social Security. It’s a distortion of both what it is and how it works -- and convenient cover for those who want to dismantle and privatize it.

But first off, what about those Baby Boomers? Did people really not notice they were packing four or five lunch boxes instead of two or three after the second World War ended?

Well, of course they did. And so did the government. In fact, it was the now infamous but then-rockstar Alan Greenspan, along with the conservative movement’s water-walker, Ronald Reagan, who sought to “fix” the problem. What they did was to increase the amount of money that comes out of our checks to pay for the benefits of future retirees.

But it should be noted that this is a tax primarily paid by the working class. Any income made in excess of a little over one hundred thousand dollars is not taxed at all. The money put into the system is mostly wealth created by ordinary workers through their labor. In effect, it is a pool of deferred wages, to be paid out upon retirement.

In any case, a big surplus was created. This money was to be set aside in order to pay for the upcoming influx of Social Security recipients. But that didn’t happen. Instead, the free market champion Ronald Reagan gave that surplus away to the rich in the form of a government subsidy cleverly called a “tax cut.” Reagan, and the legion of unoriginal sycophants he has inspired, love to rail against the “redistribution of wealth” when a single mother gets some food stamps, but when the rich take billions of our dollars from a trust fund supposed to provide a safety net for our parents and grandparents, it’s called supply side economics. Really, it was theft. Theft that was approved by Congress and signed by the Gipper himself.

Social Security, however, isn’t simply being attacked from one side. Besides Reagan, we all remember a few years ago when George W. Bush attacked the program. The liberal activists were ready to riot. But, as some of the more honest pundits have pointed out, it was Bill Clinton who first sought to privatize Social Security. After he got done taking George Washington’s cherry tree-chopping axe to welfare, he held a few public meetings entertaining the idea of investing Social Security funds in the stock market instead of US Treasury notes. It was only America’s puritanical obsession with Clinton’s sexual habits that led to his plan falling by the wayside.

Now we see President Obama on the attack. Granted, he talks less about privatization and instead focuses on cuts and forcing people to work longer before receiving benefits. But there’s nothing coming from the White House about getting rid of the taxable income cap, or the host of other common sense tweaks to the program that could be discussed to keep it solvent. Instead it’s the same pill, just a bit smaller. They hope they can shove it down our throats with less resistance this time.

According to economist Dean Baker:

“This threat [to cut Social Security] comes not just from the Republican Party, but from the top levels of the Democratic Party as well. Rep. Steny Hoyer, the majority leader in the House, explicitly called for raising the retirement age to 70 in a speech earlier this summer. Erskine Bowles, the co-chairman of the deficit commission appointed by President Obama, also explicitly said that cuts to Social Security would be on the agenda of the deficit commission.”

So why the attacks? Is it because of the deficit? Earlier I mentioned that Social Security is a tax primarily paid by the working class. This is true. But Social Security could probably be better described as a social contract. So long as there are workers working, there will be benefits paid out. It’s an agreement between those who are working and those who are retired. And it is immensely popular. Social Security shows that Americans, even those in the “Tea Party“ movement, are not only capable of sharing, which is essentially what it is, but that they depend on it and even enjoy it.

In addition to the massive profits to be made by privatizing, cutting, or otherwise “restructuring” the system -- with the help of highly-paid private consultants -- the main reason for the attacks is that it’s a bad example. This sort of thinking must be stamped out as soon as possible.

If we actually stop and take a look at the numbers, Social Security is not at all on its death bed. Right now, according to a recent Social Security Board of Trustees report, it will be able to pay future benefits through the year 2037 with no changes at all. That hardly sounds like the urgent crisis we keep hearing about. Especially considering everything else the American bourgeoisie has on its plate. If they are really serious about reducing the deficit, there are several far more logical areas they could cut. From military spending to the newly revamped, but still wasteful for-profit health care system, not to mention corporate bailouts and their own inflated salaries and benefits packages.

The bottom line is that Social Security is not safe with either a Democrat or a Republican in the White House or controlling Congress. This is not surprising, given that this issue is so infused in class relations. Social Security is often the only thing that keeps people who have worked hard their entire lives, often for minimal pay, from being thrown out on the street. It’s the difference between many of our loved ones going hungry or having something to eat. Just 75 years ago, it didn’t even exist. Its implementation was a major victory for the working class.

So there really is no wonder why the political parties of capital are attacking it. Just as the ruling class has all but ended traditional pension plans in the private sector, and replaced them with complicated and unstable stock investment plans, they’ve been foaming at the mouth trying to get their hands around the neck of the most successful government program ever created.

This is why the working class needs our own political presence, a mass party of labor, in order to defend our basic social programs, let alone to expand and improve them. The bourgeoisie across the world are using the current crisis of capitalism, which looks to be heading into yet another downturn, as an excuse to roll back hard-fought gains. They are stretched thin and it shows. They simply have little to no room to give.

We must patiently explain that economic planning, done democratically by the people who actually do the work, is the only thing that will protect our standard of living. Moreover, it’s the only thing that can give the millions of people across the United States and around world who needlessly wallow in poverty something that could reasonably be called a life.

The Young Man and the Sea

2010-08-13T02:44:00.011-05:00

I sit at the edge of the beach with a bottle of wine and profound thoughts in my head.
In the darkness I think of the emptiness of the sea.
I can only hear the waves crash against the shore.

But the sea is teeming with life.
Life is in abundance in what seems to be the darkest and loneliest of places.
Such is the contradiction of our existence!

Just then a drunken man takes a piss over my shoulder.
The unmistakable feeling of relief hits him as he sighs in certain approval.
My profound thoughts are reduced to the more urgent thought of remaining piss free.

Fuck it.
I throw the near empty wine bottle into the sea.
There is no message, time, or tiny ship in this bottle.
Only salt water, wine, and the memory of profound thoughts.
Profound thoughts which, like all profound thoughts, are servants to a stream of piss.

- Tyrrhenian Sea, Tuscany, Italy

Minnesota Nurses' Strike

2010-07-11T12:32:00.000-05:00

http://www.marxist.com/usa-historic-nurses-strike-in-minnesota.htm

Panic! No, don't panic! Well, if you must, make sure you panic first.

2010-05-11T11:17:00.001-05:00

Contradictions! Contradictions! Contradictions!

Now that the big European economies have decided to unabashedly, in no uncertain terms, put their pocketbooks where their mouths are and bail out capitalism (as if there was any doubt), the markets have rallied. Even the currency markets soared. At one point during the day the Euro gained over two percent on the dollar.

This comes only a few days after investors were convinced the sky was falling. It's now a distant memory, but remember when the Dow fell nearly one thousand points during the day? (It eventually gained back a good deal of that, but the psychological damage was done.) Much of this was blamed on the near default in Greece. But there were also reports of someone accidentally putting an extra zero somewhere in an electronic trade. Oops! Some Monday detail and all hell breaks loose!

The NY Times described it like this:

A bad day in the stock market turned into one of the most terrifying moments in Wall Street history on Thursday with a brief 1,000-point plunge that recalled the panic of 2008. It lasted just 16 minutes but left Wall Street experts and ordinary investors alike struggling to come to grips with what had happened — and fearful of where the markets might go from here.

At least part of the sell-off appeared to be linked to trader error, perhaps an incorrect order routed through one of the nation’s exchanges. Many of those trades may be reversed so investors do not lose money on questionable transactions.

But the speed and scale of the plunge — the largest intraday decline on record — seemed to feed fears that the financial troubles gripping Europe were at last reaching across the Atlantic. Amid the rout, new signs of stress emerged in the credit markets. European banks seemed to be growing wary of lending to each other, suggesting the debt crisis was entering a more dangerous phase.

Traders and Washington policy makers struggled to keep up as the Dow Jones industrial average fell 1,000 points shortly after 2:30 p.m. and then mostly rebounded in a matter of minutes. For a moment, the sell-off seemed to overwhelm computer and human systems alike, and some traders began referring grimly to the day as “Black Thursday.”

Whew. Glad that's over. Now it's more like this:

The initial market reaction was ecstatic. The euro jumped back above the $1.30 mark for the first time in a week before falling back slightly. Greece’s 10-year borrowing costs plunged by almost half.

In afternoon trading, the Euro Stoxx 50 index, a barometer of euro zone blue chips, rose more than 8 percent, following on modest gains in Asia.

Domestically, the Dow gained four hundred points and rose almost four percent. The S&P (a much more telling index by the way) rose almost four and a half percent. Sure, people are still concerned about debt, but being concerned is, you know, relative to your situation. I'm a lot more concerned about paying for my credit card when I'm unemployed than I am when I've got a job. All in all, we've got our high back. At least for today.

So what is to make from all this? Even from the bourgeoisie's point of view, two things are evident. One being the "let's build a wall" folks are out of the loop. They remind me of John McCain stumbling around the stage looking for the podium during that infamous Presidential debate. When a country like Greece, whose economy is about as big as Joe Mauer's contract, can influence our markets so much, the idea that a wall on the Rio Grande and a pseudo-fascist sheriff in Arizona are going to stem the tide of globalization is laughable. Sorry folks. History says you lose.

The other main point is that market fundamentalism is dead. It never really caught on in Europe, but when the largest economy in the world starts thinking it doesn't need the State to protect itself, certain, more realistic, sections of the ruling class get worried. Other than a few true believers, they have all fallen in line by now. Sometimes it takes a crisis to clear some heads. Bank defaults are one thing, country defaults are quite another. (Crap Argentina. I guess you were a decade off.)

But from a point of view that is contrary to those who control industry, we are, perhaps even more than in times past, living through the theatre of the absurd. How could it be that a typo could mess up the way we allocate our resources to such an extent? Why is it we gamble on our ability to feed people? Why is it some people, who are not at all accountable to the public, have so much influence over our daily lives? Isn't the economy supposed to work for us, not the other way around?

Well, ladies and dudes, we are being managed by a bunch of men lost on a backroad convinced they know where they're going and too proud to ask for directions. Sometimes the road smooths out, and we see some familiar landmarks, but a right-turn later and we're back in the middle of nowhere, cursing each other out and pissed off because we haven't ate all day long. We need to get off this road. And we need a map. Really. A map and a plan. It appears many people's initial reaction to Wall Street is correct. This market stuff is, for lack of a better word, bullshit.

Market Aesthetics and the Institutionalization of Waste. Happy Earth Day!

2010-04-22T11:43:00.004-05:00

We throw away a lot of stuff. In my near decade of manufacturing work, I'd say I've seen millions of dollars worth of products thrown out. Surely some of this was because of defects affecting performance. This is to be expected. But there's also a much more troubling side to the full dumpster at the end of the shift. Many of the items thrown out were perfectly functional. Because of any number of hundreds of small defects, they were simply tossed. Why? While their use value remained fine, their exchange value had dropped to the point of them being unprofitable to sell.

At first thought, this isn't too controversial. It's just sort of the way things are. When someone asks why we're throwing away so many usable products, as I have many times, the typical answer given is something along the lines of "a customer judges what's on the inside of a product by its appearance on the outside." This is no doubt true. As Fabio's once great career can attest, we often do judge a book by its cover.

However, if we step out of the context of our current society for a second and at least pretend to be the "rational" humans economics supposedly assumes we are, things aren't so clear. While standing outside market logic, I'm tempted to ask, why? Why should we not be willing to use a product that works fine simply because it might not look like our idea of what it should look like? Really, is it even our idea of what that product should look like? Sure, there are many products whose images are directly tied to their performance, but there are also a whole bunch whose images aren't.We know the difference, but we've been convinced to forget by billions and billions of marketing dollars.

It makes me wonder how these marketing campaigns affect our interpersonal relations. If we're too shallow to look past a meaningless imperfection on an everyday commodity, is it any wonder we separate ourselves into social groups like "cool" and "nerdy"? It isn't out of the ordinary for friendships, particularly while trying to climb the "corporate ladder," to be seen as investments.

But I digress.

On "Earth Day," or any other for that matter, the market reminds us to "go green." We should buy new light bulbs, buy a new shiny car, buy new "earth friendly" appliances (as opposed to your old stuff that were total dicks to the earth), etc. The logic here is clearly muddled. Buy an "energy smart" appliance from a market driven profit junkie corporate citizen who pollutes the world more in a day than you will in your life, all in the name of "saving the earth." Capitalism is so historically rotten it provides such a small amount of actual innovation companies end up fighting aesthetically for market share and rationalizing completely preventable waste by blaming the customer's shallowness they themselves developed and nurtured through propaganda campaigns that would make Leni Riefenstahl ask "have you no decency?"

Really, unlike the boring gibberish we were taught in school, the concept behind economics is simple. There's resources and there's people. People both want and need resources. Economics is the middleman who hooks us up, so to speak. The problem is, some people have crafted a middleman that best suits them, then told us the game's over. There's no changing it; history is done. It used to be popular to claim a god, or gods, decided these folks should have more resources than everyone else. (I find it interesting how God has always had such strong opinions on the as worldly as you can get topic of property relations.) Now it's much more popular, and civilized, for them to claim a piece of paper means they "own" the profit others work to produce. This has allowed them to accumulate more resources than at anytime in history. And they're hardly bashful about it. Quite the contrary, they've actually got the chutzpah to hold their head high and announce to the rest of us that they "deserve" more! They went ahead and built courthouses, schools, churches, an entire superstructure encompassed in a cute little Leviathan they call their State, to make damn sure we give them their props.

But based on such relations, only so many props can be given. Only so much stuff can be thrown away before the shit starts piling up in front of not only my doorstep, but yours as well. I can guarantee there will be no invisible hand to clean up the mess.

We'd do well to start planning.

Venezuela: The People in Arms

2010-04-16T22:56:00.003-05:00

From IDOM...

As they wait for the arrival of the President, the militias stand listlessly, or sit on the ground to eat a sandwich. Some rest on their rifles, and one or two even had the muzzle of their AK-47s resting on their boot – a somewhat risky practice, one would have thought. In fact a professional drill sergeant would doubtless have a heart attack, looking at these half-trained civilians with guns.

But this impression would be entirely false. These militias are the lineal descendants of the Cuban guerrillas, of the militias that fought Franco in the Spanish Civil War, of the workers´ militias that overthrew the Tsar in Russia in 1917, and if we go even further back in history, of the armies of the French Revolution and the militias of the American Revolution in the 18^th century.

The Bathroom Mirror

2010-03-29T12:47:00.001-05:00

How's the reflection?
Angles are important.
Lighting is more important.

If I'm vulnerable
Or conceited,
you're judgmental.

If these walls could talk,
I bet they'd beg
For seven years of bad luck.

I spend far too much time
Looking in your eyes.

Not a Crime!

2010-03-16T21:47:00.002-05:00

Next month in Minneapolis:

Obama's State of the Union Address and "American Values"

2010-02-28T08:14:00.001-06:00

From IDOM:

The following is from the end of Obama's first State of the Union address:

In the end, it is our ideals, our values, that built America — values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe, values that drive our citizens still. Every day, Americans meet their responsibilities to their families and their employers. Time and again, they lend a hand to their neighbors and give back to their country. They take pride in their labor, and are generous in spirit. These aren't Republican values or Democratic values they're living by, business values or labor values. They are American values.

Unfortunately, too many of our citizens have lost faith that our biggest institutions — our corporations, our media and, yes, our government — still reflect these same values. Each of these institutions are full of honorable men and women doing important work that helps our country prosper. But each time a CEO rewards himself for failure, or a banker puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish gain, people's doubts grow. Each time lobbyists game the system or politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith. The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates into silly arguments and big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away.

The above paragraphs sound great at first. Democrat or Republican, boss or employee; we all share the same values, that is, "American values." While it is almost certain many of us simply don't, let's give Obama the benefit of the doubt and entertain the idea. One can certainly imagine that the CEO of a Fortune 500 company could share many personal values with a person who works on the factory floor. They both might value family, friends, God, and so forth. According to Obama, if it wasn't for the "few bad apples" that didn't share these core "American values," our faith would be restored and we would, presumably, go back to living the American dream.

But what does this mean?

Really, it is an unoriginal narrative that could be pulled off the lips of numerous Kings, Emperors, and Presidents alike. No doubt every empire thinks they're different than the last, just as the present always seems to believe it's somehow more distinguished, and learned, than the past. History is told to us as a series of events caused by decisions of individuals. Lincoln freed the slaves. Hitler invaded Poland. Columbus discovered America. Bernie Madoff is the economic crisis. Let's throw him in jail and get back to business as usual. If this is the case, how are we to make any sense of it? Why even bother?

In reality, history isn't just individuals making decisions. It's true, individuals' actions do alter events, but these actions must be put in context with the historical period in which they are taken. Simply put, we can't choose when we're born or how the society that we're born into operates. Any decision we make is bound by the limits of the environment we live in. Even seemingly abstract thoughts are originally an interpretation of the world around us.

Similarly, while the corporate CEO might share some personal values with his or her employees, they're bound by the laws of the economic system they operate under. This places the CEO and the employee directly at odds. By their very nature, corporations must make a profit. Not only that, competition and their shareholders dictate they must make an ever growing amount of profit. This means it's in the interest of the corporation to pay the employee as little as possible. Obviously, this isn't in the interest of the employee. In order to live and function in society, the employee must sell his or her labor power to the corporation (if possible, to the highest bidder). But here's what usually is left unsaid: It's actually the employee's labor power, his or her ability to work, above all else, that creates the profit. Without labor power, there are no factories or machines built or operated. There are no goods, let alone markets to exchange those goods on. Therefore, the workers really hold all the power. In effect, without the workers, there is no society.

This brings me back to Obama's fairy tale. Those two paragraphs are a telling example of whose side Obama really is on. It's definitely in the interest of the people who collect profit off of other people's work to assure us we all share the same set of "American values." They want us to believe we're "all in this together" when really they're parasites living off our sweat. They will gladly sacrifice a few of their own ( the Bernie Madoffs — the "bad apples") in order to keep alive the economic system that favors them. Almost every law they pass is intended to do so as well. This doesn't mean, however, that we workers share anything other than basic human emotions with this section of society. We are, in fact, their historical grave diggers. We have much more in common with workers from any other country in the world than we do with any American CEO.

When all is said and done, it's both the development of industry and technology, and who controls that development, that moves history. Right now industry is controlled by a small group of individuals who use that power to run America (and most of the world) in their interest. They hire elegant speakers like Obama to fill us full of platitudes so we will continue to literally work ourselves to death while they continue their lives of privilege. But just as tribal, slave, and feudal societies passed from the historical scene, so too will capitalism fall and democracy finally enter the realm of economics. But it won't fall automatically. As the recent crisis shows, they will use their State to prop up their dying economic system.

This is why we must organize politically independent of the two parties of business. This is why we need a mass party of labor, based on the unions. Obviously it will take much more than this to build a new society, but that first, historically necessary step of breaking with the Democrats, will have an enormous impact on the consciousness of American workers.

We look forward to the fight.

We're there to protect property relations not people

2010-01-19T13:18:00.002-06:00

While still no mention of the Cuban doctors in Haiti, the NY Times is reporting U.S. troops have taken what's left of the National Palace. Just in time for the folks mentioned in this article.

Best Albums of 2009

2009-12-29T17:57:00.003-06:00

Because I didn't have a full-time job for most of the year, I didn't buy nearly as much music as I usually do. I did, however, manage to get my hands on a few wonderful albums. The following is my picks for the ten best albums of 2009.

(ALSO: I only count albums I actually own so I know for a fact I'm missing some great music. Please let me know what caught your attention this year!)

10) Wilco- Wilco

Yes, the cover is probably better than the album. But Wilco is Wilco. They are one of the best bands in the world. Period. If you get a chance, see them live.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sifqGTzLGck

9) Mirah (A)spera

"Shells" is one of the most beautiful songs I can think of.

http://www.dustedmagazine.com/reviews/4825

8) The Dead Weather- Horehound

Indie supergroup cuts a solid modern rock record that sounds like a solid classic rock record. Ironically, both classic rock and modern rock radio stations don't play it. Reason number 2,546 why radio sucks. (Check out the video, it's bad ass.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7QSkI6My1g

7) Neko Case- Middle Cyclone

Neko Case is a hit away from being a superstar. She is hot, has one hell of a voice, and is a brilliant songwriter. I thought "People Got A Lotta Nerve" (below) might get some mainstream radio play, but it didn't really happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXl870NoF4E

6) Raekwon- Only Built 4 Cuban Linx... Pt. II

Recreating yourself can be good. But sometimes the old saying "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" applies as well. The skits are back, the dirty beats weaved in and out of tales recounting cooking and selling dope are too (as is the guest appearance of Ghostface Killah). Thank God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzS2dN99KxM

5) (MF) Doom- Born Like This

MF Doom, or Doom, or whatever he calls himself today, is probably the most innovative rapper this decade. With a knack for catchy beats and clever rhymes; it is pretty much a guarantee any release of his makes my list.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWdqBZdk2yc

4) Bat For Lashes- Siren Sounds

I enjoyed this album much more than I anticipated I would. Both "Siren Song" and "Daniel" were played frequently in my car. Singer-songwriter electronica? I don't know, you'll have to take a listen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00ZHah-c0hQ

3) Grizzly Bear- Veckatimest

Grizzly Bear likes to play this game where they pack as many catchy melodies as they can into one album. They're good at it. I've seen them live twice and was impressed each time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ4jZeGUFzI

2) Antony and the Johnsons- Crying Light

Antony Hegarty's wavering, gentle but defiant voice will cause you to listen. One could draw all sorts of analogies on how his voice is like life, or whatever, but it would be hard to do that without sounding like a melodramatic douchebag. Somehow, Antony is capable of singing stuff like that. I mean, who else could sing "I'm gonna miss the bees" and not sound ridiculous?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp23w0v-GB8

1) Animal Collective- Merriweather Post Pavilion

I know, hipster darlings Animal Collective have already gained album of the year honors from the likes of "Spin" magazine and indie Bible "Pitchfork.com" to name just a couple. But this album is that good. I've been a fan for years now and am amazed at how I am never disappointed by each subsequent release. Rather than try to compare or describe, I'd recommend you check them out for yourself. (Hint: You have to listen several times before it clicks. At least I did.)

"Summertime Clothes"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxhaRgJUMl8

"In The Flowers"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYEAflCO4Eo

"My Girls"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zol2MJf6XNE

Updates from Iran

2009-12-27T07:18:00.000-06:00

http://persian2english.wordpress.com/

"School of the Democrats," Obama orders 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan

2009-12-02T19:27:00.004-06:00

I only sort of hate to say we told you so.

The Corporate Attack on Pension Plans

2009-11-03T09:15:00.001-06:00

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"

2009-09-22T10:53:00.026-05:00

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

2009-09-06T19:39:00.003-05:00

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

2009-08-31T17:02:00.002-05:00

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?

2009-08-27T18:06:00.010-05:00

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.

Paper Heart

2009-07-30T00:25:00.001-05:00

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.)

Iran

2009-06-18T10:02:00.006-05:00

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

2009-06-04T09:15:00.026-05:00

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.

The Power Question

2009-05-17T18:03:00.010-05:00

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

2009-05-12T22:54:00.002-05:00

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.

Human Consciousness

2009-04-28T17:28:00.003-05:00

The following, from a piece entitled Canadian Persepectives 2009: The Failure of Capitalism and the Need for a Socialist Alternative written by the Canadian section of the IMT, is a wonderful description of the dialectal nature of human consciousness. Understanding this is key to understanding how societies change, and this excerpt is some of the best writing on the subject I've ever read. (Click here to read the whole piece.)

The most revolutionary observation about human consciousness is that it is inherently conservative. People do not expect or welcome change. The empirical philosophy of "what you see is what you get" is how most people live their lives. For most of their lives, this philosophy is a close enough approximation of reality that it does not cause people too much distress. However, during times of great change and crisis such as the period we are currently passing through, the philosophy of empiricism is woefully inadequate. Capitalism has failed, and yet the psychology of the mass of the population is more reflective of the past than the present. If psychology faithfully kept track with objective reality, we would have been living in a socialist society for at least 100 years.

The relationship between reality and psychology, the objective and the subjective, is not linear. However, there is obviously still a relationship. This relationship is contradictory and dialectical - in other words, after doing everything possible to resist change (taking on increased overtime, a 2^nd or 3^rd job, sacrificing health and family, etc.) a limit is reached where there are no more "individual" solutions. It is impossible to determine exactly when this limit will be reached; people are willing to endure more in some periods than others. But eventually, people start looking for collective, systemic explanations and solutions to the change going on around them. They reject the old justifications (and those who peddled them) and look for ideas that explain reality. Consciousness does not catch up to reality in a gradual, linear, reformist manner; it catches up in a convulsive, sudden, and revolutionary way. A conservative consciousness leads to revolutionary conclusions - dialectical philosophy calls this phenomenon the unity and inter-penetration of opposites.

The "old" discredited idea of socialism is coming back with a vengeance. Newsweek magazine even declared, "We Are All Socialists Now." Those who extolled the virtue of small government and free markets are now spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to intervene in the economy. They are even nationalizing banks. The captains of industry, the best and the brightest with their multi-million dollar bonuses, have driven the largest banks, corporations, and the entire economy into the ground. In this environment the ideas of genuine socialism can again get the ear of the masses. When every other "solution" has failed, when the so-called experts have failed, and when workers are faced with the prospect of unemployment and homelessness, the idea of occupying your factory to save your job no longer seems so outlandish. People ask themselves, "Why should the bosses receive billions while there is no money to help workers facing foreclosure and bankruptcy? Why couldn't we use that money to nationalize industry to save jobs? What purpose do these bosses play anyway?" Marxists have long explained that it is not revolutionaries that cause revolutions. It is capitalism that creates the conditions that lead workers to revolutionary conclusions.

Paris 36

2009-03-10T01:07:00.010-05:00

"Occupy the theater!"

Paris 36 is a charming film. While clearly meant to be a romantic exaggeration, it doesn't shy away from the class struggles shaping 1936 Paris. Although the political discussions are simple, the fact that they exist (and we clearly know who is right and who is wrong) makes this fairly conventional love story go well beyond being only a nice looking feel-good flick. Along with Renegade Eye, I went to a screening in Edina where both the director, Christophe Barratier, and the star, Nora Arnezeder, answered questions afterward.

10 years under Chavez (a mainstream economic report card)

2009-02-23T20:32:00.006-06:00

While I am of the opinion the revolution in Venezuela must continue to move forward and end current property relations or it is doomed to fail; I'm certainly not against enacting progressive reforms along the way. The following report gives an idea of what has been accomplished so far. (Obviously, at least from my point of view, not everything is positive. Many of these programs show their limitations within the confines of a capitalist system.) It was done by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a research institute with Nobel laureates Joe Stiglitz and Robert Solow, among others, on its advisory board.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela-2009-02.pdf

Key points (as taken from the report):

* The current economic expansion began when the government got control over the national oil company in the first quarter of 2003. Since then, real (inflation-adjusted) GDP has nearly doubled, growing by 94.7 percent in 5.25 years, or 13.5 percent annually.

* Most of this growth has been in the non-oil sector of the economy, and the private sector has grown faster than the public sector.

* During the current economic expansion, the poverty rate has been cut by more than half, from 54 percent of households in the first half of 2003 to 26 percent at the end of 2008. Extreme poverty has fallen even more, by 72 percent. These poverty rates measure only cash income, and does not take into account increased access to health care or education.

* Over the entire decade, the percentage of households in poverty has been reduced by 39 percent, and extreme poverty by more than half.

* Inequality, as measured by the Gini index, has also fallen substantially. The index has fallen to 41 in 2008, from 48.1 in 2003 and 47 in 1999. This represents a large reduction in inequality.

* Real (inflation-adjusted) social spending per person more than tripled from 1998-2006.

* From 1998-2006, infant mortality has fallen by more than one third. The number of primary care physicians in the public sector increased 12-fold from 1999-2007, providing health care to millions of Venezuelans who previously did not have access.

* There have been substantial gains in education, especially higher education, where gross enrollment rates more than doubled from 1999/2000 to 2007/2008.

* The labor market also improved substantially over the last decade, with unemployment dropping from 11.3 percent to 7.8 percent. During the current expansion it has fallen by more than half. Other labor market indicators also show substantial gains.

* Over the past decade, the number of social security beneficiaries has more than
doubled.

* Over the decade, the government's total public debt has fallen from 30.7 to 14.3 percent of GDP. The foreign public debt has fallen even more, from 25.6 to 9.8 percent of GDP.

* Inflation is about where it was 10 years ago, ending the year at 31.4 percent. However it has been falling over the last half year (as measured by three-month averages) and is likely to continue declining this year in the face of strong deflationary pressures worldwide.

Stimulating packages

2009-02-20T14:45:00.012-06:00

Troutsky said it best,

"Capitalism's defenders are manning the barriers, liberal and conservative intellectuals, bureaucrats and the political class, side by side, arguing only over what condiments to put on their sandwiches. Tax breaks! No No No. Government spending! No No. Save the Banks! No No No, save the homeowners! Main Street, Wall Street, mustard, catsup! The main thing is to save the system!"

Class independent leadership is key

2009-01-29T11:24:00.028-06:00

Class collaboration doesn't favor the working class. It never has. No matter how practical it seems, the working class always ends up being subjugated.

This situation reminded me of something I read a couple days ago.

As in revolutionary Russia, the importance of class independence isn't recognized by many on the left today (even within the "radical" left). The result is an NDP coalition with Liberals in Canada and sizable left support for Obama here in the States. Unlike the US and Canada, however, revolutionary Russia also had a large group of people who understood class collaboration to be a mistake. Victor Serge wrote the following some eighty years ago in his account of the Bolshevik led Russian Revolution:

Nothing is more tragic at this juncture than the moral collapse of the two great parties of democratic socialism. The Socialist-Revolutionaries had carried considerable weight, through their distinguished record and their influence in the countryside, on the intellectuals and middle classes and, not so long ago, among powerful minorities of workers: they had enjoyed every opportunity of taking power without any transgression of the established legality and of governing as Socialists. The country would have followed them. At its Fourth Congress the majority of the party castigated the Central Committee for not having done so. But the SR leaders, ridden by a fetishism for formal democracy, fearing more than anything else the anarchy of the masses and peasant jacquerie, and dreaming of a parliamentary democracy where their eloquence would have held sway, rejected the arduous Socialist road in favour of collaboration with the liberal bourgeoisie.

Serge goes on to the Mensheviks:

The Mensheviks, a minority of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers' party who had tussled over twenty years with the Bolsheviks (in factional struggles which were actually contests between revolutionary intransigence and Socialist opportunism), were influential in the industrial centres, among the intelligentsia, in the cooperatives, in the trade union leadership, and in the circles around the late government. They had contributed statesmen as remarkable, for their personal qualities and their revolutionary past, as Chkeidze and Tseretelli, and theoreticians and agitators as gifted as G. V. Plekhanov, the great founder of Russian Social-Democracy, Y. Martov, Dan and Abramovich. But the Mensheviks, with similar hesitations to those of the SRs, declared themselves on the side of class collaboration, 'democracy' and the Constituent Assembly, and against `anarchy', `premature socialism,' 'Bolshevik hysteria' and (even) civil war.

Compare the revolution in Russia to the revolution in Spain and we see how important class independent leadership is. The Russian Revolution would have no doubt failed had there been no answer to the policies of the SRs and Mensheviks.

"Guns, Germs, and Steel"

2009-01-23T10:40:00.004-06:00

Over Christmas, while in Canada at my grandfathers, I picked up his copy of Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel. It is a few years old, and I had always been meaning to read it, but hadn't got around to it yet. It actually was really easy to read and I finished it quite quickly.

Diamond's thesis is, contrary to what was accepted by most people and still is by many, environment is the major reason certain areas of the world developed more than others, not race and culture. It was simply an accident of geography that Europe and Asia developed guns, writing, general technology, and domesticated animals. This made the Spanish able to easily rout South American societies, as well as the English in Australia and North America, the Dutch and French in parts of the "new world," and still others who colonized areas all over the world.

This seems obvious, but it is no doubt hard for some to realize as many of us have had near meaningless catchphrases like "personal responsibility" jammed down our throats since we were able to comprehend ideas. This, I believe, is a way to rationalize the otherwise blatant murderous greed of a few in our society, a society which we like to claim is superior to others largely due to our Judeo-Christian values, which in text claims to empathize with the oppressed, but in practice tends to get around that with established church doctrines like "free will". Diamond's environment thesis puts a material cause to what many thought had strictly cultural and divine implications. In short, we aren't any more special than anyone else from anywhere else.

Diamond also throws a bucket of reality in the faces of those "leftists/liberals" who have a fetish for the developing world. No doubt we've all encountered those who believe all of western Europe and its offshoots are evil, and all those in the developing world are hopelessly exploited, downtrodden, and seemingly incapable of horrific deeds. In reality, African chiefs sold other Africans as slaves; Mesoamerican societies were as, and sometimes more, brutal than those in Eurasia; and so on. Today, Robert Mugabe certainly needs no help from the west to brutally exploit anyone unfortunate enough to live under his rule. If the natural world would have evolved in a different way, there's nothing to say Native Americans wouldn't have colonized, and nearly wiped out, Europeans.

That brings me to my main criticism of Diamond's book. While he tells us why Europe was able to colonize the world, he doesn't offer any reasons why they went ahead and did it. If Europe isn't full of a bunch of innately brutal people, why did they do so many brutal things? This requires an economic, class-based, analysis. Much of the wealth created by the natural resources bestowed on Eurasians (as well as wealth creating human labor) was eventually privatized. Ever since societies have created surplus wealth, that is when societies made it able for some (chiefs, lords, kings, capitalists, bureaucrats, etc.) to live off the work of others, there has been a struggle over who controls this surplus. This is a struggle of classes. Be it the obvious ownership of the surplus and subsequent exploitation of the oppressed classes in feudalistic and slave driven societies, or the less obvious ownership and exploitation in modern capitalist societies- whoever owns that surplus wealth, and the economic system that justifies that ownership, are obvious major factors in why these societies were compelled to colonize other lands. This is completely absent from Diamond's work. He does attempt to answer why Europe colonized the "new world" and places like China, despite their technological prowess, didn't. (He says that in China- because it was geographically prudent for them to have a single central government- merchants, explorers, and others looking for wealth and adventure, had pretty much only one option to gets funds. In Europe, on the other hand, there were many kings and queens to fund expeditions if one happened to decline.) But he seems completely unaware of, or completely disregards, the effect economics has had on world history. In the afterward Diamond seems downright giddy about the businesspeople and economists that have contacted him about his book. Again, he appears to either not be aware of, or disregard, any argument that holds their dictatorship of industry, and their justification of that dictatorship, at any way responsible for the wars of conquest that have plagued our history. This is a major omission if we want to formulate any meaningful ways to learn from our past.

Of course there are other reasons that aren't directly related to environment that make our societies different. There are also reasons of conquest other than economics. But I challenge anyone to find a case in history where environment doesn't have any effect on a society and economics isn't involved in a conquest. Jared Diamond tells half the story, but then bows down to bourgeois sensibility. Perhaps a class analysis wouldn't have got him the endorsement from Bill Gates, but it doesn't always pay, at least in the monetary sense, to be honest.

Ten Best Albums of 2008

2008-12-29T11:10:00.005-06:00

Like last year, I decided to list my top albums of the year. Also like last year, I only chose from albums I own, so I'm no doubt missing some great music. (Please, feel free to make recommendations!)

10. Coldplay- Viva la Vida

Coldplay sells a lot of records. After X&Y I wondered if they decided they had a good thing going and should be content making hummable bland music (the kind U2 makes now). Viva la Vida proved me wrong, at least for now. Death and all his friends, also the alternate title of the album, is one of the best songs of the year.

9. Sun Kil Moon- April

Every time I listen to Sun Kil Moon I tell myself I'm going to get hold of everything Mark Kozelek has done and spend a weekend listening to it. I haven't yet, but I will. April isn't as accessible as Ghosts of the Great Highway, but if you put in the effort you will be rewarded with a beautiful album. (I recommend checking out the lyrics as well.)

8. Erykah Badu- New Amerykah Part One (4th World War)

With production from Madlib, among others, New Amerykah is easily Badu's best work to date. But that isn't to say production is the sole reason for the wonderful album. Badu's intellect and refusal to fit nicely into the "neo-soul" category is a breathe of fresh air in a smoggy formulaic radio-friendly world. This is the best hip-hop album of the year. (Check out this remix of The Healer.)

7. TV on the Radio- Dear Science

I'm not sure if art-funk is a genre, but if so, Dear Science is the album of which to judge others by. I saw TOTR in Fargo when they were touring in support of Return to Cookie Mountain and they quickly became one of my favorite bands. As with Sun Kil Moon, the lyrics should be handy when listening to this album.

6. Tricky- West Knowles Boy

I'm happy to see Tricky back in form. He has been one of my favorite artists since the mid-nineties but I, like many, was disappointed with his last few releases. West Knowles Boy is a genuine comeback, but it didn't get much press in the US. That's really too bad as this album is his best in nearly a decade. (This is a standout track.)

5. Vampire Weekend- Vampire Weekend

If I were to change anything about Vampire Weekend, it would be the order of the songs. Instead of Mansard Roof first, I'd go with Oxford Comma. Then the album would have the best opening line since Modest Mouse's The Moon and Antarctica. It is what it is- fun pop music that isn't going to change your life. There's nothing wrong with that.

4. Bon Iver- For Emma, Forever Ago

Listening to Bon Iver reminds me of driving through snow drifts on a gravel road. There isn't any logical reason that should be a positive memory, but it is. There is something hopelessly romantic about Midwest winters and that something oozes from this album.

3. Portishead- Third

2008 was good for what was called "trip-hop." It took me several listens, but Third has become my favorite Portishead album. Listen to this at least ten times before you decide whether or not you like it. The whole album works this way. If it clicks for you, you'll know what I mean.

2. Fleet Foxes- Fleet Foxes

From gospel to rock, you can hear what music has influenced the Fleet Foxes. What makes them so special, and I pretty much flipped a coin on whether or not this album should be number one, is they often sound better than their influences. I am excited for what these dudes will come up with as their careers progress. Check this out and tell me it isn't as good as anything you hear on your local classic rock station.

1. The Walkmen- You and Me

Perhaps it is because I've seen this band go from good to great, but I loved this album on first listen and it simply hasn't gotten old. It has the expected piercing vocals and guitars, but also has a quiet side. It is personal. It ends up feeling like a letter from a best friend. After a few listens it became obvious my favorite track on the album is the most basic one.

Flower power

2008-12-15T09:46:00.026-06:00

This past weekend I attended an immigrant rights coalition meeting. It was my first meeting, but friends have been there since it formed in 2006. Its formation was a direct result of the working class movement of immigrants, primarily Latinos, in the Twin Cities area. From what I could tell, the people at the meeting were a mixture of democratic party activists and socialists (although it was hard to tell the difference with some folks).

The reason I bring this up is to examine an exercise we did at the beginning of the meeting. The moderator, in all seriousness, had us draw a flower. Our flower needed at least four large petals, with a smaller petal drawn inside the outline of the larger one. We were then to label each petal. One should be race, one gender, one whether or not English is our mother tongue, and one marking our social class (which wasn't talked about much, if at all). If you are white, male, and speak English, then you were to fill in the outer layer of your flower petals. This means you are an "exploiter" in these areas. If you are female, non-white, and learned a language besides English when you were young, then you were to fill in the inner layer of the petals. You are "exploited." This was taken extremely seriously, with the moderator at one time asking people to stop laughing and think hard about their exploitation situation. I did the exercise, and besides recognizing the general silliness of it, didn't give it much thought until our first break when I talked with a friend.

We both agreed the flower didn't do much other than offer many members a chance to self-flagellate and momentarily ease some feelings of liberal white guilt (doing the project reminded me of reading Tim Wise's recent nonsensical babbling). Of course it is true being a male, white, English speaker gives you an advantage in our society. But what wasn't represented in the flower example was the ability of class, at least when social power is concerned, to largely trump our society's sexist, racist and xenophobic nature. If we objectively concern ourselves with power and exploitation, then this needs to be recognized. In this flawed exercise, a white homeless man would be more of an exploiter than a female Latino CEO of a fortune 500 company.

This is worth mentioning if only to reinforce the fact that the main power in our society, just as throughout much of modern history, lies in who controls the surplus value created by labor power. No doubt the struggles against sexism, xenophobia, racism, etc., are extremely important; but they are mainly symptoms of a disease, not the disease itself. Liberal ideologies, and policies, tend to want to put a bandage on a gunshot wound. This is all good and well, I certainly support working for better policies even within the confines of our current society, but it is crucial to understand even if we stop the bleeding with a good bandage, we've still got a bullet rotting away in our body.

"Life teaches."

2008-12-07T20:13:00.010-06:00

News of the worker occupation in Chicago has spread across the web quite quickly and odds are readers of this blog already know the story. I think, however, it is important to point out this sort of action is most likely not ideological. I doubt too many workers at this factory are reading a whole lot of Marxist, Anarchist, or any other "radical" literature. Just like Marx and Engels didn't create the idea of a workers state, and Lenin didn't create Soviets (councils); theorists didn't tell these workers they should occupy their factory. It was their objective situation, i.e. the failure of capitalism, and their own ingenuity. The same goes for the worldwide factory occupation movement.

My point isn't to make this relatively small action in Chicago into something it isn't. My point also isn't to knock theorists and those with the knowledge and talent to play a leadership role in our struggle. My point is simply this: never underestimate the ability of the working class. A revolution is possible, even in the United States.

The Mumbai attacks

2008-12-01T14:48:00.007-06:00

This discussion is worth a look. The below paragraphs, by Tariq Ali, are especially insightful-

Now, the point I would make about this whole business, which is, of course, ghastly, terrible, we can use whatever words we want to use about it, but I think it should be stated that if images were shown of the killings that were going on in Afghanistan or in Pakistan’s northwest frontier province as a result of state terrorism carried out by the United States and its allies or in Iraq. Let’s imagine that every single atrocity being committed in Iraq and Afghanistan were broadcast like this by the world media, the effect would be electric, but it isn’t. So, we see these images, horrific though they are from Mumbai, and there’s immediately an overreaction, and we don’t contextualize what is going on in the world as a whole. And that, I think, can be dangerous. I mean, there have been reports now by William Dalrymple and others in the British press describing an atrocity which took place in a Kashmiri hospital after a peaceful demonstration. When demonstrators were taken into a hospital, the Indian security burst in, threw doctors aside, dragged patients out, insulted nurses, and behaved like colonizing armies do. Now, this doesn’t go down well either, in Kashmir or the rest of India.
So, it’s—one has to sort of keep contextualizing what the situation in India is. It’s not a country which has been at peace with itself, as my other two colleagues have already said. There have been terrorist attacks, there has been turbulence in the Indian countryside, there are growing disparities of wealth. This nonsense that the neo-liberal system was working has been exposed for the farce it is. So, one has to see that, too, in discussing what is going on and not get over-concentrated on this atrocity, appalling though it is.

Yet another mandate for revolution in Venezuela

2008-11-24T10:03:00.013-06:00

Yesterday's state elections in Venezuela saw Chavez's allies win the vast majority of races. The opposition did make strategic gains, however, winning the two most populous states and the Capital District of Caracas. They, quite correctly, point out Venezuela still faces many problems similar to those faced before Chavez took office. Of course, they neglect to mention they're the main reason for this. Those in the opposition tend to make good use out of the fact they've prevented much of the needed actions (and those bureaucratic "Bolivarian" leaders opposed to the revolution do nothing but help them).

This election is yet another mandate for revolution from the people of Venezuela. It is time for their leaders to follow through. It is time for serious land reform, nationalization of all major industry under democratic workers' control, meaningful power centered in councils, etc. Those opposed to the revolution, including "Bolivarian" officials, will be easy to spot when the dismantling of the bourgeois state becomes clear. (No worries, as Miami has many foreclosed homes that are just taking up space right now.)

This should be a wake up call to those comfortable in the government; the people of Venezuela continue to demand change (fans of Obama take note, they're demanding real change).

Adam Smith the populist

2008-03-29T14:42:00.021-05:00

I can't recommend Michael Perelman's The Invention of Capitalism enough. It destroys the myth that classical economists were against government economic intervention and points out that in order for market capitalism to develop, state power was needed to force a largely self-sufficient society into selling their labor for wages. One thing I noticed while reading the book was a similarity between Smith's views and that of Ron Paul, or even Lou Dobbs. While Dobbs might not share the other two's market fundamentalism, they all have a divisive fetish for the "middle class." And beyond that, they proudly display a very basic understanding of the world. There are good and bad people. Some countries are bad, some aren't. The guy in the middle is always getting screwed, be it by the "illegal" Mexican immigrant or the "new world order." This line of thinking certainly divides the working class. It keeps us fighting each other and/or wasting time and effort on silly conspiracy theories.

Perelman's writings on Smith's populism, and that famous metaphor, are worth quoting at length. From The Invention of Capitalism, page 208-

I suspect that Smith's work earned much of his popularity because he expressed so eloquently what others deeply felt. Unlike many of the less educated populists, Smith was usually able to sublimate his rage into his charming theory of the invisible hand, in which competition and even aggression is channeled into harmonious actions that better the world. Frequently, cracks appeared in this fantasy, and the harsh reality of the world around him intruded. At such times, we can catch a glimpse of Smith's theory of primitive accumulation.

Smith's vision of the bizarre heroism of the petit bourgeoisie seems to reflect his own rage at those who refused to adopt the values that were so dear to him. Even if Steuart's [Sir James Steuart] language was brutal, I suspect that society has more to fear from the repressed emotions of someone like Smith. His metaphor of the invisible hand may be relevant in this regard. We may equate friendship with an open, outstretched hand, but an invisible hand has something sinister about it. In this spirit, Macbeth requested that the darkness of night, "with thy bloody and invisible hand," cover up the crimes he was about to commit.

A march in March: End the occupations!

2008-03-16T12:16:00.006-05:00

From Minneapolis on Saturday, March 15th-

A big thanks goes to Renegade Eye, JP, and the rest of the Workers International League for the wonderful Venezuelan food, conversation, and the overall generous hospitality.

Economics is largely bullshit

2008-02-12T11:47:00.002-06:00

an uninterrupted rant-

My economics teacher would have me believe that the world is made up of small businesses, or perhaps more accurately, big businesses that act like small businesses. This is the theory. Capitalists justify expropriating excess profits because they are the ones who take the risks. In reality, risk is gone. Bankruptcy is profitable. Management walks away with millions while workers lose their savings. We watched a video explaining how outsourcing was actually a good thing because companies were then able to invest their extra profits back into the economy and create better, higher paying jobs. Right, tell that to the millions of people that work in the low-paying service industry after their high-paying manufacturing job went to some country that virtually enslaves their workers. My guess is that money the corporation saved went into the CEO's 5th or 6th new home. China's industrial boom has diverted social spending away from rural areas. It's also caused a massive human migration to the cities that has created a class of urban peasants that have little to no rights. They are expendable. You get sick, you lose your job. You lose your job, you don't eat. You have kids, they'd better know how to raise themselves. Migrants have to set up their own schools because their children are not allowed to go to city schools. This invisible class that fills up Chinese slums is roughly the same size as the population of the entire United States. India, Thomas Friedman's example of a success story, is going through similar times. While people like Friedman laud its "growth," farmers are killing themselves by the tens of thousands. Instead of offering support for rural development, the Indian government's neoliberal reforms are boosting the international private sector and encouraging the millions of peasant farmers to export their crops rather than feed themselves and their country. With little to no reasonable rural credit, they go into deep debt trying to compete with subsidized Western agriculture. Rather then pass on the debt to their family, they off themselves. Oh, and China too. Interestingly enough, one thing that we do actually export to China is cotton. As with Indian farmers, Chinese farmers can't compete with US subsidized cotton so they join the other peasant migrants and head to the slums of Beijing. Ain't "free trade" grand? Economists would have us believe so. And so would my economics teacher. And so would asshole columnists for the NY Times. It's interesting that when Cuba trades doctors for oil with Venezeula (talk about comparative advantage!), both countries are simply discounted by economists. When I questioned my instructor on how much influence the multi-billion dollar advertising industry has on the market, he basically said not much. He said that the ultimate decision is left up to the consumer and based on the consumer's needs. Yeah. 'Cause we needed those fucking zubaz, those fruity pebbles my mom would almost never buy, and that goddamned Hummer H2O!

Living in shit

2008-01-05T15:43:00.000-06:00

The last two years I have spent a few weeks in Europe. Each time, I decided to plan my train and bus rides overnight, so I didn't have to fork out the cash for an extra night in a hotel. This resulted in me sleeping on benches in train and bus stations as well as during the actual bus or train rides. I usually had to check out of where I was staying in the late morning, so I had to find somewhere to go until the afternoon of the next day. For a posh Westerner such as myself, it was a different experience. The main issue, I found, was finding somewhere to go to the bathroom. It was an event. I had to find a somewhat clean, somewhat private, place to handle my business. Back home, I certainly took such places for granted.

Mike Davis' Planet of Slums has a subsection in the chapter Slum Ecology entitled Living in Shit. [pg. 137-142] He discusses the "excremental surplus" that plagues urban areas with great detail. This is not a new problem, of course, as slums in London and other industrialized European cities had to deal with this issue years ago. But as Davis says, "Today's poor megacites- Nairobi, Lagos, Bombay, Dhaka, and so on- are stinking mountains of shit that would appall even the most hardened Victorians."

Along with the problem of where to put the buildup of shit, there is the related problem of where to actually physically release the waste. While I in no way want to compare my minor inconvenience in Europe to slum dwellers' deadly serious situation, I do believe it gave me the mental framework to at least partially understand the feeling of helplessness not having a private area to take care of hygienic needs can instill in a person. This affects men and women differently, often affecting women to a greater degree. According to Davis, "Being forced to exercise body functions in public is certainly a humiliation for anyone, but, above all, it is a feminist issue. Poor urban women are terrorized by the Catch-22 situation of being expected to maintain strict standards of modesty while lacking access to any private means of hygiene." He goes on to quote journalist Asha Krishnakumar as saying, "The absence of toilets is devastating for women. It severely affects their dignity, health, safety and sense of privacy, and indirectly their literacy and productivity. To defecate, women and girls have to wait until dark which exposes them to harassment and even sexual assault." Many women simply decide not to eat during the day in hopes they won't have to go to the bathroom.

The reason I posted on this unsettling topic is that I find the "solution" to this problem so unbelievably brutal, it leaves me sick to my stomach. Rather than working on revamping the public sanitation system, governments, at the request of elite Western economists, have privatized going to the bathroom! So, in effect, many people can't even take a shit without private industry reaching their greedy hands into the people's nearly empty pockets. This is an invasion of privacy if there ever was one. Toward the end of the subsection, Davis remarks "Indeed, one of the great achievements of Washington-sponsored neoliberalism has been to turn public toilets into cash points for paying off foreign debt- pay toilets are a growth industry throughout Third World slums." Now that is disgusting.

Ten Best Albums of 2007

2007-12-15T15:01:00.000-06:00

When your country is supporting death squads in Indonesia and a brutal Ethiopian government that forces civilians into war, it can be quite therapeutic to crank up the tunes and forget about the world for a bit. I am in love with music. I have been since a child. Unfortunately, unlike my supremely talented contemporary gospel singing mother, I am much more comfortable listening to music than making it. The following are my picks for the top ten albums of 2007. I only chose from albums that I own, so I am positive I am missing out on quite a bit of great music. Please, let me know of that brilliant album you can't stop listening to! (Click on the band name to hear some music.)

10. Papercuts- Can't Go Back

Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful pop music! What makes Can't Go Back so special is that it is a somewhat somber pop record that isn't at all boring. If I remember correctly, they are slated to begin touring with another wonderfully moody band, Beach House. Definitely worth a listen.

9. The Fiery Furnaces- Widow City

I own every album by the Fiery Furnaces (even the dude's pretty crappy solo work). After their first album they got compared to the White Stripes. They don't anymore. Perfect music for a long drive, I get lost in the complex narratives mixed with the unconventional tempo and melody changes. What really makes the Fiery Furnaces more than a band too ambitious for their own good is their uncanny ability to write catchy songs. Widow City isn't their best effort to date (that would be Blueberry Boat) nor is it their worst (I can't imagine anyone likes Rehearsing My Choir). I'll take a middle of the road release from The Fiery Furnaces any day.

8. Fionn Regan- The End of History

I don't know much about this guy other than The End of History is a wonderful album and he's from Ireland (the album was released there in 2006, but didn't reach the states until this year). I remember hearing about how he was supposed to take the U.S. by storm, but it didn't really happen. This is the album I thought Damien Rice would release.

7. Bjork- Volta

Bjork is one of my favorite artists. I have been a big fan since early high school and she is on my "I would pay over one hundred dollars to see a performance" list. While in early interviews she talked of the album being "accessible," lucky for us that meant Bjork singing lines from an old Russian poem with the vocally stunning Antony Hegarty. Add some blistering horns, some punctuating drum beats, a couple bizarre videos, and you have another superb effort by one of the most innovative artists in recent history.

6. M.I.A.- Kala

This album will no doubt be on many "best of" lists. Super-producer Timbaland was reported to be producing the album (he is the man behind many Nelly Furtado and Justin Timberlake songs) and that kind of had me worried (although he did a good job on a few songs with Bjork). I thought she might ditch her politics for mainstream success (MTV refused to play a video for a song on her last album because of the lyrics "like PLO I don't surrendo"). I needn't have worried. To make a long story short, she couldn't get into the states so she went across the world finding beats with an unknown producer and made one of the best hip-hop albums of the decade. Oh, and she stayed political. She still doesn't get much MTV play.

5. PJ Harvey- White Chalk

Some people were turned off by Polly Jean putting down her guitar. I think this is her best album since To Bring You My Love. Somehow she sounds both completely vulnerable and 100% in control at the same time. She sings about hitting someone with a hammer, smashing in their teeth, "red tongue twitching" only then to repeatedly sing "Oh God I miss you." Wonderful stuff.

4. Arcade Fire- Neon Bible

I can't think of another band that has more fun performing than the Arcade Fire. I am also hard pressed to think of another band that has lived up to all the expectations of such immense international hype. Not only does Neon Bible capture the same intensity that Funeral did, it at times surpasses it. Plus, they hang out with Springsteen.

3. The National- Boxer

From the opening lines of Fake Empire, I was hooked on this album. They are a smart rock band (which explains why they aren't played on many modern rock stations). With Boxer, they came close to outdoing one of my favorite albums of all time, Alligator, which is no easy task. Racing Like a Pro gives me chills.

2. Radiohead- In Rainbows

What else can be said about Radiohead? Stunning lyrics, music and never selling out- what more could you ask for? Someday, several years from now, I will enjoy explaining to a new generation of Radiohead fans how important the music is. They are my Beatles.

1. Animal Collective/Panda Bear- Strawberry Jam/Person Pitch

Wow. I grouped these two albums together because while Person Pitch is Panda Bear's solo album, Strawberry Jam seems to showcase Avey Tare (that's not to say the other members don't contribute, but you know what I mean). One would think that someday there would come a point when most everything that could be done musically, would be done. Animal Collective is proving we aren't anywhere near that point. Right now, they are making the best music on the planet. The question is: is the planet ready for the Animal Collective? Conan O'Brien seemed a bit freaked out.

The unreported destruction of Somalia

2007-11-18T15:13:00.000-06:00

The following was sent to the local "alternative" newspaper. Despite the sizable Somali population in the Fargo-Moorhead area, there has been little to no coverage of the U.S. backed destruction of Somalia. I am aware that only loony bastards write "letters to the editor," but I am kind of a loony bastard, so it works out.

According to the United Nations, the situation in Somalia is the worst humanitarian crisis in all of Africa. In the last two weeks 100,000 people have fled Mogadishu, the capital of the country. It is estimated that 1.5 million Somalis are now in need of immediate assistance. Despite all this, coverage of the situation has been absent from nearly all national, and local, news outlets.

One can’t help but think that the United States’ involvement in the catastrophe is one reason why the media has been so silent on the issue. The US fervently backed the Ethiopian invasion, the installment of the unpopular warlord-led Transitional Federal Government and the attempted break up the Islamic Courts Union. Since January of this year, the United States has launched several air strikes in Somalia targeting individuals deemed “terrorists” (state-sponsored assassinations are illegal under international law). Ethiopia, caught in an Iraq-like situation of its own, has been accused of randomly shooting civilians, looting Somali shops, raping Somali women and various other abuses during the occupation. They have stated they are "defending themselves" in Somalia and intend to leave when a “stable” government is in place (stable, of course, means the U.S./Ethiopian proxy Transitional Federal Government).

The Islamic Courts Union had brought stability to a region that has seen nothing but war since the fall of Siad Barre in the early nineties. They were a broad coalition of Islamic groups that had gained the support of many people sick of being attacked and robbed by local militias and warlords. The ICU, who at best had limited influence outside Mogadishu before the invasion, now appears to include anyone who decided to fight against the imperial conquest, regardless of their beliefs. This labeling no doubt helps sell the occupation as a part of the larger so-called "war on terrorism." The possibility of Somalis, who aren’t known for extremism, to actually work with the ICU and hammer out a government backed by the people is all but lost. Now, directly due to the occupation, we are seeing a radicalization of the population, leading to roadside and suicide bombings.

This is another example of post-colonial Western intervention in Africa, causing nothing but death and destruction. Put into the context of the so-called “war on terror,” our meddling in Somalia is counterproductive. It is simply creating more “terrorists.” It also begs the question: Is terrorism always abominable, or is it somehow acceptable if it is done by Western powers, namely the United States of America?

UPDATE: Kris Petersen has more from Gaza.

UPDATE AGAIN: This piece was picked up by the Somaliland Times.

Fargo-Moorhead premiere of "No Volveran!"

2007-09-23T14:57:00.000-05:00

I don't know how many local readers I get, but if you are in the F-M area, you should check this out. I would very much like to meet up with some like-minded locals. The following is from the Hands off Venezuela Campaign.

F-M Premiere of "No Volveran!" A new film on the Venezuelan Revolution

What: A public meeting of the F-M Hands Off Venezuela Campaign

When: Tuesday, October 2 at 6:30 pm

Where: Unitarian Universalist Church of Fargo-Moorhead (community room)
121 9th Street South Fargo, ND 58103

The Hands Off Venezuela Campaign is proud to announce a new film on the Venezuelan Revolution. Filmed during an international delegation to Venezuela during last year's historic Presidential elections, the film makers take us on a journey through the fervor of those days in December 2006, traveling deep into the shanty towns (barrios), and to several factories under workers' control, to find out why there is a movement to overthrow capitalism, what Socialism of the 21st Century is, and how it is changing people's lives.

Also covering alternative community run media like CatiaTV, and Radio Negro Primero, and the social projects called misiones, the film helps explain why Venezuela has become a symbol of liberation for those in struggle around the world. With fantastic footage of the elections, demonstrations and the people and streets of Caracas, the revolution is brought to our screens in a rich tapestry of action and interview that gives us real insight into the process taking place, and the challenges that lie ahead. A must see!

Copies of the film will be available for purchase after the screening. Donations to the HOV Campaign are also appreciated (donations are tax-deductible).

John Peterson, National Secretary of the U.S. HOV campaign, and co-organizer and participant in last year's Presidential election delegation to Venezuela, will introduce the film and facilitate the discussion. Peterson is a former resident of Fargo, where the U.S. HOV campaign, now present in dozens of cities nationally, was initially founded. He now lives in St. Paul, MN where he has been involved in anti-war, immigrant rights, and Latin America solidarity.

For more information visit www.handsoffvenezuela.org.

Please distribute widely.

-- 30 --

For more information, please contact Jane Peterson at: 701-799-7126 or write contact@handsoffvenezuela.org