In the Gray Zone
Compilations of new discussion on older but still relevant issues

On 18 March we published a column by our friend and fellow activist Joe Parko: Class Warfare in America: The Upper Class is Winning This piece by Joe sparked extensive conversation in the Redbadbear group (and elsewhere) much of which is captured in this compilation.

Joe Parko's column opened with these words: There are those who contend that in America we should never talk about class because it is dangerous and divisive. They say that class does not exist in America because everyone is free to determine their own class. Does anyone really believe that a child born into the lower class has the same life chances as a child born into the upper class?

Whether we like it or not, the class system exists in America. We all make judgments every day about class based on a person’s occupation, clothing, speech patterns, educational level, residential location, etc. To deny the reality of class in America is to deny reality itself.

For some readers this will be too lengthy to read and that's okay. It should be known though that it touches on issues and organizations on "the left" since the 1930s, through the anti-globalization struggles since 1999, and into the current electoral confusion besetting America in 2008. We're naming this section with a nod to Hunter Gray in whose discussion group most of this exchange occurred.

---

AFTER PARKO...
Commentary (in order of first appearance) by Sam Friedman, Norla Antinoro, Cornet Joyce, Michael C. Marino, Edward Pickersgill, Hunter Gray, David McReynolds, Steven F. McNichols, Joe Parko

Sam Friedman: There is a lot in this piece that I like. But then he says: "It is only when Americans realize that the Republicans have stacked the deck in favor of the upper class that we will see some fairness return to our economic system."

So apparently Carter was a Republican when he forced trucking deregulation through, thereby weakening the power of the Teamsters at the start of the employers' offensive in the 1970s? Or forced the UAW to start accepting concessions as the cost of bailing out Chrysler?? And I suppose Clinton was a Republican when he pursued a neoliberal, feed the rich, course of action throughout his 8 years? Including developing the whole government-backed HMO scam that drove the real HMOs out of business and fed the insurance industry? I agree with this piece that we have to talk about class--and, I would add, class struggle--but not by believing that the soft-spoken wing of the rich is other than a capitalist party.

************************************
Norla Antinoro: He did not say the Democrats were anti-capitalist. He said that the Republicans stacked the deck in favor of the rich. I don't see how you can argue with the truth of that statement. That the Democrats are also capitalists does not keep the Republicans from being uber-upper-class favoring deck stacking capitalist warmongers. By saying "well they did it too" does not and never has excused any bad behavior, from cookie theft on up the line.

************************************
Sam Friedman: No, but he ignored the fact that the Democrats also stack the deck in favor of the rich. Or do you think that the points I made about Carter and Clinton helped workers and other poor folks?

************************************
Norla Antinoro: No, of course the conservative capitalistic actions of Carter and Clinton did not help workers and other poor. Clinton always seem to be way too conservative in my book. I wonder if the Democratic Party I remember from my youth ever actually existed. My grandfather was union rep for his job site and he believed that the Democratic Party was the party of the workers and the people. He didn't trust any politicians of any kind but he felt that the democrats were the crooks on our side and he felt we should always vote for Our Crooks and harangue them while they are in office. But looking back via historical records I am wondering if a lot of that was not wishful thinking on Grandad's part.

************************************
Cornet Joyce: When English Labour disowned the labour unions, were they tories? Was the German SDP/green government really the CDU when it launched its assault on the working class? When Royal disclaimed any interest in socialism, was she Sarkozy in drag? Both Carter and Clinton ran zealously against the "democratic party," assuring their supporters that they were not like "those democrats." Both had a hostile relationship with the old party leaders who in Carter's case urged an ill-prepared Kennedy to challenge him in the primaries. Even a real party is merely a party and not a solid object. An American "party" is not even a party.

************************************
Michael C. Marino: Sarkozy in drag is what we call Thatcher. But, as to matters of class: Is the Upper Class Winning?

Defining the question strictly in terms of dollars and cents yields an answer, of course, but it does not yield a meaningful one: yes, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, and the general trend is that money = happiness and health.

We all know that that general trend does not have universal value. That is, one dollar of life satisfaction is not likely to be the equal of another; how we spend money probably determines how worthwhile our lives are a great deal less than how we spend our time.

This is not simply an abstraction, but the real heart of the game: if we allow ourselves to think that mo' money automatically means "Upper Class", then we lose -- because redefining the point of life to mean the pursuit of wealth is the negation of the possibility of having a life that has meaning.

Being in a amped-up neighborhood association called the "Northwest District Association", I am gofted with the privilege of having to put up with the Upper Class on a routine basis. Considering these a representative sample of what that class has to offer, this is what they have:

No general knowledge of, or interest in, general administrative law;

No general knowledge of, or interest in, mathematics;

No general knowledge of, or interest in, spelling and grammar;

No general knowledge of, or interest in, Robert's Rules of Order;

No general knowledge of, or interest in, computer science;

No general knowledge of, or interest in, ethics of any kind;

No general knowledge of, or interest in, (could go on!);

Implied membership in the Upper Class Club;

Well versed in wines. Possibly cheese, also, but these ones only ever talk about the alcohol;

Varying degrees of snob.

Given the above, I would have to dump about 90% of my brain, study up on wine, and then I'd be ready for my first million. I'd really rather be poor and keep all that stuff. Also, I do not know for certain, but I suspect, based on what I do know, that these are not the kind of folks who know squat about music theory or particle physics or drawing or, you know, anything interesting. I mean, really. Wine. If a person goes through life and ALL they wind up with is a pile of dinero, nice house, and a fine nose for... wine. That's a pretty big sacrifice just for the minor technical point of "winning".

Oh, and, yes, I do forget the privilege of driving a GIANT SUV and helping to do the utmost to ruin the local ecosystem. Okay, see, that's a privilege I can do without. Presumably, these twerps get better health care, finer food, and get to go to the movies a lot, but, I'm still not sure that forking over 90% of my noodle is a fair deal for those perquisites.

************************************
Sam Friedman: I lacked the advantages of having relatives who had these perspectives. Mine were pretty much uninterested in politics. They could not vote, in any case, since they lived in Washington, DC, which in those days had no votes for anything and was pretty much run by Congressional Democrats of the Southern racist variety.

Friends of mine in high school, however, were from the policy wonk types of families (a lawyer, a mathematician, an economist at Brookings, an editor of the Washington Post), and they had one or another favorable tilt to the Democrats. The father of my girl friend, as we called the relationship in those days, was the self-taught atomic energy expert of the UAW and the IUC,? He also seemed less critical of the Democratic politiccians than your grandfather--perhaps the difference that often accompanies the shop floor as opposed to the union bureaucracy.

************************************
Cornet Joyce: ( Is the Upper Class Winning?) No, the class struggle is over. We lost.

************************************
Edward Pickersgill: Time to negotiate for reparations?

************************************
Sam Friedman: Time to negotiate with the cockroaches about what, if anything, they want us to try to protect so they have a chance to survive. (If I agreed with Cornet; but of course, I do not.)

************************************
Michael C. Marino: I concur that Cornet is out of his basket (must get stronger lock...); in an abstract sense, the Upper Class has won: in the real sense, they are losing right along with everybody else. If in five years, a glass of clean water costs $5, in ten years costs $100, in twenty years costs $1,000, and in forty years costs $1,000,000,000, then all the printed money in the world, all the bearer bonds, all the property (real and chattel), it's all just a terribly expensive, and rather bad, joke.

I think it is important to remember that we do not have to adopt the values that the opposition has and fight them for things we neither need nor have any reason to want. They won gas-guzzling SUVs. I'm not going to count that as my loss. They won big mansions with swimming pools and tennis courts. I'm real jealous n' stuff, but I'd feel guilty as heck, and darn lonely, if I were all alone in one of those. They won control of whether Pbama, Clinton, or McCain is the next goofball ruling us. Big woop, whoever is in the Oval Office just gets to watch the planet turn into a cinder.

Ah, now they DID win access to better food. Now that just plain bites. That grabs. And, no, I'm not crying, I just have something in my eye.

Cockroaches do not have much chance of survival in North America; without heated buildings, they will die off in huge numbers -- that is to say, the assumption that they will inherit what we leave behind really only can come true if we leave them with the instructions. (The ones that survive in warmer climates will probably go back to being wood beetles, of course.)

************************************
Sam Friedman: Michael, you forget: North America will be the warmer climate. Cockroaches will love that part of it.? But maybe not the stuff in the soil and water and air. Nor the masses of radioactives to come. This is one reason I disagree with the reformists on this list. It will not prevent the coming disasters.

************************************
Cornet Joyce: A joke the Owners will be able to laugh at as their wealth grows faster than the prices you pay for what they control. Adopt whatever or whoever you like. They won. Anyone who thinks the cockroaches haven't already inherited the Earth is living a sheltered life.

************************************
Norla Antinoro: Cockroaches actually do quite well in radioactive highly toxic soil. Biologists have been using them as a "model system" for surviving in such an an environment.

************************************
Michael C. Marino (responding to Sam): Nothing will, at this point.

When Paleface (by which I mean to refer in the most respectable manner to the anglo-Americans and other people of the fair-skinned persuasion who descended upon Turtle Island not so many moons ago in the longer term concept of things) showed up in Oregon, the tribes here had already had much news of others and their dealings with the white devil (another polite reference, I assure you). More than just having met Lewis and Clark, the Northwest tribes had a general idea of exactly what was coming out to visit them.

Recorded history tends to indicate that they were divided on the question of what to do. The question was difficult to frame in anything other than, "Do we fight or give up?" I regret not having studied this part of history better, so as to do it justice, but this is the part I remember fairly well:

Chief Looking Glass argued that stepping aside was not giving up. The Europeans surely would be like a storm: they would come, the impact would savage the land, and then -- they would leave. What else happens after a storm has come and destroyed everything? What does a predator do after it has killed and eaten its prey? Things move on, and the people could return to the land and try to restore it.

The alternative was to stand and fight: but that was the coward's alternative, full of boasting and looking brave, but actually throwing away any chance at a future for the people. From what the Northwest tribes knew of the Anglo demons (yet another respectful term), if they fought, they would face an army powerful enough to kill them all.

The Northwest tribes generally went woth Chief Looking Glass's perspective. The treaties were signed by Chief Lightning Rising to a Higher Place and the Chief who followed him (his son, I think): they negotiated, and got, quite a bit less than what Looking Glass or anyone else had anticipated, but the tribes -- the Umatilla are probably the best known -- are still there, waiting to return and salvage what remains when the Occupation Forces (yet another polite and respectful term for our honoured and distinguished guests) move on.

Some tribes, such as the Multnomah, have been turned into a memory -- and possibly nothing more. To the best of my knowledge, neither Chief Looking Glass nor Chief Lightning Rising to a Higher Place got an SUV, a big house, or some stock options as part of the deal -- just some land, mostly desert, with a bit of forest, not for themselves, but for the people. The Occupation Forces got large tracts of forest, fertile valleys, and a bay-yootiful coast. As far as Looking Glass would say, the Upper Class lost: once they have destroyed their home, they will have to move on -- but now there is nowhere to go.

************************************
Michael C. Marino (responding again to Sam): Sam: North America will be hotter in the Summer and colder in the Winter. "Global warming" is a really poor choice of words; "planetary overheating" is better, but still fails to accurately describe the problem. The Earth is heated unevenly because of its 23-degree axial tilt; greenhouse gases mean that the degree of difference in thermodynamic energy absorption will be exacerbated, winds will grow stronger, and the Earth will become the native home of lots and lots of stormy weather (also known as "Oregon weather"). It will be very difficult for a species to thrive in the Summer, die off in the Winter, and then start to thrive in the Summer again -- especially when you add in that an ice age is setting in, and will cause even more weather problems, including quite a bit of freezing. They will survive, hell yes, but they will not do well in North America. They do well here now by living off humans and the almost-u nique conditions our living style grants them: plenty of warmth, water, flakes of hair and skin to eat, tiny fragments of our food, grease, lint, heck, it's utopia for them -- but if we die, their free lunch is gone. They will most likely do very well for a time, but the lapse of routine heating will take its toll, the collapse of their food provider (humanity) will take its toll, etc.

(and then responding to Norla): Sadly agreed; have seen 'em inside microwave ovens. They do not seem to mind being cooked. I am astonished to know that we have evolved at least one species that doesn't even need to don shades when it comes to radiation. SHEESH! Ultimately, they are not indestructible -- they are simply living off of a species (us) which is very hardy, and that makes them LOOK more hardy than they really are.

************************************
Sam Friedman: You may have read more of the predictions on this than I. What I am pretty sure of is that the storminess will increase and the average temperature will go up, as will the variations in storminess and in temperature. This is evident to anyone who has ever watched a glass container of water get heated up.

The details, based on the tilt of the axis, the shapes of the continents and much else, are hard to predict. And I am not up on the latest efforts to do it -- but take very seriously the materials on the uncertainty of estimates that always fall in the "Limitations" section -- and maybe double their estimates of uncertainty because I know how scientific publishing works.

As to the fate of humanity: If we were a rationally organized bunch, humanity could make it through this. We will lose a lot of lives unless I am really mistaken in what the tidal flooding, change in crop viability etc mean. But the threat to species survival, and probably even to the survival of a technological way of life, resides in human propensity to wars and other such activities. Capitalism makes it all but certain that they will occur.

Will the roaches survive that? They may survive the radiation--but only if their food sources do.

Can it be avoided? Only if we get rid of capitalism. The sooner, the more likely we are to survive.

I think we are heading into a period of potentially revolutionary crises. If so, we need to be prepared, and to stop all the reformist hope-filled illusions. They will not prevent the wars etc. presaged by the ways in which the attempt to conquer the oil lands by the US exacerbates relations with Europe and China and ... And add 200,000,000 or more new refugees to that mix, many of them internal to the well-armed countries...

************************************
Hunter Gray (responds to Sam): Sam writes: "Can it be avoided? Only if we get rid of capitalism. The sooner, the more likely we are to survive."

I don't have to be convinced of the validity of the warnings re Global Warming. Glaciers are melting, polar bears are dying.

But the tedious and consistently repeated refrain, "We have to get rid of capitalism" which arises at every juncture -- including the Obama Campaign/Movement -- is beginning to take on the quality of ritualistic mantra. Yes, I think corporate capitalism will eventually fade, lose its effacy, and eventually its total existence. Will it happen soon? No -- not in this country. There's not going to be a relatively fast and sweeping "cleansing" revolution with a speedy utopian outcome. It's going to take a long time to get corporate capitalism under some control and eventually phase it out. [I personally am not even sure it'll be gone when I arrive via my next incarnation.] And, to cut to the bone, while that process is going on, at whatever glacial pace, we still have to labor in the trenches, day to day, on behalf of humanity. And, frankly, I think it will be a good thing if some small scale capitalism remains around always. I've always held that a relatively free society has to provide a maximum number of choices.

The major challenge we face lies not so much in corporate capitalism as massive human population growth in the context of urban industrialism. And that's generally complicated by the Kudzu-vine spread of increasingly substantial and institutionalized bureaucracy. That's all a challenge that has to be faced, via day to day struggles at the grassroots and rational social planning , long before we'll see the demise of corporate capitalism.

The large scale "socialist" countries on the planet "did," and, where they still are supposed to exist , do -- e.g., China -- have an environmental record that is purely hideous.

Despite corporate capitalism, we here have some fine traditions in this country -- not the only ones on the earth -- and I don't think we, or any good purposes are served by a "pie in the sky" presumption that nothing beneficial can really occur including the outcome of the better positions in mainline politics or "third party" approaches, until "we get rid of capitalism."

************************************
Norla Antinoro: Michael, Actually fossil forms go back well before the dinosaurs. These little beasties have been around longer than we have and will be around after we have gone. They do better in fallen logs than they do in New York slums even. As a matter of fact they love fallen logs. Paper trash is another favorite. They are NOT human dependent. Unlike species like the coyote and felines they do not depend on us for food or shelter. They are great opportunists and will live on whatever is around. These are beasties that can eat trash. Not just garbage but trash. So that makes it look like they a re human dependent. But they've been around since way before there were any mammals at all.

************************************
Michael C. Marino (responding to Cornet Joyce): Cornet's tedious and oft-repeated mantra, here following, fails to take into account the basic realities of existence, such as:

1. Capitalism cannot be "eliminated". There is always free enterprise, in the Soviet Union there was, in Cuba there is and has always been, and so ob. The micro-management necessary to "eliminate capitalism" would be of a greater degree than any we have seen before -- a degree of scrutiny we cannot realistically afford, a degree of authoritarianism we cannot morslly impose, a degree of control we should not hold up as a thing to emulate. There are a few plans for its elimination (the most famous one being advanced, nominally, by Pol Pot in the Democratic Republic of Kampuchea -- a model of Paradise, that I do not think), but none of these plans are taken seriously, either by those who advance them or those who hear them. It's fantasy.

2. "Reforms" do not breed harm. (This goes back to Sam and not Cornet) the only way in which you are being harmed by progressive reforms is that they are not bowing down to the monolithic vision; not participating in the groupmind thinking, not obeying. Some reforms may have the effect of keeping humanity alive -- such as the laws against CFCs which exist in many nations -- and, by preserving human life, thereby preserve the capitalist system, since it is the main system we use at present.

3. Taylor isn't here and has not proffered any notion at all for us as to how we are to get out of this mess. He is also wrong on the point of the weaker not controlling the stronger; at present, the weak are the uppermost 1% of the population, and they control the other 99% almost completely. Plenty have written on how to control the strong with a weaker force (Sun Tzu, US Army, other noted luminaries of similar questionable intent), which we can dismiss as theory, since that is all it is, but you cannot dismiss that 1% of the population has confiscated the planet from the rightful ownership of the entirety of humanity.

The above said, it remains that there are plenty of techniques for countering a stronger force; so that even if we have fewer than 1% of the population interested in trying to work for the salvation of the Earth, we still have enough to go up against the wealthiest few. I don't believe we have more than a handful of people scattered here and there, and with no plan of attack possible, given that some are adamant about their mantras, and demand that others dump their mantras. It's a hostage situation, I tells yah: this is the point at which the SWAT team usually shouts through a bullhorn, "Everybody drop those mantras and back away from each other! Do it now!"

I'm keeping my own mantra, of course, and here it is: OMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM...

************************************
Michael C. Marino (responding to Norla): Actually fossil forms go back well before the dinosaurs. These little beasties have been around longer than we have and will be around after we have gone. They do better in fallen logs than they do in New York slums even. As a matter of fact they love fallen logs. Paper trash is another favorite. They are NOT human dependent. Unlike species like the coyote and felines they do not depend on us for food or shelter. They are great opportunists and will live on whatever is around. These are beasties that can eat trash. Not just garbage but trash. So that makes it look like they a re human dependent. But they've been around since way before there were any mammals at all.

This far North? Manuel no theenk so. They do well in fallen logs because they are wood beetles, when they are not indoors eating our newspapers (the equal of pre-chewed meat for them).

Isn't the basic problem for insects that most are not thermogenic? How will they get around the problem of having their blood freeze? That's how they stopped HPL, you know.

************************************
Sam Friedman (responding to Hunter Gray and Michael Marino): Hunter called the comment about the ending of capitalism tedious and then proceeded to discourse on how Russia and China (both of which he called "socialist") had been miserable environmental degraders. I agree with the critique of them in terms of the environment, but as Hunter well knows, I look at both of them as the antithesis of socialism. He also pretty much states that I believe that "nothing beneficial can really occur until we get rid of capitalism." This, of course, is nonsense, as he again knows if he thinks about it -- since, for example, I am active in trying to end the Iraq war, help coordinate a coffeehouse where we invite reformist and other speakers on many topics (including global warming, environmental degradation, etc). My statement about an impending catastrophe being avoidable only by ending capitalism does not deny the need to work in daily struggles both for their own good and as ways to organize for possible bigger action.

Hunter also rather dogmatically states (but, here, he is not raising a straw man, at least), in relation to ending corporate capitalism (and by extension having a revolutionary movement in the US) "Will it happen soon? No -- not in this country." And then goes on from there. Now, he could be right. But he could also be wrong. There is a LOT of anger among tens of millions of people in the US today, and as the foreclosures increase along with either or both massive job loss or rapid inflation, the anger will grow. Where will that go politically? I am not dogmatic about that, but I hope for and act to build a major social movement as radical as I can help it be. In regard to Hunter's comment, I am reminded of a conversation with my friend Diana in late September, 2001, during my second real conversation with her. We were talking about Argentina, where she lives; I said that there seemed to be a potential, tho no certainty, that there might be a massive working class and multiclass movement development. She said something that was worded pretty close to "Will it happen soon? No -- not in my country." And of course, as we all know, by December the movement occurred.

This example is but one of many, ranging from Lenin's letter in December 1916 that the Russian working class would not revolt during his lifetime through many other examples. Such dogmatic statements are often wrong, and are very rarely helpful. They defend a willingness to rely on politics as usual, often. In the conditions of the USA today, I think they are silly -- we just do not know.

Michael somehow gets the idea that I said that reforms breed harm. That is a classic straw man argument. Read below what I actually said. I am critical of reformism, to be sure--but that is NOT the same as arguing that we should not struggle for reforms, nor is it saying that they breed harm. Just that reformism will not end capitalism, and that if we do not end capitalism, there is serious danger (perhaps certainty) of the end of current "civilization" and maybe of humanity. Likewise, he thinks that I am critiquing laws against CFCs -- which is nowhere implied by what I said, nor by my practice.

I might add that Hunter's critique of "the tedious and consistently repeated refrain, "We have to get rid of capitalism" which arises at every juncture" is nothing more than a way of saying he does not want to discuss ending capitalism, since (if you believe what he says below that is his real position) he has a semi-Malthusian analysis of the problem as too many humans in an industrial civilization. If I took it seriously, then that would mean that every time I wanted to refer to the need to end capitalism, I would have to do it in original non-tedious language and maybe include a small essay on the wheres, whys and hows of it. But in the context of the conversation Michael and I were having, this was not needed.

Why am I going into this matter at such length? Because I like you guys. I want to have intelligent e-chats with you. But I know that--except when we are joking tongue in cheek -- our ability to have such conversations is degraded by travestying what the other person said rather than either engaging with it or ignoring it and discussing another topic.

Just think, for example, what happens if we each start saying "the tedious and consistently repeated refrain" about some of the issues we discuss here. We could say this about Michael's comments about Nader or about the national leadership of the SP; about Hunter's comments about tribal societies, or many, many other issues. That way lies unpleasantness and also the ending of friendships--and, to be clear, I find it interesting (sometimes, anyway) when we discuss these topics.

I think that the ending of capitalism, and how to replace it, and how to work to assure that what replaces it is something good, are important topics for discussion. It can be done in dull ways, to be sure. (Hell, I have heard dull discussions about almost any topic you want to name.) But it remains important.


************************************
Hunter Gray (responding to Sam Friedman): That's a good answer, Sam. I certainly appreciate your thoughts and words. And I, perhaps as well as anyone on this List, am well aware of your own good works in your bailiwick. But, basically, I'm sticking -- politely -- to my guns.

You write a great deal about the need to end capitalism -- sometimes to the point that this transcends and seeks to write off, say, something such as the Obama campaign that's significant on many fronts [not the least being that of racial egalitarianism]. Hell, you've written off FDR. I am sure I [from 1934] have more memories of the grim Depression than you -- or perhaps anyone else on this List. [Those are reasonable disagreements, I suppose, between ostensibly reasonable people.] The United States is obviously not domestically war-torn and famine-wrecked Russia in 1916. Among the various reasons "we" are certainly not characterized by "revolution" in the air or around the corner involves the appearance that much of the "blue collar" American workingclass is presently gravitating toward the more conservative mainline candidates. [That may be overdrawn by self-servers but it's a sad reality to a large extent.]

I know something of substance about "urban and regional planning" but I don't need my academic and practical experience in that realm [or my copy of Mumford's works] to know that American cities are chaotic and sprawling messes caught up in ever more massive population gluts -- with mounting environmental catastrophes [and certainly social disasters] on a myriad of fronts. And those extraordinarily substantial ills often reach out into the hinterland. On population, I don't need Malthus on that one -- although I do have to concede that Aldous Huxley's Brave New World Revisited left its warning marks on me!

But I don't think any of that, and more, constitute a recipe for revolution and the end of capitalism in the United States -- any time soon. They obviously call out for enduringly profound and immediate action at many levels in many sectors.

I look for capitalism, as I've indicated, to fade away at some point -- but most likely somewhere and sometime over the far horizon. In the meantime, I continue to hold to my catechism of grassroots organizing, pragmatic political action, rational social planning.

When you talk of ending capitalism in this country, you're talking about something extremely speculative [I'd say, of course, unlikely] in the foreseeable future. I hope we'll see increasing controls on It soon. When I'm talking about Native tribalism and such attendant matters as land and resources and sovereignty, I'm talking about living, vital entities that are currently functional in the most positive senses. Those entities exist, have existed for many ages, and will continue to exist. But I'm also talking to people who, for the most part, know little about Native Americans, tribes, cultures. I always hope they are interested in those Realities.

I'm sure we'll continue all of this as time goes on.

************************************
Michael C. Marino (responding to Sam Friedman): My "straw man argument" is that something we "need" to "stop" (the reformist hope-filled illusions) must somehow be a bad thing - if it were not a bad thing, presumably we would not "need" to "stop" it. Banning CFCs was a reform. Banning DDT was a reform. Increasing the investment in researching cures for cancer and related illnesses was a reform. These are not even tremendously "progressive" reforms, they are simply common sense -- they would have to be done without regard to whether the prevailing practice was socialist, capitalist, communist, or libidinist. If you are critiquing reformism, then let us be honest about reformism: every society needs to adapt and adjust, because societies, like their individual members, are living, hence, always changing. That process of adjusting to the changing needs of society is the legitimate source of reform; the other source, of questionable legitimacy, is the preferences of the more influential members (more influential due to wealth or to numbers or volume of the voice).

The straw man is really your own -- that we need to eliminate reformist hope-filled illusions. You state this without any underpinnings: either WHY or HOW. That puts you on a slippery slope when you approach the assertion that capitalism must be eliminated. I am not a socialist for nothing, yet one of the things that every sincere socialist must face is the unfortunate limits imposed by the reality of our situation: we have long dreamed of utopia, and always known it can never be attained. We can make society much better, but it is impossible to perfect. One of the reasons why it is impossible to perfect is that, as I averred a couple of paragraphs above, a society is alive and must change and adapt -- what is "perfect" or utopian changes from moment to moment, meaning that what seems near at hand ever retreats on the way.

The first person I ever heard allege that "there is always free enterprise" was Tom Baker (yes, the actor). Alternative economic systems and methodologies can be presented, but free enterprise can, quite literally, never be eliminated -- the very goal of "ending capitalism" is always left undefined, I do note, and I believe it is left undefined because those who set such a course must know, on some level, that their ship will never reach its destination.

One might say that I have come to accept that I had to set aside the revolutionist hope-filled illusion of total victory. As I heard people claim that once socialism is established, then [fill in huge laundry list of utopian miracles] -- well, they were living in a dream world. All these wondrous things would happen and then life would forevermore be sunny and delicious. Gimme a break.

I knew Carl Geiser, who fought Franco's team in the 1930s, as political officer for the Mackenzie-Papineau and Abraham Lincoln Battalions. I can conceive of the possibility for the use of violence to present itself, but I certainly do not believe in its use as a way of life, or as an ideal methodology (I do not mean to imply that you were suggesting such an uprising, although we have all lightly touched on the subject in one way or another). Nor do I believe that a "revolution" is anything more than a change from one status to another -- and we have no guarantee that it will be a better status, or a perfect one, even for a moment, it is simply a change. Reforms are changes, also. Believing in either one as the end-all and the be-all and the only-all as the only tool of accomplish real change (and I avoid using the term "lasting change", because that implies stagnation, which I still believe is ultimately unsustainable, and I suggest that the weight of history gives me considerable credit in theorizing that the only constant we can rely on is that the world will NOT be constant) is ignoring political science (which, admittedly, is largely bogus), military science, history, almost all of philosophy, biology, thermodynamics, and a whole suitcase full of other wissenschaft.

Straw man argument or not, the slippery slope you are on that seems so like such firm footing is very poorly supported. You point out that you have worked on reforms and do not oppose ones that have had a positive effect (exemplified by the ban on CFCs, but let's please just take it as said that I brought it up as an example of reformist hope-filled illusions instead of listing a barrage of reformist hope-filled illusions of similar effects) -- so you are already making concessions to reality, that reforms are necessary as a mechanism of adaptation, or for such other reason as you conceive of it. Having made that concession, the slippery slope becomes more like unto standing in sand: it feels firm, but at any moment the tide could wash it away.

Unless you have an argument for eliminating capitalism, not just a rationale for having that as a goal, but an actual argument that includes some methodology, then your goal is a pipe dream. For thousands of years, we have had free enterprise -- to think that we can easily wipe it out, all over the globe, I see no indication that such a thing is even possible. You inadvertently cited two of the best sources I can think of for evidence that eliminating capitalism is most likely impossible: Ralph Nader and the national officers of the SPUSA.

Nader enjoys mass popularity, as he advocates a kinder, gentler capitalism. The SPUSA is ignored, as its members advocate a revolutionary pipe dream, with no clue as to how to achieve it. Meaningful change can happen, but I doubt it will come from false prophets wearing cheap suits, or from children who are uneducated as to the most basic things about the economy. Ralph's motives are ever in doubt, and the motives of the SPUSA's officers may or may not be to have a revolution and embark into a utopian future -- but those who most want the revolution have, to date, shown the least ability to work to attain it.

************************************
Cornet Joyce (responding to Hunter Gray): Attentive readers, if there are any, will have observed that Cornet's tedious and oft-repeated mantra says nothing about capitalism being "eliminated"; and that Michael's tedious and eternally-repeated mantra about tampering with capitalism leading inexorably to Pol Pot not merely misses the mark but is not aimed at one. Taylor is dead, Sun-zoo is dead, and I'm not feeling too well myself. But the weaker do not control the stronger no matter how numerous they are.

************************************
Edward Pickersgill: I suppose there could be some actually quite valuable discussion here on capitalism. I enjoyed, as always, the points back and forth by Hunter, Sam, Michael and Cornet. An interesting flow & ebb with a few foamy sprays as waters touch rocky places.

Some parts of my recollections of discussions, arguments and even beatings (administered (not to me*) by stalinist marxist-leninists in the real world of the 1970s when they were much like the Hells Angels of the left) are a bit rusty... so I'll certainly read any clarifications, corrections and explanations that come along with close interest.

Capitalism, it seems to me, is a system based on capital aka money. Money, on the other hand, is simply an agreed upon set of physical items representing value. Money, being the symbolic representation of value, is useful in social relations between individuals including those individuals who have what are called small businesses. A system based on money (i.e. using money to make money) is the kind of system I cannot support in principle even though I do accept it as the dominant system in my part of the world and therefore a system which in this time and place requires some participation in the food chain thereof.

I have a recollection that the extreme peaks of capitalism carry subset names such as "finance capitalism". I identify finance capital as being based on money but not actually using what I would recognize as actual money (paper or coin). They appear to use agreements, bonds, stocks, transactions using code language reminiscent of mysterious guilds from older times. I have another recollection of it being said (and probably written) that imperialism is the highest form of capitalism... I take it this means modern imperialism is the action taken by finance capitalists, using the military might of host countries to occupy and control countries steeped in resources and markets of key interest to the financiers.

Sometimes I used to get mixed up between the meaning of capitalism and the functionality of money. For the time being I do not have a problem as such with capital (aka money) although I do have a deep and abiding class-based caution about capitalism and an aggressive opposition to the system of finance capitalism and imperialism.

* [back then I was a proponent of the concept Eldridge Cleaver wrote about in his book Soul On Ice: more or less -- when they come at you with bats respond with guns. Although I haven't thought about this in a serious way for a while now, being busy with things which do not require guns, I feel its likely I maintain this position in more than just principle, within the concept of self-defence.]

************************************
Cornet Joyce: "The lack of money is the root of all evil."- Shaw (the guiding maxim of the great theologian Reverend Ike)

In traditional societies, "increase" was associated with the organic world, and the right to that increase- usufruct - was the right of the possessor of the land, whether common or individual. To appropriate this right for inorganic stuff (money) was usury and all the Mosaic religions were hostile toward it. Aristotle made a clear distinction between what he regarded as the legitimate use of money as medium of exchange and the illegitimate use of money to make money.

The 19th century construct "capitalism" has already been superceded as capital has been collectivized in the corporation. Moreover, we have seen the fulfillment of the Berle and Means argument of the 1930s: control of the vast web of corporate government has been largely separated from ownership.

Too little can not be said of Michael's chamber-of-commerce equation of capitalism with "free enterprise" but in the great transformation that afflicted Pennsylvania in the 1840s when the last remnants of the Revolution were swept away, the struggle was seen as one between corporations on one hand and "private enterprise" on the other. In the 1870s the Knights of Labor project of cooperative production offered a potentially formidable counterweight to corporate rule but it was obliterated by a capitalist depression. After that, the AFL became the ideological conduit for ruling class hype, instructing the workers on the wonders of "free" corporate enterprise.

************************************
Michael C. Marino (responding to Cornet Joyce and Sam Friedman): Cornet cannot deny that my allusion to the commonly-accepted (but obviously erroneous) equation that capitalism = free enterprise has provoked, at least from Edward Pickersgill, a bit of an effort toward trying to clarify what is meant.

What Sam wants to end is unclear; he is not opposed to reforms, but is opposed to reformist illusions. He is opposed to capitalism, but he does not state what he considers capitalism to be, or what its elimination means. Sam efers to Ralph, whose position on capitalism is, at best, irrelevant and, at worst, is something he supports; Sam also mentions the national officers of the Socialist Party, who use a definition identical to his: that is, they leave the line blank.

Eddie Flashback gave us something useful; some terminology which seems to me like a good start. Not complete, of course, but a good start. Looks like we have mercantile capitalism, finance capitalism, "corporate" capitalism, that good old blank, undefined capitalism, and free market economics, which precedes capitalism. Oh, and imperialism, the highest form of capitalism -- which tends to indicate that we have fascism (i.e., corporatism) on the scale.

Cornet Joyce ridicules the notion of a Pol Pot-style government, although the current officers in the various Socialist Parties (not just the one of which I am a member) speak of re-education camps and such -- these are the //organized// efforts (admittedly, badly organized, yet disorganized is, conceivably, weaker than badly organized). So when we talk of revolution, we face a future in which these types might, conceivably, get their act together; or in which the capitalists might get their act together; or in which some as-yet unknown alternative force, some truly socialist organization, might suddenly spring out of thin air and, despite the lack of a history of coordinated activity, would, presumably, create a new world of idyllic idyllicness.

Gambling on something sprouting out of thin air at the last minute is the worst plan I have heard in quite a while. most of the population is like the wind: it may blow in one direction or another, but it knows no allegiance to any side, and its direction is, inevitably, chosen, and not of its own choice.

So, in the revolution, I think that its advocates need to decide on what they want to destroy and what they want to create, and how to get from point A to point B. A random throw of the dice very likely means that those with the most guns will come out on top, and the ones with the most guns are often not of Hunter's disposition about their proper use.

What they talked about in the 1840s is not so relevant to the current problems: revolution without any direction is really more problematic than restorative cure.


************************************
Sam Friedman (responding to Hunter Gray): Hunter, your remarks are interesting and speak to the points I raised mainly. A couple places you continue to misconstrue what I have said, doubtless because I said these things some weeks ago. I have by no means written off FDR. He was a canny capiatalist leader who saw the need for reforms in the 30s to stave off the threat of revolution, and did so rather successfully. Had I been the me of my adult years, rather than some years from my birth, I would not have voted for him in 32, 36, and 40; nor in 44 would I have wanted my 2 year old self to have voted for him. (I am younger than you...but how old were you in 34 or even 38 to have much of an analysis of his political maneuvers from then?)

On Obama, though I will not vote for him, I by no means write off the Obama campaign. Indeed, as we have discussed on this list, I think it is very important, and I have been trying to develop ways to win his newcomer supporters (and others) to take part in activities that will outlast his campaign and serve as pressure/opposition to him on various issues (and maybe more generally) should he be elected.

On the Malthusian discussion, this gets very complicated very fast. Part of the issue is that the overwhelming majority of the pollutants (according to some analyses I have seen, anyway) are produced in the process of production,and not of popular consumption; and that much of the consumption pollution derives from the insane way capitalism organizes our lives. Here, notably, is the need to drive to work by millions of people all at the same time, instead of organizing work and residence patterns to be much nearer each other. In the US, at least, this was a somewhat conscious effort to disperse the working class and to isolate Blacks after WW II.? ANd, of course, to increase profits for the oil and auto companies. Thus, we can reorganize things in a totally friendly way over the generation or less after workers set up new forms of rule and get rid of capitalism. (I will get to that later...)

Your catechism of grassroots organizing, pragmatic political action, and rational social planning (BY WHOM, though, and for what ends??) are by no means antithetical to me. I do my best to do grassroots organizing, though the contexts I am in are not the best for that right now (anymore than yours are for you). I too believe in pragmatic political action in the sense of effective action that works for clear and feasible goals -- but disagree with you about the parameters of what is possible, about the reality and necessity of working towards "LEAPS" in consciousness and organization, and differ in terms of the goals I pragmatically seek. (On some future occasion, perhaps we should discuss the philosophy of pragmatism, the way many think that it has content rather than being 90% or so form, and the way some of my colleagues in the Harm Reduction and AIDS worlds totally misconstrue those who oppose them as non-pragmatic just because they disagree about what is good and bad.)

Social planning is, in many ways, an empty term until we specify the content of what is sought and the ways in which who is organized to seek it. Bismarck was a clear case of social planning. During some parts of his reign, so was Hitler; and the folks running the American occupation of Iraq are also social planners. Clearly, this is not what you mean -- but there was a long period when the American left had many members who were too intimidated to spell out the questions of who, how and for what they meant by social planning, and thus kind of fetishized the concept, and I think you are slipping into that language here--even though I know you indeed have content behind it.

One of the big differences between me and Hunter is that he shuns being "ideological." I am pretty sure that Hunter and I have never fully explored what he means by that. In my cynical moments, I think he means that he shuns anything that doesn't fit within an olden-days Popular Front framing; other times, that he has decided not to take up too deeply the issues raised by the horrors and the collapse of what has been known as Communism in Russia and China. I evaded these issues for some years in the 60s, too -- but then decided that they needed to be confronted because they were an important part of figuring out what was possible to be done and what was desirable to be done.

I found many co-thinkers in these efforts. For those on the list who know the literature, I tend to be attracted to the ideas of Hal Draper, Schachtman when he was still a revolutionary, CLR James, Raya Dunayevskaya, Tony Cliff when he was not being an ortho-Trot, and, among more recent writers, Sam Farber and Kevin Anderson. Also Istvan Meszaros. Of course, they are the theorists. In terms of some of the activists, I too feel close to many of the Wobblies, and also to Stan Weir and his generation of working class fighters, and many aspects of the DRUM, ELRUM and similar groups of the late 60s. And of course, I had many dear friends whom I admired greatly among the activist Teamsters of Los Angeles when I lived there; and in NJ more recently. And many many others besides. Needless to say, put any three of the folks I named in this paragraph in a room, and you will see intellectual battle royal -- but, in most circumstances, also affection and solidarity.

Michael continues not to SEEM to understand some key ideas in what I have been discussing. He thinks that when I attack reformISM this means I am saying that reforms should not be fought for. That is simple confusion between our languages. As I see it--and many have seen it this way in the past and currently--reformISM is a system of ideas, practice [some of it "pragmatic", almost all of it "pragmaticist" :)]. I oppose that system of ideas. But like most revolutionaries in the Marxist tradition, I am deeply involved in many struggles for reforms. This is how workers and other folks who are oppressed by the current system gain the experience and confidence to struggle better, on occasion to make leaps into revolutionary activity and thought, and, also critically important, manage sometimes to win enough breathing space to survive and (as with CFCs) to prevent a lot of deaths.

Thus, much of what Michael has written in critique of me is just missing the point.

He misses the point when he says I have a straw man of my own and then discusses how we can not build a utopia, nor a static society. He seems to have forgotten all postings where I said that I was a somewhat-Hegelian Marxist. Of course a post-revolutionary society will have contradictions, conflicts, arguments and all that good stuff. And, I might add, since even in the best of circumstances, we will be building the new society on the ashes of the old, to use an old but good phrasing, we will do this in somewhat of a mess -- at least to begin with. This was part of my point when I said we had to "end capitalism" soon -- because if we do not, the mess will be much worse; and if we are unable to do this reasonably soon, then we need to talk more about cockroaches.

Somehow, and Cornet has pointed this out, Michael seems to equate capitalism with "free enterprise" and both of them with any trading of goods or services for money. This, of course, is an approach to defining capitalism that he shares with the departed Milton Friedman (whom I once took on from the floor when I was a student when he gave a talk to several hundred in which he opposed civil rights legislation among other things; I remember myself as having bested him on that). It is deeply antithetical to Marxism as I understand it, and also to historical reality.

Michael asked me to define capitalism as I see it. This is a good thing to do, since it may help the conversation to be informed by a better understanding of where each of us is coming from. It took Marx three volumes and decades of his life to define capitalism, but I guess Michael wants the sound bite (and necessarily not terribly adequate) version. So here goes:

Capitalism is a system in which production of goods and services is done for the purpose of making profit and by the mechanism of capital hiring workers to do the work and create the profit. It is a system in the sense that the actors in it (firms, workers) are compelled by the system to behave to some degree in certain ways because if they do not, the firms will fail and/or the workers will lose their jobs. And for most workers, losing their jobs means real problems in getting food, heating homes, having homes, and the like.

Again, if you know the literature, these interpretations are close to those in the books by Ellen Meiksins Wood, Bob Brenner, Andrew Kliman and many others. They differ from those of Immanuel Wallerstein, Adam Smith, Gary Becker, Milton Friedman, and many others. They are reasonably close to those of some, but not all, writers for Monthly Review Press, though some MR writers (Huberman, for example) was oriented towards seeing trade as more fundamental to capitalism than production for profit.

When Michael discusses issues of what might come after a "revolution," he is discussing important issues indeed. As I have mentioned several times on this list, I have been trying to write seriously on what happens then and how we can and should act to make a reasonably good world come out of it. I cannot summarize this, nor my views on how we get to that day, in a reasonable length of space here. That may be because I am still thinking through some of the issues, and may be because I am not the most competent person in the world. The authors I mentioned quite a ways above (paragraph with Draper, Weir, etc mentioned) have written a lot about the way we get there; and I cannot really do much better than they have, except that it is later in history and so conditions have changed.

If you really want to know my thoughts, I will send anyone who asks my essay-in-progress on "Making the World Anew." If I do, I would appreciate comments back about it, since it is very imperfect even as a reflection of my thoughts.

So, I do have arguments for eliminating capitalism, I have methods to do so -- but of course, the real work is in the organizing to help give these reality. Though the formulation of a vision of what is possible and, thus, why we can hope for good outcomes, is at this stage an important part of the organizing approach I think we need. (Hunter might call that ideology. I would call it good pragmatic sense if you have talked to any militant, feisty, and pragmatic workers, anti-war activists, folks trying to deal with the New Orleans situation, or other issues of the day. THEY hunger for such visions.)

What I wrote above also is my response to Ed's very nice and endearing remarks on this issue.

************************************
Cornet Joyce (responding to Michael Marino): No, I don't ridicule the notion of a PolPotish government. I think Mr. Bush is closer to Caligula than to Pol Pot but analogy is an imperfect science. As for existing or unknown socialist organizations displacing our Pol Pot, I don't so much ridicule that notion as guffaw at it. The current problems you talk about now are not so relevant to future problems. Neither Revolution nor human events in general follow a script. However, I agree that we should discuss this things and I commend you for spurring Ed on. All Power to the Imagination.

************************************
Cornet Joyce (responding to Sam Friedman): I am of course not a Marxist nor an Hegelian. I subscribe to Nietzche's view that there's too much beer in German philosophy- and in Raya's case maybe a dab of vodka on the side; but I've always appreciated James. I'd like to see it ("Making the World Anew"). I still owe you a statement and I'm working up to it.

************************************
Hunter Gray (responding to Sam Friedman): To be frank about it, I think this "dialogue" -- which may have had some purpose at its outset -- is becoming personally surreal.

While I don't think any of us are even remotely inclined to ignore the predatory nature of large-scale capitalism as a major root of Ill, I do think some of the differences here, very basic ones, involve a tendency in some quarters to live in an ostensibly pristine world, passing critical [usually negatively critical] judgment on those who are trying to function in tangibly practical fashion with a focus on working with people, individually and collectively, to not only survive in a world that is often characterized by stark brutality and always by exploitation. And, in that context, these critics attempt to shoot piously at those [of us] who are "taking the mountain" on a step-by-step basis toward a [hopefully] infinitely better planet -- one that has to come at some, however far-off, point.

We've been through these discussions a good many times and, with one just-now exception, there has been nothing especially new. The exception is the specific introduction of essentially Trotskyist thinking. And, while I'm not inclined to dismiss all of that in cavalier fashion, the productive history of that perspective in the United States, and perhaps elsewhere, has been far from impressive. With the exception of a relatively brief period in the '30s with some accomplishments vis-a-vis the Teamsters in the Twin Cities [with very short-lived ramifications at Fargo and Sioux Falls], and maybe a very few other Teamster things, activist involvement [along with many others] in the more historically recent anti-war movements, and the presence of some unique persons [Berta Green and Bert Cochran come to mind], American Trotskyism has been, frankly, a wash-out from the perspective of realistic grassroots accomplishments. The Wobblies and the Socialists and the Communists, who could usually distinguish reality from "enclave fantasy" have a far better record indeed than the Trotskyists, much of whose time appears to have been spent in cloistered enclaves characterized by invective-laden factionalism, usually laced [however articulately or otherwise], with highly personal attacks. The Trotskyists, at least in this country, haven't been the only ones who've done that -- but they have done that almost to the virtual exclusion of any meaningful grassroots involvements. And they wrote off FDR and I'm reasonably sure that they peer out at the Obama Movement with a supercilious, if lonely, disdain.

Others have accomplished far, far more in the Save the World Business. As many know, I've always been very glad indeed that -- in addition to solid footing in certain Native cultures -- I got my radical catechism from what remained of the old-time free-minded IWW and some important basic organizing training in the Mine-Mill union. My very long-term organizing record and, as far as that goes, background in "urban and regional planning" is well known, speaks for itself.

PS: It does no disservice to Relevancy and Truth for me to point out, as all who know me well are quite aware, that my all-time [virtually life-long] favorite political novel is Arthur Koestler's great work, Darkness at Noon [1940]. [And, although I am not a book collector by nature, I've always been most pleased to have my extremely early edition of that work.]


************************************
Cornet Joyce: I read Darkness at Noon and the (Kingsley was it?) stage adaptation when I was 15. A powerful work. Koestler's writing on the thought process and creativity is also interesting.

************************************
Cornet Joyce (responding to Hunter Gray): And then there are us infidels who see no "mountains" being taken by the pious of any persuasion, only bleached bones where "the lone and level sands stretch far away." American Trots were generally of lower quality than British or French Trots but then the Brits and French have had parliaments. American Trots were best known for usurping credit for demonstrations. And then some of them were instrumental in the "new american century" enterprise, the fruits of which are well known. On the other hand, the New Deal came and went and most of what survives is the social security system, and the GOP moves up its siege engines to take that citadel as we speak. Obama seems to have been the only DP aspirant to the throne who is committed not to manning the ramparts but aiding the GOP in storming them.

************************************
Hunter Gray: Frequently, Cornet, when one is still struggling in the foot-hills, one can't yet see the mountain that looms immediately ahead.

************************************
Sam Friedman (responding to Hunter Gray): A note on Arthur Koestler: I also liked him very much, including both Darkness at Noon and Thieves in the night. If I remember right, I read them when I was 11 or 12. In those years, along with War and peace, my favorite book, interestingly enough, was John Steinbeck's In Dubious Battle, which is a story and homage to a fictional (I think) Communist organizer during an agricultural workers' strike in California.

In response to Hunter, I want to say several things, all in the spirit of friendship and seeking after political paths that work for the benefit of humanity. (This trite but real phrase also is designed to emphasize the commonality of our hopes.)

If you look at the list of authors and activists I mentioned in my previous post, only one or two would call themselves Trotskyist (or would have in their later years, at any rate.) I have in mind here Tony Cliff and any of the members of his group I happened to mention. They worked in the UK primarily, and were really quite successful at grassroots organizing and making a significant impact on British politics. In my experience, Cliff's book for shop stewards on Productivity Deals and How to Handle Them was a classic as an agitational book by socialists that made a major impact. Of course, Cliff is some years dead now. His organization, the Socialist Workers Party, has members who are leading the antiwar movement in Britain; a current candidate for mayor of London; and considerable influence in the trade union movement (which has been true for 40 years or so now.)

Of course, that is Britain. It has been much harder for overt socialists of all kinds in the US ever the mid-40s when Truman's administration began to turn the heat on the left big time, followed of course my McCarthy.

Although I do not agree with Hunter's labeling of the others I named as Trotskyist, nor with his labeling me as Trotskyist, In the following remarks I will try to answer the thrust of his argument on the basis that the movements he (mistakenly IMHO) labels as Trotskyist are what I am talking about. In these terms, I have to disagree with Hunter when he says:

Quote: ". . . the productive history of that perspective in the United States, and perhaps elsewhere, has been far from impressive. With the exception of a relatively brief period in the '30s with some accomplishments vis-a-vis the Teamsters in the Twin Cities [with very short-lived ramifications at Fargo and Sioux Falls], and maybe a very few other Teamster things, activist involvement [along with many others] in the more historically recent anti-war movements, and the presence of some unique persons [Berta Green and Bert Cochran come to mind], American Trotskyism has been, frankly, a wash-out from the perspective of realistic grassroots accomplishments." End Quote

Of course, it all depends what you mean by "washout." It is clearly true that we do not have a mass revolutionary movement in the US at the moment; and ever clearer that no socialist revolution took place. In this respect, the "Trotskyists" he criticizes, the Trotskyists, the Wobblies, the Socialist Party (even in Oregon!) and all the rest of us have been washouts.

In terms of what I think he means about grassroots accomplishments, and in the perspective that in recent years there have been relatively few grassroots mass movements, I think that some of the strongest and most solidly rooted left-derived groups in the country were started to a large though not exclusive degree by groups associated with the folks I named. Hunter alluded to TDU in the quote I just gave, though perhaps with less positive a view of it than I have. His quote ignores Labor Notes and the various groups it has nurtured. They are hardly a mass revolutionary movement, but they do form a strong labor core for organizing when opportunities and/or upsurges do occur.

I would add Against the Current as a modestly successful publication that Hunter himself has published in. I think he may have even referred positively to his articles in ATC in previous discussions on this list.

I cannot think of any groups derived from the traditions I referred to who view either Obama or the movement he is leading with disdain. They disagree with it, by and large; and are unlikely to vote for him. But this hardly means they disdain it. Most of the folks I am in contact with see it somewhat like I do: They expect little of Obama if he wins, though they and I will be happy if he does better things than we think; and we are worried that his supporters, if indeed he is seriously disappointed, will move to cynicism instead of activism and the left. We would like to prevent that--but even when we suggest to those in the campaign that this is in accord with their politics as well as ours (and for the left folks in the campaign, I sincerely think this is true), they seem either to be too busy with the campaign to bother or, in some cases, take our saying we will not work for him as tantamount to treason and spend their time attacking us instead of working for what would make sense in the long run. Although I disagree with them for that, I also see that it is a consequence of the mentality produced around US political campaigns. It would be nice if those of us on this list could seriously discuss this issue and how to deal with it, instead of ignoring it as others have on several occasions when I have raised it previously.

In terms of FDR: I do not write off FDR. I view him as a capable defender of capitalist interests who made some concessions that helped people -- but also have led to myths and much else since that I do not consider to be helpful.

But, as I wrote to Hunter in a private note some weeks ago, I also consider him to be complicit in the mass murder of my people. This is undeniably true when he and his administration refused admittance to the Jewish refugees on the St. Louis, who could find no place to disembark in the world except back in Hitler's Europe -- and many died as a result. More arguably, his failure to bomb the rail lines that led to Auschwitz and similar camps facilitated the Nazis in massacring my relatives and people. I neither forgive this nor quite understand those who fail to see this as a horrible thing about Roosevelt.

FDR also, of course, set up concentration camps for Japanese Americans. Much abuse, rape and misery was inflicted on those within those camps, as I have been told. I have not looked into this enough to have a full picture of it, however.

Thus, with all respect for Hunter and what he has accomplished, we do indeed have disagreements as well as a fundamental friendship and respect.

************************************
Michael C. Marino (responding to Sam Friedman): There is no indication at all that there is any mass support for change, or any serious effort for same, on the part of any of the "organized" groups out there who proclaim their leftness or progressiveness. You could try blaming the above results on my own failures as an organizer. Plenty have been at this for a lot longer than I have, and they have confirmed to me having found similar results. Believing that there is anything more than this out there is living in a fantasy world.

Milton Freedman may have had a definition of capitalism, but his only fault in that was beating Sam to the punch. Calls to "end capitalism" are so frequent and so non-serious in most of their instances that the phrase now resembles a call to "end the bogey man", or resembles one of the conspiracy theories about 9-11 ("Osama did it!" "The CIA did it!" "LIHOP!" "The building was designed to collapse!" blah blah blah).

With the expanded version you have provided, I would point out that you are still facing a very good probability that eliminating the employment-domination system (may I use that as a crude summary?) would take more energy than it is worth. Where I live, one can find 100 or more organizations who claim that they are militant, 100% anti-capitalist, and so forth, yet one can not find any people here who will work for the goals they claim to hold. Some of the people I most respected and admired have started to fall by the wayside, sick of a life of working for the common good in the absence of any serious movement. And, yes, elitist or not, I am starting to accept that it is impossible to achieve much of anything, so long as nobody will try.

There is another problem which will be arriving shortly, although I cannot say exactly how soon, any more than anybody else can: Katrina was a drop in the bucket. Soon, many cities will be facing partial or total destruction from the ever-increasing wind speed, driven by the uneven heating of the Earth, facing a combination of greenhouse gases, reduced albedo, and emissions which are, as yet, still INCREASING. There is no planning for reaction to this, although we know it is coming.

Yet we should pretend that there is a revolution in the hearts and minds of the discontent? Maybe so. Most likely to erupt shortly after they die.

So, reformism does not mean believing in reforms. Here is the definition Wikipedia offers:

"Socialist Reformism is the belief that gradual democratic changes in a society can ultimately change a society's fundamental economic relations and political structures. This belief grew out of opposition to revolutionary socialism, which contends that revolutions are necessary to fundamentally change a society.

"Socialist reformism was first put forward by Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky, two leading social democrats. Reformism was quickly targeted by revolutionary socialists, with Rosa Luxemburg condeming Bernstein's Evolutionary Socialism in her 1900 essay Reform or Revolution?. While Luxemburg died in the German Revolution, the reformists soon found themselves contending with the Bolsheviks and their satellite communist parties for the support of the proletariat. After the Bolsheviks won the Russian Civil War and consolidated power in the Soviet Union, they launched a targeted campaign against the Reformist movement by denouncing them as "social fascists." Arthur Koestler, a former member of the Communist Party of Germany, the largest communist party in Western Europe in the interwar period, confessed in The God That Failed that communists aligned with the Soviet Union continued to consider the "social fascist" Social Democratic Party of Germany to be the real enemy in Germany -- even after the Nazi Party had usurped power.

"In modern times, Reformists are seen as centre-left. Some social democratic parties, such as the Canadian NDP and the Social Democratic Party of Germany, are still considered to be reformist."

Nobody I have met is a supporter of Bernstein and Kautsky. I doubt anyone in DSA or the SDA uses Bernstein and Kautsky as a model. Draper, on the other hand, is useful... because he opposes Bernstein, whom nobody supports, thereby providing a ready straw man.

In the article I wrote, "A Thousand Clay Pots", at least there would have been some parsley. Potentially, anyway. But the article runs afoul of the lack of 1,000 people who would even do that much.

When the first law in the world that banned CFCs went into effect, it included a one-year delay for the legislature to work out a list of exceptions. At the time, there was no ready alternative for aerosol inhalers for asthmatics (may or may not be by now...), so that was one of the exceptions identified. That world-first ban, a reform, was enacted by the Oregon legislature after its introduction by Walt Brown. I suspect that Brown did not have the belief, at the time, that that reform would go on to change the economic substructure of the economy. When I worked on the higher minimum wage initiative, or the White Out Act, with Senator Gordly, I did not believe that we were going to magically alter the substructure by doing what we could. I do believe that continuing to support worker co-ops, farmers' markets, and other alternate markets is one way of trying to break out of the worker-domination system, but hardly the only methodology needed.

I suppose this is more to the point: I know of no advocates of the process of changing the fundamentals of the economy with reforms. Poca a poco ritardando is not an agenda I have seen or heard advanced, so I see no use in bashing reformists -- the believers in this "reformist illusion" do not exist, or they are doing a great job of hiding.

I do not believe that there are revolutionaries, real ones, out there, because I have met a lot of people and but few were serious about causing a revolution, and none had much of a plan or idea for the future. I do not believe that the Earth's gravity will ever cause the rain to fall up, because I have studied the laws of physics and observed the direction in which rain falls. Never up, this far. I have never spotted a flatworm, only read of them, but I do not believe that the evidence indicates that they are ever going to invent the wheel. These beliefs are elitist? Perhaps, but not so much as they are deductions based on observation and study.

************************************
Michael C. Marino: An unapologetic Michael Marino is as much the tradition in my family as a rigid and unyielding Michael Marino. As my father, and his father, and Yours Truly would say, "The middle initial changes -- beyond that, Not One Step Back."

You may consider the over-the-top intro concluded.

The basic theory

From a great many sources. I conclude that there are far too many things to do and ways to do them for me to waste much time on being critical. Sadly, that doesn't actually STOP me from being critical, but I try to go by the simplistic slogan: "There are many ways forward, only one way of standing still." Discerning aficionados may point out that there are many ways of moving backwards, also, and I would have to admit that the slogan, like most slogans, does not cover the whole idea.

The whole idea

I figure that I neither need a master plan nor could use one. There is far too much to do, in far too many places, and my effective range far too limited, for me to suppose that I could crown myself Top Dawg (am willing to let George take that particular title) and make up some fantastical world-wide (or even nationwide) path to a better way. Simple and straightforward goals (with some fancy-dancy stuff thrown in now and then to keep 'em guessin') is more my style.

As my strength lessens...

Being that I am profoundly deaf, partial paralysis of the face, von Recklinghausen's Disease, near-total blindness in one eye, advancing deterioration in the other eye, a friendly spirit reminiscent of an asp, and so on, I suspect that making any plan that requires me to be alive and/or functioning is probably a pretty stupid plan, but I believe that I can contribute in some way while I am alive.

Some actions to draw ire

Given the above, these are some of my inclinations:

Boycott of Israeli goods (i.e., the uzi -- do they make anything else?), support Israeli divestment and disinvestment

Almost all corporations live off of other corporations. Military industries tend to own consumer-producing facilities in order to continue making a profit in case the world fails to be at war for some reason. Have advocated a boycott list on these, but not very willing to do all the research myself -- and so nothing has happened on that score. I think the approach is something more than completely useless.

In "A Thousand Clay Pots" and in other ways, I have suggested small methodologies for mass participation in some form of small-scale revolutionary action. Simple, practical, and there is no interest.

The FreeGeek systemology, in which we have a worker-controlled (for the most part) workplace, a source of raw materials (other people's junk), skilled staff who work at repair, a system of donating repaired computers to those who can use them, while sending machines that can't be repaired into various recycling streams -- I propose that this is as good a way as any to incite interest in worker-controlled business, in using non-corporate software (we install Linux), and in implementing methodology which converts a waste-stream to the garbage pits into a resource-stream.

I support using whatever means we can find of foraging off the opposition -- capitalists have a lot of stuff they are just throwing away. Perfectly good stuff. I worked with a local group in organizing that stuff as donations for various poor communities, and have done a little work on independent action aimed at gathering up capitalism's discards. This will not "eliminate capitalism", but it might ease a little suffering.

I propose that a mobile city will be needed soon, and probably more than one. What I do not mean is to take some place like Los Angeles and put it on wheels (that might look cool, but let's leave that to Sci-Fi); what I mean is a fleet of trucks with either tents or some other temporary housing, plus every other resource needed to become a temporary city at any time that one of the ones we built to last gets wiped out by hurricane, fire, flood, Act of Fog, and so forth. I know trucks tend to run on oil. Sorry; ox-pulled wagons just don't qualify as "emergency assistance". This, also, will not "end capitalism" -- it is simply one of the measures that must be taken to take the current problems seriously. Getting enough buses and trucks together is not even the real problem -- the real problem is going to be the logistics after the emergency is over. "Well, now that Baton Rouge is gone, I guess we have these 700,000 newly-homeless folks to drop off... somewhere..."

Supporting farmers markets, consumer co-ops, and worker co-ops -- probably a quicker route to a better way of doing things that hoping that the legislature will "end capitalism" or that a "revolution" will.

On all purchases: think about what is being bought and how it can be disposed of with as little (preferably NO) refuse as possible being dumped somewhere. This will not "end capitalism", it is just what is needed.

Apply to work near where you live, make sure all you do is within walking distance for the most part, nix the wheels if you got 'em, never fly again, and go by train if you really must go somewhere. Again, won't "end capitalism" -- just what is needed.

Partake in civics. It's a pain in the keester, but if we ignore this aspect of things and we DO happen to "end caitalism", we need to know how to run a society, at least in theory, and we'll need to know as well as or better than the people who came before us (i.e., the twerps who are in now).

Elections are fine, but go for smaller offices which can actually be won. Running for Governor just makes you and your micro-party look funny.

Attend war demonstrations if you must.

I know that's a small start, just the things I have been thinking about lately. Ah, and I have forgotten one:

Never compromise.

Long live the Fist and Rose.

************************************
Hunter Gray: This RBB discussion, in my opinion at least and as I've noted in a quite recent earlier post, has become surreal in a rather personal fashion. I'm quite willing to see this brief cloud as inadvertent and I daresay that none of us would be pleased even with the fraying of the generally good interpersonal relationships that characterize our rambunctious little discussion list -- good relations that are often reflected in congenial off-list correspondence. Sam, indeed, has personally visited us [three years ago] right here in Idaho.

Clarence Darrow at least once remarked that "People live lives of quiet desperation" [and I always like to match that with the affirmative conclusion provided by William James in his essay, "Is Life Worth Living?"] But these are not good times for Left organizational radicals in this country. It'll soon be a decade since the first of the very promising large scale demonstrations against the World Trade Organization marked the end of a very long Death Valley Trek epoch that characterized radical life since the mid-1970s. But despite the challenges presented by the conservative [basically Reaganesque] Clinton administration and the Horrors initiated and carried by the present one, coupled with the quite commendable anti-war grassroots activities that have ensued now for years, Left organizations in this country, although there have been brief "flush" periods, have gotten smaller.

And Left folk are, in a phrase, frustrated as all Hell.

And, of course, so are a vast number of the American people. The genuine excitement characterizing tremendous support for the Obama Campaign/Movement speaks volumes about all of that -- and, in addition to feeling that Obama offers far more than the other presidential candidates re the Iraq War and more -- I'm at least even more strongly convinced that this grassroots excitement propelling and surrounding Obama is indicative of a phenomenon that transcends his hard-fought endeavor and will certainly continue in broadly promising fashion following the November elections.

I'm not sure what this bodes for the "Older Left" and the "Older New Left." My strong hunch is that History on these shores at least stands at a point similar -- in the rough or essential sense -- to 1960. If so, Big Things lie ahead in the realm of activism. On the other hand, though, I don't see a sweeping revolution at any time soon and the obviously and predominately much younger people aren't going to buy in, at least substantially, to that -- at least not in the foreseeable future. And They are going to want to make their own decisions sans outside manipulation, even that with the most altruistic of motives.

I do hold to my strong conviction that the Struggle is a step-by-step Mountain climb -- and, when one range is mounted, others will beckon. It's a Forever process.

Those of us associated with general or specific Left views have every good reason to stick to our guns. We can certainly make positive contributions in such realms as bona fide organizing and, whatever the limited circ of our journals, meaningful writing. And we have, if we're willing to abandon our factional and interpersonal biases and the more rigid dimensions of theory, a great deal of wisdom and solid advice to give to those who are now entering the door that opens into the Save the World Business. Not all of the people who get into that stay -- many do some good things, then fall away. But there are always those who for sure Keep On, Keeping On.

************************************
Cornet Joyce: I'm not sure who the first politician was who told his electioneering stooges "We're a MOVEMENT!" but it's quite common, as is the self-identification of the stooges as a "movement." How many defeated politicians have consoled their minions by assuring them that "this movement will not die!" The German greens were a "movement" until they elected some politicians and then the politicians ("realos") explained that their election was the goal of the "movement" and it wasn't needed anymore.

It isn't limited to "progressive" electioneering either. It was common in the Perot "movement" and is present in the Larouche "movement." There was a fellow with the Wallace campaign in 1972 who explained that "The last time, Wallace used us but this time we're using him. It's his campaign but it's our movement!"

Nor is it even limited to electioneering. We've seen the Movement for a New Society, the New American Movement and the Movement for Economic Justice. Is the "social indicators movement" still on the march? At a conference of nonprofiteers who declared themselves a "movement," a shrewd Wisconsin farmer growled "When I hear the word 'movement' I know it's bullshit."

Although Obama used to describe himself as a Hilary Clinton "democrat." he is now the antithesis of H. Clinton, reminding one of Lenin's characterization of Kerensky as "a Kornilovist who accidentally quarreled with Kornilov." Obama is now a "movement" whose members fancy themselves to be unique. Other politicians are not "movements," they believe. If we don't buy the Obama brand of "hope" we are not synchronized with the March of History, of which Obama is the undisputed drum major.

Mencken observed that the message of the con man was always some variant of "if you refuse to buy Dr. Quack's Magic Elixir, you're in favor of letting Aunt Bertha die." It is not enough to find the "movement's" candidate somewhat preferable to the alternative: it's Aunt Bertha's life! it's a MOVEMENT!. We are urged to "clap if you believe" in Hope, in Progress, in All Things Bright and Beautiful, in the "Movement." If sufficient numbers don't believe and don't clap, the illusion will die and the "movement" with it.

By all means, clap. You've clapped many times before and you'll clap many times hence.

- CJ, Chairman, The Illusion of a New Movement

************************************
Cornet Joyce: A poem from Darrow's law partner, Edgar Masters:

"I tried to win the nomination
For president of the County-board
And I made speeches all over the County
Denouncing Solomon Purple, my rival,
As an enemy of the people,
In league with the master-foes of man.
Young idealists, broken warriors,
Hobbling on one crutch of hope,
Souls that stake their all on the truth,
Losers of worlds at heaven's bidding,
Flocked about me and followed my voice
As the savior of the County.
But Solomon won the nomination;
And then I faced about,
And rallied my followers to his standard,
And made him victor, made him King
Of the Golden Mountain with the door
Which closed on my heels just as I entered,
Flattered by Solomon's invitation,
To be the County -- board's secretary.
And out in the cold stood all my followers:
Young idealists, broken warriors
Hobbling on one crutch of hope --
Souls that staked their all on the truth,
Losers of worlds at heaven's bidding,
Watching the Devil kick the Millennium
Over the Golden Mountain."

************************************
Sam Friedman: Cornet, that was an interesting post. I have a history question for you. Although in German, did Hitler refer to his electoral campaigns as a "movement"? The reason I ask, is that he had organized them for multi-purpose action (like fighting Communists, Socialists and Jews on the street) and after his election he made good use of his movement for a while to continue the repression.

Also, Ted Glick, whose work I admire, has often referred to the Jackson Rainbow Coalition, in its early incarnation, as a movement that led to further (non-electoral and electoral activity) when some of its later participants cohered again for other efforts. What do you think about that case?

************************************
Cornet Joyce: In 1921 Hitler tells us: "There are two principles which, when we founded the Movement, we engraved upon our hearts: first, to base it on the most sober recognition of the facts and second, to proclaim these facts with the most ruthless sincerity."

"And this recognition of the facts discloses at once a whole series of the most important fundamental principles which must guide this young Movement which, we hope, is destined one day for greatness."

But the assertion of "fact" is not the point. He concludes:

"That is the mightiest thing which our Movement must create: for these widespread, seeking and straying masses a new Faith which will not fail them in this hour of confusion, to which they can pledge themselves, on which they can build so that they may at least find once again a place which may bring calm to their hearts."

The serious "movement" nazis were in the SA, I should think, and perhaps the Labor Front. Much of the impetus had come from the Youth Movement which had grown from 1900 on and which was formed around Volkish doctrines.

Jackson was a Movement figure and many of his campaigners had roots in that world. The campaign brought some new people into it but while it was running it also sucked a lot of time and effort out of what people were already doing. I should like to think that the end result was positive.

In any event, that campaign was hardly the only one that brought people to political consciousness and activity. I've known people who traced their awakening to John Lindsey's mayoral campaign in New York. Affinity groups coalesce in many ways and election campaigns are among
the ways.

************************************
David McReynolds: I agree with Hunter that the organized left - new, old, whatever - is living on hard times. I also think the Obama candidcay may open the door for much in the way of a push "to the left", and I say this fully aware that Obama is not a socialist, he will not cut economic and military aid to Israel, he will not push for a single payer health insurance program, he will not call for nuclear disarmament.

We are the ones who have to push for those things.

Part of the problem with the left (and these are very brief notes) is that the "models" are broken. The Leninist movement in all its various forms - the Communist Party, the various Trotskyist organizations, the Maoist groups - all fall short of seeing the need to build an American movement modeled on our culture, not on the brilliance of a Russian living and working in the unique conditions of Czarist Russia. (I'd say exactly the same thing about those such as myself who are committed to nonviolence and the teachings of Gandhi - if we do not realize that Gandhi, also, was a product of "time and place" we will fail). I'm inclined to say the only problem with the Leninist-inspired movements is that so many adherents think they might possibly be Lenin.

In New York I'm starting some very informal discussions with a range of views including those who belong to groups I don't agree with in whole or part - CP, CCDS, DSA, SP, etc. - in order that we can, without trying to "convert one another" or try yet one more time to "refound the Left", to establish some personal ties and trust.

Beyond that we can only work in our own communities, try to involve younger people in discussions in which we need to be willing to listen much more than to try to impose our own ideology.

************************************
Hunter Gray: Good indeed to see your thoughts, David, with which I -- obviously -- quite agree. I am taking the liberty of forwarding this little package of good seed to several lists and some individuals where I'm certain that at least some soil will prove fertile.

Like a fair number of us still -- despite the vicissitudes of many decades -- you are for sure a Long Distance Runner. We both got into all of this in a grim epoch, you at the beginning of the '50s, I in the middle of that decade. Those years could be lonely.

I always remember a kid and fellow student from NYC with whom I chanced to visit at Arizona State [Tempe] in late 1957. I mentioned that I was a Wobbly [for some newer readers, Industrial Workers of the World.]

He warmed immediately. "You Are!" he exclaimed happily. "I'm a YPSL!"

And that was the first time I'd really heard of the Young Peoples' Socialist League. He, btw, was very helpful when we organized, a few months later, the broad-based and successful movement at the university to greatly improve the on-campus food and dorm situation.

Your "project" sounds truly solid, David. Its timely nature needs no elaboration. And, among other gifts, you have a rare sense of finely honed humor that "breaks ice", helps free people from their sober-sided image.

But you are, of course, very serious. Keep us posted!

************************************
Steven F. McNichols: I think the opposite may happen. When Kennedy ran in 1960, a lot of people expected his administration to move the country left. But Kennedy appointed a bipartisan cabinet and governed from the center albeit more progressively than Ike. Assembly speaker Unruh and his minions in California constantly pressured liberal Democrats to moderate our positions on major issues, which many of us refused to do. Given the race-baiting that has recently surfaced, I think electing Obama will be a miracle. It will be an even greater miracle if he can unify the country, stop the war, and undo much of the damage the Bush-Cheney administration caused during the previous eight years. He will govern from the center like Kennedy if he governs at all. Of course, McCain is a completely different story.

************************************
Hunter Gray: Thanks, Steve, for the thoughtful comments. [And I certainly know, as do most on these lists, that we all -- and we're a great many -- are on the same side.]

Anyway, I'll throw in a quick two cents:

I make no prophet pretensions. But I do think Obama stands an excellent chance of winning the Presidency and I think he may well do more, in his own right in that position, than some expect. But I think the basic point here is that there is a tremendously powerful and pervasive enthusiasm, much of it [not exclusively of course] generated by younger people, surrounding all dimensions of his endeavor. That isn't going to fade, any more than it did at the beginning of the '60s -- and this current vigorous river will find plenty of positive social justice outlets. There are other factors. The Cold War/Red Scare, so pervasive even into much of the '60s, is now long dead in almost all national quarters -- and the fear and hysteria characterizing the reaction to 9-11 has obviously waned. For whatever its many faults, the Eisenhower administration and most of its policies were a far cry from the present, multi-faceted Horrors given us by the people who've run our national government for almost eight years -- and, in many less obviously negative ways, since 1981. And we are in a profound recession now, if not an actual depression.

************************************
Cornet Joyce (responds to Steven F. McNichols): I don't know what "a lot of people" means but I didn't know anyone who thought Kennedy would "move the country left." Certainly not Eleanor Roosevelt, who said she "would have nothing to do with Joe Kennedy or any of his McCarthyite brood." Most liberals found it so hard to differentiate the positions of Kennedy and Nixon that Arthur Schlesinger composed a little book, "Kennedy or Nixon: Is There a Difference?" to address the matter. Kennedy's principle criticism of the Eisenhower government was that it had not splurged on enough missiles.

I leave it to "progressives" to say whether Kennedy governed more "progressively" than Eisenhower. Certainly he progressed from about 900 troops in Vietnam to about 17,000. He progressed from preparations to reinstall Batista's mafiosa in Cuba to an actual attack on Cuba. His tax cut at the top brackets began the progress of the tax structure toward the regressivity now taken for granted.

Everything one sees about Obama suggests that he will be as "progressive" as Kennedy, Carter and Clinton, and will be applauded by the Progressive Policy Institute.

************************************
Sam Friedman (responding to a Hunter Gray comment): Needless to say, I agree with Hunter that I would never let disagreement of this sort strain friendships.

I might also want to add that I think I agree with everything Hunter says in this post except that I have a serious hope that a very radical and indeed revolutionary movement may develop in the next few years. Of course, I am not at all sure that this will occur -- but I think at this time that it is worth doing what little we can to facilitate it and to provide it with some ideas that may help it avoid some past pitfalls. For example, in my interactions with the current version of Students for a Democratic Society, I try to help some of them see through their view that Weatherman was the true SDS to the really positive activities it engaged in; and to understand some of why and how its different ideas developed over time, and why, after the splits in SDS, the media picked Weatherman then and now as the part of SDS that they write about.

I too have a Monroe, NC story, by the way -- though not one I am very proud of. In the Fall of 1963, about the time I attended my first SDS meeting, my "girlfriend" (as we called such companions in those days) and I flew from college to DC, where I introduced her to my parents. Then, we borrowed the family car and drove down to North Carolina to visit an African American schoolkid (about 10 or 11 years old, as I remember it -- but my memory is not good on this point) whom she had tutored as part of a civil rights sponsored program while working in Washington, DC at a summer job a few months before. He lived in a truly dilapidated neighborhood in a largish town, as I remember it.

We spent an hour or two with him and his family, and then, for some reason, decided to go see Monroe NC. We had the address of a movement member there; but no more. So, like Hunter, after driving around a while in the deepening dusk, and finding no hint of the address, we asked some white folks, including a policeman, where it was. This was a truly stupid act, but we were young and naive.

The cop said that the address was a troublemaker's address and asked to see some ID. Realizing the danger, I decided to show ID that might make him take pause in taking any action, and I drew out my membership card for the Harvard Young Democratic club. This was when the Harvard mafia were heavy on the ground in Washington, DC. He told us to get out of town.

At that point, having no real reason for being there -- and thus, in a very different situation from Hunter -- we got out of town fast. After driving through the night for about 40 miles, we had to stop. If I remember right, we showed Nancy's ID and used her last name when we registered at an off-highway motel.

'nuff said.

************************************
David McReynolds (responding to Steven F. McNichols): Always glad, Hunter, when the old YPSL folks prove helpful.

Steven, I think your points are sound but too early in the game. In fairness to Kennedy (of whom I was not a great fan) he was "barely" elected - the matter of Nixon weighing the Texas and the Illinois votes and which of them had done the greater cheating (I don't know why younger people think it is only in 2000 or 2004 that elections were fraudulent).

The fact his margin of victory was so very narrow meant he had no choice but to govern from the center. Or at least he felt that. Which is one reason why I, among many others, was stunned when Bush moved so radically as if he had been elected by a landslide, but then he had 9.11 as an excuse (and no, I don't buy into the 9.11 conspiracy movement - it was just that he leapt at the opportunity it gave him).

It seems to me that the truth comes back to the need for work "from below", which is what pushed Kennedy (and Johnson) on Civil Rights.

It also underlines the role of the State (which, giving Lenin his due, he understood). The power of the State as an end in itself, regardless of popular opinion, other interest groups, etc., is certainly shown by Bush, whose regime has been able to continue in spite of widespread popular opposition, being the butt of late night comedy and Sunday comics, the near-revolt of the top military, etc. All because he does hold "State power".

How Obama (if he is nominated/elected) will govern will depend on how wide the vote margin. There is a good chance he may have a more heavily Democratic Congress and that may make his path easier. However, your doubts are sound ones, and the race baiting which will increase, will add to all the problems we would have anyway.

************************************
Hunter Gray: I suppose two of the silver linings that have come out of the Rev. Wright situation are, [1] It should now be clear to just about everyone that Obama is a Christian; and, [2] It enabled Obama to give a great speech -- and spark constructive discussion well beyond even this country. [I hear this from people who live abroad.]

My own feeling is that most younger people -- say, under 40 at least -- are considerably different and far more open than some -- some -- of their elders when it comes to racial matters and social theology -- even if the latter is tagged "liberation theology". And even many "older" people aren't that hung up on those issues. I had to personally grin the other day when "somewhat older" Chris Matthews [MSNBC] "pled guilty" [as he put it] to being a "cafeteria Catholic."

Maybe I'm being overly sanguine, but I somehow think these Fox-mediamade-type-issues will fade for most Democratic voters, most Independents, and even for some hardshell Republicans. Those people who continue to fret and stew about these kinds of things would probably go to McCain anyway. In a toss-up, some Demos et al. may go initially to Hillary -- but it's clear her chances of getting the nomination are dimming daily.

The real issues and the need for resolution are becoming more urgent, day by day. McCain strikes me as genuinely old and with little creativity. I don't fault his inherent decency and personal courage but I really believe his lack of a realistic agenda re many fronts will soon become increasingly apparent.

One thing that troubles me much is the apparent inability -- Hell, failure -- of much of organized labor to run solid education programs for members and their families re racism and related matters.

************************************
Sam Friedman: When you say, "One thing that troubles me much is the apparent inability -- Hell, failure -- of much of organized labor to run solid education programs for members and their families re racism and related matters." I heartily agree with you--and would add their apparent inabilty to defend their members very well (and of course the two are related!

************************************
Joe Parko: I would like people to know that my purpose in writing this article (Class Warfare in America: The Upper Class is Winning) was to get average voters to begin thinking about their class interests when casting their votes. This was an exercise in developing class consciousness among ordinary working class people. I was not writing to the left who already understands class warfare. I think that the left often spins its wheels by writing to appeal to other members of the left. Our conversations often seem to be closed conversations in which the only purpose is to prove our "leftness" to others on the left. Instead of talking to each other, we should be trying to get our message to those not on the left.

************************************
Edward Pickersgill: And yet "the left" must learn how to speak again in voices that'll interest people who define themselves in ways other than "left" or "right" and perhaps even see themselves in terms other than Democrat or Republican or Green of Socialist or even Independent. It seems to me that first of all (almost like step one in a Citizens Anonymous group) is to get conversation, discussion, discourse going on issues other than partisan politics, other than personality based followership, other than as defined by the mainstream media or even by the mainstream blogosphere.

So yes let's certainly attempt to engage the people in discussing basic interests but let's also get better at talking amongst ourselves "on the left."

************************************
Sam Friedman: I agree we should not talk only with the left -- and be sure that a number of us are engaged in activities with broad appeal and range -- but when you say "instead of talking with each other," that implies we agree on what the message should be and also that we agree on how to speak or otherwise spread that message. It also ignores the fact that for many of us, we are not only about spreading messages, although that is important. We are about organizing and also about taking action together (hopefully) with communities or workers or other large-scale mobilizations.

And this is what we have been talking about in this exchange. And let me assure you, talk with others on the left helps me in many ways in my work to get messages out, to organize groups, and when action is needed.

************************************
Steven F. McNichols (responding to Sam Friedman): Actually, the AFL-CIO did run such programs under Civil Rights Department head Don Slaiman in the '60s and someone else (whose name I've forgotten) in the '70s. Slaiman held training seminars and conferences all over the country for union members and leaders as he never tired of telling everyone he met. It took a long time to turn that big AFL-CIO ship around, but when they finally did, the AFL-CIO galloped as hard as it could in the right direction at least for a while when I interacted with them.

************************************
Hunter Gray (responding to Steven F. McNichols): Thanks for the comment about the AFL-CIO Civil Rights Department [and its Education Department] and Don Slaiman. His colleague was Ed Guernsey. Very, very inadvertently I am quite sure, you've given an old nerve in me a very modest scratch. [This happens now and then in the course of discussions and I do have a thick skin. ]

And, directly or indirectly, ask a sometime professor a question and he will most likely still be answering it 45 minutes later.

But, to come to the point: I think the AFL-CIO Civil Rights people [Guernsey and Slaiman] did, all in all, a pretty good job [as you have rightly suggested.] -- especially when the Southern Movement was riding high. I should also add that the Industrial Union Department's Education dimension, under Russ Allen [a personal friend], did a fine job as well. But as time passed, the priorities of many AFL-CIO internationals shifted: more money to political action, less and less for direct outreach organizing, ever less for civil rights education and advocacy. [Russ Allen and the IUD education dimension kept going much longer in that vein.] There were and are all sorts of reasons for this: the fading of the "old revival spirit," ever-narrowing "pragmatism," increasing reliance on Democratic Party friends. [I, and a vast number of others, have written extensively about all of this.] The good legacy of Russ Allen, Don Slaiman, Ed Guernsey and many others in "mainline" unionism still continues to a large extent but, in that context as in others, there's more to civil rights and social vision than the ritualistic observance of Martin Luther King Day.

The ouster of almost a dozen Left unions from CIO in 1949-50, all quite democratic, fiscally honest, visionary -- and very much racially egalitarian -- on charges of "Communist domination" -- was both poisonously symptomatic and poisonously causal with respect to the [declining] health and vigor of American and Canadian Labor. Most of those unions were destroyed/absorbed via AFL-CIO raiding.

My strong "personal" beef with Guernsey and Slaiman was, frankly, that they were both unmitigated red-baiters who worried much about "Communism." [Russ Allen quite deftly avoided that swampy turf; his wife, Donna, was a national leader against HUAC.] Some critics attributed their concerns about "reds" -- long an AFL tradition -- to the sinister influence of the spiderish Jay Lovestone whose checkered career stretched across the political spectrum and to some extent the planet, eventually winding up on the right [even as he kept a base in the AFL wing of the Federation for a very long time.]

The late Southern writer and labor activist, Al Maund, was a solid fighter whom I met when he was a key staffer for the International Chemical Workers Union, out of Akron -- but we had corresponded on occasion well before that. Al was, for some years [during the worst of the Red Scare] the very capable editor of the Southern Patriot, the monthly newsjournal of the Southern Conference Educational Fund. Most readers here are aware that I was the SCEF Field Organizer for a good spell in the mid-'60s, following our Jackson Movement. [During my time with SCEF, Anne Braden edited the Patriot quite capably.] Al Maund continued his association with SCEF, edited Labor's Daily out of Iowa, did some fine writing [e.g., The Big Boxcar and The International], worked in public relations for the Chemical Workers, and more. Al was an independent radical. In the '50s, he determined that AFL-CIO, via Guernsey and Slaiman, maintained a wide-ranging "subversive list" of what they felt were "Communist" organizations and people. [Russ Allen, in the associated Industrial Union Department, never bought that.] Apparently Slaiman and Guernsey disseminated this data selectively but widely -- which, along with much else -- targeted the quite independently Left Southern Conference Educational Fund.

Growing up in the Southwest, I noted very early on that every single worthwhile struggle for human rights was frequently called "red." I've never -- ever -- worried about that. But I've always been an independent soul, my idea of the good society includes a full measure of libertarian, material, and [if a person is so inclined] spiritual well-being. I like the First Amendment and I believe unions should always be free to strike -- whether the targets lie in the private sector or the public. Long before I went South, I was "red-baited" and it continued long. long thereafter in all sorts of struggle settings [and there are sill wisps here and there right here in Idaho.] I kept going, always have, and eventually even some critics came around. [The Old Wobblies often used the slogan, "We'd rather be called Red than Yellow" [no racial connotations, I add, for the info of the pc purists!]

I should again reiterate that, as an American Indian and a Real Westerner, I never ask people any personal questions -- and I judge people by what they actually do, especially for social justice. Got my Vision and Mandate from what remained of the old-time IWW and I'm indebted to the sterling examples of several fine Mine-Mill organizers [some of whom had been Communists, some of whom hadn't] who taught me much about systematic, democratic, and egalitarian grassroots organizing. I owe all of those people a great debt -- and many others who followed..

And I don't like "red-baiting."

I should add that when AFT Local 189 [labor educators] left Shanker and the AFT, Ed Guernsey stayed with AFT. [Don Slaiman had passed away earlier, as I recall.] I was with 189 for a good while. When it merged with a more academic group into what became United Association for Labor Education, I was with that as a member for several years. And I think Ed Guernsey was too, at that point. He, too, passed away several years go,

My faith in unions -- as here-and-now forces and as critical bulwarks for a free society -- remains very consistent.

Well, thanks, Stephen. You've given me a fine opportunity to soap-box and let people know that I am still not yet in the Happy Hunting Grounds.