Chris Hedges: The Sparks of Rebellion

In his article The Sparks of Rebellion, Chris Hedges correctly shows that corporate power has become the dominate force in society. This corporate control of society has occurred as a result of those in political power, being either being complicit in this takeover by the corporations, or unwilling to check this abuse of corporate power.

As a result we are in the sixth year of the worst economic conditions since the depression of the 1930's. Not only has unemployment and eviction levels been the highest since the Great Depression, but according to business publications, the long term unemployed, especially those over 50, are probably facing a life time of unemployment. The political leadership of the country is engaged in a bipartisan effort to make significant cuts in retirement, unemployment and Medicare benefits.

Hedges takes the position that the only way out of this morass is a popular rebellion. As a result of the decline of union members, especially among those in industrial unions, other forces will need to be mobilized. Hedges suggests that an alliance between low paid workers, and unemployed or underemployed college graduates would be a natural alliance. While strikes are often the deciding point in successful insurrections, unions have a tendency to join struggles organized by other forces, rather than being the initiators of such struggles.

The article quotes studies showing that a movement with majority support of the population can effect change with a small activist minority, of 1%-5% of the population actively engaged in the struggle. Surprisingly, at least for me, struggles adopting the strategy of non violence have a higher success rate than those adopting a strategy of violence.

There were many who were hopeful that the Occupy Movement of 2011 had the potential to become a movement that would radically transform our society. Hedges raises some criticisms of occupy, including the consensus decision making process. Consensus while possibly effective in small groups become a liability in larger groups.

What was missing in Hedges article, was a critique of Occupy for not making demands. With massive unemployment, and record level student debt, and evictions, why was there no demand for a massive government financed jobs program? Relief from crushing student debt? A moratorium on evictions? These three demands alone had the potential of building an effective mass movement. Hedges, also omits the question of leadership. All successful movements, including the struggles for union rights and racial equality had a clearly defined, effective leadership.

Those engaged in prolonged struggles, as Hedges correctly points out, need logistical support. This includes food, shelter and medical support. This has caused some confusion among those who have read the article. Hedges is not advocating a "serve the people" strategy of providing meals in low income areas, but rather providing meals for those engaged in the struggle. 

A good historical example, just one among many, was during the Minneapolis Teamster strike of 1934. The striking workers had their own kitchen, dining hall, and medical treatment facility. This is discussed  in the book Teamster Rebellion, by Farrell Dobbs.

One objection to raising demands is the possibility of the system making minor concessions in order to co opt a potentially revolutionary upsurge. This is a legitimate concern. Do we accept a half a loaf, instead of the whole loaf? The answer depends on the relationship of forces and the confidence of those in the movement.

I've given just a brief overview, and some of my own opinions. Hedges' article deserves to be read in it's entirety at:

http://portside.org/2013-09-30/sparks-rebellion#sthash.aRSY1UQj.dpuf

"The dispossessed working poor, along with unemployed college graduates and students, unemployed journalists, artists, lawyers and teachers, will form our movement. This is why the fight for a higher minimum wage is crucial to uniting service workers with the alienated college-educated sons and daughters of the old middle class."-Chris Hedges

Open Letter from American Socialist Society to The North Star

Note: American Socialist Society, or ASS members address each other as "Neighbor," rather than the usual leftist term of Comrade.


TO: Editorial Board of The North Star
       www.thenorthstar.info

Speaking on behalf of the American Socialist Society, or ASS, I must most heartily protest some of the disturbing changes at The North Star, since the resignation from your editorial board by one of our members Pham Binh. As you are probably aware Neighbor Binh, serves on the leadership body, the Neighborhood Watch, of ASS.

You claim that the current policy is necessary so, in your own words, "people no longer confuse us with a neoconservative site as we have stopped excluding views that differ from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy." Please be advised that it is not ASS who has adopted the views of the Washington Institute for near East Policy. On the contrary, it is they who have adopted the views of ASS! 

As readers of The North Star are well aware of ASS is not alone in our support of US military intervention in Syria. We have to assume that this new change will also negatively affect our stalwart Australian co-thinkers, supporters of The Last Super Power, under the exemplary pro- imperialist leadership of Arthur Dent.

As a result of this "new direction" another member of our leadership team, Clay Claiborne, has assumed, probably correctly, any future  articles, submitted by him, calling for US military intervention in Syria, in the finest tradition of the late Christopher Hitchens, will be rejected. Neighbor Claiborne has become so distraught by this probable action on your part, that he has taken to roaming the streets of Venice, CA, where he resides, dressed only in a bathrobe, and slippers, mumbling quietly to himself.

The final provocation was the banning of our General Secretary ( sometimes referred to as Chief Neighbor) Louis Proyect, from your website. This was done by blocking the ISP of Chief Neighbor Proyect's computer. Just because Chief Neighbor Proyect bans serious anti-imperialist Leftists  from websites he moderates doesn't give The North Star the right to assume a "chickens coming home to roost" attitude.

This attack upon our leadership is an attack upon our membership as well. An injury to one Ass-ist is an injury to all Ass-ists! Rest assured these attacks will not go unanswered. We will taunt you!

God Bless America,

Mary Barnes Ratchet
American Socialist Society

For information about ASS:  http://redguarddude.blogspot.com/2013/07/founding-convention-of-american.html

What Next for The North Star?

Last month Pham Binh one of the founders of The North Star website, a Left online discussion list, announced his resignation as editor, for personal reasons. This news caused an immediate discussion as to whether this would result in a change of direction for The North Star and if so, how would this change be defined.

The North Star website started out with the purpose of being an all inclusive online discussion board, with the purpose of uniting the Left in the U.S. Some even saw The North Star serving the same role as the now defunct Guardian newspaper during it's 34 year existence, 1948-1992.

From the very beginning of it's existence The North Star began to drift away from that goal. Instead it became dominated, by those who support U.S. military intervention in the Syrian conflict, and others who take offense at the very existence of organized Socialist groups. The interventionist position was represented by a group of Australians, including Arthur Dent, who are affiliated with The Last Super Power, and U.S. blogger Clay Claiborne, who apparently sees himself as the replacement of the late Christopher Hitchens

The attacks on the organized left, were for the most part directed at the International Socialist Organization, the ISO. The steady stream of ISO bashing appeared to be motivated by the ISO being the largest Socialist group in the U.S., as well as Binh's former membership in the organization. many of the contributors to the site lent credence to the claim that some of the worst sectarians are the "anti-sectarians."

The new editorial board of The North Star claims their position is neither pro nor anti U.S./Nato intervention in Syria, as stated in the  most recent article, Moving Froward? Hopes for the Future of the New North Star. The article would seem to contradict the non intervention claim. The article uses the example of Ho Chi Minh, leader of the Vietnamese liberation movement, the Vietminh, accepting U.S. assistance to fight the Japanese. The U.S. aid was offered to assist the Vietminh in fighting Japan, who the U.S. was at war with. When the Vietminh fought their war of independence against the French, no U.S. aid was forthcoming. The article uses the example of the international arms embargo against the Spanish republic during the Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939. What is omitted is that the armed forces of the Spanish republic, were fighting for the legally recognized government of Spain. The situations that existed in Spain and Vietnam are different than the current situation in Syria.

My own position is those in rebellion against the Assad regime in Syria, have the right to accept weapons and armaments from anyone offering such aid. This is not the same as calling for air and possibly ground operations against the Assad forces in Syria. The North Star is correct in their critique of those forces on the Left who support Assad.

Rather than engage the various Socialist groups in discussion, the strategy  of The North Star, has been to entice individual members of these groups to drop out of their respective organizations. This does nothing to build left unity.

Can The North Star be all things to all people? Is there common ground between those who support and those who oppose US military intervention abroad? Is their common ground between those who support Democratic Party electoral candidates and those opposed to such an orientation? Can their be unity among those who believe in membership based Socialist organizations and those who have total contempt for the organized Left? Would honesty not demand that the points of unity, for supporters of The North Star be, "yes to US intervention in Syria" and "no to a revolutionary party?"  These questions need to be addressed.

Recommended further reading:
http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=10171
http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article3121
http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2013/09/syria-and-hitchensification.html
http://socialistworker.org/2013/09/10/standing-against-war-and-dictatorship

Whither the ILWU

The International Longshore and Warehouse Union, the ILWU, has a reputation as being one of the most militant and progressive unions in the United States. This was the union that was central to the San Francisco General Strike of 1934. It was the ILWU that first organized farm workers in Hawaii, thirty years prior to the organizing successes of the United Farm Workers on the mainland.

The ILWU has a tradition of supporting stuggles for racial, and gender equality and for the rights of all workers. It was ILWU Longshoremen who refused to cross community picket lines to handle South African cargo, during the Apartheid period, or scab cargo on the ship the Neptune Jade, in solidarity with the striking dockers of Liverpool, England.

To expand the power of workers on the docks, the union began what was called The March Inland to organize warehouse workers, near the docks. This was later expanded to include manufacturing plants. It is because of the union's militant and progressive reputation that workers in non related fields, such as bicycle messengers and book store workers have sought membership in the ILWU.

The members of ILWU Local 21, Longview, WA in 2011 were engaged in a hard fought battle to preserve union jobs at the port of Longview.  Their pickets were attacked by police and several Longshoremen, including the International President Bob McEllrath, as well as the President of the local labor council were arrested.

It was during this time,  the Occupy movement arose. At the beginning Occupy received support from the leadership of the AFL-CIO and several unions. Among the campaigns of Occupy on the west coast, was a December 12 shutdown of several ports, including the ports of Portland, and Oakland, CA.

Occupy groups in Oakland, CA, Portland, OR and Seattle, WA made the defense of the Longview workers a top priority. To build support. solidarity meetings were held in Portland, January 5, 2012, and the next evening, January 6 in Seattle.

The Seattle meeting meeting was disrupted by union leaders and members of the Seattle and Tacoma locals as described in an article in  the January 9, 2012 edition of Socialist Worker:

ACTIVISTS IN Seattle had responded to a call from Jack Heyman and Clarence Thomas, ILWU Local 10 members from Oakland, Calif., to organize public solidarity meetings to help build the mobilization for Longview and support for Local 21's struggle.

The resulting January 6 event at the Seattle Labor Temple brought out 150 people to hear a panel of speakers, featuring a rank-and-file union member from Local 21, as well as Occupy Seattle activists, an Occupy Oakland activist, Heyman, Thomas, a rank-and-file ILWU member from Portland, a fundraising pitch and musical entertainment

Shortly after Jack Heyman, a retired Local 10 member and former Business Agent, began his remarks, about a dozen ILWU officials and members from Local 19, in Seattle and Local 23, in Tacoma began disrupting the meeting.

This attack on the Seattle meeting, may have been encouraged  by the International leadership. This was an attack on the Occupy movement, as well as the left.  Ironically,  one of the leaders of the disruption, Rich Austin, of Local 23,  is a self described "socialist."

This was not the first indication, that the ILWU was straying from it's once proud history.  In 2000,  International President Brian McWilliams, lost his bid for reelection to James Spinosa. Bob McEllrath, who was later to be elected to succeed Spinosa, was elected as International Vice President.

Prior to Spinosa, the four previous International Presidents, had been or at least considered themselves socialists, or at a minimum social democrats. This changed with Spinosa, who could probably at best, be described as a centrist Democrat.

The first ominous warning that the union was changing occured in a conflict between the new International leadership and Local 6, of the Warehouse Division. When I lived in San Francisco, I was a member of Local 6, which covered the San Francisco Bay area, with the exception of the docks.

A new leadership team was elected in Local 6, in 2000. The leadership that had been defeated for reelection refused to accept the results of the election.  When the local appealed to the International, much to everyone's surprise Spinosa sided with the defeated candidates and refused to support the new officers, in violation of both the local and international constitutions. After a lengthy battle, which included mobilizing the membership, and endorsements from other locals, in different divisions, the democratically elected leadership was finally recognized, reluctantly so, by the International leadership.

A few years later Steve Stallone, the Communications Director of the union, and editor of the union newspaper The Dispatcher was dismissed. Stallone had written an op ed critical of a pro Israeli and anti Palestinian article written by the International Secretary-Treasurer.

In 2010 a settletment that ended a lockout against the Boron miners of ILWU Local 30 at the Rio Tinto mine was called a victory by the ILWU. It was a strange victory as described by retired Local 10 member Jack Heyman: "A 'victory' with scabs still in the mine, seniority shredded and defined pensions gone for new members."

The Longview struggle was settled with the intervention of the Democratic state Governor Chris Gregoire of Washington, in an attempt to head off a mass picket at the port. Occupy groups along the west coast had planned a massive mobilization of thousands at the port. This could have resulted in a conflict with the Coast Guard, which would have been embarrassing, for President Obama, prior to the 2012 Presidential election. The settlement that was hailed as a victory was anything but a victory. It was a concessionary conflict that allows management to bypass the union hiring hall, eliminated the clerks jobs, and refuses to recognize July 5, Bloody Tuesday as a holiday. On this day, to honor those killed during the organizing battles of 1934 Longshoreman of the ILWU take the day off. Not in Longview.

Once regarded as one of the last class struggle unions, the ILWU has sadly, adopted the "business union" model, that is representative of the US labor movement. The only thing to reverse this course, is for an engaged rank and file to get this once proud union back on course.

sources:

http://www.socialistviewpoint.org/mayjun_12/mayjun_12_21.html
http://socialistworker.org/2012/01/05/longview-call-for-solidarity
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2013/heyman090613.html
http://socialistworker.org/2002-1/405/405_11_LaborInBrief.shtml#ILWU
http://socialistorganizer.org/another-look-at-the-battle-of-longview/

• 
  

What's Going On With Clay Claiborne?

For more than a year Clay Claiborne has been waging a relentless crusade calling on the American left to support US military action in Syria, to assist those in armed rebellion against the Assad regime. This campaign includes writing what appears to be a single issue blog, calling for US military action in Syria. Issues such as massive unemployment, poverty, homelessness, evictions, and crippling student debt appear to be of little interest to this self described Marxist.

 Claiborne's single issue campaign, includes denouncing all who oppose the US going to war with Syria as supporters of the Assad government. He has even  denounced Veterans for Peace, for not suppporting US military action in Syria. This would be difficult for the anti war veterans group, since one of the points in their Statement of Purpose is "to restrain our government from intervening, overtly and covertly, in the internal affairs of other nations". He also denounced an anti war demonstration in Los Angeles, which occured, July 11, 2013, as a pro Assad rally. The rally was endorsed by over a dozen organizations, whose point of unity was no US military intervention in Syria, NOT support for the Assad government.

Claiborne had been a member of the October League, a Maoist aka New Communist Movement organization, which later changed it's name to the Communist Party Marxist Leninist during the 1970's. During that period he appears to have been a dedicated leftist and anti war activist. He served several months in jail as a result of his opposition to the war in Vietnam.

In the early 1980's about the time CPML dissolves, he becomes somewhat of an enigma. He went into business for himself as a computer repair technician. He basically drops off the political map during the 1980's and 1990's.

 In 2008 , he produced a documentary about the Vietnam War, narrated by actor Martin Sheen, Vietnam: American Holocaust. The documentary is available for viewing on YouTube. He next shows up with Occupy LA, during the height of the Occupy Movement.

Leftist blogger and part time film critic, Louis Proyect, after seeing the documentary makes contact with Claiborne, and next thing we know Claiborne is posting on the Proyect moderated online discussion list, Marxmail. Claiborne next shows up commenting at The North Star. Consistent with his blog entries, his comments, on both sites, are exclusively about events in Syria.

While doing an online search, I found that Claiborne was elected to the State Central Committee, of the California Peace and Freedom Party, from Los Angeles county, where he lives. For the benefit of those not familiar with Peace and Freedom Party, this is a political party that describes itself as socialist, has ballot status in Califronia, and has consistently opposed U.S. military intervention abroad. My sources in Peace and Freedom inform me that although he was also elected  to the Los Angeles County Central Committee, he has never attended a single meeting of either of these leadership committees. Honesty would have required Claiborne's election platform to have been, if nominated I will run, and if elected I will not serve.

In a recent posting on Marxmail, Claiborne submitted a post calling for support of a pro war rally, supporting US military intervention in Syria. The rally was held in Washington, DC, September 9. The moderator of the list, who does not support direct US military action in Syria, responded with a post expressing his disappointment, that anyone would advocate support of a pro war rally on a Marxist discussion list. Good call there, Moderator.

Claiborne's conduct raises some questions. If he is so pro war, why hasn't he made a serious effort to build a pro war movement. If his intentions were serious, by now he would have reached out to forces beyond the left, where he is becoming even more isolated. Potential allies on the right of the political spectrum, who are supportive of Claiborne's pro war stance, include Senator John McCain. McCain, who is so wealthy, that he isn't even sure how many houses he owns, could certainly assist in raising money for such a venture.

Claiborne drops out of the picture, politcally speaking, for almost three decades. Then after the Occupy movement he goes on a single issue campaign, for US military intervention in Syria. He wins election to not one, but two leadership bodies in Peace and Freedom Party, than apparantly blows it off. His only real political accomplishment thus far, has been to serve as a divisive force within the left. This raises the question, what is Claiborne's real agenda. Who or what is Clay Claiborne?

Clay Claiborne's blog: http://claysbeach.blogspot.com

Is Maoism Making a Comeback?

Maoism may be making a comeback after it's  two decade rise and fall, from the 1960's to the 1980's. Internationally, Maoists have been recently or are currently engaged in armed struggle, or Peoples Protracted Warfare, in Peru, Nepal, the Phillipines, and India. In Nepal the Maoists forces actually suceeded. At least for a while. The Communist Party of the Phillipines, the political leadership of the New Peoples Army, no longer consider themselves Maoist.

For a history of Maoism, or the New Communist Movement, during the 1960's through the 1980's I highly recommend the book Revolution in the Air, by Max Elbaum.  The Anti-Revisionism section of the Marxist Internet Archives, www.marxists.org, is another good source.

Two of the main groups from that period were the Communist Party Marxist Leninist (CPML) and the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP). While the CPML, were officially recognized by the post Mao Chinese leadership, the RCP supported the ousted leadership faction, known as the Gang of Four. As a result of a boisterious demonstration at the Chinese embassy, in Washington, DC, in 1979, RCP leader Bob Avakian faced criminal charges. After being indicted Chairman Bob fled to France, and requested and received political asylum.

Avakian's current whereabouts is not really known. A reporter who attempted to interview the Chairman, a few years ago, found out that charges had been dropped against Avakian in 1983. Apparantly, not being aware of this, poor old Bob had to endure 20 years of exile, in that drab and dark city, Paris, France, and forced to subsist on a steady diet of French food and wine.The sacrifices some people make for the revolution!

Many, if not most Maoists, today claim that what was called Maoism was actually "Anti-Revisionist Communism." JMP, aka Josh, at his blog, Marxism Leninism Mayhem,  http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com, claims, as do many if not most contemporary  Maoists , that Maoism wasn't really defined until the publication of the document Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, in 1993 by the  Revolutionary Internationalist Movement. The document is available online:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060520201533/http://www.csrp.org/rim/longlivemlm. To get an overview of the Maoist movement, internationally, this website is probably the best source.

JMP is a supporter  of the Revolutionary Communist Party, Canada, which has  no relationship with a group with the same name in the United States. The website for the RCP,  Canada is:
http://www.pcr-rcp.ca/en/.

Another group I ran across, actually a study group, is Marxist -Leninist-Maoist Revolutionary Study Group:  www.mlmrsg.com. Among their online documents is one that helps explain some of the rightward moves, such as supporting the U.S. and South Africa during the 1970's civil war in Angola by New Communist Movement groups. To view the document go to:
http://www.mlmrsg.com/attachments/article/74/ChForPol-Final-4-09.pdf, especially pages 26-37.

The Maoist website with the catchiest name, would have to be Maosoleum, or Undead Mao:
http://maosoleum.wordpress.com. Maosoleum also has a Face Book page.

The most influential of the Maoist leaning websites is probably www.kasamaproject.org.. The leading figure at Kasama appears to be Mike Ely, the former editor of the RCP paper, Revolutionary Worker, which changed it's name to Revolution. Ely was recently denounced by his former comrades in the RCP with a 36 page polemic: http://revcom.us/a/polemics/NineLettersResponse.pdf. Whether Kasama will serve as a pole of attraction to build a new Maoist party, or exist as a Maoist version of Grumpyoldmanmail, aka Marxmail, remains to be seen.

The one thing that appears to link Maoists, internationally is their disdain for the Revolutionary Communist Party, U.S., especially  Bob Avakian's New Synthesis. Avakian has been publicly criticized by several Maoists groups, including the Communist Party (Maoist) Afghanistan:
http://www.sholajawid.org/english/main_english/A_respose_to_the_rcp_USA_sh28.html.

Maoism appears to be the dominant left trend in the developing world. With the possible exception of the Communist Organization of Greece (KOE), who participate in the electoral coalition SYRIZA, and the RCP/Canada in  Quebec Province,  the Maoist haven't really managed to gain noticeable influence in Europe or North America. I suppose the Maoists would counter, especially in light of recent splits of other tendencies, neither has anyone else.

This article was not meant to be a complete listing of all websites, blogs, and groups which consider themselves Maoist. This omission on my part was due, strictly to space and time limitations.

"Birds cannot give birth to crocodiles."-Bob Avakian

SWP National Committee vs Tendency for Party Growth

Included here is an excerpt from the report Defending Our Organization Principles, given at the Plenum, or National Committee Meeting of the Socialist Workers Party (US), August, 1982. I'm posting this, as with other posts, concerning the US SWP, not only for historical reasons, but also hopefully  to show a new generation of Socialist activists the importance of internal democracy within an organization. On a personnel note, I was a member of the tendency being castigated by the SWP National Committee. The Plenum report is in Italics.

Also within days after the convention, members of the Tendency for Party Growth—a rather inappropriate name—split from the party. This grouping had opposed the party's turn to industry on the grounds that it is based on an exaggerated view of the radicalization in the working class. They proposed as an alternative orienting toward radical petty-bourgeois layers, along the lines that supporters of Jack Lieberman had done at the 1979 convention. Their views were thoroughly aired in the preconvention discussion, and decisively repudiated by the convention. Their response was to quit the party immediately following the convention (as the Lieberman grouping had done two years before).

In splitting, the Tendency for Party Growth ascribed their lack of support in the party to the allegedly undemocratic internal life of the party. Gene Lantz, the leader of this grouping, stated in his letter of resignation:

"[T]he SWP leadership has chosen to avoid discussion with its rank and file members about its major political orientation for the past 3 1/2 years. During this period many of the comrades most able to lead the rank and file against this erroneous course have left the SWP in a thin but steady trickle, while the most subservient and unquestioning have ascended into leadership."

Now, here's what really happened. I was there, and I seen the whole thing. First off . this particular tendency was likened to a tendency led by Jack Lieberman, during the 1979 pre-convention discussion and the convention itself. If I remember correctly, Lieberman's document was titled Against the Workerist Turn.

In 1981, The Tendency for Party Growth, was not against the turn, but in the manner in which it was implemented.  Members of this tendency argued, that the policy of "talking socialism" shouldn't be counterposed to becoming involved in union and work place issues. At this time  the overwhelming majority of the membership. were unaware of the incident at a coal mine in Alabama in 1979 where two SWP members, both women, who worked in the mine, were instructed to leave their jobs, when the car of one was firebombed while she was underground working. That near tragic incident alone, should have suggested, that something was wrong with the SWP strategy in the unions of "talking socialism," prior to being accepted by one's co workers.

We were accused of advocating "orienting toward radical petty (sic)-bourgeois layers...." What we were actually suggesting was orienting toward actual existing social movements, such as those advocating gender and racial equality, in defense of those suffering economic deprivation, and opposing US interference in the affairs of other countries, most notably at the time, Iran, Nicaragua, and El Salvador.  Oh, it gets even better.

The report makes the claim, "their views were thoroughly aired in the preconvention discussion and decisively repudiated at the convention." Well, not quite. Yes, "our views were thoroughly aired in the preconvention discussion".  The only problem, was there was no repudiation because our views never made it to the convention. Prior to the convention we were told by the national leadership, that our disagreements "did not constitute the basis to form a tendency", and would  not be on the agenda at the convention.  So the message was, we had the right to form a tendency as long as we didn't form a tendency.  As my Southern Baptist relatives are prone to say, "there will no liars present, when the roll is called up yonder!"

At this point those of you reading this, and who were in the SWP in 1981, or knowledgeable of party history are probably thinking to yourselves: OK, I'm familiar with the tendencies around Nat Weinstein, and George Breitman, but Tendency for Party Growth?  Never heard of them. Hold that thought, and we'll come back to that.

The report continues, "their response was to immediately quit the party following the convention....." Finally, some accuracy. Gene drove back to Dallas from the convention, with the parting words, "it's your problem now," and submitted his resignation from the party, a few days later. Another member of our tendency, also in Dallas,  resigned  soon after. Your intrepid reporter (that would be me), who was a member of the Salt Lake City, UT branch held out for another month, before dropping out.  So within a month all THREE of us were gone.  Yep, just three of us. The size of the tendency, and the fact we were de-tendencyized (a word I created, as yet uncopyrighted), prior to the convention is most likely why hardly anyone has ever heard of us.

How accurate were the claims made by this small tendency, aka "the gang of three?" The Plenum report says our critique of the way the turn was implemented "was based on an exaggerated view of the radicalization of the working class." Kind of hard to argue with that one. Gene's resignation letter states, which I'm in agreement with, 
"......many of the comrades most able to lead the rank and file against this erroneous course have left the SWP in a thin but steady trickle, while the most subservient and  unquestioning have ascended into leadership." Yeah, that sounds about right.

To paraphrase the words of Fidel Castro at his trial, History has absolved the Tendency for Party Growth.

For the full Plenum report see: http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/fit/rpiioverview.htm#section3

Thanks to everyone at the Marxist Internet Archives, for making this document and many others available.-Ken M

Talking Socialism: The SWP and The Turn

This post assumes the reader has knowledge or an interest in the demise of the once significant Socialist Workers Party, in the United States. I'll begin with a newpaper article from a leftist publication.

The way the SWP went about the "turn" could be  termed "Gidget Goes to Garment." Under the slogan of "talking socialism," industrialized SWPers have functioned more like YSAers running a campus election campaign. ,,,,,,,,,,,,, Barnes has seen to it that the old-timers-who remember a bit about the need to patiently win authority as workers and militant unionists-will not get in the way.

 Harry DeBoer, one of the "Minneapolis 18" tried and imprisoned under the Smith Act, objected to "talking socialism" and quoted a 1941 SWP plenum report by James P. Cannon: "Comrades were cautioned ...[to] be careful, integrate themselves, get some training in their trade, some
standing as mechanics, workmen, etc. ... If you conduct yourself in such a way that you get bounced out before you really get in, you cannot carry on any fruitful trade union work" ("The Party's Sectarian Trade Union Policy" by Harry DeBoer et aI., SWP Discussion Bulletin Vol. 37, No. 23, July 1981). That was it for DeBoer in Barnes' party; it was all over but the shouting. 

The SWP insists that the hair-raising story of what happened at the Jim Walter Brookwood mine No. 4 in Alabama was not a correct application of the "talking socialism" policy. We suggest our readers draw their own conclusions from Political Committee reporter Ken Shilman's "Report on the
National Miners Fraction" (Party Organizer Vol. 4. No. I, April 1980):

"We did not collectively sit down, carefully size up the situation we found
ourselves in, and figure out how to help the union win this battle. If we had
started there, I think that after only two weeks in the mine (my emphasis-KM)when we did not
know a lot about the struggles. and had not had time to win respect for ourselves
as unionists or as political people, much less establish ourselves as socialists-we
would have decided not to sign grievances. write articles. or sell the Militant
in the bars around the mine....

"When two comrades. Sara and Ellen, got hired at Brookwood in June. 1979.
we walked into a war taking place between Jim Walter mining company
and the UMWA. Jim Walter was out to destroy the local. ...

"By writing the kind of Militant article we did. quoting extensively from a
closed union meeting and signing it with the names of comrades who had barely
started work. we set into motion an entire train of events....

"That issue of the Militant gave the company and its right-wing agents the
handle they needed. The red scare and violence that followed our sales of the
Militant changed the relationship of forces dramaticallv.... What the company
had thus far failed to do with its attacks on women's rights and other tactics. it pulled off with anticommunism-it divided the union...."Our actions also led to serious victimization. Comrades are familiar with the violence directed against our comrades that eventually forced us to decide that
Sara and Ellen should not continue work at the mine.

The above article is from the July 23, 1982 issue of Workers Vanguard, the journal of the Spartacist League. While I am not nor have ever been a supporter of the Sparts, one doesn't need to be a supporter of the SL to  recognize the validity of this article.

The situation for the SWP in the mines in northern Alabama, was even worse than described in the article. For example the car one of the women mentioned in the article was destroyed in the company parking lot, as the result of a fire bomb, while she was working underground in the mine. A few months later two SWP members were attacked and beaten by a mob of coal miners, nearby while attempting to sell the SWP paper The Militant on the side of a road.

Most post mortems of the SWP concentrate on the effects of the turn to industry as one of  the causes of the downfall of the SWP. I would argue, it wasn't the turn itself, as much as how it was implemented.

Prior to the 1960's generation of SWP members discovering the working class, who in reality, already existed, the general accepted strategy, was to wait until acquiring a certain amount of competence on the job, and getting to know one's co workers, before coming out as a full blown, revolutionary socialist.. This was the strategy adopted by a previous generation, as well as other left groups.

Coming out too soon as open Socialists wasn't the only problem, with the SWP implementation of the turn to industry. There were those of us who wanted to upgrade and gain new skills, by taking classes at what was then called Vocational Technical colleges. In most states these schools are now part of the community college system. With the exceptions of New York and Seattle, members were discouraged from taking industrial skills classes, such as welding, electricity, and machine repair, because, "we want to stay with the unskilled workers." Ironically a national leader Barry Sheppard, who supported this foolhardy policy, in the late 1980's found it necessary to take a welding class to become employable. Do as I say and not as I do?

In my own case, I had been accepted for a free machinist training program. Of course completion of a six week course doesn't qualify one as a Machinist, but at that time, employers, including an aircraft plant nearby, were hiring graduates of this training program. I was subjected to severe peer group pressure not to enter this program. Some time later I found that two members, part of the branch "in crowd" entered the same program, one getting my abandoned opening, and were almost immediately hired at the aforementioned aircraft plant, organized by the United Auto Workers. I suppose it wouldn't be stretching things to say, my "comrades" scabbed on me.

The late Tony Cliff leader of the International Socialists and later Socialist Workers Party (no relation to the SWP in the US) in Britain, noticed the disturbing trend, that instead of leftist cadre influencing their co-workers in a leftward direction, they were being influenced by their co- workers in a rightward direction. The same thing happened in the US. Part of the problem was that the industries targeted by the SWP for entry, Rail, Mining, Air Craft Manufacturing. Steel, and later Utilities, as a result of union contracts, provided a pay and benefits package significantly higher than received by the majority of the workforce. This had a conservatizing effect on the workers in those industries.

One of the basic tenets of Marxism, is the existence of a reserve army of the unemployed. This simply means that for most part a labor surplus, of involuntarily unemployed workers is endemic to the capitalist system. The membership of the SWP, including those who were later to become dissidents, unofficially, never saying so publicly, took the position that unemployment and underemployment are the results of individual short comings. How does this differ from the right wing argument, that no matter how high the unemployment rate, there's plenty of jobs to go around? To those of you who ask "who said this?" To answer that question would require the reading of the membership lists of the branches I was in.

I remember bringing up the subject of "low paid workers, and was told, "if they're low paid, they need to get better jobs!" This is a right wing position, pure and simple. Another former member during the 1990's actually was able to have a one on one conversation with SWP leader Jack Barnes, himself. When he suggested to Barnes an orientation toward lower paid workers, true victims of capitalism, Barnes responded, "we don't orient toward the lumpen proletariat." News flash: Big difference between low paid workers and the lumps (lumpen elements).

What is missing in all the post mortems of the SWP is that the turn to industry, was an unmitigated disaster to many of us, especially those with a genuine working class background. We knew you couldn't go jumping around from job to job, and upgrading skills was a must. We only hear from those who were able to find decent paying long term jobs, or from those who found jobs, and were able to save enough to go on to graduate school or to get a second major to complement the Under Water Basket Weaving type degrees, that most of the college educated members held. Like they say, history is written by the winners.

I hear from many former members, that they have no regrets having been in the SWP. This is not a sentiment I share.

For further reading:

The two volume history, The Party, by Barry Sheppard
The Fall of the US SWP, Mary Scully, available www.thenorthstar.info
What Happened to the SWP (US), by Dayne Goodwin    http://www.solidarity-us.org/site/node/3394











.

Founding Convention of American Socialist Society

The long awaited founding convention of a new socialist organization,  the American Socialist Society, or ASS, was held in New York today. The stated goal of ASS is "the formation of a socialist organization, with no revolutionary pretensions, and inoffensive as possible to the general population." Noticebly absent were the usual leftist symbols such as red flags or posters with  depictions of clenched fists and red stars. An American flag was prominately displayed on the stage, while  at the back of the room, hung a large banner with the words, "Peter Camejo said it, I believe it, that settles it."

Louis Proyect; who served as Chairman of the convention, explained, "symbols such as red flags and clenched fists put people off, while the U.S. flag has a much more positive appeal." In the spirit of the lowest common demoninator, the conference opened, with everyone standing and reciting the Pledge of Allegience to the Flag.

In the spirit of avoiding terms such as "comrade", so as not to offend the average American, the ASSists voted to address each other as "neighbor," with the newly elected three person leadership team of Louis Proyect, Clay Claiborne, and Pham Binh, referred to as the "Neighborhood Watch." Proyect explained that this term was less offensive than traditional terms such as Central Committee, or Political Committee. Proyect  was elected as Chairman, of the leadership group, effectively making him the Chief ASS.

Referring to recent  events in Egypt, Proyect stated the Egyptian left was at a serious disadvantage, as a result of the name of the major socialist group, Revolutionary Socialist. Proyect denounced the Egyptian socialists by asking, "how in the hell do they expect to influence, much less lead a revolution when the word 'Revolutionary' is part of their name?" Proyect assured his audience that ASS "would refrain from using  terms such  as working class, revolution, or anthems such as The Internationale, which only serve to divide us as a people." The delegates began chanting "Down with The Internationale, up with God Bless America!"

There was a short debate when Proyect suggested that the July 26 Movement in Cuba and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua serve as models for ASS. One unidentified delegate raised the objection,  "but both these organizations came to power by way of armed struggle." Proyect deftly parried this objection, with the slightist hint of a smile, by saying, "read Lars Lih."

A motion, calling on the U.S. military to intervene in Syria passed. One delegate objected, by suggesting the reasons for supporting  US troops in Syria were the same reasons the Bush administration used for invading and occupying Iraq, and for possibly justifying a war, in the future,  with Iran. Claiborne sponser of the resolution, rose to speak, shrugged and responded, "eat your heart out," apparantly referring to a recent video of a member of the Free Syrian Army, cutting out and eating the heart of an enemy fighter.

Binh called on ASS to support a resoluting prohibiting the ownership of firearms by individuals, by asking, "why do we need guns, when we have the police and the military?" Binh further explained,
"it's a well known fact that gun ownership is a gateway to eating red meat and smoking cigars!"

After passage of the gun restriction resolution Binh called for the ASS to go on record to support Democrats in primary elections. When another speaker expressed concern that this could lead to supporting Democrats in the general elections, Binh waved the objection off with, "You're making a straw man argument. Besides, are the Democrats really so bad? If it wasn't for Bill Clinton, we wouldn't have NAFTA, Welfare Reform or financial deregulation." The resolution passed.

In the spirit of reflecting American values, and being inoffensive as possible, the convention closed by standing and singing  a rousing rendition of  God Bless America.

DISCLAIMER: This report is a work of fiction. It is how I imagine  a socialist group formed by the administrators and many of the contributors to The North Star and Marxmail would look like. The names have remained unchanged in order to expose the guilty.-Ken Morgan

The North Star Run Amok

The leftist North Star web site,www.thenorthstar.info, describes itself as a "forum for discussion, debate and the ruthless criticism of everything existing." An ambitious goal, indeed. The format is an article, followed by space for comments. It's not unusual for some articles to draw over 100 comments.

The North Star is opposed to the very existence of the organized left, especially groups that describe themselves as Leninist, vanguardist, or cadre type organizations. The International Socialist Organization (ISO) one of several such groups, seems to draw the most attention, especially from the moderator of the site, Pham Binh, who is a former member of the ISO.

The North Star, and Pham Binh have received notoriety within the Left, for supporting U.S. military intervention in the Syrian civil war.  The justification used by Binh and his fellow "humanitarian interventionists," is nearly identical to those who supported the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. Not  content with espousing this view on the North Star site, Binh is now resorting to trolling  other sites, such as the Kasama Project, www.kasamaproject.org,

Occupy

Binh was an early and enthusiastic supporter of the Occupy Movement. It's fair to say, that Occupy caught most of the Left by surprise. This was a new movement outside of the experience of most veteran activists, who were accustomed to organizing  single issue campaigns, such as opposing a war, or supporting a union struggle. By opposing raising demands, Occupy was unable to organize a fight back against the conditions of austerity that resulted from the economic meltdown of 2008.

Relating to a movement, without demands, was unprecedented for many on the left.  After the initial surprise most leftist organizations participated.  Binh, who apparantly believes in the concept of original sin, instead of understanding the initial hesitancy of most experienced leftists, believes that everyone in the organized left is obligated to forever dress in sack cloth and ashes while repeating mea culpas.

The Organized Left, and Especially the International Socialist Organization

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a former member of the ISO, who left on good terms, for personal reasons. Most of the attacks against the organized left are directed at the ISO, by virtue of it being the largest socialist group in the U.S. While usually naming the ISO, these attacks are, in reality attacks against all socialist groups.  It would seem that Binh can never forgive the ISO for accepting him as a member. Groucho Marx said, "I would never join any organization that would have me as a member." Pham Binh says, "I will never forgive any organization that had me as a member."

 These anti -organization types,  even suggest all member based socialist revolutionary groups should liquidate themselves, and then build a brand new group, not before, but during an actual revolution. Good luck with that one.

John Lacny

All cadre organization bashers, take great delight in a 1998 article , by John Lacny , On the American International Socialist Organization: The Joy of Sects that has been circulating in cyber space for the last 15 years. Lacny first met the ISO, while attending the University of Pittsburgh, in Pennsylvania. At the time there was a strike by support staff at the university. Lacny wanted to become involved in strike support work. Much to Lacny's dismay,  the only organization doing such work, was the Pittsburgh branch of the ISO, whose membership included students attending the University.

Lacny, by his own admission joined the ISO, under false pretenses. He had no agreement with the politics nor interest in building the organization. He only wanted to support the strike. Did Lacny even consider the possibility of organizing a strike support committe? I don't know what the enrollment of the University of Pittsburgh was in 1998, but latest figures show 18,000 undergraduate students, and 10,000 graduate students, which is probably similar to the 1998 enrollment. If he had made the attempt, to even recruit, let's say, one in two thousand students, that would have been an initial strike support group of 14.

While a student at Columbus College, Columbus, Ga, I helped organize a sort of generic left group of  8 on a campus with an enrollment of 4,000 in 1973. If I could organize a left group of one in five hundred students, in the south, in a city that is the home of one of the largest military bases, Fort Benning, then surely Lacny could have built an organization of 14 at the University of Pittsburgh.

The difference, was I made the attempt and Lacny didn't. The moral of  this story, is that anyone wanting to get a hearing from current or former ISO members, using John Lacny as an authority figure, will doom such efforts to failure. When shaking hands with Lacny, it's always a good idea to count your fingers afterwards.

Egypt

There's a debate at North Star, as well as the rest of the left, on how to relate to the recent events in Egypt. Those commenting on North Star, while putting emphasis on the role of the Egyptian military, conveniently overlook the 17-30 million, out of a total population of 84 million, in the streets, and the 22 million who signed petitions calling on former President Morsi to step down.

My favorite, in an ironic sort of way, argument of those who support Morsi, such as Arthur Dent (a pseudonym),  is that "it was wrong to overthrow a democratically elected president." What in the hell do they think a revolution in the United States, or in any country, with a bourgeois democracy is going to do? For a start, overthrow the "democratically" elected executive and legislative branches of government, and probably a lot of other institutions, in the process!

Accomplishments of the Organized Left in the U.S.

The contributions of the organized left to various anti-war, labor and human rights struggles are too numerous to list here. Just to name a few struggles where members of cadre organizations played  an important role, are the labor upsurges of the 1930's, to include the Minneapolis Teamster, and the San Francisco general strikes. The Socialist Workers Party contributed greatly to organizing the anti war movement opposed to the U.S. war in Vietnam during the 1960's. Socialist Action mobilized their members to provide support for the striking meatpacker workers of Local P9, United Food and Commerical Workers, at Hormel, Austin, MN in the mid 1980's.The ISO played a key role in the Charleston 5 Defense campaign, during 2001. These are just a few examples among many, too many to list here, in which organized cadre type socialist groups played an important role.

A Party of a New Kind?

The eventual alleged goal of the majority of North Star supporters is a the formation of a new left organization, that would replace the existing groups. This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing, if these people were truly serious. If they were truly serious, they would be organizing local networks, meetings, and conferences to launch such  a project. Such efforts do not seem to be forthcoming.

Pham Binh the Cruise Missile Socialist

The moderators of the website North Star, Pham Binh,  and Clay Claiborne, have been advocating for United States military intervention in the Middle East, for the past year. Such people, if claiming to be socialist, are referred to as "cruise missile socialists."

The problem with this position, is that the same arguments the cruise missile socialists use for U.S. military intervention in Syria, was used by the Bush administration to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq. This would require those who support U.S. military intervention in the region, as a positive development, to renounce  their previous opposition to the Iraq War.

This has been accomplished with a recent article in North Star:  10 Years After The Iraq War: The Inevitability of Failure — and of Success, by Chris Cutrone, March 23, 2013. Cutrone conveniently overlooks the fact, that the reason the armed resistance against the U.S. occupation ended, was the result of the mostly Sunni resistance fighting two wars. They were fighting U.S. forces, plus engaged in a civil war with U.S. backed Shia forces. Even then they stopped fighting, after a truce, not a surrender. The mostly Sunni resistance fighters, kept their arms, and were paid by the U.S., as a sort of militia.

Further support of the cause of cruise missle socialism, by North Star is allowing the comments section of this article, and another article, Reflections on the Anti-War Movement, to be dominated by supporters of this position. One of the comments, supporting cruise missile liberalism is as long as an article.

The cruise missile socialists conveniently leave out the terrible costs to the Iraqi people. The number of Iraqi deaths are estimated, as low as 100,000 and as high as 1,000,000. The number of Iraqi refugees, both in Iraq and abroad number between 1 million and 2 million. There is also the cost to the U.S. of close to 5,000 deaths and a cost of over $1 trillion. That's a thousand billions.

The cruise missile socialists conveniently leave out the economic goals of the U.S. occupation. This was  spelled out by, Paul Bremer, the first U.S. Pro Consul of Iraq. In his infamous "100 orders" which included privatization of the banks, fully privatized health care system, and the end of benefits such as unemployment insurance and old age pensions, Bremer's goal was to reintroduce laissez faire capitalism to Iraq.

Pham Binh started out, first trashing the entire left, then adopting cruise missile socialism, and now advocates the left to run candidates in Democratic Party primaries. There are those on the Left who consider Pham Binh,  his mentor Louis Proyect, and Clay Claiborne, (who was resurrected from political obscurity by Louis Proyect),  as "comrades." Do not include me in that group.

Peter Camejo and What Is To Be Done

The North Star web site, www.thenorthstar.info, as well as leftist bloggers, Pham Binh and Louis Proyect, moderator of Marxmail www.marxmail.org, advocate that all current Leftist organizations are useless in the cause to advance working class struggles and a should be disbanded. Binh and Proyect claim that organizations claiming to be Leninist are instead actually, "Zinovievist."

The late Peter Camejo (1939-2008), is held as a model of emulation by Proyect and Binh. Camejo advocated the US left use the Cuban July 26 Movement, and the Nicaraguan Sandinistas, as models. What Camejo, Proyect, and Binh overlook, is that these movements came to power as the result of armed struggle, with no explanation how this applies to US conditions. The point of unity of both the Cuban and Nicaraguan movements was the overthrow of a particular dictatorship, not Socialism. Proyects irrelevant response to this contradiction is "read Lars Lih." Many of us find Lars Lih hard to read. The only effect Lih's writing has had for me was to cure my inflight insomnia. Thanks to Lars Lih, for the first time in my life, I can sleep during air travel.

The North Star Network, set up by Camejo, is held as a model of effective Socialist organizing. I was in the San Francisco Bay Area, during the short life of Northstar, the name sake of the North Star web site. The North Star Network, was for all practical purposes, a personality cult around Camejo. The organization disbanded, in 1988, not as the result of a democratic vote, but single handedly by Camejo. That says it all.

Camejo's supporters project Camejo as a dissident in the Socialist Workers Party. He was part of the inner membership until 1977, when he  began to develop differences with the leadership of the party. The time for Camejo to present his disagreements with the SWP leadership, would have been during pre convention discussion leading up the the 1981 convention, and at the convention. Instead Camejo decided to take what he claimed was a temporary leave of absence to "think thing out,"  at his family's estate in Venezuela,  prior to the beginning of pre convention disussion, in early 1981. The proper time for "thinking things out" would have been during the  pre convention discussion.

 The maximum leave of absence in the SWP was usually 3 months. There may have been exceptions to this. During a leave, members were still expected to pay dues, and if during a convention, pay the convention assessment that all members paid. Camejo did not pay any dues during his so called leave, nor did he pay convention assessment. Camejo was not expelled from the Socialist Workers Party. Camejo cut and ran, rather than participate in the 1981 convention. The claim that he was still a member during his almost year long hiatus, is the result of either hubris or arrogance on his part.

In 1983 someone I knew asked Camejo, why he didn't share all his disagreements with the membership. His response was, "I wanted this discussion restricted to the leadership." This response , along with Camejo's style of "leadership" and his unilateral disbanding of the North Star Network, would indicate that Camejo supported an elitist form of leadership.  This is hardly a model  that bears emulation.

Camejo's positive contribution was his ability as a public speaker who could articulate socialist concepts in popular language. His ability as an organizer did not measure up to his speaking skills. This is no great sin. No one should be required to be talented in everything. This is why having an organization, with divisions of labor, where the contributions of all can be utilized is so important.