Blog

  • The Battle for the Soul of the UAW: Union Democracy and the Seductions of Power

    The Battle for the Soul of the UAW: Union Democracy and the Seductions of Power

    After years of struggling in relative obscurity, democratic socialists were jubilant to have elected one of their own to high-profile office.  With bold rhetoric and meme-friendly soundbites, their candidate captured the hearts and minds of a working-class base eager for an alternative to the establishment’s caustic brand of demagoguery.  Ignoring calls for moderation, the campaign took on a defiant, openly confrontational tone.  Its outcome shocked the old guard, upended the status quo, and served as a warning to entrenched interests everywhere.  

     

    The year was 2023, and Shawn Fain had just won the presidency of the United Auto Workers union.  Fain quickly became the public face of a resurgent workers movement that seemed poised to usher in a new wave of labor militancy.  But there would be little time for celebration once the weight of the task ahead set in.  Indeed – like a certain big city mayor – Fain would quickly discover that his election fight was only a preview of the battles to come.  

     

    Fain is now standing for reelection, with ballots set to be tallied next month.  Three years ago, few could imagine that Fain would face a viable challenger as he eyed a second term.  Yet today, his star has long since dimmed, and his fate now hangs in balance.  The upcoming vote will serve as a referendum on his tenure, and while he remains the clear favorite, there is considerably less enthusiasm behind his current bid.  

     

    Fain’s dramatic rise and fall can only be understood in the context of the reform movement that propelled him to power.  Fain traces his lineage to a long history of rank-and-file agitators who challenged the 74-year reign of the incumbent Administration Caucus from below.  In the 1960s, the Revolutionary Union Movement organized Black militants to combat the union’s complicity in de facto factory segregation.  In the 1980s, the New Directions caucus fought against the introduction of lean production and concessionary bargaining.  These efforts scored some victories in local elections, but the possibility of taking power on a grand stage remained elusive.  The established powers proved remarkably resilient, using their vast patronage network to absorb dissidents and marginalize challengers.  Dissent was managed, co-opted, or crushed.

     

    Meanwhile, union leaders embraced “jointness” and labor-management cooperation, seeking to align workers’ interests with corporate competitiveness.  A series of concessions in the 2000s culminated in two-tier contracts that subjected new hires to substandard wages and reduced benefits, creating artificial hierarchies that fractured shop-floor solidarity.  Givebacks at Detroit automakers were compounded by organizing challenges in the South, where the union failed to make inroads at the German and Japanese plants that were overtaking the sector.  As membership plummeted, union officials oversaw a managed decline, presiding over plant closures and outsourcing.  Insulated from rank-and-file agitation and accountable to no one, it was a short step from sweetheart deals and graft to outright corruption.  The breaking point arrived in the late 2010s with the exposure of a scandal involving the misuse of union funds for personal expenses, and officials accepting bribes from the very auto executives they were supposed to bargain against.  Two former presidents were sent to prison, and a federal monitor was appointed to oversee the union’s operations under a consent decree.  But this legitimacy crisis came with a silver lining, shattering the old guard’s aura of invincibility and creating an opening for change.

     

    Amidst the wreckage, a coalition of frustrated auto workers founded Unite All Workers for Democracy (UAWD).   Drawing tactical inspiration and support from broader labor-left networks, including Labor Notes and the Democratic Socialists of America, UAWD presented democracy as an antidote to corruption.  Through painstaking grassroots organizing (and an assist from the federal Monitor), UAWD successfully forced a referendum on direct elections in 2021, which passed with 63% of the vote.

     

    After breaking the old guard’s monopoly on power, candidates had to tailor their messaging to appeal directly to the militant rank-and-file base.  Shawn Fain ran on the strength of his populist, class-conscious rhetoric.  He framed the election as an existential battle between the working class and the billionaire owners, while promising an end to concessionary bargaining and cozy labor-management partnerships. 

     

    Following a close run-off, Fain took the presidency, and UAWD also captured the Executive Board, winning all 6 of the seats it had contested (plus a UAWD-aligned independent).  Before caucus supporters had time to catch their breath, its long-shot candidates were running the union.  Fain immediately set about implementing his vision.  Within months of his victory, he was leading workers in a historic strike against the Big Three that paralyzed the industry.   Abandoning the union’s decades-old tradition of pattern bargaining, Fain’s Stand Up Strike kept the Big Three automakers perpetually off-balance with a targeted, escalating strategy.  The resulting contracts yielded significant wage gains, eliminated lower-wage tiers, and granted the right to strike over plant closures.  Fain started showing up everywhere, from the cover of MotorTrend to a featured spot at the Democratic National Convention – and was even briefly floated as a vice-presidential candidate.  

     

    But even as Fain reveled in his newfound celebrity, the union’s culture had begun to change in deeper ways.  In a sign of democratic vibrancy, members were quick to note when the administration failed to deliver.  Indeed, following the Stand-Up strike, several important plants rejected the contract, and it passed by a razor-thin, 56% margin at GM.  Encouraged by the strike, newly emboldened workers at Mack Truck turned down a tentative contract agreement, vowing to fight for a better deal.  By trumpeting democracy, Fain had inflated expectations and unleashed a movement that now exceeded his control.  Having tasted real power, members were no longer content to settle for compromise.

     

    Immediately on the heels of the strike, Fain announced “Stand-Up 2.0”: a national campaign to organize multiple non-union auto plants across the country, including Japanese and European transplants as well as non-union electric-vehicle makers like Tesla and Rivian.  Fain’s chief of staff, Chris Brooks, had championed a mass organizing strategy rooted in high-profile actions.  If the UAW could seize the momentum from the Stand-Up strike, he argued, it would produce a domino effect, rippling across job sites and jumpstarting a series of organizing drives in rapid succession.  By organizing multiple employers simultaneously and linking their demands to the Big Three master agreement, the union aimed to take wages out of competition.

     

    At first, the strategy seemed to work.  Momentum from the strike carried into April 2024, when workers at Volkswagen’s assembly plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee, overwhelmingly voted to join the UAW, marking the first time a Southern transplant had been unionized via an NLRB election since the 1940s.  Though UAWD had no organized presence in Chattanooga, workers consistently cited its influence as a source of inspiration and an indication of the union’s forward trajectory.  The UAW seemed unstoppable, and expectations were high that the union fever would continue to spread.

     

    But this was to be the high-water mark of Fain’s power.  A subsequent organizing drive at Mercedes-Benz in Alabama ended in a humiliating defeat (albeit against stiffer odds).  The UAW later won a narrow election at BlueOval SK – only for the company to announce the facility’s closure and the termination of all 1,600 employees amid soft demand for EVs.  Even at Volkswagen, winning the election was to be merely the preamble to a brutal, 500-day war of attrition at the bargaining table, during which management deployed classic delay tactics, stalling negotiations in a calculated effort to demoralize the newly minted members.

     

    These organizing challenges mirrored problems within Fain’s own administration.  With its handpicked candidate now in the seat of power, UAWD was forced to navigate the inherent tension between the anti-establishment passions that fueled its rise and the solemn responsibility of managing a massive institution.  Long consigned to outsider status, union reformers struggled to adapt to their new role.  The surface-level consensus that had united the caucus against the corruption masked deep ideological and demographic fissures.   The breaking point centered on the issue of Palestinian liberation and the war in Gaza.  A militant faction pushed UAWD to pass resolutions demanding that the UAW divest its assets from Israeli bonds.  Moderates viewed these demands as “ultra-left” distractions that paralyzed the caucus in insular debates, alienated the manufacturing base, and derailed the practical work of building union power.  Meetings devolved into an endless stream of performative parliamentary debates focused on ideological purity and caucus discipline.  The internal culture became toxic, recruitment plummeted, and the UAWD’s core manufacturing base began to disengage.  By late 2025, the caucus could no longer function effectively, and UAWD split under the weight of deep ideological divisions.  A majority of the steering committee voted to formally dissolve the caucus and to launch a new organization, UAW Member Action, even as a minority faction vowed to continue operating under the UAWD banner despite losing access to the group’s digital infrastructure.  When the dust settled, the reform movement was a shadow of its former self.  The reconstituted UAWD had an explicit class-struggle orientation, but found itself relegated to the fringes.  The larger Member Action tendency had broader support but effectively pledged its loyalty to the administration, ceasing to be a truly independent force.

     

    This split coincided with a series of moves by Fain to consolidate his power and fortify his position ahead of the 2026 reelection cycle.   Fain formed a “United UAW Slate,” which critics viewed as a vehicle to mute the rank-and-file and insulate the leadership from accountability.   Compounding the crisis, the Fain administration refused to release the official minutes of International Executive Board meetings throughout his tenure.  But the most glaring sign of institutional creep emerged from a bombshell report issued in February 2026 by Neil Barofsky, the court-appointed federal Monitor overseeing the UAW.  In early 2024, the IEB had voted to strip Secretary-Treasurer Margaret Mock of her primary responsibilities, citing financial improprieties.  Mock immediately alleged retaliation, prompting Barofsky to investigate.  The Monitor’s report charged that Fain’s Chief of Staff, Chris Brooks, and Communications Director, Jonah Furman, had conspired to oust Mock for insisting on enforcing financial safeguards.  Fain countered that the Monitor had been motivated by animus over Fain’s condemnation of the war on Gaza and early support for a ceasefire—a position championed by UAWD.  The fallout was swift and humiliating for the reform administration: Furman was demoted and suspended, Brooks was forced to resign, and the union was ordered to reinstate Mock. 

     

    Accusations and recriminations abound, but Fain’s lack of transparency has only given his opponents more ammunition.  To critics, it appears as though the Fain administration has adopted the same mechanisms of opacity and retaliation it once condemned.  While the details are still being sorted out, the irony is profound: the very federal Monitor who had paved the way for Fain’s rise to power now threatens his legitimacy, highlighting the risks of government meddling in union affairs.   

     

    Desperate for a win to break the cycle of negative press, in February 2026 the UAW presented Volkswagen’s tentative agreement to its members.  The union had rejected a strikingly similar deal just months earlier, even calling a strike authorization vote to increase pressure on the firm.  But workers were eager to consummate their election victory, and 500+ days of negotiations were beginning to test their patience.  They ratified the contract by an overwhelming 96% margin.  

     

    A close analysis of the contract reveals both how much has been achieved and how much ground is left to cover.  Under the terms of the deal, workers received a 20% wage increase over the four-year contract – a significant boost but still below the 24% increase achieved by Detroit automakers.   Job security and layoff protections were mixed.  Volkswagen committed not to close or liquidate the plant during the contract term, but allowed itself an escape clause for ”impossible conditions.”  Scheduling PTO and dependent-care issues were another major priority, but again, the contract fell short.  Healthcare costs failed to match the Big Three’s coveted no-premium, no-deductible plans–though premiums and deductibles dropped significantly.   Whatever its achievements, the contract did not achieve full parity with the Big Three, diminishing but not ending the regional differential that has long served as a check on workers’ aspirations.  

     

    But perhaps the biggest disappointment was the contract’s expiration date.  The union had wanted the contract to expire in May 2028 to align with the Big Three.  Synchronization would enable coordinated action, up to and including an industry-wide strike, and help the union fulfill its promise to equalize wages and working conditions across the sector.  But Volkswagen balked at this demand and agreed only to a 2030 expiration date, postponing the fight for full parity for at least another four years.

     

    On the international front, Fain and company have seemingly retreated from the bold calls for cross-border solidarity that marked his administration’s early days.  Fain surprised even his apologists by declaring he was “ready to work with Trump” just weeks after calling him a “scab,” and then offering a full-throated defense of Trump’s tariff regime.  UAW members know the dangers of economic nationalism all too well, making Fain’s eager embrace of protectionist trade policy unsettling, to say the least.

     

    How might the reform movement be assessed three years into Fain’s presidency?  UAWD can take credit for setting in motion the chain of events that led to the first contract with a foreign automaker.  UAWD-backed leaders achieved in a single year what the previous regime had failed to do over multiple decades.  Still, when translating the bluster and swagger of campaign talking points into the unforgiving calculus of annual budgets and payroll ledgers, some degree of disappointment is perhaps inevitable.  Operating in a climate of austerity while facing off against some of the world’s largest and wealthiest firms necessitates a certain pragmatism.  Even the most naïve political operative knows better than to take campaign promises at face value.    But the distance that remains between Volkswagen’s contract and that of the Big Three — and indeed, the gap between Fain’s boldest proclamations and his track record — suggests that democratic proceduralism must be accompanied by an unrelenting insistence on accountability.   A vibrant reform movement is necessary to backstop the administration’s inevitable drift toward compromise.

     

    The Fain administration’s efforts to consolidate its hold on power reveal the difficulty of sustaining a cohesive vision once the immediate enemy has been vanquished.  Fain now finds himself grappling with the same oligarchic tendencies he was elected to eradicate.  But those who accuse Fain and company of betrayal might be reminded that union democracy cannot rely on the benevolent intentions of elected leaders.  Power, by its very nature, seeks to insulate itself from the chaotic demands of the rank-and-file.  Will the rebel caucuses continue to assert their autonomy, or will they be crushed in the name of a unity that erases difference, like so many Kronstadt sailors?  It remains to be seen whether the loyalist Members Action tendency or the reconstituted UAWD will prove capable of holding Fain and company accountable.  UAWD 2.0 has drawn some support – even achieving its long-awaited goal of Israeli divestment at the recent convention – but the defections were costly, and there are already signs that remnants of the old guard are mounting a comeback.

     

    As labor historians have long noted, few rank-and-file caucuses survive the transition from the streets to the boardroom.  History shows that insurgent groups often cannibalize themselves once their leaders take office, leaving the rank-and-file without an independent vehicle for accountability.  To Fain’s harshest critics, the incumbent administration now exhibits the very bureaucratic behaviors it was elected to dismantle.  Yet ultimately, the future of the UAW does not rest on the shoulders of Shawn Fain, nor will it be secured by the opaque maneuverings of the International Executive Board in Solidarity House.  It depends instead on continued pressure from an independent rank-and-file that forces the bureaucracy to perform. 

     

    Democracy is an inherently destabilizing, agonistic process.  It requires a permanent state of tension: a mobilized, educated membership that unrelentingly demands transparency, contests elections, and resists the seductions of power.  

     

     

  • Proles:   A Story of Post-Sixties’ Salting  Among the “Salt of The Earth” 

    Proles:  A Story of Post-Sixties’ Salting Among the “Salt of The Earth” 

    In the early 1970s, when many student activists were migrating from campus to industrial jobs to promote working class radicalization, no labor film was more influential than Salt of the Earth.

    This pioneering docudrama was made two decades earlier by a producer, writer, director, and several actors who were unemployable in Hollywood, due to McCarthy era-blacklisting.

    This left-wing creative team recruited a cast of workers and their families from the International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers (IUMMSW) to play themselves in a fictional account of a long strike at the Empire Zinc Company in Grant County, New Mexico.

    Local 890 members knew something about red-baiting too. Shortly before their 1951 fight for better conditions and an end to wage disparities between Anglo and Chicano workers, Mine, Mill was expelled from the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), along with the left-led United Electrical Workers (UE) and west coast longshore union, the ILWU. In

    In real life, and later on screen, the key to the success of this mining community struggle was the militant participation of strikers’ wives, mothers, daughters and sisters after their own mass picketing is enjoined by a local judge.

    In Salt of the Earth, this picket-line replacement strategy, which challenged and changed traditional gender roles in a socially conservative company town, is heatedly debated by film’s two lead characters.

    Blacklisted and Deported

    Playing the role of Ramon Quintera, Juan Chacon, an actual IUMMSW local president, initially objects to the strike activism of his fictional wife Esperanza, played by Mexican actress Rosaura Revueltas (who was deported for making the film). Other members of an entirely male and largely Latino workforce are similarly conflicted about the emergence of a vocal and empowered women’s auxiliary.

    When Esperanza and her fellow female pickets are arrested, she takes her small baby behind bars with her. The resulting boisterous jail house protest—which prefigures southern civil rights and peace movement tactics in the 1960s–forces the sheriff to release them all. The miners’ subsequent defense of the Quintera family–when the company tries to evict them–becomes a turning point in the long strike which ends in a contract settlement.

    Berkeley journalist and now first-time novelist Barry Bergman was among the many young radicals much inspired by this now iconic depiction of Mexican-American labor struggle.  Before Bergman relocated to California and began a long career as a newspaper reporter, magazine writer/editor, and communications specialist for UC Berkeley and numerous non-profits, he worked for several years in a copper smelter near Tucson.

    That experience as a rank-and-file member of the United Steel Workers (USW)–which gobbled up the IUMMSW, after years of raiding it–led to his writing Proles (Serving House Books). Bergman’s novel is a funny, moving, and historically accurate account of workplace “colonizing”—or “salting” as it’s called today– told from the point of view of the author’s fictional alter-ego.

    Via a college course entitled “Celluloid and Social Change,” Simon Bussbaum learns about a film called City of Emeralds. He is captivated by its depiction of “dirt-poor Chicano miners in the Southwest” and their humble but charismatic leader, Naldo Galvin.

    Art Imitates Life

    Simon does further research and discovers that Galvin—like the real-life Juan Chacon in the 1970s—has become a dissident in the Steel Workers. The former strike organizer—and Salt of the Earth co-star– is now rallying his co-workers against “a class collaborationist union which muscled its way into zinc and copper mines in the Sun Belt” by marketing itself as a labor-management partner, rather than a class struggle foe.

    The bookish film buff from Queens (the author’s hometown as well) leaves anti-war politics behind for a very different blue-collar life in open shop Arizona. Arriving for his first shift at Cobra Copper Company (aka “ThreeCo”), Simon walks into a scene lifted from the film that inspired his turn toward the working class.

    “Outside the giant garage doors that opened out from the smelter’s shell, hundreds of men clustered in small groups, coveralls gone or dangling at their waist. Some were standing, others lying on bare ground or using their hardhats for seats. A handful were shirtless, glistening in the sun. It might have been a disorderly line at the Fillmore East, save for the work clothes and industrial boots.” 

    A new co-worker, a “hard-looking Chicano with a missing tooth, a Fu Manchu mustache and a cobra tattoo on his right forearm” tells Simon what’s going on.  “It’s a ‘wildcat,’” explains Snake, who seems happy to follow the crazy “white dudes” who started it all by “waving their arms, walking out, and shouting, ‘Join us!”.

    Other hard hats in the now idle crowd are pissed off about losing a few hours pay. “Anarchists,” one grumbles. “Commies and agitators. They don’t like it here, can’t blame them for that. But you can’t strike till the contract’s up. That’s the law.”

           A manager addresses the crowd with a bull-horn and repeats the same message. “This is an unlawful work stoppage. Your local union has not authorized this action, and joins us in ordering you to immediately cease and desist. This is your final warning.”

    A Tactical Error?

           The “cadre” organization members–who have inducted Simon into their small circle at a local radical bookstore–are among “the twelve people pegged as troublemakers and fired.” After this “tactical error,” Simon attends his first Steelworkers local union meeting. There, he encounters bureaucratic lethargy and business union routine familiar to many rank-and-file activists, then and now.

           Only a smattering of members show-up—at a VFW hall with an “American flag on the pole outside the building and another hung on a wall behind the podium.” Much time is spent on the financial report and a reading of minutes from the last meeting. The biggest agenda item is the e-board’s unanimous decision “not to pursue grievance arbitration cases for employees who were terminated.”

           As the union treasurer explains, this will result in “a big savings for the local because we could not have prevailed in defending an action that went against the ‘no strike’ clause in our own contract.” (“Good riddance,” blurts out the local’s business manager, “a pudgy man in a short sleeved white shirt,” who gavels the meeting to a close soon thereafter.)

    Bergman’s workplace descriptions are equally on target. Some of the best parts of Proles are reminiscent of The Jungle, Upton Sinclair’s fictional account of job hazards in mid-western meat-packing plants a century ago or Emperor of Gladness, Ocean Voung’s novel about low wage work in 21st century New England.

    “The smelter, known as ‘Freako,’ was a cavernous, ramshackle Big Top featuring spark-spewing furnaces, splashing cauldrons dangled from the cranes like murderous marionettes, rapids of liquid fire tumbling down in harrowing dayglow ribbons. Danger was everywhere, lurking beneath the dull roar and the rotten eggs stench. Everything black and orange, darkness and firelight, a waking nightmare Halloween that left him in terror of any possible misstep.”

    Unfortunately, the hottest shop floor issue is not the threat of being scalded to death or maimed and killed in many other ways.  It’s ThreeCo’s controversial decision to hire its first female laborer, a feisty former high school athlete, who is a half-Latino and a single mother. It’s 1973, after all, and the era of equal opportunity is dawning.

    As the fictional reincarnation of Esperanza, Samantha Tanager is not just showing that she can, in a pinch, take a man’s place on the picket-line; she’s going to join them on the shop floor, in a fire-resistant orange jump suit, aluminum hard-hat, and steel-toed boots. But the sudden arrival of a “fetching copper miner’s daughter,” as a local newspaper describes her, proves to be very triggering for Bullock.

    He’s the big, tobacco-chewing redneck with “a natural talent for cruelty” that Bussbuam is assigned to work with. Already suspicious of Simon’s rather obvious East Coast Jewishness and college boy ways, Bullock views “Tanager’s admission to the sacred sanctum of the smelter as sacrilege, a grievous affront to the Code of the Working Stiff, Nonferrous Division.”

    Besides, he believes that Samantha is a lesbian. (Spoiler alert: much to Simon’s love-struck chagrin, Bullock’s gaydar is correct.)

    Casual Racism

    Simon’s New Left idealism is now further tested amid Freako’s “dark, depraved beauty, which reeked of musty maleness that gave rise to a loose-knit, shambling ‘esprit de corps,’ wrapped in a kind of casual racism and sexism so expansive, so deeply rooted, it had started to feel—Simon not being of this world, and without standing perhaps to judge his co-workers’ cultural values—like just another flavor of assholism.”

    When that assholism takes the form of a nasty campaign by Bullock to make Tanager’s life miserable on the job, Simon’s own personal class struggle ends in a parking lot brawl between two “union brothers.” It doesn’t end well for the new hire and little resembles more heroic scuffles, between labor and management, in Salt of The Earth. 

    But it does lead Bussbaum to bid blue-collar life adieu and head for the greener pastures of California. (Tanager and her female partner leave for the more tolerant Texas oasis of Austin.)

    Proles was definitely not written as a how-too manual for members of the Rank-and-File Project, a present-day effort to “recruit, educate, and support a new generation of activists who will join the fight for working-class power by taking union jobs on the shop floor.”

    Nevertheless, this novel is highly recommended reading, in such circles today, due to its deft exploration of the nexus between the personal and the political. Any left-wing “salt” trying to befriend un-class conscious (and sometimes weird) co-workers, while dealing with draining night shifts, imperious managers and not much nicer union bosses, will find humorous respite in Barry Bergman’s fictional rendering of his real-life experience with the “salt of the earth” in Arizona fifty years ago.

      

  • A Socialist in the Teamsters Union

    A Socialist in the Teamsters Union

    This essay was my contribution to Andrew S. Higgins’ book From the Free Speech Movement to the Factory Floor: A Collective History of the International Socialists (Chicago: Haymarket, 2026). Thanks to Higgins and to the publisher for permission to publish in New Politics. The video records a presentation I made about this chapter this chaptr that deals with my early experience in the I.S. and in TDU to members of DSA’s Bread and Roses Caucus at my home in Brooklyn in September 2026.

    By Dan La Botz

    I joined the International Socialists in 1969, the year it was founded. With other I.S. members I went into industry, eventually getting a job in trucking and becoming a Teamster from 1974 to 1980. My decade in the I.S. and in our union work was for me what boot camp or the Peace Corps were for others of my generation. It shaped my outlook and enriched my life.

    I was born in Chicago on August 9, 1945, the day the atomic bomb as dropped on Nagasaki and I was born in a ward of the Lying Inn Hospital at the University of Chicago where the bomb was developed. So, I have always been conscious of growing up in the atomic age, an age of holocausts. My father’s family were Dutch and the men worked as bakers. While the family’s religion had been the Dutch Reformed Church, my paternal grandfather had become a socialist, a pacifist, and an atheist during the Great Depression and his family with him. My uncle said that one day in the 1930s Grandpa came home, got up on a chair, and took down the “Jesus Saves” sign in the living room. My mother’s family were Irish working-class folks, laborers and truck drivers.

    I grew up with these two families and their stories of the Great Depression when they lived on government relief. They went to city offices to get bushel baskets of turnips. My maternal grandmother was a barmaid and prostitute, as she later told me. As boys my father and his brothers sold razor blades and shoestrings in the bars at night. My mother when she finished eighth grade went to work in a factory at the age of twelve and my father at the age of fourteen went to work on a grocery truck that drove through the alleys where he carried vegetables up the backstairs to customers in the apartment buildings. Later he worked in bakeries and factories.

    When the United States entered World War II, my father and his three brothers registered as conscientious objectors; two of them were 4F, physically unfit for service, and not called, but my father Herb and his brother Bert ended up with other COs in a Public Service Camp at Big Flats, New York. At the end of the war, when the COs were not released from the camps, my uncle joined a strike and walkout at the camps as part of a movement called “End Slave Labor in America.” He was arrested and briefly imprisoned, while my father and mother hitchhiked back to Chicago.

    My uncle and father had met non-religious pacifists and socialists in the camp who were followers of Dwight McDonald, editor of Politics magazine. They became part of that circle. One of the other men, Walker Sandbach became a manager of the Hyde Park Coop Grocery Store, then the largest coop in America, and hired my father to work there in the produce department. Later my mother also worked there as a grocery clerk. Both became members of the Retail Clerks Union and my father served as steward, though he later became a manager.

    I grew up on Union Street on the Southside of Chicago near the 63rd and Halstead shopping area and in 1950s went to Beale Public School with my fellow students, half of whom were white and half Black. When I was eight years old my father took a position as the manager of a new Coop Grocery in Whittier, California, but the store failed within a year and we returned to the Southside. When I was eleven my father’s persistent philandering led my mother to leave him and she took my five-year-old sister and me to the South Bay of San Diego, California to be near her mother, Ruth. The divorce of our parents, as well as the loss of my father and his big family, was devastating to my sister Janet and me and left us traumatized.

    With my mother’s divorce, and my father providing no alimony or child support, we fell into poverty. We lived in an old motor court, that predecessor of the motel, in a tiny apartment attached to the trailer park where my grandparents lived. Ours was a cold water flat, the common showers a five-minute walk into the trailer park, and our toilet was in the patio, shared with the clients of the bar next door. My bed was next to the bar’s wall, on the other side of which the jukebox played Hank Williams and the new guy, Johnny Cash.

    My mother worked in a variety of part-time, minimum-wage jobs. Looking for some help, she married Kenneth Hornke, a Navy veteran who suffered from shellshock after freezing up on a destroyer escort anti-aircraft gun during a Japanese attack during World War II. He worked alternately as a tuna fisherman and a house painter, both jobs seasonal in different ways, the former depending on the movement of the tides and the latter on the fluctuations of interest rates. Kenny was an alcoholic and sometimes violent, so life at home became very difficult. My mother, became a grocery checker and was a member again of the Retail Clerks Union. She was both the emotional and the economic mainstay of the family.

    They bought a little house in Imperial Beach, a working-class town of shipyard workers, cannery workers, and Navy enlisted men that sat on the U.S.-Mexico Border and the Pacific Ocean. In Chicago, my world had been Black and white, in California it was white, Mexican, Filipino and Japanese. A few whites and some Japanese were farm owners, Mexicans harvested the tomato crops, and Filipino women packed them. Many white people in my world were Navy enlisted men or retired chief petty officers and their families, though some of our better off white neighbors worked making airplanes at Rohr, Convair, and General Dynamics.

    My teenage years exposed me to many different ideas. My step-father took me to anti-Communist meetings at the Veterans of Foreign Wars. His brother and sister-in-law Billy and Bessie invited me to attend the Pentecostal Church with them, which I did for a year because I liked the music and the camaraderie, though I resisted with all my strength being pulled to the altar to be saved. I had been raised an atheist and remained one.

    At Mar Vista High School I joined the track team and ran the high hurdles and felt more confident in my body. An English teacher named Leroy Wright who had read some of my poetry recommended books for me to read and encouraged me to write. I worked on the school newspaper.

    About the same time, I met Virginia “Di” Christiansen, the local Beatnik, a woman about forty who in her youth had traveled in Communist circles. She was a friend of folksinger Barbara Dane. Di introduced me to classical and jazz music, to the post-impressionist painters that she loved, and to everything else from the music of John Cage to the plays of Alfred Jarry. Under her tutelage, we published a hand-painted journal in the form of a scroll called Fallout for Color, with drawings, painting, poems, stories and articles by all of those in Di’s circle: the postman, the Navy chief, the Mexican laborer, and us. From the age of fourteen until my early twenties, I wanted nothing more than to be a poet and a writer.

    Di Christiansen involved me in what was then the very small anti-war movement and we wrote and handed out anti-war leaflets at George’s, the local drive-in, hamburger-fries-and-a-shake-restaurant. In our little Navy town, we were shouted and sworn at. I also went with Di to a protest demonstration at a Navy base where the American Legion showed up, took away our protest signs, beat us up, and then when they left the police arrested not them but us! I got my first impressions of the anti-war movement: Quakers and Unitarians, old leftists, and a few young people; and I got my first understanding of the police.

    I graduated from Mar Vista High School in 1963 and had to register with Selective Service. Following in my father’s and uncles’ footsteps, I declared myself to be a conscientious objector to war.

    College and into the Movement

    No one in my family had ever finished high school before, much less gone to college, and my High School’s counselor offered no useful advice, so I went off to nearby Southwestern Community College in Chula Vista to study English literature and journalism. There at the age of eighteen I met and married a beautiful young woman named Winifred, half Chinese-Filipino and half Eastern European Jew. Marrying so young had been common in my parents’ families and also among my peers. Many of my classmates married immediately after graduating from high school; this was before birth control and the marriage was often because the girl was pregnant. Too immature to have married, with no children, Winifred and I divorced in a year.

    At Southwestern, I soon met another woman, Barbara, and we moved in together and married a couple of years later. One day Barbara and I went to the grocery store and ran into pickets from the United Farm Workers. They convinced us not to buy grapes, and then not to shop at that store, and then to join them picketing. And for a while we helped the UFW in leafleting at local grocery stores.

    I meanwhile had graduated from San Diego State College with a B.A. in English, and with Barbara went off to Library School at the University of Chicago. It wasn’t for me and I quit after a semester. When we returned to San Diego, a friend invited me to go to the University of California at San Diego in La Jolla to hear a lecture by Herbert Marcuse on his book One-Dimensional Man. I was dazzled. I returned the next day to enroll in the Philosophy Department so I could study with him, but I was turned away. So, I went around the corner to the Literature Department and was accepted there. The chairman assigned me to work as a teaching assistant for a young professor named Frederick Jameson.

    For the next year or two I was intoxicated with my studies, with Marcuse’s lectures on Karl Marx and Jameson’s seminars in Comparative Literature. My first course in graduate school was a plunge with Jameson into French philosophy (and into the French language) reading Jean-Paul Sartre’s Critique de la raison dialectique. Marcuse’s student Angela Davis sometimes sat in. In Anthony Wilden’s course on Jacques Lacan we read Ferdinand Saussure, Claude Lévi-Straus and Freud. I was immersed in post-structuralism and post-modernism. I also joined the UCSD chapter of Students for a Democratic Society, made up mostly of undergraduates, and participated in its weekly anti-war rallies.

    After an intense year in graduate school, I took a break and went up to Humboldt State College where I was a Lecturer in English Literature. There, before my academic year began, I took a summer course on the recent French general strike of 1968 where I met Walt Sheasby, a local activist, a member of both the Young Peoples Socialist League, and as SDS organizer who had just joined the International Socialists. Walt and his wife Madelyn and Barbara and I became good friends, both of us having one-year-old children, ours Jake and theirs Freia. Walt and I spent a lot of time over coffee in the morning at the college and over wine at night discussing socialism. Together with other students and young people we formed a little socialist collective.

    Our little socialist group invited all of the major U.S. left groups to come speak to us: the Communist Party, the Socialist Workers Party, the Progressive Labor Party, and the Industrial Workers of the World. Walt saved for last two I.S. organizers: Jack Bloom and Stefanie Beatty. After they spoke, I asked, “When do you expect a revolution to take place.” Jack said, “Within twenty years.” Remember that at the time the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, and the ghetto rebellions had shaken the country to its foundations. And now a women’s movement was beginning. Yes, I thought, I can imagine a revolution by 1989.

    Walt recruited me to the I.S. by giving me two pamphlets: Hal Draper’s The Two Souls of Socialism, that laid out a critical account of Social Democracy and Stalinism and argued for a revolutionary socialist alternative, and Stan Weir’s The New Era of Labor Revolt, which suggested that rank-and-file workers were beginning to challenge the labor bureaucracy in some unions. Draper’s revolutionary socialist politics and Weir’s notion of a rank-and-file rebellion in the unions brought me into the I.S. orbit, and the group’s slogan, “Neither Washington nor Moscow,” that is, its opposition to both capitalism and Communism (or bureaucratic collectivism) convinced me that this was the group for me. I and most of us in our little socialist group joined the I.S.

    In my first year in the I.S., living up in Arcata, California, Barbara and I drove down to Berkeley, attended some I.S. meetings there, and met some of the comrades. I liked the group’s principles, its character and its feel, so different from other groups that I had begun to run into such as the Trotskyists in the Socialist Workers Party and the Spartacist League. Unlike those doctrinaire groups, the I.S. had a rather libertarian character. It was not a rigid sect. People in the group read everything and were open to discussion on all sorts of issues. One of the first I.S. members I happened to meet was Dave McCullough who in our initial conversation casually said, “I’m a Buddhist.” The I.S. had been formed in the Free Speech Movement at the University of California Berkeley and that organizing experience had shaped it. I.S. members that I met were both principled and practical socialist organizers.

    I returned to UCSD and continued my courses, though the only one I cared about any more was the student-organized seminar on Critical Theory to which we recruited Jameson, Wilden, and Carlos Blanco Aguinaga to serve as our professors. Blanco was a Spanish Communist who had lived in Mexico. We read G.W.F. Hegel, Karl Marx, Alexandre Kojève, J-P. Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Edmund Husserl, and Martin Heidegger. But also, now in the I.S. and under the tutelage of our comrade Ken B. from Berkeley, Barbara and I read Leon Trotsky, Max Shachtman, and Hal Draper. I stopped attending my other seminars regularly, gave up writing papers, and instead I studied Marx, Friedrich Engels, Trotsky, Vladimir Lenin, and Rosa Luxemburg.

    In 1969 and 70, the I.S. conducted a discussion of the unions and our role as socialist in the labor movement. In this period, the three most important names in the labor movement were the conservative George Meany, chief of the AFL-CIO, the social democratic Walter Reuther, head of the United Auto Workers, and the militant but corrupt Jimmy Hoffa, leader of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Unions represented more than twenty-five percent of all wage workers, had significant power through the strike and boycott, and vast resources in the from union dues, pension and health-and-welfare funds. While the heart of the labor movement was in industry, at that time, new groups of workers were organizing: farm workers, teachers, social workers, and other public employees.

    We had only a few people in the group with labor union experience. Stan Weir had worked in factories, in construction, and in longshore. Anne Draper had worked for a variety of unions, including the United Farm Workers. Most of us in our twenties had no union experience whatsoever. As we tried to figure out our attitude toward the unions there were four different currents of opinion. One of our members argued that the unions had become so bureaucratic, and so conservative, that we had to “smash the unions.” Others tended to see some advantages of working on the staffs of the more progressive unions, as Anne Draper had. Some thought we should organize socialist caucuses in the unions. But most of us, influenced by Stan Weir’s pamphlet, were convinced that it made sense to organize rank-and-file workers in order to turn the unions into instruments of class struggle. Kim Moody, a telephone worker in New York at the time, turned this latter view into a paper, “The Rank-and-File Strategy,” which our group adopted. We vowed to try to carry it out. We decided we would have to leave the East and West Coasts, move to the country’s major industrial cities—Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh—get jobs in auto, steel, telephone, and the trucking industry and organize. (Some members did stay on the coasts and undertake the same kind of industrial work.)

    Back to Chicago and into Industry

    In 1972, my wife Barbara and I, who had been growing apart, separated. She went to Detroit to work in an auto plant. I went to Chicago with a fellow graduate student named Sandy with whom I had become involved. I took custody of my son Jake and Sandy also had a son of the same age named Darryl. We found a cheap apartment in the poor, difficult, and dangerous neighborhood of Uptown. After working for a bit as a waitress, Sandy got a job as a social worker, meanwhile I found work first as a librarian for a public housing authority, then as a steel worker, then as a social worker, and later as a truck driver.

    I worked for only a few months at U.S. Steel Gary Works, first in the labor gang and then as a motor inspector apprentice. The mill, nine miles long, a mile wide, served by two railroad lines and with 10,000 workers (there had been 40,000 during World War II), was my first experience in heavy industry. For a variety of reasons, personal and political, I had to give up that job.

    At 25, Sandy and I were among the older half of the Chicago branch and the only ones with children. The young members had no idea of what it meant to take care of kids. We asked to have the branch meetings held in our apartment to make our childcare easier. The weekly I.S. branch meeting was typically divided into a political discussion on some topic and a report on some aspect of our own work. I remember for example, a political talk that I gave on the hot autumn in Italy that stretched from 1969 to 1970 while no doubt someone else talked about their work in the International Harvester plant or something like that. We had at that time a couple of members in the United Auto Workers union in that large IH plant.

    During this period, the I.S. followed closely what was happening in the United Mine Workers because of the rise of Miners for Democracy. After UMW President Tony Boyle had his opponent Jock Yablonski and his wife and daughter murdered, the U.S. Labor Department called for new elections. Miners for Democracy then had three important leaders—Mike Trbovich, Harry Patrick, and Arnold Miller—and in several lengthy documents I.S. members analyzed what each of them represented for the future of the UMW. While we were not directly involved in the UMW, it was a great educational experience for our membership to study an unfolding rank-and-file struggle in that union.

    After being in Chicago a few years, I became obsessed with a woman named Laura who had been working as our branch organizer. I ended up leaving Sandy and her son and, taking my son Jake, moving in with and later marrying Laura. It proved to be a very intense and stormy relationship. About that time, Ken Paff, leader of the I.S. work in the Teamsters visited me in Chicago and suggested that I get a job in trucking. Shortly afterwards, in 1974, I went to truck driving school for several weeks, graduated and, unable to find a job in a larger trucking company, took a job at F. Landon Cartage, a small, Chicago area carrier. I became a member of the Chicago Truck Drivers Union (Independent), which while not part of the Teamsters International negotiated with the Teamsters the National Freight Agreement.

    At the time that we joined the Teamsters, the Hoffa succession fight in Local 299 in Detroit had led to a raging battle among the officials there as they blew up each other’s houses and boats. Around the same time, a group called the Fraternal Association of Steel Haulers or FASH attempted to leave the corrupt and violent international union, and the Teamster officials responded by blowing up the FASH leader’s house. FASH drivers were shot at or ripped from their trucks and beaten. Just about the time we in the I.S. got trucking jobs and joined the union in 1970, a couple of dissidents, not associated with us, had been murdered in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The Mafia was known to control a number of Teamster locals and to be involved in the Teamster pension fund. Naturally once we became involved, we tried to avoid the mobbed-up locals. But we also bought guns, learned to shoot. While I was a truck driver in Chicago, I carried a pistol with me to work every day and at home I had a shotgun by the door. There was no doubt a lot of romanticism and machismo in all of this fascination with guns, but there was also a real threat. Once we became active, criticizing the contracts and making demands on local leaders, some of us were roughed up at local union meetings—one friend of ours was beaten pretty badly in Cleveland—and a couple of us received death threats. One official said to someone we knew, “If La Botz shows his face in my local again, I’ll send him home in a box.”

    The I.S. Teamster Work

    The I.S. had various arenas of work: in various labor unions, anti-racist work, feminist work, and anti-war work. Our tradition had a practice of creating separate working groups for each that were called “fractions,” meaning that fraction of the organization involved in that work. The national Teamster fraction was established about the time that I got a job in industry and became a member of the union in 1974. The national fraction produced a periodic mimeographed bulletin circulated to the members that was made up of newspaper clippings on local Teamster elections, strikes, and so on, as well research papers by our own members analyzing the Teamsters, and short proposals for our work. We held occasional telephone conference calls and less frequent face-to-face meetings, one in the Midwest and one on the West Coast. The fraction allowed all of our members to become informed and to participate in the discussions.

    Our general method was this. Our members first got jobs in the industry in the Midwestern industrial cities, ideally in the larger national trucking companies and the most important union locals. Once in the union, in every local where we were involved, we met drivers, dockworkers, clerks and others who had been local activists and who were often in opposition to the existing union leadership. While we had socialist politics, an analysis of the unions and the labor bureaucracy, as well as speaking, writing and organizing skills that we’d learned in the civil rights and anti-war movements, the workers we met were the real experts on the companies and the local unions. They knew the specifics about poor working conditions, lack of union democracy, and the failure of the union to fight for its members. We believed that we socialists and the worker activists, joining together in building a rank-and-file movement, could create a powerful synergy.

    Our first step was to begin discussions with the local activists about strategies to change the union. We advocated everywhere the creation of a local caucus publishing a newspaper that could reach the members with proposals for building a better union. So, in Los Angeles, Seattle, the San Francisco Bay Area, Chicago, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh we published such papers and established such caucuses.

    In Chicago, Ken B. (who had moved to Chicago from Berkeley when I moved from San Diego) had met a group of local Teamsters at a rally for the United Farm Workers who were then battling a violent raid in California fields by the Teamsters Union. Those Teamsters and some of their friends whom we met later, were dissident members of the Chicago Truck Drivers Union (Independent), of Local 705, and of Local 710, some of the most important locals in the country. Bob Grant, a member of CTDU, was their leader and he soon became my mentor in learning about the local trucking companies and the unions.

    Bob was not typical of the people we worked with in most cities. Bob was an ex-con, as was his friend Mac McCarthy, while another friend, Bill was a pugnacious bar brawler. Ray and Marcie Lopez were Mexican Americans who had suggested going to the UFW rally where we had met them. Later we met Roger Arnold, whose parents had been German socialists, who was a CTDU steward at the huge Jewel grocery warehouse. There was also Aaron Kesner, a Jewish truck driver. Over the next couple of years, I would spend many hours with this group.

    Bob Grant was a remarkable person. As a young man he had participated in an armed robbery of a gas station, was convicted and sent to prison. In prison he and another guy attempted a jailbreak, but in the course of their attempted escape, the other man stabbed Bob in the back. Still a rebellious prisoner, Bob spent a lot of time in “the hole,” a small, uncomfortable solitary confinement. He said he learned prison that when the guards came down on you, you couldn’t trust the white guys, but you could trust the Black ones. Prison trained him to be a barber when he got out, but he couldn’t make much money at that, so he got a job as a truck driver, married, and had a few children.

    At Central Steel and Wire where Bob worked, he found that the trucks had holes in the floors, that the side posts were often missing, and that a few trailers had no bulkheads, meaning a fast stop and a sliding load could kill the driver. He decided that the drivers should call a strike over the dangerous conditions, but with no previous experience, he told his friends to bring their pistols to work. On the appointed day they walked into the yard, drew their guns, and told the other drivers that they were going on strike. The predictable result was that Bob and his friends were fired, though fortunately the police weren’t brought into the matter. They all found jobs at other trucking companies, giving Bob had a little network scattered throughout the union.

    Bob decided that he should learn more about unions, so he took a few courses in labor relations at Roosevelt University. Armed with his new knowledge, he decided to run for the union’s top office of Executive Director against the long-time incumbent Ed Fenner. When the union didn’t provide a list of the 1,400 workplaces (many small companies with one driver) or the 5,000 members, with our help Bob found a pro-bono attorney and sued the union for that information. With that information, we were able to more systematically reach out to the larger union workplaces, some of which had hundreds of members.

    Under Ken B.’s direction, he, Bob, and I put together our local caucus newspaper, The Grapevine, which Bob had named after the prison grapevine that spreads the news by word-of-mount. We published information about the Teamsters union nationally, about the Chicago Teamster locals, and about conditions in the local trucking barns and other workplaces. We gathered our local information from talks with drivers and dockworkers we met either while working or socially. Every month we printed and distributed a couple of thousand copies of The Grapevine through our small network of activists. We also put them in trucks parked in front of restaurants, gave them to drivers waiting to load at factories, or passed them out in trucking company parking lots. When we went to workplaces and tried to hand papers out to individual drivers as they entered or left work, we found that they were reluctant to take the paper, fearing to get in trouble with their bosses or the union officials.

    Our Analysis of the Labor Movement

    In 1975 we attempted to set in motion the large-scale project of building a rank-and-file movement in a national union. The idea was simple, rather like using a series of pulleys to lift a heavy object. The tiny I.S., an organization of a few hundred, would build and lead caucuses that numbered in the thousands, which could in turn move the Teamsters, whose membership numbered two million. All of this would influence tens of millions in the working class. With this block-and-tackle conception, our efforts would be multiplied a thousand-fold.

    We planned to establish a class-struggle pole and to set millions of workers in motion against their employers. We foresaw reform caucuses taking power in the major industrial unions, transforming the AFL-CIO and eventually reaching unorganized workers as well. In doing so we hoped to create a new sense of workers’ power in American society, a power that would move America to the left. To do this, we had to overcome an enormous obstacle: the union leadership.

    It’s important to understand our attitude toward the unions and their officials. We believed that U.S. labor unions were dominated by a labor bureaucracy that by and large had become solid defenders of the capitalist status quo and an obstacle to workers’ interests and struggles. The union officials were a caste apart. They received high salaries, often many times those of an ordinary worker. In the Teamsters union in a few cases, they reached $500,000 when an ordinary dockworker, driver made $30,000. Union officials also had union cars and expense accounts that covered their hotel bills, meals, and even bar tabs. At the highest levels they had perquisites such as the union jet (the Teamsters had a small fleet of planes). Teamster officials often wore expensive suits and topcoats, drove Buicks, and flashed diamond pinky rings. Perhaps most important, most union officials had become lifetime career bureaucrats; they no longer drove trucks, loaded freight on the docks, or worked in a factory like the other workers. When they retired, or if they were voted out of office, few indeed were the officials who returned to work. Often, they took jobs with management or with a labor mediation agency or opened their own businesses, sometimes non-union companies in the industries where they had formerly been union reps.

    Virtually all union officials held to a view we could call “business unionism,” that is, that the job of the union was to support the businesses that provided the jobs and that the union itself should be run along business lines. The corporate structure of American capitalism was replicated in the union hierarchy’s top-down, vertical control. The industrial unions also reproduced the discriminatory race and gender patterns of American business institutions and society more generally, with white men heading the unions, and with African Americans, Latinos and women usually having small roles. The AFL craft unions still excluded African American, Latino and women members; and when forced by lawsuits or government regulations to admit them, the officials and white male co-workers often made the newcomers’ lives unbearable and often drove them out of the union.

    Union officials held their own caste ideology. They believed that they were the best guardians of the workers’ interests. While the UAW and other former CIO unions supported the civil rights movement and the women’s movement, they often ignored the problems of workers in their own unions. So, for decades the most powerful unions negotiated higher wages and better benefits, but ignored the workers’ demands to slow down the speed of the production line, to improve conditions on the shop floor, and to treat workers with dignity. Leaders of these unions saw themselves as speaking for the workers—but they would not let the workers speak for themselves.

    Typical union officials without a leftist history generally accepted the capitalist ideology and argued that what was good for the company was good for the workers. If the company was successful, that is, profitable, the union could pressure the company to share some of that profit with the workers. The union’s job then was to see that the workers didn’t interfere with the company’s production and profits. Whether they were Republicans or Democrats—or the rare social democrat—many union officials came to see their role as policing the contract for the company. Above all, company managers and union officials collaborated to prevent workers from engaging in slowdowns, work stoppages, and strikes.

    In the worst of cases, such the Teamsters, the Laborers, the East Coast Longshoremen’s union (ILA), the Hotel and Restaurant Workers, and the National Maritime Union, the union officials were corrupt men—some were actually member of the Mafia—who saw the union as their personal property, their business. The union officials used the power of the union to extort money from both businessmen and workers. Union officials took labor peace payoffs, that is, they took money in exchange for accepting a poor contract and preventing a strike. Some literally sold jobs to workers and took payoffs from workers to keep those jobs. Others controlled crime and contraband in the workplace or the job site, promoting gambling and drugs at work.

    Whatever the union leadership—whether leftist, business unionist, or corrupt—union officials generally viewed workers as subordinates who had to be controlled. Workers who spoke out or stood up for their rights were viewed as “troublemakers,” and management and the union often colluded to fire them and sometimes blacklist them in the industry. In the more corrupt unions, the gangster union leaders beat workers and even occasionally murdered them—though by the 1970s the murders were rare.

    Within these bureaucratic unions, our job as I.S. members would be to organize workers first to take over leadership of the union and then to fight the employers, and while doing that, we hoped to recruit the leaders of the movement to socialism.

    We believed that workers—and particularly the more active workers, such as union stewards—would be attracted to the rank-and-file groups we helped to create. We would then recruit the most political of those rank-and-file activists into the I.S. We envisioned growing from a few hundred to a few thousand and, within a decade or so, to a socialist group of perhaps 10,000—what we called a small mass party. We wanted to strengthen workers and the unions, but our goal was never simply union reform or winning a better contract. The goal was to build a revolutionary socialist party that could play a leading role in the overthrow of American capitalism and in bringing about the establishment of a democratic socialist society. Our conception of socialist revolution derived above all form the experience of the Bolshevik-led Russian Revolution of October 1917: a disciplined revolutionary party leading workers in overthrowing the state and taking power.

    The Organization of TDC and TDU

    The next step after creating local caucuses was to bring all of these local groups into contact with one another, to launch a campaign around the national freight contract. In a preliminary step, we wanted to introduce worker activists in different cities to each other. Bob and his wife Mary and Laura and I traveled to Cleveland to meet the Teamsters activists there. Workers felt stronger being part of the opposition if they knew there were others out there like themselves. At the same time, these trips drew us closer to the people we worked with nationally so that we became part of a team.

    Joining with other Teamsters in various regions, we launched a national contract campaign in 1974 that adopted the name Teamsters for a Decent Contract, or TDC. During the course of many meetings and discussions, the I.S. arrived at a consensus about our general organizing strategy. We believed that the synergy of the interaction between IS members and the Teamsters, would be essential to the success of the movement. While we were socialists, we were not attempting to create a socialist movement of Teamsters. Clearly in the United States at that time few truck drivers and dockworkers had any interest in socialism and many were hostile to the idea. We aimed, rather, to build a rank-and-file workers’ movement that could push the Teamsters union to strike against the employers. In this way we would demonstrate the power of the rank-and-file and draw more Teamsters into the struggle, while at the same time exposing some of them to our socialist politics.

    We did not have a great TDC following in Chicago, but we distributed literature, talked to our coworkers, and organized demonstrations for a better contract. To our surprise, however, Detroit Teamsters, led by Pete Camarata, organized demonstrations of a couple of thousand members, really putting us on the map. At the same time, the group called Upsurge that we had organized among UPS workers also took off with rallies and meetings of hundreds in several cities. In the end, under this pressure, President Frank Fitzsimmons, called the first ever national Teamster strike, accompanied in some cities by wildcat strikes led by our networks in freight and UPS. The final contract included the unlimited cost of living allowance clause that TDC had demanded.

    During the TDC contract campaign, we had begun to make plans to found a permanent national opposition group within the union. Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU) held its founding convention on September 18, 1976 at Kent State University in Ohio. There were about 200 rank-and-file Teamsters, from 44 local unions and 15 states, in attendance. Bob and I were there. TDU was created as a rank-and-file group focusing on the issue of union democracy, though coming as it did out of a national contract campaign and a series of wildcat strikes, it was clear that the goal of the group was to transform the Teamsters into a more militant and powerful union.

    When time came to elect a national steering committee, we in the IS adopted a policy that this should be an organization led by Teamster activists, not primarily by I.S. members. In almost every city in which we were involved, rank-and-file workers nominated I.S. members—dedicated, hardworking, well-educated and well-spoken—to be their elected representatives. I like most of us was nominated at that first convention, but based on a previously made decision, all but a few of us declined, as I did. From the beginning we decided that while a few of our I.S. members would play leading roles in TDU, we wanted grassroots Teamsters from around the country to make up the majority of the movement’s leadership. We rejected the idea of putting a majority of our members on the TDU steering committee. We wanted only a few I.S. members in the leadership so that they could participate in discussions with rank-and-file leaders about how to carry the movement forward. Those Teamster activists were, after all, the ones in touch with the rank and file in workplaces around the country.

    We also worked to nominate a committee that would include not only white male workers, who had historically dominated the Teamsters union, but also African Americans and women who had generally been excluded in the past. So, Pete Camarata, a white dockworker, became a co-chair with Al Ferdnance, a Black freight driver. And there were women drivers in the leadership. TDU’s constitution permitted Teamster spouses to be members, leading to more female participation. The TDU founding convention adopted as its central campaign a fight for bylaws reform that would allow members to elected union stewards and business agents. We believed that this kind of reform would unleash the power of the rank and file. Ken Paff, the leader of the I.S.’s Teamster work, who had organized TDC, was chosen by the Convention and the new Steering Committee as the national organizer for TDU.

    During the TDC and early TDU period, I worked to help spread the organizations, speaking in Madison, Wisconsin where we had made contact with some warehouse workers, in Green Bay, Wisconsin where I helped to lead a wildcat strike at the Schneider trucking company, in St. Louis, Missouri where some to a meeting of local Teamsters. Later in 1978 I was elected to the I.S. national leadership and became the liaison between the I.S leadership and the I.S. members in the TDU leadership. When I returned to Chicago in 1979, I went back to driving a truck and working with the TDU chapter until the end of 1980.

    Socialism in the Labor Movement

    While organizing the Teamster reform movement, we were also trying to win individual Teamsters to socialism. First, we attempted to explain our socialist views to our closest collaborators. Second, when we had a national TDU steering committee meetings or TDU convention, we would schedule parallel private meetings with TDU leaders and activists, to talk about the I.S. and socialism. These meetings served three purposes. By explaining our socialist identity, strategy and goals, we anticipated and diminished the impact of red-baiting. If someone accused us of being socialists, our friends would say, “Sure, we know. They told us.” So what?” These private gatherings also allowed us to discuss long-term strategy for the rank-and-file movement with our closest collaborators in a way we could not necessarily do in TDU steering committee. These meetings also made it possible for us to raise the idea of some of these Teamster activists joining the I.S.

    In addition to this personal work with specific Teamsters, we had more general work with the Teamster activists at large. The I.S. published a socialist newspaper, written in accessible language, called Workers’ Power, which regularly featured articles about the Teamsters and TDU, as well as other union and political news. Workers Power also covered the Black movement, the women’s movement, and African liberation struggles, as well as the radical labor movement in Southern Europe. All I.S. members sold our paper at selected workplaces. For a few years I sold regularly at the Main Post Office in Chicago at the change of shift at midnight. Other I.S. members who were not Teamsters sold the paper outside of Teamster workplaces.

    I.S. Teamster members also sold Workers Power to the Teamsters with whom we worked. In some workplaces we had regular Teamster readers who looked forward to reading our paper. Workers Power occasionally interviewed our “open” or “public” socialist Teamster and TDU activists and leaders.

    Finally, the I.S. distributed pamphlets such as Building the Revolutionary Party written by Joel Geier, Class Struggle Unionism written by Jack Weinberg and Conspiracy in the Trucking Industry, a populist pamphlet that I authored. At times, our role as TDU activists and socialist propagandists became hard to keep separate. At Landon, where I worked, I distributed our local paper The Grapevine, the TDU national paper The Convoy, and the IS paper Workers Power. Even though Landon was a very conservative workplace, all the workers always took the first two, which were free, and a few always bought Workers Power. Some of the dockworkers and drivers found my constant propaganda and agitation bizarre and amusing. One day when I arrived at work someone shouted, “Here comes the paper boy!” Still, I recruited one fellow from my barn and convinced a couple of Black drivers to come to our anti-racist demonstrations.

    Through this variety of propagandistic efforts, during the period from about 1975 to about 1979, the I.S. managed to recruit about twenty Teamsters. We recruited a few in Chicago. Most of the I.S, Teamster recruits, with a few exceptions, were rank-and-file TDU activists who had been won over to the I.S. because they were impressed with our union strategies and our commitment, and were therefore open to our politics. If socialism made people better fighters for union democracy and justice in the workplace, then they were eager to join up with the socialists—even if they didn’t understand exactly what socialism meant.

    Most of these recruits did not become well integrated into our organization and their relationship to the I.S. remained tenuous. The principal reason for this was the great difference between the personal and social lives of the I.S. members and the Teamster rank and filers. Our younger members’ lives revolved around the I.S. and its politics. Most rank-and-file Teamsters, however, almost all a decade or maybe two older than us, had responsibilities to family, community, and church. Our attempt to bridge these different worlds failed for lack of skill on our part and for lack of a big enough movement that might have connected them.

    Another failing was that we never established a successful educational program to teach these workers about our politics, nor did we have very good educational materials for workers about the basics of socialist theory, politics, economics, and unionism. At the time, however, we did not yet see and understand these difficulties, we were proud to have brought some real workers into the organization. We felt we had made a breakthrough; a working-class organization in theory, we were about to become one in fact.

    After the Teamster Years

    In 1978, the International Socialists suffered an internal faction fight and split into three groups: I.S., Workers Power, and the International Socialist Organization (ISO). One of the principal reasons for the split was differences over the labor work. Both Workers Power and the future ISO thought that the I.S. labor work was making the group more conservative. With the split, each of the three groups ended up with about 100 members. I stuck with the I.S. Recognizing that our party building program of the 1970s had failed, I.S. leaders launched the Labor Notes publication and held a Labor Notes conference that brought together a few hundred worker activists.

    Meanwhile, Laura and I separated. I left with my son Jake, though I failed to be a good father to him. He dropped out of school, went to live with the family of a friend, and became addicted to drugs and alcohol, though always pursuing his interest in music.

    Many other left groups collapsed around 1980, so the I.S. adopted a regroupment strategy aimed bringing leftists together, and in 1982, I was hired to be a traveling organizer working on that program. A year or two later I got a job as a reporter at The Chicago Defender, Chicago’s Black newspaper, but was fired there for attempting to organize workers into the Newspaper Guild. I later won reinstatement at my hearing before the National Labor Relations Board, but there was no going back. I then went to work then for the Organization of the North East, a Chicago community group, and working with Latinos in the area founded the Comité Latino, a Latino group that took up issues of housing for Latinos. I was hired next by the House Staff Association, the union of interns and residents at Cook County Hospital.

    The president of the House Staff, Sherry Baron and I became friends, then lovers, then married and had two sons, Traven and Reed. Meanwhile Jake overcame his drug and alcohol problems and we established the best relationship we had ever had. Later I returned to the university and got a Ph.D. in history and became a college history teacher for many years. There were also years of activism on various issues and years of research and writing, all too much to take up here. Sherry and I remained activists and joined the Democratic Socialist of America around the time of the first Bernie Sanders campaign in 2016.

  • Victor Serge – Renegade?

    Victor Serge – Renegade?

    Victor Serge

    Friends may have seen the controversy simmering on the pages of Jacobin about the politics of Victor Serge. At the start of this month, Suzi Weissman Claudio Albertani, and Christian Dubucq published a piece criticising the recent biography about Serge written by the translator Mitchell Abidor. On Friday, he replied, insisting his narrative was accurate.

    For my small corner of the left, a great deal rides on the controversy. In 1968, the year of the General Strike in Paris, Serge was taken to incarnate a particular kind of Marxism, which saw the possibilities of transforming society from below. The key text was Memoirs of a Revolutionary (1951), an autobiography published by a mid-century novelist, Victor Serge. Pro-Soviet Communists tended to believe that the adjective revolutionary was best attached to a collective organisation, a party. Serge, wrote about the left quite differently, The test of whether someone was “a revolutionary” was what they did with their lives; the ideal was to speak truly, to commit anew in each crisis to whatever rising social movement offered the oppressed most hope. On his death in 1947, one of Serge’s friends, a veteran of the Spanish POUM Julián Gorkin, was asked to identify Serge’s corpse. “In a bare shabby room with grey walls, he was laid out on an old operating table, wearing a threadbare suit and a worker’s shirt, with holes in his shoes.” A true revolutionary died poor, alone – that was the proof of the unrelenting commitment by which they had lived.

    Mitchell Abidor’s approach has been to say that this narrative of Serge’s live is simply false. Serge, he argues, lied about everything important in his life. The author, Abidor insists, was on his death not a Communist but an “anti-Communist”, a renegade. You can understand why that approach has generated so much ire. Knock out Serge, and the left loses a major voice for revolution from below – the best-known dissident Marxist of the 1930s after Trotsky himself.

    The narrative of Serge’s Memoirs describes the following events. Born Victor Lvovich Kibalchich in Brussels to a family of Russian Narodniks, Serge joined the youth wing of the Belgian Socialist Party before rejecting socialism for anarchism. He moved to Paris, where his libertarian acquaintances in the Bonnot gang robbed banks and escaped from the police in history’s first getaway car. Serge was put on trial as a member of the group in 1913 and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. On release, Serge participated in a general strike in Barcelona in July 1917, sought to travel to Russia and was interned for fifteen months in a French prison camp. He arrived in Petrograd at last in January 1919 and joined the Communist Party. Serge saw the beginnings of the terror, “The formation of the Cheka [secret police] was one of the gravest and most impermissible errors that the Bolshevik leaders committed.” Serge participated in the Congresses of the International, “Everything was scarce: staff, paper, ink, even bread.” He attended Kropotkin’s funeral, the last public protest of the Russian anarchists before the Communists made it impossible for any rivals to organise. Of the regime’s suppression of the Kronstadt rebels in 1921, he wrote, the sailors “had begun a new freedom-giving revolution which would lead to popular democracy.” The Communists “should have beat a retreat by admitting that the existing economic set-up was indefensible”. Serge knew the philosopher György Lukács (“his theory of the Party could be taken as either superb or disastrous, depending on the circumstances”) and the Italian revolutionary Antonio Gramsci, who “fitted awkwardly into the humdrum of day-to-day existence, losing his way at night in familiar streets.” He worked for the Comintern in Germany. Returning to Russia, Serge sided with the Left Opposition. He was arrested in 1928 and again in 1933, after which deported for three years to Orenburg in the Urals before an outcry in western Europe rescued him from detention. In 1940, he abandoned Paris for Mexico. The Memoirs end in 1941 on a note of hope; the Russian revolution was lost, but history would provide some future alternative. “The passion, the experience, and even the errors of my fighting generation may perhaps help illuminate the way forward, but on one condition, which has become a categorical imperative: never to give up the defense of man against systems whose plans crush the individual.”

    Abidor has chosen to written a political biography – has nothing of interest to say about such novels as Men in Prison, The Case of Comrade Tulayev, Birth of our Power although they, I would insist, are where Serge’s greatness lay – in his ability to describe a city sometimes a country as place in which thousands of individuals lives and hopes combine. There’s something hypnotic about his best writing, a confidence and a conviction which he brings to the Memoirs. All this, though, is beneath his biographer.

    Abidor fixes on four key failures, each of which he argues tends to prove that Serge was the worst kind of sell-out. Around a quarter of Abidor’s book covers 1907-13, the years of Serge’s individualist anarchism. Abidor argues that during this period and years, Serge was an individualism and a supporter of criminal activities against the state (even ones without any obvious political content). He treated the individual ego as sovereign. To hell with society, Serge believed – not just bourgeois society but all social institutions, those of the oppressed and the working class too. Serge acted as a witness for an anarchist bomb-maker Vladimir Hartenstein who shot two policemen.

    Here’s the first main charge: during the trial of the Bonnot gang, Serge told his prosecutors that he no longer believed in illegalism, indeed had long been opposed to it. That defence tended to separate him from his fellow defendants.

    Is this critique fair? I accept that Serge misjudged the trial. I would go further, his account of its events in the memoirs, is so upbeat as to be misleading. I didn’t need Abidor to tell me this, it is the message which comes out from every page of the most detailed narrative of that hearing – Richard Parry’s book, The Bonnot Gang (1987), which can be read as a pdf on the Libcom website. In shortest form: Serge’s co-defendants believed that he exaggerated his separation from them, that he was selfish in doing so, and that he thereby increased the risks of their conviction. My own reading of events is that he thought he had a way out, planned it in advance, and then stuck to it – as it became apparent for example that that prosecutor hadn’t read the anarchist press, and couldn’t refute him. But I don’t see Serge’s distancing himself from the other members of the gang as being bad enough to call a betrayal. A group of people have taken guns, carried out thefts and murders – he hadn’t.

    His position was not in its essentials different from that of the storied anarchist author and revolutionary Malatesta who was prosecuted as the inspiration of the 1921 Diana massacre in which his comrades carried out a bombing that killed 21 people, injured a further 172, and provided the fascists with the most extraordinary propaganda coup. On trial, Malatesta called the culprit a madman, and was acquitted. The difference between Serge and Malatesta is not one of general approach but of degree: Malatesta was in his late 60s Serge his early 20s, the Italian veteran did a much better job of this dual task of protecting himself without denying his politics. The difference, essentially, was one of performance rather than politics.

    Reading Abidor’s account, I really don’t feel he emphasises enough that Serge faced a serious punishment – either (as seemed, at the trial’s start) death or at least lengthy imprisonment. Second, a trial is not a speech. The defendant is asked questions, which the prosecutor chooses in the hope of finding the most difficult and awkward ones possible. The defendant must improvise. In very few of the great political trials, do the defendants maintain a consistent dignity – it’s the movement, our belief in the justice of our cause which converts every successful accused person into a Nelson Mandela. I am in no hurry to judge anyone by that standard.

    The second charge on Abidor’s sheet of Serge’s moral failings was – the present-day author insists – a failure to state honestly, while a pro-Bolshevik in the early 20s, just how little he thought of the post-revolutionary society. This part of Abidor’s book is militantly careless about chronology, leaps from 1919 to the late 1920s and back, as if it should be obvious to everyone that Serge was just, plain, wrong when he wrote about the Russian revolution as a series of incremental steps away from a utopian beginning. Abidor is allergic to the side of the revolution which attracted Serge, such acts as the abolition of the death penalty or the removal of the criminal code which caused the post-October society to be for a time the first country in the world to have legalised abortion and homosexuality. None of the big events of the next decade attracts Abidor’s interests, neither the Civil War, the New Economic Policy, nor the death of Lenin. His view seems to be that by the time of Serge’s arrival in that country in early 1919, Bolshevik Russia was already a police state in which the Communists were on the verge of expropriating the peasants and killing fellow Bolshevik.

    Abidor quotes the hostile accounts of Serge written by various French libertarians. He sets out the position of the French anarchist Roger Gillot (“Rhillon”) who claimed in a bitter polemic that Serge was a monster, a murderer, who had inspired the Bonnot gang to commit their crimes before betraying them to the police. Belatedly, Abidor accepts that these attacks were “unmeasured” – in fact, their content was wholly untrue. To Gaston Leval in spring 1922, Abidor writes, Serge confided his real view which was that Lenin was “a dictator”, and Serge desperate to leave. Abidor treats these opinions of Serge as his sole opinions and any other expressed views as lies. But, among the many faults with that method, is that it assumes that other people’s accounts of what Serge said (often based on memories written down afterwards) constituted all that Serge thought. Whereas, if Serge’s thoughts were actually complex and contradictory, it would not be at all strange if he emphasised different elements to different audiences. This, Abidor would say, is a canting defence – obviously, Serge could not have thought two things at once. Except, he did.

    As early as July 1919, Serge wrote a poem ‘Machine Gun’, which compared the uprising to a weapon, an object of “hate” intended to “bring death”, a “tragic machine”. Serge was proud of this piece of writing, arranging to have it published in France in the literary magazine, Clarté. The metaphors he employed were one of distance and dislike. Parts of the revolution enthused and fascinated him, while other parts repelled. It is not strange or mysterious for activist to have dual thoughts about a movement in which they participate – if Abidor actually knew people, had any interest in politics other than the gratification of his own ego – he might be aware that activists talk in about their movements in this dual way all the time.

    The revolution had been threatened from without; Serge’s poem was written four months before General Yudenich’s assault on Red Petrograd. By summer 1922, the threats were coming from within. The Memoirs describe Serge trying to save the life of a relative who was accused of theft and facing the death penalty. Serge complained of the lack of press freedom within the USSR, spoke of the country as acting as a “schoolmaster” to fascism though its exuberantly dishonest propaganda. He also recalls travelling across Europe in service of the Communist international, and contrasting the poverty of the Soviet Union its egalitarianism and its blazing creative will to the wretched speculation he found in Western Europe, the “arrogant, imbecile, luxury of the rich and the shameful destitution of the masses”. That was Serge in the early 20s, repelled by the movement, then pulled back to it.

    Abidor’s third main criticism of Serge is very similar to his first: the writer was put on trial and failed at the dual task of defending his views in general while insisting on his innocence in the particular. In 1933, Serge sought to smuggle out of the USSR a document setting out his mature views of the revolution. They were very critical. “For many, many years,” he wrote, “the Revolution has been in a phase of reaction.” He called himself “a dissident”. His testament concluded, “It is not against freedom of thought and against man that Socialism can triumph, but on the contrary, through freedom of thought, and by improving the condition of man.” The work came to the attention of the state and members of the secret police arrested and interrogated him.

    Abidor’s account of Serge’s capture flits between commending the revolutionary for the courage with which he opposed the regime and chastising him for moments of “Talmudic hair-splitting” even “duplicity”, in which he claimed to be challenging the regime at the level of “ideas” rather than through open “political struggle”.

    Serge may well have made mistakes – most interrogated people do. A fair comparison is Nikolai Bukharin, who was arrested in February 1937 and put on trial. His biographers have commended Bukharin, treated him as one of the few victims of the Purges to have resisted, as any revolutionary should. Bukharin responded to his interrogators by at times confessing to the regime’s accusations, even exaggerating them to the point where they became incredible. At other points, he resisted, if not in relation to his guilt, then fighting at least the practice that there could be any fair trial based only on confessions. This, Bukharin’s biographers argue, was the fate of the Soviet prisoner in the 1930s. So hostile was the state and even public opinion that the boldest possible act of resistance on the part of the prisoner would necessarily involve lying, Aesopian language and levels of deceit.

    Serge was not in Bukharin’s position exactly. He was arrested four years earlier than his fellow Bolshevik and avoided the humiliation of a public trial. That said, any fair assessment would be that he escaped his interrogation – and endured 85 days of solitary confinement – having made far fewer political compromises than either Bukharin or than the majority of Stalin’s victims.

    Abidor’s fourth and last major criticism of Serge is that between 1941, where the Memoirs break off, and 1947 when he died, Serge’s vocabulary expanded to include more references to human rights, and anti-Stalinism became an ever-larger component of his socialism. Some of this story was already known. Among the biographer’s criticisms are that Serge wrote for a social democratic paper, The New Leader, a Jacobin of the 1940s – which seems harsh, when set aside Abidor’s description of the milieu inside which Serge was trying to organise in Mexico in the early 40s. Isolated individuals, driven out of the movement by the Stalinist, warring with each other. Serge had to eat, and what paying alternative did he have?

    Abidor wrote for Jacobin, “I was shocked to find: that Serge was a man who came to believe in his final years that socialist revolution was no longer in the cards, and that those who believed it were frozen in the past.” Shocked? I don’t believe him.

    In Mexico, Serge believed he was in imminent danger of being murdered by Stalin’s supporters. That fear was well-founded. In 1940, a campaign was built to justify the murder of Leon Trotsky. Stalin’s supporters held protests outside his home in Mexico. One of them David Alfredo Siqueiros, led an armed raid during which a guard was killed and 300 bullets fired at the room in which Trotsky and his wife were sheltering under their bed. Communists were so proud of this attempt that one of their number – the poet Pablo Neruda – smuggled Siqueiros temporarily out of the jail in which he was being held, toasting the killing in a local bar together with Siqueiros’s jailor. On 21 August 1940, another Communist, Ramón Mercader, succeeded in killing Trotsky. Neruda smuggled Siqueiros permanently out of the country. On 25 January 1942, a cartoon published by the Communist paper La Voz de México, showed a caricature of Trotsky’s decomposing head as a “tree of treason” covered in swastikas to represent fascism’s presence in Mexico. The tree had snakes for branches, one of which was a cartoon of Victor Serge. Soon after, the US press ran a letter claiming that Serge was a member of the “Nazi Fifth Column” in Mexico and “restat[ing]” what it called “the feeling of the Mexican people about the Trotskyists in their midst”. Among the many Communists who signed this open letter, which Serge saw rightly as a death threat, were authors, politicians, painters – and (again) Neruda.

    Serge had seen the prison camps of the USSR, had lived under Soviet justice, and was in a condition of no safety. If he concluded that a socialist revolution was no longer in the cards, but what humanity faced was more barbarism – no-one writing about him today, has any right to pretend to find that opinion shocking. It was the most natural and obvious conclusion for Serge to have drawn from his immediate circumstances.

    There’s another, deeper, problem with his method. Good sports journalists sometimes talk, derisively, of what psychologists called “the peak-end rule”. What they mean is that you can watch some contest, feel throughout that it was finely balanced, and watch at the end as one of the protagonists loses. If you know the end, it becomes tempting to assume that the conclusion was destined. The team that won deserved it, were just better suited to that contest. All you remember of the contest is your response to its ending. The reason people hate this way of looking at sports (or politics) is that it makes the victory of one side inevitable and everyone a fool for resisting it. What bigger losers does history supply than those badly led, ill informed, German anti-fascists who made the mistake of trying to resist Hitler 1933? Or their counterparts in Italy – they lost, that’s all we need to know about them. This is a Trumpian way of looking at life, or at politics.

    When a biographer insists that the true meaning of a person’s life is the conclusion they reached, in the last months of their defeat – they are choosing to write out of history the conflicts, the paths not taken, the moments of unsatisfied possibility.

    If a biographer wanted to guarantee that a left-wing biography will go unread, there is no better way of going about that task than to treat the person’s last few weeks and months as the proof of the real meaning of any activist’s life. A Gerard Winstanley (scourge of Kings Charles, scourge of Cromwell, an advocate of quiet reflection in a period of defeat) is a far more common revolutionary trajectory than Marat murdered in his bath. What counts is how a figure responded when history gave them the chance to influence others. Serge had this moment of power, briefly, as he left the USSR for exile. He used it to write such novels as Midnight in the Century and The Case of Comrade Tulayev, and to complete his memoirs. His legacy deserves to survive even the misguided contempt of a hostile biographer.

    First published at the D K Renton substack.

  • Germany’s Far-Right Turn

    Germany’s Far-Right Turn

    Following the electoral victory of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in the German state of Saxony-Anhalt, we hear from all sides that the danger of the rise of the AfD and far-right movements must be taken seriously, and that democracy is in peril. There is no doubt that this event must be treated as a serious alarm bell; not, however, as the root or totality of the danger, but rather as the manifestation and consequence of a far greater threat that remains largely undiscussed: the impulse toward fascist governance, functioning as the reactivation of a latent tendency within the sphere of bourgeois politics. From this perspective, this alarm bell has been sounding frequently on the global political stage at least since the rise of Trump[1] in 2016. Nevertheless, even today within Germany’s official political environment—amidst the clamor of expressed concerns and political scapegoating—there is scant mention of that primary danger and the trajectory of its development. On the contrary, the prevailing narrative pretends that the AfD’s victory was a bolt out of the blue.

    Specifically, we are now witnessing how politicians across all German political parties and spectra depict the AfD as a dangerous exception to the rule of democratic politics in Germany; as if this party single-handedly seeks to forge a fascist path across the German political landscape and serves as the sole protagonist in a scenario they label Faschisierung (fascistization). In doing so, they attempt to frame existing practices and established norms of recent years as the very embodiment of democracy, aiming to present themselves as its ardent loyalists and unblemished servants. What this conceals is that the political ascent of the AfD is the logical outcome of the very policies that have been normalized and imposed upon the masses over all these years. Thus, the fundamental question is not how to save democracy from its recognized enemies, but how to save democracy from its self-proclaimed defenders.

    The above paradoxical claim can be distilled into a single proposition: Capitalism has fundamentally never been compatible with democracy. To make such a claim is equivalent to saying that the threat of fascism has always breathed like a latent virus (in Karl Polanyi’s phrasing[2]) beneath the skin of capitalist rule. At the same time, one of the primary tasks of critical enlightenment (in the public sphere) regarding the contemporary rise of fascism is to demonstrate under what specific historical conditions this virus becomes activated within the capitalist body.

    Based on the classical Marxist framework, the condensed answer to this question is: during periods of comprehensive crisis; though with the crucial caveat that a comprehensive crisis is merely a necessary—but not sufficient—condition for the emergence of fascist governance (i.e., not every crisis inevitably leads to fascism). Alternatively, from the viewpoint of more open approaches to Marxism that highlight the racial and colonial dimensions of capitalism (from Aimé Césaire to Cédric Robinson and Ruth Wilson Gilmore), the rule of “racial capitalism”[3] has always been intertwined with fascist governance or fascist mechanisms. Aimé Césaire, long before, conceptualized classical fascism in Europe as merely the return of colonial policies and governance mechanisms back to the imperial metropoles, as a “boomerang effect.”[4] Extending Césaire’s insight, I believe, one can argue that even during periods when fascist governance was absent from the Western core of capitalism, fascism was never missing from capitalism’s repertoire. Rather, the reproduction of capital relied on deploying fascist governance methods and fascist power mechanisms in the peripheral regions or the Global South. Indeed, one could contend that it was precisely because the fascist dimensions of capitalist domination were deployed in the Global South (“necro-capitalism”[5]) that the Global North enjoyed long periods of exemption from direct manifestations of fascism, enabling the sustained existence of bourgeois democracy within limited regions of the world.

    Furthermore, extending Ernst Fraenkel’s analysis of German fascism (in “The Dual State,”[6] 1941) leads to a similar conclusion: while bourgeois governance functioned more or less as a “Normative State” (Normenstaat) for a substantial portion of the population in the Global North, vast populations in the Global South—primarily through imperialist relations—were condemned to live under the rule of a “Prerogative State” (Massnahmenstaat). In other words, the global political governance of capital has always rested upon a dual fascist structure.

    In the present historical juncture, regardless of which analytical framework we adopt, we arrive at a similar final assessment: On the one hand, if we accept that contemporary capitalism is gripped by a chronic and comprehensive crisis that undermines its conventional capacity for the (profitable) management of crisis, then—in line with the first premise (that capitalism requires fascist governance in times of crisis)—the rise of fascist parties and states is entirely to be expected. On the other hand, observing the intensification of poverty, deprivation, oppression, authoritarianism, and violence in the Global South, for which the expansion of imperialist wars serves as the primary indicator and concentrated vehicle, the escalation of fascist mechanisms latent within imperialist expansion in the Global South cannot occur without producing a boomerang effect within Western societies. Therefore, from either angle, the German state, whether viewed as a center of global capital accumulation or as a node of imperialist power,[7] has been subjected to global impulses driving toward the development of fascist governance.

    Specifically, as the global crisis of capital accumulation (post-2008) alongside the crisis of hegemony in the global power system has pushed a turn toward militarism, war, and a war-centered economy (accumulation through militarization) onto the agenda of major powers, the trajectory of the German state has undergone marked shifts. Having long prepared for rearmament and militarization, the German state has stepped forward as an active player in the “global war regime”[8] and embarked on cultivating a military-oriented economy.

    While Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine provided the context for the German government to justify and accelerate its militarization[9] under the guise of countering a Russian threat, Germany’s unconditional support for Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza demonstrated that the German state occupies a specialized position within this “global war regime.” Such a strategy, however, required the systematic and continuous reduction of social services, welfare, and living standards for the working classes, alongside a structural shift of the German state toward an authoritarian surveillance apparatus.

    In effect, the process initiated years ago toward expanding austerity and the neoliberal depoliticization of the public sphere has been driven toward its logical extreme through growing militarism and militarization. The allocation for basic necessities—bread, housing, healthcare, education, and public transit—was inevitably slashed to fund increased armaments and “militarized accumulation,” even as state narratives surrounding geopolitical anxieties (cloaked in defense concerns) and national chauvinism failed to conceal or compensate for these material deprivations.

    The most tangible consequences of this shift have been mounting poverty, job insecurity, and livelihood precariousness, which have in turn heightened social tensions. Because the German Federal Government must maintain its legitimacy as a supposedly constitutional state (Rechtsstaat), this decline in the general condition of the masses required a scapegoat to divert public discontent away from the state itself: thus, “foreigners” were once again placed on the front lines of blame, giving renewed momentum to xenophobia. In recent years, we have seen how the trajectory of the German state (and other leading EU powers) toward militarism and militarization of economy[10] has been accompanied by the passage and enforcement of anti-asylum, discriminatory legislation[11]; both in domestic German laws and border policies, as well as European border regulations (where Germany acts as a key architect).

    Accordingly, despite all justified outrage toward the AfD, the party’s recent electoral victory in state elections should neither be blamed on the alleged “irresponsible ignorance of the masses” nor taken as proof that German society is inherently predisposed to racism and xenophobia. Rather, this phenomenon can be analyzed from a different perspective: the working-class masses, long excluded from official German politics (both as citizens with rights and material needs, and as political subjects), are using the existing political framework to register a rejection of official politics. They are utilizing the periodic ritual of elections, the sole remaining political tool at their disposal, to vote for a party that claims fundamental opposition to the political establishment. The notable number of voters with foreign backgrounds who cast ballots for the AfD serves as a striking case in point.

    At the same time, it is incorrect to assume that state elites have failed in their duties. On the contrary, they have worked tirelessly throughout these years to defend the interests of capital amid contemporary crises and to preserve the capitalist framework of the German state. However, because the interests of capital and the working class are fundamentally irreconcilable, the negative fallouts of these policies have inevitably fallen—and will continue to fall—upon the masses.

    It is self-evident that the growing appeal of the AfD’s rhetoric to a section of the populace stems from the failure of official politics to fulfill its obligations to its citizens. Yet stopping at this observation offers little insight unless we examine the structural contradictions within the role and function of the state that inevitably produced these failures. Examining the substance of legislative enactments in Germany in recent years,[12] along with their origins and legislative trajectories, reveals that the German state has effectively pursued the very trajectory that far-right movements like the AfD have long demanded out loud. The key difference is that throughout this process, mainstream politicians’ cliché opposition to the AfD (functioning as a convenient, low-cost target) has enabled them to obscure the affinity[13] between their policies and the AfD’s political vision, all while paving the way for Germany’s rearmament, the transition to a war economy, and the establishment of an authoritarian surveillance state.[14]

    As a result, official German politics appears inclined sooner or later to accommodate and make space for the AfD. This is because the political rise of this party was not merely the result of state politics, but—as part of the process of the fascistization (Faschisierung) of governance—it simultaneously offers a distinct mechanism for fulfilling the German state’s emerging needs and imperatives; imperatives forged at the intersection of the global crisis of capitalism and the global drift toward political authoritarianism, upon which the continued survival and global standing of the German state depend. Even if the German state refrains from fully legitimizing the AfD, it will be compelled (beyond the steps already taken in recent years) to increasingly integrate the vision and core slogans of the party into its upcoming policies; both to co-opt the source of the AfD’s appeal and to satisfy the state’s new historical imperatives.

    Therefore, under current conditions, no meaningful demands can be placed upon the German state or capitalist states in general. Instead, the call must be directed toward those who take the danger of fascism seriously while retaining faith in the transformative potential of the working class. An essential level of response to this historical moment requires establishing an internal dialogue among left forces to formulate an effective strategy for confronting the present juncture; an era in which the turn toward fascism, whether explicit and formal or quiet and substantive, represents a structural tendency of states. The critical question (or the political challenge) is how to engage directly with the proletariat and how to reconnect masses excluded from politics to an emancipatory political project built around their tangible needs and everyday struggles; so that we can collectively organize the struggle for life alongside the struggle against capitalism and its persistent shadow, fascism.

    An arduous and demanding path undoubtedly lies ahead in carrying out this task. Yet the electoral success of the AfD, coupled with expanding wars, the normalization of violence, political authoritarianism, and the systematic devaluation of (human) life, serves as a stark warning: fascism is moving aggressively to claim the political arena, and very little time remains to reconstruct the emancipatory politics that the radical and socialist left has neglected for decades.

    Notes

    [1]     On the relationship between Trump’s rise to power and the emergence of fascism in the United States, see, for example: Frieda Afary, What Is Fascism and How Can We Resist It in the United States?, New Politics, Vol. XX, No. 2, Whole No. 78 (Winter 2025).

    [2]     Karl Polanyi (1934), Fascist Virus (unpublished notes).

    [3]     Cedric Robinson (1983), Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition, Zed Books.

    [4]     See Aimé Césaire’s seminal work: Césaire, A. (2000), Discourse on Colonialism (trans. J. Pinkham), Monthly Review Press (original work published 1950).

    [5]     Subhabrata B. Banerjee (2008), Necrocapitalism, Organization Studies, 29(12), 1541–1563.

    [6]     Fraenkel, E. (2017, original 1941), The Dual State: A Contribution to the Theory of Dictatorship (trans. E. A. Shils), Oxford University Press.

    [7]     The imperialist status and functions of the German state can be examined from various perspectives. Regarding the impact of these functions on Global South societies, a striking recent example is the German government’s role in the current situation in Sudan, where the inspirational revolutionary process initiated by the Sudanese people in April 2023 was engulfed in the clash between rival generals, leading to the current tragic reality. While it is widely acknowledged that the militia known as the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), one of the primary belligerents in this conflict, has been armed and supported notably by the government of the United Arab Emirates, far fewer acknowledge that the European Union (under German leadership) played an instrumental role in the early growth and consolidation of this militia through the “Khartoum Process” (2014). Designed to secure the EU’s southern borders and halt asylum seekers traveling from Central and East Africa toward North Africa, this agreement effectively outsourced border enforcement and repression to the RSF militia; the same forces that had previously played a central role in the Darfur genocide under Omar al-Bashir (see Reta Barfuss’s investigative report). Furthermore, despite extensive documentation of direct UAE involvement in the Sudanese conflict, Germany maintains close political and economic ties with the UAE: reflected both in high-level German trade and political delegations visiting the UAE shortly after recent RSF atrocities in El Fasher (the UN report on El Fasher genocide; see also this analysis), and in the formal reception hosted by the German government for a senior UAE delegation.

    [8]     Sandro Mezzadra and Brett Neilson have mostly developed the concept of the “global war regime” in their theoretical analyses of the contemporary global power system: Mezzadra, S., & Neilson, B. (2024), The Rest and the West: Capital and Power in a Multipolar World, Verso Books.

    [9]     Shortly after Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the government approved a special €100 billion fund (Sondervermögen) for military rearmament and readiness: T-Online: Sondervermögen nach ‘Zeitenwende‘, Nov. 25, 2024.

    [10]   Regarding the militarization of the German economy, aligned with the pivot of the German state and capital toward militarism and ‘militarized accumulation,’ tracking the developments unfolding within the German automotive industry (as the heart of German industry and economy) is of particular importance. In this regard, see, for example: Christoph Steitz, Tanks not cars: How Germany’s defense industry could boost the economy, Reuters, March 5, 2025.

    René Höltschi, Michael Rasch: Germany shifts gears as auto slump meets defense boom, NZZ, 17.04.2025.

    [11]   Given space constraints, it is impossible to list the numerous anti-asylum legislative measures passed by the German government in recent years. As a notable recent example: €313 million was recently allocated for the construction of a second detention and deportation center for asylum seekers in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia. See: Perspektive-online, Für 313 Millionen Euro: In NRW soll ein zweites Abschiebegefängnis entstehen, Sept. 15, 2026.

    [12]   Recent legislative changes in Germany have systematically increased living costs and precariousness for the working class. The state has consistently shifted the financial and social burdens of economic crises and militarization onto wage earners across sectors while prioritizing military and corporate interests. Workers face weakened labor protections, an expansion of temporary contracts, and stricter sick leave monitoring, while harsher unemployment penalties force individuals into low-wage or long-distance employment. Out-of-pocket medical expenses have risen sharply, and while the retirement age has been raised (to 67), pension benefits are being reduced toward a basic minimum, forcing continued labor well into retirement. Public welfare programs, including youth services and social integration support, face severe funding cuts. Concurrently, new compulsory military service measures prioritize national defense and deterrence, demanding physical sacrifices from youth and conditioning public opinion to accept reductions in peacetime welfare and civil liberties. In climate policy, despite escalating extreme weather events, policy shifts have backtracked on earlier environmental commitments to provide short-term economic incentives for fossil-fuel-dependent industries. (Summary compiled using material from: Zimmerwald-Komitee: Wir rufen auf zum Streik an Deutschland!)

    [13]   A recent side event, occurring on the margins of routine political activities in Germany, serves like a Freudian ‘slip of the tongue’ to expose both the porous line of supposed hostility of German political parties toward the AfD (and fascism in general) and the true caliber of their commitment to democracy. Recently, the Free Democratic Party (FDP), Germany’s most prominent advocate of liberalism (and neoliberalism), awarded its biennial Freedom Prize to Reza Pahlavi on behalf of the Iranian people; a choice officially announced right on the eve of the fourth anniversary of the Zhina Uprising. Given that Reza Pahlavi’s political vision and the practical record of the Monarchist movement abroad carry clear fascist implications, this is not merely an awkward choice. Rather, it confirms the fact that liberalism inherently has no fundamental conflict with fascism (and that neoliberalism is essentially the closest political kin of neo-fascism); it is simply a matter of the right moment for their fusion and embrace. See: Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom awards: The Iranian People Receive the 2026 Freedom Prize, 14.09.2026.

    [14]   Under a new legislative measure, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency (BND), previously restricted to information gathering and evaluation, has been granted expanded operational authority to participate directly in domestic security operations: Redaktion Wissenschaftswelle, Vom Beobachten zum Eingreifen: Was die Geheimdienstreform verändern würde, Wissenschaftswelle, Aug. 12, 2026.

  • Support for International Solididarity Convoy to Ukraine

    Support for International Solididarity Convoy to Ukraine

    Statement from Ukraine Solidarity Network, U.S.:  “Our solidarity with Ukraine is not just about Ukraine: it is inseparable from defense of an international order that protects human rights — for everyone, everywhere.”

    *********************************************************************

    (more…)

  • Those Jacobsons! 

    Those Jacobsons! 

    A review of Third Camp Socialism: A Phyllis and Julius Jacobson Reader.  Edited by Paul Heideman and Kent Worcester. Chicago: Haymarket Press, 570pp, $30

    New Politics, to repeat a familiar adage, has seemed to be as much movement as magazine (or journal). In its original emanation, guided by the founders, it proved to be a goal also beyond reach, for many reasons. That this anthology, in the editors’ voice, appears shortly after From the Free Speech Movement to the Factory Floor, a Collective History of the International Socialists, is more than a coincidence. These two books offer a historical pondering of what a particular socialist movement sought to do, with a  continuing suggestion for today’s readers of what it  may do tomorrow.

    Notwithstanding a nod to the more distant past, From the Free Speech Movement begins in the early 1960s. The writings of what came to be called Third Camp Socialism offer the reader a fuller past. We can be grateful to editors Heideman and Worcester for presenting it so clearly to readers.   Their Preface guides the reader but also lets the Jacobsons speak for themselves.

    New Politics happened to be  launched only a year before the dramatic events in Berkeley set off a decade of campus unrest, enrolling tens and hundreds of thousands of young people in ways definitely not anticipated in any sector of the  organized Left of 1960. ISers on the scene more than took part. I thrilled to hear IS luminary and Berkeley savant Hal Draper, in 1964, describe the FSM, during a visit to the University of Illinois. He had, after all, written the most important book on the subject. I listened intently, perhaps preparing myself to be the MC at the first major anti war demonstration on the campus, a year later.

    The Jacobsons, by contrast, offer and themselves embody the history of a Left that was, despite some remarkable successes, almost never really at the center of things. They came of age and joined the Left eagerly, as Trotskyists struggled to move out of insularity and beyond small actual numbers. At a great moment of capitalist pessimism and socialistic optimism, they and their comrades felt themselves riding a wave of global revolutionary promise.

    Several essays touch upon a crucial decision—they consider it an error—made at this moment. Outnumbered by a Communist Party with influence on ethnic, cultural and labor institutions far beyond ever-shifting membership, they famously entered the Socialist Party in 1936, at Trotsky’s urging, in a maneuver known as the “French Turn.” They soon rallied  several thousand young socialists around a handful of vital contemporary issues, including the Spanish Civil War and the Moscow Trials. And then, apparently at Trotsky’s insistence, they schemed an exit in 1938, leaving themselves with a far smaller number than they had anticipated. Trotskyist influence would grow repeatedly in the US afterward, but actual membership numbers never increased beyond a few thousand.

    The political move also left the Socialist Party a wreck, something which the Jacobsons properly mourn. More and more accommodated to the New Deal, the SP nevertheless still elected socialists to local offices and state legislatures, mainly where German-American skilled workers and a surrounding ethnic following remained a faithful constituency. As Phyllis Jacobson reflects, all this suggests a deep irony, because a section of Trotskyists led by Max Shachtman would later re-embed themselves in the same Socialist Party, by that time drastically shrunken, with still worse results.

    Not that all this detracts from the leadership roles played in various movements at various times, or from the intellectual value of the Trotskyist publications.

    Trotskyism in the US, it should be noted, would never attract the playwrights and actors, the screenwriters and stars, the folk singers, the creative interracial milieu,  nor the famed individual novelists and essayists close to the Popular Front milieu that still cast light in American culture decades later. However defined, Trotskyism existed within a smaller world, often more persuasive in argument, yet heard by vastly fewer numbers.

    Poignant pages of the book under review reflect upon the editors’ sometime leader, perfectly captured in Julius’ essay, “The Two Deaths of Max Shachtman.” The editorial pair had more than admired “Max” for twenty years. When Trotsky, in partnership with James P. Cannon, insisted that their movement must recognize the USSR as a “degenerated workers’ state,” he pointed the secessionists toward new horizons.

    Shachtman and his comrades, notably including Dwight Macdonld and James Burnham,  could be said to have won the political debate within Trotskyism—the USSR really was worse than a deformed socialism—and in the process came to pronounce their own movement the Third Camp. And yet, as Julius recalled, they did not win over the bulk of workers drawn to a Trotskyist version of socialist ideas. The optimism of the war years, when Workers Party members and supporters passed out millions of newspapers at factory gates, faded in the postwar years. Then what? The Cold War soon overcame everything in the Left, from the shattered Communist Party to its struggling opponents.

    “The combined effects of McCarthyism and the demoralization that threatens any sect unable to break out of its isolation” (p.166), recalled Julius Jacobson, and in that circumstance, difficult choices only became more difficult. Shachtman, with all his energy and wit, shifted quietly rightward at first, more so than his longtime followers seemed to recognize. And then, openly. Maneuvering  to place his section of the Left closer to liberalism and to a conservatizing labor leadership, he prepared a shift that stunned many. Turning the perceptions of Trotskyism upon their head he had by the time of his early death in 1972 overseen the emergence of perhaps the most conservative socialist body in US history. It was certainly the first to embrace the rightward edge of the mainstream via the Vietnam hawks and to make George Meany’s regressive bureaucracy, then fighting labor reformers tooth and nail, his home base.

    Could this have been foreseen? Essays in the volume suggest so in various ways. Julius Jacobson lays out the case in his 1968 essay, “Union Conservatism: a Barrier to Racial Equality,” pondering the sharp rightward drift of Albert Shanker and the AFT leadership around the New York teachers’ strike of the previous year. Other pages of this book fairly fill in the blanks. Union leadership became part of the Democratic Party machine, with its adaptation to the promise of military production and jobs, and the security state, emphatically including the CIA.

    Again and again, during the period of the late 1960s and early 1970s, the two editors wrote in defense of the young against what was swiftly becoming neoconservatism. That the very shift was carried out and articulated by some of Shactman’s new collaborators, offers the greatest of ironies. They had accepted Trotsky’s views on Russia, but drew hawkish, avidly pro-capitalist conclusions. A part of the Left and near Left had turned upon itself and its earlier hopes. The Jacobsons do not spend much time treating the role of Israel in all this, but in retrospect from 2026, the conclusion cannot be avoided. Happily, Emmaia Gelman’s stunning new book, The Anti-Defamation League and the Racial State, fills in the blanks.

    “In Defense of the Young” (Julius J, 1970) laid out the case, characteristically in a polemic—against the embittered writings of Irving Howe. A former comrade and one of the most admired in Trotskyist ranks had now written widely to caricature Movement activists. Campus radicals and others viewed as nihilists, rich kids playing at revolution, perhaps above all  refusing to accept the Democratic Party, with all its limitations, as the only way forward. Making Hubert Humphrey the “Man of the Year,” following the stacked and anti-peacenik Democratic Party convention of 1968, the self-described “democratic left” had “set itself the task of impeding and revering the radicalization of youth.” (53)

    Phyllis J performed the polemical task repeatedly in only a slightly different way. She defended feminism against the attacks by Howe and other noted liberals, insisting that the ERA, the struggles of women against conservative union officials, and the cultural challenges. She insisted upon the usefulness of Kate Millet’s widely read feminist literary commentary. Midge Dector, famous for her attacks on feminists, seems to have assigned Irving Howe to go on the attack in the pages of Harpers, and attack he did, pleading for wives to understand their hard-pressed husbands, bitter that women might presume to have household mechanical skills, and haughty toward wives thinking they had more on their minds than their sex appeal to their husbands.

    It was an outburst that Howe would himself come to regret, finally reconciled  to bring women onto the editorial board of Dissent —I remember him jokingly rationalizing the decision as “not for Affirmative Action”—and genuinely eager to have them also join DSOC, then DSA. As in a number of other ways, definitely not all, he tried to do better. As the Jacobsons would have said, he could not wholly escape the assumptions of the past.

    This limitation, for the reviewer, offers the anthology its weak point, not once but again and again. The Trotskysts of their youth seemed certain that they would win over millions of Americans inspired by hopes for a different society, through reasoned arguments, sharp prose, and pinpointed labor action. They could not compete with larger forces, and they remained eloquent outsiders. Probably to their own surprise, this experience repeated itself in some ways long after illusions about Russia and the following of the CPUSA had vanished. Former Communists, described in assorted essays here, remain guilty of not openly and totally renouncing their pasts. Worse, New Leftists seemingly repeat the errors. Ho Chi Minh could not possibly, for the Jacobsons, be a leader of a national liberation movement.  Che was a scoundrel, not a romantic global hero. And so on. Rehearsing the grievances of the past, as if vindication might change past and  future alike, they seemed to close in upon themselves.

    They actually did better in their critique of backsliders from the 1960s New Left. Those erstwhile leaders,  like Todd Gitlin, who had moved to support US global wars after spending a youth opposing them. Or Michael Walzer, never ambivalent about the virtues of Israeli warmaking, embracing the US assaults upon Afghanistan and Iraq, urging some kind of new Popular Front culture of hawks gathered around fresh wars in the Middle East.

    One wonders whether the electoral victory of Zohran Mamdani in New York, a scattering of other socialists and semi-socialists around the country, or the remarkable growth of DSA, would comfort the Jacobsons that “socialism” under some definition has now stirred a new generation. Or not.

    Third Camp Socialism is to be read, discussed, applauded or criticized in its own light. The work and the legacy of the Jacobsons remain alive today, not least in New Politics itself. Perhaps this old  friend of New Politics —subscriber since 1966, occasional essayist since 1970—can suggest a reading, not in pursuit of fresh arguments but rather in seeking a fuller story of the Left role in the modern world.##

     

  • Our Support for the Open Letter Titled: To Iran’s political prisoners, trapped ‘between two blades of a scissors’

    Our Support for the Open Letter Titled: To Iran’s political prisoners, trapped ‘between two blades of a scissors’

    (Photo by Kena Betancur / AFP)

    As migrants and refugees in diaspora and in exile from Iran, who have our loved ones suffering in the Iranian state’s prisons and facing its gallows, we salute the signatories of the open letter To Iran’s political prisoners, trapped ‘between two blades of a scissors’, published in The Guardian on 20 August 2026. With us stand comrades and organisations from across the world who see this struggle as bound up with their own.

    The open letter was signed by a number of current and formerly incarcerated political prisoners, political organisers and scholars, including Angela Davis, Ruth Wilson Gilmore, Yasin al-Haj Saleh, Ricardo Jiménez, Michael Löwy, and Walden Bello, among others, who wrote to incarcerated people in Iran, “we stand in solidarity with you”. In response to the letter, some on the left have since called on signatories to withdraw, describing the letter as “imperialist-sympathetic”, and three names have been removed. We wanted to respond with an open letter, demonstrating the widespread support from people across the world for those who stand unapologetically with the incarcerated and formerly incarcerated political prisoners of Iran.

    As collectives and individuals who have for years organised against western and Zionist imperialist wars and occupations, as well as against the Islamic Republic’s state violence inside and outside Iran’s borders, we know how difficult it is to step outside mainstream geopolitical framings, familiar but dehumanising, and stand in solidarity with communities whose reality and struggle do not fit the binaries of “good vs evil”, “us vs them”, “west vs the rest”. Yet the communities across the globe who are oppressed by multiple local-global forces at once cannot afford the privilege of choosing between their oppressors as the “lesser evil”.

    At a time when the historical struggle for collective liberation across Iran is besieged by the US imperialist Zionist war and the Iranian government’s mass executions on one side, and pro-war Iranian monarchist zionism led by Reza Pahlavi on the other, the international solidarity articulated by the statement has brought an unexpected fresh breeze of hope and opened new horizons of liberation beyond borders, especially coming from current and formerly incarcerated political prisoners like Mumia Abu-Jamal, Yasin al-Haj Saleh and Ricardo Jiménez, among others.

    As is to be expected, the open letter has led to a wave of condemnations from vanguards and gate keepers of “anti-imperialism” who have long abandoned the very basic principles of the anti-imperialist tradition: international solidarity in support of lives crushed under the hammer of global capitalism, colonialism and imperialism. Instead of calling for the abolition of capital punishment, these vanguards justify the mass imprisonment, torture and executions of our people.

    In the midst of US military and economic war on Iran, the Iranian state has been intensifying the execution of prisoners as a matter of “national security”, by framing the imprisoned protestors as “foreign agents” and “spies” without providing any evidence except forced confessions under torture.

    Meanwhile the real “foreign agents” and collaborators have been operating from within the top layers of the IRGC ruling class, providing US and Israel with intelligence regarding the location of assassinated officials and their meetings. This is not a conspiracy, it has been admitted publicly by high ranking officials such as Araghchi who framed it as an ongoing “security breach” within the system. In other words, in a classic scenario scripted by ruling classes, the wretched of the earth in Iran are being scapegoated and sacrificed as “foreign agents”, so a new arrangement of power in the region could be built on the blood of the oppressed and the colonised.

    The minoritised communities in Iran bear the heaviest brunt of Iranian carceral and border violence. Nearly two million Afghan migrants and refugees have been deported from Iran since the 12-day Zionist war on Iran. The government used the Zionist war as a pretext to intensify the racist and xenophobic campaign of mass deportation against Afghans, committing to the ethnic cleansing of a people who have lived and moved on these lands long before the establishment of the Iranian nation-state and its borders.

    While the prison system in Iran affects the poor and marginalised from all communities, prisoners from minoritised, racialised and internally colonised regions such as Kurdistan, Balochistan, Ahwaz, and Lurestan, are disproportionally targeted by the Iranian state’s system of mass incarceration and executions. In a manner that is not dissimilar to the US where Black, Latinx, Muslim and Indigenous communities are targeted disproportionally by the white supremacist settler colonial patriarchal dual system of mass incarceration and racial capitalism.

    While our position against US imperialism and IRI executions may seem unusual to some, it is in fact a common position among labor unions, student collectives, feminist, racialised and minoritised groups inside Iran and in exile. The most recent statement by the Syndicate of Workers of Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company reads as follows:

    Today, as our country struggles under the weight of devastating economic crises, runaway inflation, the collapse of rial, U.S. and Israeli military attacks, the continuation of a devastating war, economic sanctions, widespread and severe repression, and warmongering policies, the authorities are once again responding to people’s demands for bread, work, justice, freedom, and human dignity, with the most brutal instruments of terror and intimidation: the gallows.

    The statement ends by declaring:

    The death penalty must be abolished immediately! Political prisoners must be released! No to war, intervention, military aggression, and warmongering policies! The path forward for workers and the toiling people is unity and organisation.

    A day doesn’t pass without the families and supporters of prisoners on death row risking safety to gather in front of prisons pleading to stop the execution of their loved ones. Mostly to no avail.

    Between 13 to 28 July 2026, as US bombs were falling on the already racialised and marginalised southern regions of Iran, over 1,500 brave prisoners from Ghezelhesar prison held a mass hunger strike against executions of their fellow prisoners. This happened alongside the weekly prisoner strikes of the “No-To-Execution Tuesdays” campaign, which has been ongoing for 134 weeks across more than 60 prisons, demanding an end to all executions.

    On 28 July, the site of public execution in Isfahan turned into a spontaneous popular protest by people who had gathered to prevent the execution. The protest was suppressed and the execution took place. Even though the executions have continued, the prisoner’s hunger strike together with the families brave resistance and spontaneous protests in Isfahan have empowered a fast growing movement for the abolition of the death sentence, as a unifying demand among different social and political movements inside and outside Iran even as US bombs fall.

    The confidential information published by The Intercept regarding ICE and Iranian state collaboration on deportation in the midst of the war, reveals how police-states work together, and hold diplomatic talks behind closed doors to coordinate mass deportations of migrants and refugees, even as they wage war against each other. The same point holds for recent normalisation of relations between European powers and the Taliban and Al-Sharaa regimes, with the aim of deportations of Afghans and Syrians from fortress Europe.

    Lastly we want to affirm the simple and universal truth that the collective liberation of all war torn, occupied and colonised communities of the MENA/SWANA region and beyond are interconnected.

    From the Palestinian liberation struggle against genocidal Israeli settler-colonialism backed by western and US imperialism, to the Sudanese revolutionary struggle against the RSF’s genocidal and SAF’s counter-revolutionary war, backed by different regional and global imperial powers, to the Afghan liberation struggle against the Taliban put back in power by the US after 20 years of “war on terror”, to the Kurdish anti-colonial struggle for self-determination, to the Baloch anti-colonial struggle against Pakistani and Iranian colonial occupations, to the Ahwazi Arab anti-colonial struggle for self-determination, to Congo’s struggle against Rwanda’s military invasion and imperial extractivism, to Haiti’s historical struggle against slavery, debt, and terror backed by western colonialism and imperialism, to Venezuela’s struggle against US neocolonialism and state authoritarianism, to the Zapatista struggle against Mexican mal gobierno (bad government) and US imperialism, to Lebanon and Syria’s struggle against Israeli colonial expansion and sectarian political elites, to West Papua’s struggle against Indonesian colonialism backed by imperial powers, to the Saharawi struggle against Moroccan colonialism backed by Israel, to the Uyghur struggle against the Chinese state’s mass incarceration and surveillance, to the Rohingya struggle against Myanmar’s military genocide, to the Kashmiri struggle for self-determination against Indian and Pakistani military states, to the Ukrainian struggle against Russian imperialism and invasion, European self-serving hypocrisy, and the Ukrainian state’s anti-worker policies; these and all other struggles for collective liberation are inherently interconnected.

    For us the popular slogan “Nobody’s free until everybody’s free” means forging, articulating and building solidarities that may seem to some confusing or unusual in a world where hegemonic and normative politics is defined by a multipolar, (neo)colonial and patriarchal capitalist nation-state system and its borders, borders that have been, and continue fragmenting, dividing, conquering, hierarchising the lands and the peoples of our planet.

    Fannie Lou Hamer’s statement “Nobody’s free until everybody’s free” means rejecting hierarchies of liberation and selective solidarities, even when violent binaries present themselves as common sense. A new world requires new solidarities, rooted in revolutionary imagination and radical love beyond borders and prison walls!

    We take up the demands of the Tehran Bus Drivers and of prisoners organising across Iran: an immediate end to the war and to sanctions, the abolition of the death penalty, and the release of every political prisoner. Each demand needs the other.

    Long live peoples’ struggles everywhere against imperialism, colonialism, statism, capitalism, patriarchy and militarism of all colours!

    Freedom for all prisoners facing tortures and executions in the prisons of Iran, Israel, US, China, Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia!

    Freedom for Mumia Abu Jamal, Fred “Muhammad” Burton, Veronza Bowers and all other Black and Indigenous prisoners in Turtle Island!

    Freedom for Varisheh Moradi, Pakhshan Azizi, Zeinab Jalalian and all imprisoned revolutionary Kurdish women!

    Freedom for Mahrang Baloch and other revolutionary Baloch prisoners in the colonial prisons of Pakistan and Iran!

    Freedom for Dr Hussam Abu Safiya, Khalida Jarrar, Marwan Barghouti and all other Palestinian prisoners fighting for liberation from inside colonial Zionist prisons!

    Freedom for Saadia Mosbah and all other prisoners in Tunisia fighting against the Tunisian state’s anti-Black and anti-migrant policies dictated by European extractivism and border imperialism!

    Freedom for all South Asian & Filipino migrant and domestic workers affected by the war in the region!

    No to war! No to genocide!

    No to executions! No to prisons!

    No to militarism! No to imperialism!

    No to zionism! No to patriarchy!

    No to campism! No to statism!

    No to imperialist regime change, yes to revolution from below!

    Yes to international solidarity!

    Yes to collective liberation!

    Yes to peace, justice and self-determination for all colonised, oppressed and exploited people globally!

    Yes to Land Back!

    Jin Jiyan Azadi!

     

    See the list of signatories or add your own name here

    Reprinted from Anti-Colonial Iran

  • Letter from Iranian Former Political Prisoners, Writers, Scholars, Activists

    Letter from Iranian Former Political Prisoners, Writers, Scholars, Activists

    We, the undersigned former Iranian political prisoners, activists, writers, artists, intellectuals, academic scholars, researchers, and members of civil society within Iran and in exile, stand resolutely in support of the open letter published in The Guardian on 20 August 2026, “To Iran’s Political Prisoners, Trapped ‘Between Two Blades of A Scissors.”

    (more…)

  • On Iranian Political Prisoners: Two Blades, and Who Gets to Hold the Scissors

    On Iranian Political Prisoners: Two Blades, and Who Gets to Hold the Scissors

    The problem with the critics is not that they insist on the imbalance of power. The imbalance is real. The problem begins when the imbalance is used to give the Iranian state political priority over Iranian society. . . Once the unit of analysis moves from social relations to the state, domestic repression becomes secondary.

    ***************************************************

    (more…)

  • A Reckless Drive for More Nuclear Power

    A Reckless Drive for More Nuclear Power

    A structure damaged by a Russian strike in June 2026 near a site where Chernobyl spent fuel rods are stored

    Over the last year the energy and environmental agency of Connecticut’s government held four presentations to encourage more nuclear power plants in Connecticut.  The first thing to say about them is that they start with the wrong assumption.   They assume our biggest challenge is the need for more energy to power data centers so the economy can use more AI.  Wrong.  There is a critical problem, actually an extraordinary crisis, but it’s not the need for more energy.  The crisis is the worsening climate catastrophe, a calamity arriving at lightning speed.

    Back in 2018 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gave a grim report that said we must cut back greenhouse gas emissions by nearly half by 2030 or face not only many more weather and fire devastations but the prospect of going over tipping points from which humankind could not recover. The massive fires in Europe are a small taste of the calamity we face.

    So we have only a few years to deal with an existential danger. That, and not AI, has to take front and center.  We have to take emergency measures now.  Data centers and AI development belong in the backseat.  The good news is that mitigation of climate ruin is possible and it doesn’t require nuclear power.  In fact, nuclear power is a dangerous diversion.

    At present there’s one nuclear plant running in Connecticut, by the name of Millstone.  There had been a legal ban against more nuclear reactors in the state but that was overthrown by Governor Ned Lamont and the legislature in 2025.  The legislature then appropriated $5 million to find towns that say they are willing to be sites of nuclear power plants.  The presentations from Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) are intended to warm the public to both varieties of nuclear generation, uranium-powered fission plants and deuterium-tritium fusion plants.  Both have inherent defects.

    Fission

    One huge and obvious problem with fission is radioactive waste.   In the nuclear power process radioactive uranium is mined, then enriched and formed into rods and the uranium goes through a process that splits its atoms and gives off energy.  That’s done until the rods are no longer productive.  Then they are classified as “spent”.  However, spent rods are incredibly radioactive and intensely hot.  So these rods are put in cooling ponds of the facility for at least five years.  Then they have to be stored indefinitely.

    Nuclear power waste has been around for more than 80 years, but in all that time there has been no way found to dispose of it permanently. There was a plan to put 90,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste deep under Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but state leadership and the residents were vehemently against it. Nevada’s official position is that the area is “seismically and volcanically active, porous and incapable of geologically containing the waste.”

     So, the high-level and long-lasting radioactive waste produced by the nation’s civil nuclear power plants remains at the 75 sites — both operating and closed – where they were created. The problem is managed by the advanced engineering process called “kick the can down the road.”

    How are they stored on site?  After being removed from the fuel storage pools, the waste is put inside what are called “casks”, stainless steel containers welded shut surrounded my more steel or concrete.   How long will a cask last without leaking?  One speaker at the Connecticut forums, a professor of nuclear engineering named Dr. Sukesh Aghara, said the casks were good for 160 years while Mark W. Goodsbey, who is Director of Safety and Licensing at Millstone said, “Temporary storage is still designed for hundreds and thousands of years of service without any significant impact or concerns to their robustness.”  Thousands of years?  How can you assure us of that?

    Are the storage areas for spent fuel rods hardened against military attack?  The answer is, “No”. To most of us the very question would seem ridiculous.  Who would be stupidly reckless enough to attack a nuclear power plant?  After the attack on the Chernobyl’s New Safe Containment on Valentine’s Day 2025 and the drone attack a few hundred yards from Chernobyl’s spent fuel casks in June 2026, we know that any force ruthless or terrified enough may make such an assault.   There is a concept called Hardened On-Site Storage.  It would require the casks be stored in areas hardened against terrorist and armed force assault in facilities resembling hardened missile silos.  Of course, that would cost a lot of money.  When we see pictures of actual casks, they’re above ground in the open (to shed heat) one next to another.  No U.S. plant is hardened to HOSS standards.

    The speakers at our public meetings here in Connecticut talk about small, advanced power plants that are modular, in that one day their parts could be built in a factory banged out one after another like pre-fab houses.  They use the acronym “SMR” for them (small modular reactor). Paul Dickman of the National Academies of Science stated right out that the large plants (1,000 MW and more) are more efficient than the SMRs.  So why build them?

    A claimed advantage of the SMRs is that they will only need small emergency planning zones around them to protect the public.  The “current fleet” (their words) of reactors typically has 10-mile emergency planning zones around the plants.  With the new SMR’s professor Aghara said “you’re talking about less than 5 miles, ideally about two miles.”  At another point Kati Austgen of the Nuclear Energy Institute said the zone could be “a 400 meter diameter area.” She said a plant might be able to demonstrate to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission such safety measures that the zone would be ending right at the site boundary “meaning there would be no need to pre-plan any sort of evacuation in the area surrounding the plant.”

     No emergency planning zone?  So they want to build these things right in the middle of cities, anywhere, maybe even next to schools and hospitals.  The ancient Greeks called this insolent arrogance “hubris.”

    We haven’t talked about cost.   Professor Aghara says he thinks there will be a “30 to 40% reduction in the cost of energy when you couple nuclear and renewable and storage.”  However, a 2024 report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis states, “A key tenet for SMR proponents is that the new reactors will be economically competitive. But the on-the-ground experience with the initial SMRs that have been built or that are currently under construction shows that this simply is not true. There currently are three operating SMRs worldwide—two in Russia and one in China, plus a fourth under construction in Argentina. Costs for all four have been significantly higher than originally forecast.”

    SMR boosters say assembly line construction of SMRs will save lots of money, but these assembly lines don’t exist anywhere.  At this stage it’s just a theory and with global warming putting us in immediate peril we don’t have time to test it out.  Past experience with large nuclear plants is not encouraging.  Connecticut residents know all about it.  The owner of Connecticut’s Millstone plant, Dominion Energy,  threatened to shut it down because the nuclear plant couldn’t compete with natural gas.  Not until the legislature cut it a deal were the threats tabled.

    One big, supposed advantage for the plants is that they’re super-reliable.  We’re told they function 24/7.  But it’s not true.  For one thing they have to be taken offline for refueling and maintenance. The U.S. Energy Information Administration says that averages 34 days a year.

    And we’re realizing now the plants depend on the weather. When it gets too hot outside they have problems.  Nuclear plants rely on drawing cool water from rivers or the sea to remove heat from reactor systems. But witness France this year. Nuclear power plants there had to shut down already three times this summer.  Hot release water combined with exceptionally warm river water would have killed aquatic life.

    What’s turning out to be a bigger problem is that in heat waves river water levels drop so the water sometimes can’t be drawn upon for use in the plants.  Witness Hungary in August 2026.  It had to shut down its nuclear reactors due to low water levels for the first time in its history.  Its pumps couldn’t get water at so low a level.  Romania shut down its nuclear plant, too.

    And the final problem is time.  Remember there are only three SMRs anywhere in the world. The idea that SMRs could be produced quickly is untested.  Nuclear power plants have been taking 17 years on average to plan, build and get online so SMRs are not going to be of any help in a climate crisis that’s imminent.

    Fusion

    The U.S. started releasing huge amounts of energy from fusion in 1952.  That was the year of first hydrogen bomb explosion. Of course, that energy couldn’t be channeled into anything but mass destruction, but the science was correct.  With enormous heat and pressure, you could set off a fusion reaction.  In the H-bomb enormous heat came from an atomic bomb “trigger”.  Ever since scientists and engineers have been working on how to do fusion on a much smaller scale and in a controlled way.  Magnets, lasers and other means are being tested as ways to confine incredibly hot elements in their plasma state during fusion reactions.

    There’s never been a fusion power plant.  Only in 2022 did the National Ignition Facility arguably produce more energy from a fusion experiment than the amount used by the lasers to conduct the experiment, a net gain of roughly one megajoule of energy or 0.3 of a single kilowatt hour.  Even that is kind of fake.   It didn’t take into account the 400 megajoules of electricity needed to power the lasers!

    But there are tens of billions of dollars floating around for nuclear experiments and construction, so companies are being formed willy nilly to gather in those dollars.  Why not?  It’s very challenging physics and materials engineering, rewarding work which is presumably well paid. Three companies presented at the DEEP forum.  They claim they’ll be producing electricity from fusion in the early 2030s.

    But wait.  There are as they say “challenges”.  I’m relying mostly on an article by Daniel Jassby called “Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be.” It was in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in 2017.  Dr. Jassby has serious credentials.  He was a principal research physicist at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab until 1999. For 25 years he worked in areas of plasma physics and neutron production related to fusion energy research and development. Jassby says there are “four regrettable problems with nuclear energy: radiation damage to structures; radioactive waste; the need for biological shielding; and the potential for the production of weapons-grade plutonium 239.”

    What? Did you read that last one right, the process can create weapons-grade plutonium?  One of the draws of fusion was that it was so safe.  Fusion just used sweet simple hydrogen isotopes for fuel.  Alas, as Jassby puts it, “A fusion reactor can become a source of weapons-grade plutonium simply by placing natural or depleted uranium inside the reactor vessel, where the high neutron flux will produce plutonium 239.”  Fusion of hydrogen produces helium, huge amounts of energy and lots and lots of neutrons.  Stick uranium into the reactor and you can produce plutonium which you can make into a nuclear weapon.

    Shouldn’t that disqualify fusion right from the git go?  Should humanity be building these plants everywhere, giving tyrants and unstable governments the materials to build nuclear bombs?

    Let’s briefly talk about one other problem mentioned by Jassby.   As Jassby explains, fuel assemblies themselves will be transformed into tons of radioactive waste to be removed annually from each reactor as would lots of other parts of the machinery.  In fact, he says, “While the radioactivity level per kilogram of waste would be much smaller than for fission-reactor wastes, the volume and mass of wastes would be many times larger.”  So what’s the gain with fusion?

    Finally, the time problem for fission goes double, triple or more for fusion.  Companies may talk about fusion giving out power in the 2030s but no one knows if it really can be done.  There’s been a fusion project in the south of France called ITER, sponsored by a number of countries including the U.S. and Russia that.  It was thought up in 1985.  Building started in 2010.  National Geographic had a lengthy article about it in its November 2025 issue.  The ITER first “energy-positive” fusion isn’t expected until 2039 (See page 43).  And that energy will be heat not electricity.

    We Don’t Need Nuclear

    We already have the solution, a way of avoiding going over the climate cliff.  It’s a combination of solar, wind, water, batteries, efficiency and mandatory conservation.  Stanford University civil and environmental engineering professor Mark Z. Jacobson has been explaining for nearly 20 years that we can power the U.S. without burning fossil fuels or splitting or fusing the atom.  He demonstrates it in detail state by state and for the entire country.  Part of the solution is efficiency.  The energy with the least waste is the energy not used in the first place. We need a crash program in everything from insulation to triple-hung windows.

    Since America’s leaders on the whole ignored the dire warning of climate scientists and we only have a few years before tipping points are crossed, we have to add to Jacobson’s ideas.  We need to plan a strict conservation system in which we use fossil fuel for what’s absolutely necessary and sharply cut back on the rest.  Data centers and AI should be put on hold. Personal jets should be grounded.  When facing catastrophe you deal with it.  You don’t do business as usual.

    I’m not much good about predictions but I’m going to say these expensive dangerous plants will not be built in CT.  However, a lot of time and effort will be needed to stop them.  It’s time we don’t have.  I mentioned the year 1952 earlier in the article as the date the first hydrogen bomb exploded.  1952 was also the year of the Paley Commission, a project of the Truman administration, which saw the promise of solar and recommended its wide use. Linda Pentz Gunter of the group Beyond Nuclear has written the “Paley Commission’s authors recognized the abundance offered by solar energy, observing in 1952 that, ‘the United States supply of solar energy is about 1,500 times the present requirement.’”   The Commission called for “aggressive research in the whole field of solar energy.”  Unfortunately, the report was ignored.  Eisenhower became president in 1953 and he launched “Atoms for Peace” driving the U.S. down the disastrous path of nuclear power.

    We don’t have the time for another reckless diversion.
  • Anti-Imperialism Without Iranians

    Anti-Imperialism Without Iranians

    I oppose the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, the sanctions regime that preceded it, and every project of externally engineered regime change. I also oppose the Islamic Republic, a state that has governed for forty-seven years through political imprisonment, executions, gendered coercion, and the methodical destruction of independent organization. I am an Iranian feminist researcher, and I have spent enough time in left spaces in Europe and North America to know that holding both positions at once is still treated, in some quarters, as an incoherence in need of correction.

    The row over the Guardian‘s open letter to Iran’s political prisoners has made the correction unusually visible. What the document actually says is not in dispute. It is addressed to the activists, students, scholars, workers, and artists held in Iranian prisons. It names the systematic use of torture, the unfair trials, and the state executions carried out by the Islamic Republic, and it demands an immediate end to executions and the release of all political prisoners. It also condemns U.S. and Israeli policy toward Iran, cites the Israeli strike on Evin prison in June 2025, and closes by calling for an immediate end to the war and to U.S.-Israeli sanctions. Among its published signatories are Angela Davis, Ruth Wilson Gilmore, Judith Butler, and Yassin al-Haj Saleh. For this the letter was accused of manufacturing false symmetry, of weakening Iran in wartime, of handing ammunition to the enemy. That does not put the letter beyond criticism — there are real questions about whose voices it centers. But those are arguments for taking prisoners’ own political thought more seriously, not for postponing solidarity with them.

    Vijay Prashad put the objection most cleanly. Writing days after the letter appeared, he argued that “there is a time to make a demand and a time to act in solidarity,” that “neutrality or a third space does not exist in the midst of a war of aggression,” and that the scissors image at the heart of the letter — two blades, one body — is “evocative but erroneous,” since it makes the aggressor and the attacked appear as parallel sources of the same danger.

    Prashad is not defending Evin prison, and it is worth reconstructing what he is defending in a stronger form than he states it. Read that way, the argument concerns the political economy of speech: criticism voiced in the metropole during a war of aggression does not travel as criticism, it travels as war material, and Iranians who say these things in English contribute, whatever their intentions, to a discursive infrastructure that ends in cruise missiles. That formulation is mine, not his. It is also the version worth answering, and anyone who has watched Iranian women’s suffering laundered into a case for bombing knows it is not paranoid.

    The argument breaks on contact with the people it claims to protect.

    The prisoner’s calendar

    Begin with the question the sequencing argument never answers: solidarity with whom?

    The Iranian political prisoner does not live in geopolitical time. American bombs do not open her cell. Sanctions do not stay an execution order. The overwhelming asymmetry between U.S. and Iranian military power does not cause her interrogator, her guard or her Revolutionary Court judge to vanish for the duration. Whatever is true at the level of states, at the level of her body two forms of power are operating at once, and neither has agreed to wait for the other.

    Notice, too, that the argument has no exit condition. Who announces that the war is over and criticism may resume? Not the Iranian prisoner. The Islamic Republic has already made its own position clear: it has declared that wartime conditions are precisely the moment when repression must accelerate. Amnesty International documents the judiciary instructing officials in April to fast-track prosecutions with “extreme speed,” the head of the judiciary warning in March that anyone acting in line with “the wishes of the aggressor enemy” would be dealt with “decisively and severely,” and more than six thousand arbitrary arrests, thirty-nine political executions, and an eighty-eight-day internet shutdown since the attack began on February 28. In late July, Amnesty International warned that at least sixty more people faced imminent execution.

    The Iranian state and some of its anti-imperialist critics abroad arrive, for very different reasons, at the same political sequencing: not now. One says: not now, there is a war on. The other says: not now, there is a war on. The prisoner is the only party to the argument for whom the postponement is not rhetorical.

    The blades share a hinge

    The deeper problem with the false-symmetry charge is that it treats the metaphor as if it were a claim about moral equivalence between two states. But the metaphor is better understood as describing a position: the position of people on whom different forms of power act simultaneously. As Farah Mokhtareizadeh has pointed out, the image of the “two blades” was already being used by former political prisoner and labor activist Keyvan Mohtadi after Israel bombed Evin prison, while his wife Anisha Asadollahi remained imprisoned there. The point was not that the two powers were equal. It was that both entered the lived reality of the same people. And once we look at how external coercion and domestic repression reshape one another’s effects, the two pressures cannot be treated as operating in sealed compartments either.

    This is where the debate needs class analysis rather than cartography. Consider what four decades of sanctions have done to Iran’s internal balance of forces. A sanctioned economy does not distribute pain evenly. Sanctions did not create the economic power of Iran’s parastatal and security-linked sectors; decades of state contracting and pseudo-privatization helped do that. But sanctions alter the terrain on which economic actors compete. Small and formally operating firms lose access to finance, technology, and markets, while organizations already embedded in state contracting and informal cross-border networks are better positioned to adapt. The result is not that sanctions leave the ruling elite untouched. They do not. It is that external economic coercion can simultaneously impoverish society and reinforce the relative leverage of institutions already closest to state power.

    The rial closed at 2.02 million to the dollar on August 24, a record. Rice has risen roughly 60 percent since February; beef by more than 150. The IMF’s April projections put Iranian output down 6.1 percent this year with inflation near 69 percent. These numbers describe a working class being ground down. They do not describe a state being weakened in any sense that helps that class, and the ordinary Iranian who cannot buy meat knows the difference.

    Meanwhile the other blade is at work on the same bodies. Between mid-July and the beginning of August, authorities sealed at least forty-two cafés, restaurants, and shops, blocked or seized seventy-two social media pages and accounts, and forced the operators of twenty-one more to publish pledges of compliance — most of it over compulsory hijab. Sealing a café is not only an act of gender discipline. It is a wage cut. The staff are dismissed, the rent still falls due, the loan still accrues interest in an economy where the currency loses value weekly. A researcher I know in Tehran was recently barred from a major library and archive after two hijab warnings, cut off from the material her work depends on; Iran’s National Library did the same to women members in 2023.

    The same worker can be impoverished by the blockade, terrified by the bombing, and then thrown out of work because the state closes her workplace over a headscarf. There is no contradiction in her account of her life. The contradiction belongs to a politics that requires people to have one oppressor at a time.

    Whose testimony counts

    What is really being adjudicated in this debate is not timing but credibility — whose account of Iranian reality carries political authority.

    For Iranians, credibility on parts of the metropolitan left has become conditional in a way that is easy to demonstrate. Speak about the 1953 coup, about sanctions, about Israeli bombardment, and the Iranian is a valuable witness. Speak to the same audience about executions, compulsory hijab, the crushing of the Haft Tappeh sugarcane workers or the teachers’ unions, and a second set of questions appears. Why now? Who benefits from your saying this? Are you reproducing Western narratives? Have you established your anti-imperialist credentials? The testimony is received when it confirms the geopolitical schema and interrogated when it complicates it. Miranda Fricker’s concept of testimonial injustice helps name this credibility deficit: the speaker is wronged specifically in her capacity as a knower.

    There is no single Iranian voice waiting to be heard. Iranian prisoners, workers, feminists, Kurds, Baluchis, and diaspora organizations disagree sharply among themselves — about sanctions, about federalism, about what should replace the Islamic Republic. Those disagreements are political thought, and this is what the current arrangement erases: Iranians supply the testimony, and someone else supplies its meaning. Appointing a different interpreter would not fix that.

    Yassin al-Haj Saleh, who signed the Guardian letter and who spent sixteen years in Assad’s prisons, named the same experience a decade ago. He called it the denial of epistemological agency. Syrians were permitted to supply suffering, anecdote, and quotation; the right to say what Syria meant was retained elsewhere. He was lectured by European leftists on the imperialist character of a revolt he was living inside. His formulation still cuts: an anti-imperialism that can recognize imperial power only when it is headquartered in Washington ends up reproducing an imperial relation in the domain of knowledge itself.

    The tendency has a name. Campism decides in advance which states make up the anti-imperialist camp, then reads every social struggle through that alignment. But this is not a politics of Cold War-style equidistance, and the Iranian position is not a third camp between two governments. As Mokhtareizadeh argues, refusing both imperial war and domestic repression is a claim to political autonomy rather than neutrality. Iranian workers, feminists and leftists are not standing halfway between Washington and Tehran. They are standing somewhere campism’s map does not show.

    Iran has run this experiment

    Iranians do not need a thought experiment about what happens when anti-imperialism is declared the contradiction before which every other struggle must wait. We have the history.

    Women met it within weeks. By early March 1979 the Family Protection Law had been declared abrogated, Khomeini had announced that women could not serve as judges, and the veiling injunction was reaching workplaces. Tens of thousands marched. They were arguing about who the revolution was for. One of their slogans was “Freedom is neither Eastern nor Western — it is universal.”

    Leftist women were among the organizers of those marches, and some currents on the left supported them. But much of the organized left subordinated women’s autonomy to anti-imperialist unity. When the provisional government appeared to retreat on compulsory veiling, some socialist and democratic groups withheld support from the rally called for March 11, arguing that further mobilization would divide the revolution and benefit imperialism. The attack on women could be acknowledged and still filed as a contradiction whose time had not come.

    The contradiction was registered inside the left itself. Homa Nateq — historian, active in the Fedayeen milieu, and a co-founder of the National Union of Women — later gave a harsh account of her own conduct. In a 1984 oral-history interview, she recalled helping to shut the demonstrations down in the name of anti-imperialist unity and described her role as a betrayal of Iranian women.

    None of this makes the left responsible for the repression that followed. That belongs to the state that carried it out. In February 1983 the Tudeh Party, which had gone furthest in reading the Islamic Republic as anti-imperialist, was declared illegal, its leadership arrested, and its general secretary later subjected to televised confession. Five years after that, the state executed thousands of political prisoners, including hundreds of leftists in a later wave in which many were interrogated over religious belief and practice.

    Postponement protected no one. The state used those years, and then turned its prisons and killing apparatus on many who had accepted the postponement.

    Defiance is not emancipation

    Some of what animates this dispute has little to do with Iran. For parts of the metropolitan left, Iran becomes politically legible mainly when the Islamic Republic squares up to Washington or Tel Aviv. The missiles, the speeches, the brinkmanship offer proof that somebody, somewhere, is refusing an order that activists in the West feel powerless to affect. That is an understandable hunger. It is also a substitution of one people’s state for another people’s movement.

    The regional record shows why the two must be held apart. Iranian support for Palestinian resistance has been real and materially consequential. It has also been pursued as part of a regional policy organized around deterrence, strategic depth, and regime security, and it has coexisted with the repression of Iranian Arabs, Kurds, and Baluchis at home. Palestinian liberation and the strategic requirements of the Iranian state are not the same project.

    Iranians know this history from the inside. Iranian Marxists were training and organizing with Palestinian movements before the Islamic Republic existed, and many of them were later executed by it. Anti-authoritarianism and anti-imperialism are not rival traditions in Iranian political history. They have repeatedly inhabited the same movements and the same political lives.

    What solidarity would actually require

    So when Iranians who refuse both foreign domination and domestic authoritarianism enter the conversation, we become inconvenient. We interrupt the spectacle. We are the feminist killjoys of anti-imperialist certainty.

    But an internationalism that needs the people of a country to disappear behind their state is not internationalism; it is a foreign policy position with a red flag on it. The alternative is not neutrality, and it is not a third camp abstracted from the balance of forces. It is an orientation toward people rather than states: stop the war and lift the sanctions because they are destroying the class that could change Iran; oppose the executions and the political imprisonment because the workers, teachers, feminists, and organizers who make up that class are the ones filling Evin, Qarchak, and Ghezel Hesar; support the independent unions, the teachers’ councils, the women’s networks, and the Kurdish and Baluchi organizations that will still be there when this war ends, whatever the outcome. And build relationships with them rather than issuing statements in their name — carefully, because inside Iran a foreign connection is itself treated as evidence, and solidarity practiced carelessly from abroad is paid for by someone else. Refuse, finally, the presumption that a state earns immunity by learning to speak the vocabulary of resistance.

    A left worth the name should be able to say all of it in one breath. No U.S.-Israeli war. No sanctions. No executions. No torture. No political prisoners. No compulsory hijab. No imperial domination, and no exemption for any state that invokes it.

    Iranians do not owe anyone a choice between their killers. Neither do Palestinians, Syrians, Kurds, Afghans, or Ukrainians. If emancipation is universal, our solidarity has to be able to carry more than one truth at a time.

     

    [This is one of a collection of articles responding to the controversy over the open letter in the Guardian expressing support for Iranian political prisoners and at the same time opposing the U.S.-Israeli war and sanctions on Iran.]

     

  • War, Diplomacy and Repression: The Three-Pronged Strategy of Iran’s Islamic Republic

    War, Diplomacy and Repression: The Three-Pronged Strategy of Iran’s Islamic Republic

    More than a year has passed since the 12-day war of June 2025, when Israel attacked Iranian military facilities, killed senior military officials and nuclear scientists, and was joined by U.S. strikes on three major Iranian nuclear sites. Iran responded with missile attacks on Israel and on a U.S. base in Qatar before a ceasefire was announced. More than six months have also passed since the 39-day war that began in February 2026. That conflict resulted in the killing of Ali Khamenei, the leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), and numerous senior political and military figures, as well as Iranian attacks on U.S. bases in the region. It also produced diplomatic efforts culminating in a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the United States and Iran, signed by their respective presidents, Donald Trump and Masoud Pezeshkian.

    As discussed elsewhere, both wars emerged from three interrelated dynamics. First, the United States sought to maintain and extend its global hegemony. Second, Israel’s right-wing government and Jewish and Christian Zionist movements sought to advance a vision of Greater Israel. Third, the Islamic Republic’s clerical, military and economic oligarchy sought to preserve and expand its regional influence.

    This article argues that, faced with war and escalating domestic instability, the Islamic Republic has pursued a three-pronged strategy: military responses to continued confrontations, engagement in diplomacy, while intensifying repression at home.

    Although the wars killed thousands, damaged Iranian infrastructure and eliminated much of the Islamic Republic’s senior leadership, they failed to produce regime change. Instead, they exposed the limits of U.S. and Israeli coercive power and left the region facing continued clashes and the possibility of another major war.

    War and Diplomacy

    The 14-point MOU, which, among others, promised the termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, removal of the U.S. maritime blockade, a $300 billion reconstruction and economic development plan, and removal of all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions, was a success for the Islamic regime, and a relief for the botched policy of the Trump administration. In return, the IRI, while maintaining the current status quo of its nuclear program, agreed not to procure or develop nuclear weapons. It also allowed commercial vessels to pass without charge for 60 days between the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman, and vice versa.

    The agreement was never implemented, and now the 60-day deadline for the United States and Iran to negotiate the final deal has passed. The Netanyahu government, following its long-time policy towards the Islamic Republic, was vehemently opposed to the deal and was prepared to take whatever measures were necessary to derail it. Among others, on June 14, two days after the MOU was agreed upon, it bombarded the Shia-dominant district of Beirut. At the same time, the Trump administration appears to have believed that by delaying implementation and increasing economic pressure on Tehran, it could compel the Islamic Republic to make further concessions. Tehran, for its part, appears to have calculated that keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed would pressure the Trump administration to make further concessions, particularly as the midterm elections approached and American public disenchantment with the war increased.

    Aside from its offensive missile and drone capabilities, threatening neighboring Arab countries that host U.S. bases, the Islamic regime’s greater resilience is partly rooted in its ideological character and its longstanding disregard for the outcome of the war for Iran and the Iranian people. A similar pattern was evident during the eight-year-long Iran-Iraq War. After Iranian forces expelled the invading Iraqi army from Iranian territory in 1981—effectively defeating Saddam Hussein’s invasion within a matter of months—Iran could have ended the war. Instead, the then Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini and those around him embraced the slogans of “war, war until victory” and “from Baghdad to Quds (Jerusalem),” and continued the conflict for another seven years. Ultimately, in 1988, after suffering huge losses, they were forced to accept a humiliating ceasefire. Although circumstances are different today, with the ruling bloc more divided than ever and the Islamic Republic lacking legitimacy among most of the population, the regime’s hardline factions appear to be pursuing a similar strategy.

    Power Struggle Within the Ruling Bloc

    Differences within the Islamic Republic’s power bloc have existed from the very beginning. At various times, religious pragmatists and religious idealists, identified under different labels, have clashed. During the eras of Ruhollah Khomeini and later Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader managed these disputes. However, the current designated leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, who has not yet appeared publicly and whose condition is unknown, is unlikely to be able to manage these conflicts effectively while remaining out of public view. Statements are presumably issued in his name, and important appointments and personnel changes in the military and security sectors are also issued in his name. He also endorsed the MOU, which was approved by 12 of the 13 members of the then Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), Iran’s highest decision-making body on defence, security and foreign affairs, although he added that “in principle” he held a different view.

    Although almost all those SNSC members who voted in favour of the MOU were hardliners, and two of them were representatives of the Supreme Leader, the mere act of reaching any agreement with the United States deeply angered the hard-line base, who for over four decades had heard anti-American propaganda. The top decision-makers of the regime are fully aware that they need this base, and that without it they will have fewer forces left to confront the dissatisfied majority of the population, which has so far launched six major anti-regime movements.

    The conflict between hard-line conservatives and the pragmatists reached a point where some influential hardliners called for the execution of President Pezeshkian and Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of parliament and head of the negotiating delegation.

    The leadership reshuffle also reflects the changing balance of power. Mohsen Rezaei, the commander of the IRGC during the Iran-Iraq war, replaced the former SNSC secretary, while new commanders were appointed to lead the armed forces and the IRGC. All are close confidants of Mojtaba Khamenei. In his first announcement, IRGC General Rezaei set conditions for opening the Strait of Hormuz: end all regional wars in the Middle East, Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran’s regional allies; end the maritime blockade against Iran; release Iranian funds; and change U.S. conduct.

    However, this no-war, no-peace stalemate cannot continue indefinitely and could put Iran in an increasingly dangerous position. While a renewed military confrontation would create serious problems for the United States and its regional allies, bombing Iranian infrastructure—including the electrical grid, water system, and refineries—could devastate the country and have catastrophic consequences for its people. The United States pursued a similar strategy during its invasion of Iraq, where millions of Iraqis suffered, and there is no guarantee that it would not adopt comparable measures against Iran.

    Now that the United States has failed to bring the Islamic Republic to its knees militarily, it hopes that by intensifying the economic siege and secondary sanctions, it can force the Tehran regime to surrender or encourage a popular uprising against the regime. As with other sanctions, the main harm will be inflicted on the people.

    The continued maritime blockade and Trump’s new threat of “economic warfare” are already creating serious economic pressures. Iran is reportedly losing close to $500 million a day, and is struggling to obtain essential imports, including gas reliably. This is why parts of the regime’s ruling oligarchy, beyond concerns about its ideological or “heavenly” promises, are also deeply concerned about protecting their substantial material interests and are pushing for a deal and a return to the MOU.

    It remains unclear which side will ultimately gain the upper hand. Nevertheless, the recent reshuffling of military and security leadership suggests that, while the regime has become more militaristic and is preparing for a prolonged war and further confrontation, it is also pursuing a diplomatic solution—particularly in response to the new threat of economic warfare from the United States. At the same time, the regime is deeply concerned about the imminent internal threat of another uprising by a disgruntled population.

    Dealing With the Internal “Enemy”

    Between the above-mentioned 12-day and 39-day wars, in the winter of 2025-26, Iran witnessed its largest protest movement—a movement even larger than the 2022 Woman, Life, Freedom. The protests began in Tehran’s bazaar over rising prices driven by a sharp decline in the national currency’s value and the escalating cost of foreign currencies, which in turn raised the prices of raw materials and imported goods. As with other movements, the protests, despite their economic roots, quickly took on political dimensions in cities across the country. Various segments of the new and traditional middle classes, workers, retirees, students, and, in some cases, farmers—who were protesting water shortages and the government’s failure to pay its debts—joined the movement.

    For its first eleven days, beginning on December 28, 2025, this spontaneous movement resembled previous protest movements, characterized by peaceful demonstrations, skirmishes with security forces and Basij forces, and hit-and-run actions. The movement, however, was subsequently exploited by the Israeli government and by the opportunistic right-wing Iranian monarchist opposition abroad, which has close ties with Israel.

    On January 8, 2026, amid a highly manipulated social-media campaign, Reza Pahlavi, the son of the deposed Shah, announced that help was coming. Larger numbers of people—desperate for any prospect of change, as well as supporters of Pahlavi—took to the streets, often accompanied by their families. The terrified regime responded with unprecedented violence, deploying Ansar-e Hezbollah, Basij forces, and reportedly proxy forces recruited from neighboring countries. The full extent of the killings remains unknown, but estimates suggest that several thousand, including young children, were gunned down over the course of two days. The internet, which had been shut down from the outset, remained blocked despite the enormous economic damage and the loss of millions of jobs.

    It is widely believed that Netanyahu persuaded Trump that, following the killing of the Supreme Leader, Iranians would rise up and overthrow the regime. Much to the disappointment of both Netanyahu and Reza Pahlavi, this did not happen. On the contrary, foreign intervention and the resumption of the war in June 2026 dealt the movement its most devastating blows.

    With the worsening economic situation, rampant inflation and growing unemployment, however, there is a distinct possibility of another major uprising. Hence the strengthening of the regime’s repressive apparatuses. The assignment of Hossein Taeb as the new head of the Basij paramilitary organization, linked to the IRGC and a major instrument of the brutal suppression of social movements, should be seen as part of the strategy vis-à-vis potential protests. Taeb is an IRGC senior member, a close confidant of the new Supreme Leader, and a feared cleric within the security establishment who is known to have supervised the killing and maiming of thousands of protesters. In his declared mission, he is to expand and strengthen the Basij as a ‘people-based intelligence network,’ making ‘every citizen’ a Basij member.

    Already, organized nightly neighborhood rallies in support of war in large cities and the regime’s kangaroo courts issuing death penalties have done much in expanding the reign of terror. According to IHRNGO, Iran Human Rights, in July this year alone 71 people were executed, some of them accused of being an Israeli agent. A total of 444 persons have been hanged in 2026. Many well-known lawyers, academics, journalists, and artists are in jail, including Narges Mohamadi, the prominent feminist and Nobel Peace Prize laureate. The regime has also started to reinforce compulsory veiling, which was virtually abandoned after the stunning Woman, Life, Freedom movement. The regime’s parliament is approving a new bill forbidding all contacts with foreign media and universities, unless approved by the security authorities.

    In Place of a Conclusion

    The Israeli/U.S. military aggression against Iran, rather than weakening the Islamic Republic, has made the regime more radical and aggressive, further divided its opposition, and dealt a severe blow to Iran’s independent social movements.

    Many people outside Iran, including some within progressive circles, have applauded the Islamic Republic and cheered it on as an “anti-imperialist” force, simply because it is seen as the only country capable of standing up to Israeli and U.S. aggression. But it is a serious mistake to overlook the reactionary character of the regime and the enormous damage it has inflicted on Iran and its people. This is precisely the position emphasized by some progressive intellectuals outside Iran, including the open letter signed by Iranian and non-Iranian academics, journalists, lawyers, and human rights activists, which condemns both the U.S./Israeli aggression and the Islamic Republic. Similarly, in a recent letter published in the Guardian and addressed to Iranian political prisoners, signed by prominent non-Iranian scholars and activists, the authors rightly observe that “on one side, you face the domination of the Islamic Republic; on the other, the imperialist forces that the republic claims to stand against.”

    Unfortunately, this important initiative by prominent, progressive, and widely recognized non-Iranian intellectuals was attacked by some who, based on a misguided understanding of the anti-imperialist struggle, support a repressive regime such as the Islamic Republic. This is the same disastrous understanding held by a segment of the Iranian left in the period following Iran’s 1979 revolution: simply because the Islamic regime was in conflict with the United States and because of the hostage-taking at the U.S. Embassy, they regarded the regime as “anti-imperialist.” In response to the attacks on the letter published in The Guardian, a broad group of Iranian intellectuals and academics have expressed their unequivocal support for the signatories of that letter.

    For nearly half a century, the Islamic Republic has devoted itself to reshaping Iran and Iranian society in accordance with its own obscurantist vision. The massive Woman, Life, Freedom movement, which attracted worldwide attention and in which Iranian women and young people played a leading role despite the regime’s brutal repression, was a powerful expression of the failure of its reactionary project. The successive social movements and uprisings of recent decades have demonstrated that it will not be foreign powers pursuing their own hegemonic interests, but the people of Iran themselves, who will ultimately replace the present regime with a genuinely democratic, secular, and progressive republic. This is precisely why opposition to imperialist aggression and opposition to the Islamic Republic must not be treated as mutually exclusive positions. Both are necessary if the goal is to defend Iran’s people and preserve the possibility of an emancipatory democratic future.

     

    An earlier version was published in Open Canada.

     

    [This is one of a collection of articles responding to the controversy over the open letter in the Guardian expressing support for Iranian political prisoners and at the same time opposing the U.S.-Israeli war and sanctions on Iran.]

     

  • Victor Serge: Unruly Revolutionary

    Victor Serge: Unruly Revolutionary

    Victor Serge: Unruly Revolutionary

    By: Mitchell Abidor

    Pluto Press, 2025

     

    Victor Serge died almost penniless in the back of a taxicab in Mexico City in 1947. He was not yet revered as one of the world’s greatest writers, but he had known some acclaim as an author and activist.

    Excerpts from Serge’s account of his political journey from anarchism via Bolshevism to anti-Stalinism, Memoirs of a Revolutionary (NYRB, 2012), had appeared in English already by 1944. (Wallace Stevens quoted from them in his poem, “Esthétique du Mal.”) And his prominence in French literary circles sparked a ferocious battle after his second arrest in five years in the Soviet Union in 1933. The so-called “L’affaire Victor Serge” ended only with the author’s release from an “isolator” colony near the Ural River and emigration in 1936.

    Yet Serge’s actual achievement took decades to be recognized. An abridged version of Memoirs finally appeared in English in 1963. Much of his work was published (or brought back into print) years later. This effort was spearheaded in the English-speaking world by Richard Greeman, who has translated a number of the Serge’s essential works.

    The self-portrait fashioned by Serge in Memoirs was so compelling that it stood in place of a comprehensive biography in English for many years. Susan Weissman’s pioneering Victor Serge: The Course is Set on Hope (Verso, 2001) skillfully explored Serge’s entanglements in the dense and brutal thicket of Stalinist intrigues in France in the 1930s, but was thin on his early years and his Mexican exile, both of which have attracted increasing attention.

    Mitchell Abidor’s new biography, Unruly Revolutionary (Pluto Press) excited fresh hopes of something more comprehensive. It was begun as a joint project with Greeman, who provided Abidor with his research notes to see the project through to the finish. It also benefits greatly from the author’s significant contributions to Serge scholarship: co-editor with Greeman on Notebooks 1936-1947 (NYRB, 2019) and translator of early Serge writings: Anarchists Never Surrender: Essays, Polemics and Correspondence on Anarchism: 1908-1938 (PM Press, 2015).

    Unruly Revolutionary elaborates upon (and vigorously challenges) long-accepted accounts of key relationships and episodes in Serge’s life. Yet I found it to be surprisingly unsatisfactory. Abidor’s ambivalence about Serge and his intellectual trajectory is woven deep into the book’s narrative. And while the author does sweat the details, vital context often is omitted, elided, or ignored as his arguments march forward.

    These two qualities converge quickly at the beginning, where Abidor offers a meaty account of Serge’s strident anarchism in his formative years as a political journalist—as well as his departure from the ranks. A thread of Serge as a turncoat or betrayer eventually broadens into the spine of the biography as Abidor tackles Serge’s time in Spain, his successes in the Soviet Union, and the self-wound that Bolshevist governance inflicted upon itself at Kronstadt. By the book’s end, the biographer’s discontent with Serge’s path has veered into near certitude about his inevitable apostasy had he lived past that fatal taxicab ride.

    An even deeper problem with Unruly Revolutionary is Abidor’s blunt refusal to bring Serge’s fiction and poetry meaningfully into his biography. It is a bold and faulty gambit that falls predictably flat.

    The biographer’s rationale for doing so is relegated to small type in an introduction to an appendix. While Serge “considered himself above all to be a writer” with works of “artistic importance,” Abidor chooses instead merely to mine his novels “as sources of biographical information.”

    Serge’s vivid poetry (which tells us so much about his life) remains entirely untouched, save for a squib in the appendix. This is a shame bordering on malpractice, since James Brook’s translation of the poems, A Blaze in the Desert (PM Press, 2017) is utterly sublime.

    Tackling the life of one of the 20th Century’s greatest writers in such an intentionally circumscribed fashion is baffling. How did making this art shape Victor Serge’s life? Worse still is that Abidor explores only one of Serge’s major works of fiction – an early novel, Conquered City (NYRB, 2011; translation by Greeman) – in any significant biographical depth whatsoever.

    Manufacturing artificial silos for Serge’s life and art is perhaps why Abidor sounds such an epiphanic klaxon to trumpet the author’s fervent embrace of the philosophy of Personalism—and his correspondence with one of its prominent and controversial French proponents. We know already that Serge’s Personalism was articulated publicly many years before World War II in an open letter published in France in 1933. (The author told us.)

    Yet past biography, anyone who reads Serge’s later works closely not only feels – but knows – that Personalism’s centering of human liberty and dignity is there from the 1930s onward. The key question in each of these books is clear: How do human beings of conviction and conscience navigate the charnel house of totalitarianism, war, and exile?

    For a writer of Serge’s stature, it seems impossible to explore his life in this fashion.

    Unruly Revolutionary is most compelling when it fills in large existing gaps in Serge’s story with Abidor’s accomplished research. Anarchists Never Surrender is essential reading for anyone seeking to know the early Serge. It also sharply interrogates the Memoirs’ version of his proximity and entanglement in the “violence as praxis” activities of the anarchist Bonnot Gang’s crime spree in 1911 and 1913.

    The new account of Serge’s exile in Mexico in Abidor’s biography also possesses a ringing depth and clarity. After all, the Notebooks pose a similar problem to Memoirs. Their dazzlingly rich documentation of Serge’s intellectual life and activities (philosophical reflections, pen portraits, short essays, and reports on works-in-progress) is conveyed entirely from Serge’s point of view. And the Notebooks leave readers with a tantalizing question: why did this extraordinary effluence peter out so spectacularly after July 1945—more than two years before Serge’s death.

    Unruly Revolutionary finds powerful answers in the deepening crises which Serge faced in exile: failing health, the attempted suicide of his third wife, Laurette Sejourné, the growing divide in a close relationship he had enjoyed with his son, Vlady, as well as the increasing penury he suffered as outlets for his freelance articles shrank precipitously.

    Abidor also lays out new details about an even more destructive incident in Serge’s final years: a ferocious battle with exile novelist Jean Malaquais in October 1945 that rocked the anti-Stalinist left in Mexico City. The ripples from the catastrophe eventually left Serge deeply isolated in his already-unhappy exile. His tight band of former allies literally cut ties with him.

    Serge played a large part in engineering his fate through his own powerful intransigence and impolitic unwillingness to let things go. Yet he was also strangely oblivious to the fact that in the tiny but ferocious tempests of any exile community, it hardly matters if one is “right.”

    Serge was good at being right. His sharp pen rips at Malaquais’ callowness and lack of intellectual rigor in the Notebooks even before the bust-up. (Exhibit A in “Victor Serge, First Rate Literary Critic.”) Yet in this case, being right was wrong. There is a palpable sense of devastation as the reader watches Serge obstinately pursue new inquests and refuse arbitration. A giant is laid low by others—and by himself.

    These particular strengths of Unruly Revolutionary do inevitably sharpen the disappointment of discovering where the biography falls short.

    Consider Memoirs of a Revolutionary again. Abidor identifies the core of his enterprise as sorting out the facts of Serge’s life from the embellishments, omissions, or even falsehoods (not so many of those, however) in Memoirs. No argument with that at all. His revelations about Serge’s family history and his depiction of the Bonnot Gang alone are necessary corrections to the overall picture.

    Yet Memoirs is also one of the great autobiographies of the 20th Century. As such, its value lies in much more than its retelling of Serge’s life. It is a mesmerizing masterpiece that captures the essence of a fascinating (and epochal) world. A work of memory and meditation. Not a curriculum vitae.

    Serge’s succinct and vivid pen portraits of figures both monumental and minor in Memoirs have been much remarked upon. Yet his depiction of the agonies of humans as political systems and societies engulfed in terror come apart at the seams is just as masterful. In one passage from the Memoirs, he relates the atmosphere within the doomed resistance to Stalin in the late 1920s:

    Our social tea-gatherings were divided into two parts. From eight to ten at night conversation was conventional and directly inspired by the newspaper editorials: official admiration, official enthusiasm, etc. Between ten and midnight, after a few glasses of vodka had been drunk, a kind of hysteria surfaced, and conversations—now diametrically at odds—were sometimes punctuated by fits of anger or weeping. Face-to-face, no more official speak, but instead an alert critical intelligence, a tragic sorrow, a Soviet patriotism coming from souls being flayed alive.

    As we have seen in the Malaquais episode, Serge possessed character flaws. This is precisely why leveling the silos between life and art is so essential. Serge’s writing is brilliant and principled and humane, but painting him as a secular saint is neither useful nor true.

    The chapter that Abidor devotes to the tragic life of Serge’s second wife, Liuba Russakova, is long overdue. It also cannot help but darken our picture of his character. His portrait of the author’s third wife, Laurette Sejourné, offers a muddier picture streaked with an unseemly glee in the telling.

    Readers are offered a gratuitously prurient look inside Serge and Sejourné’s fraught and fumbling courtship. Abidor even presents an insinuation from Serge’s son that Sejourné may have had something to do with the author’s death. The irony, of course, is that the world would not have Serge’s Notebooks if she had not saved them. Life and art all tangled up again. Sejourné was no saint. But the evidence actually on offer at present suggests a wildly mismatched April/November couple simmering in deep unhappiness.

    Yet it is Abidor’s projection of Serge’s future anti-communist apostasy that is perhaps the most problematic part of the biography. My impression of this was confirmed as I read “ Victor Serge, Turncoat Radical?” —an interview that Abidor gave to Protean Magazine in December 2025. (NB: the title punctuation proves unnecessary.)

    The biographer pushes more deeply into the hunt to find malignancy in Serge’s anti-communism here than he does in the book itself. “I can’t say for sure where he was going,” quips Abidor at one point, “but I’ll say for sure that he was not headed in a good direction.”

    A number of other scholars have weighed significant elements of the evidence offered by Abidor here. They have come to different conclusions. The biographer would no doubt reply that he has added greatly to the evidentiary record, which makes his enthusiasm for an essay by Alan Wald ( “Victor Serge and the anti-Stalinist Left in New York”), which was published in Critique in 2009 so puzzling. In the Protean interview, Abidor states:

    [Serge] wanted to be a New York Intellectual. At the end of his life, if he could have been anything in the world, he would have been a New York Jewish intellectual. He missed his calling. He married a Jew, it didn’t turn him into one. So many of his ideas are the same kind of disabused Trotskyism and anti-communism. Alan Wald’s article about Serge and the New York intellectuals is absolutely spot-on.

    Read Wald’s essay, however, and one finds significantly less certainty. Wald certainly does tote up a series of troublesome events and connections in Serge’s later years, laying them out in a litany at the end of his piece. But he also offers this blunt caution:

    The political evolution of Victor Serge in the 1940s is not testimony to his personal weakness, but to the weight of adverse pressures during the Cold War – pressures intensified by the continuing horrors of Stalinism and the inability of Trotskyism to offer a credible alternative. Anyone who lightly dismisses the change of views of former revolutionaries such as Serge as “sellouts,” naively misjudges the seriousness of the problems confronted by his generation.

    The connection between biography and lived experience seems crucial—especially for a writer such as Serge. So to offer a scrutiny close enough to poke holes in narrative points in Serge’s Memoirs, and yet underplay the book’s sweeping account of Stalin’s devastating purges is to ignore the forest as one gnaws the bark off a tree. Serge witnessed the imprisonment and death of hundreds of friends and colleagues. He experienced the Terror first hand.

    It seems so obvious—and yet so imperative—to say it again: we cannot know what Victor Serge would have done in 1948 or 1952. Let’s say he had been allowed to emigrate to the United States, and that he had tumbled into McCarthyism or its vicinity. If this had actually happened, we simply would not be reading Serge today. We would be pestered only with the occasional monograph about his doomed path to the dark side, or an exploration of his early works that seeks out the unhappy crossroads of his betrayal of ideals and apostasy.

    I would argue that the Victor Serge who wrote this passage in an essay about the poets of the French Resistance who turned a blind eye before the war as Russian writers were murdered likely would have rejected the snares of Tail Gunner Joe and Roy Cohn:

    “What is truth?” asked Pontius Pilate of the condemned man. Thousands of men formed by the intellectual disciplines of scientific thought—it seems—reply in fact: “It is the command of the Leader of my party.” This is the death of intelligence, the death of ethics.

    Reading Unruly Revolutionary was a vexing enterprise. Its significant advances are embedded in a framework of hectoring disapproval. It is a narrative of betrayal and failure. Not a story of change, adaptation, and survival.

    One can choose to see things in that former sense. But it hardly aligns with the greatness of Serge’s writing. Or lived experience, for that matter. Humans move through space in time. They err. They learn. They abandon things no longer useful. They cut their cloth when things get tricky. They can be brave and foolish simultaneously. Flawed and principled.

    I revisit Serge’s Notebooks often. As a dramatist who traffics deeply in questions of history, I return to one devastating passage again and again, detailing his difficulty in finishing his novel about the fall of France— Last Times (NYRB, 2022)—amidst failing health in Mexico City:

    It’s not just the physical breathlessness and the lack of a favorable environment. It’s more that for me a novel must have an inner justification, internal to its characters and its atmosphere, and that in reality all the people I have attempted to bring to life seem to me condemned men walking through a fog. They need a solution. I need a solution for them—and there isn’t one. History can only impose its solutions by walking over their dead bodies.

    When I reflect upon Serge’s sickness and penury in Mexico, the familial fractures, the bitter squabbles, and, at the end, his profound isolation and sadness, I remain astonished that he pulled a book as brilliant as Memoirs of a Revolutionary from inside himself in that moment. (And did so with so many of his papers lost in the Soviet Union and France!)

    Then I remember that in this state of profound disenchantment and peril, Serge also wrote The Case of Comrade Tulayev (NYRB, 2004), Last Days, and Unforgiving Years (NYRB, 2008): three major novels of sustained formal innovation and fluency, suffused with penetrating insights into the politics and culture of an embattled moment.

    This is beyond heroic. A flawed man doing something staggeringly brilliant and brave.

    Anyone interested in Victor Serge will want to read Unruly Revolutionary. Our thirst for more information about his life is that sharp. But one must observe also that there are many grains of salt around the rim of this biography. And those grains are what hit the tongue first.

    This review originally appeared at the Zona Motel website and is reproduced here by permission of the author and the editors.

  • Friedman Replies to Sernatinger

    Friedman Replies to Sernatinger

    The following is a response by Samuel R. Friedman, to Andrew Sernatinger’s review of Friedman’s Teamster Rank and File.

    To the best of my recollection, I have never before written to respond to a review of one of my books. Although Andrew Sernatinger’s review of my book Teamster Rank and File in New Politics 81 (Summer 2026) is generally extremely favorable, its response to my Introduction to the New Edition not only ignores (and misinterprets) what I say about TDU now but includes claims about what I did that are factually incorrect—as any careful reviewer should have understood. Of course, as an author who wrote a book that a reader misunderstood, I apologize to readers of the book and of Sernatinger’s review, and to Andrew himself, for any confusion I have caused.

    First to the clear error in what he wrote: After discussing my inclusion of words by Ken Paff, Sernatinger says that,

    “He does not engage even one other Teamster regarding TDU or O’Brien; not Tim Sylvester, Tom Leedham, or Bill Zimmerman, longtime stalwarts of TDU who were cast out when they voiced their consciences about the disaster of the O’Brien alliance; not Dan La Botz or Mel Packer, or any of the older International Socialists (IS) cadres who founded TDU and are still alive today; not Richard Hooker Jr. or John Palmer who were leading the FEARLESS slate; not Joe Allen who has written extensively on the Teamsters.”

    In doing this, he ignores the fact that the “blurbs” that introduce the book include blurbs written by both Dan La Botz and Joe Allen.  He also ignores the acknowledgements to the new introduction that reads:

    Many people have helped me prepare the Introduction for the second edition of Teamster Rank and File (TRAF). These include Joe Allen, who also originally suggested that a second edition would be timely and useful; Dan La Botz, who has shared his experiences and writings with me and offered valuable suggestions about earlier drafts; Ken Paff, who offered insights and information based on his experience with TDU since its founding; and Brian McDougall, Kevin Anderson, David Camfeld, Howie Hawkins, Tim G, Ian W. Tulloch, and Jerzy Eisenberg-Guyot, who all offered critically important insights and suggestions as they reviewed drafts.

    I have bolded the names of people who have been Teamsters. I did not describe their involvement in great depth, but I got input from all of them, and Dan La Botz, in particular, interacted with me throughout the writing of this Introduction.  Many of the people listed read near-final drafts and made suggestions. (I might also mention that, although this was not alluded to in the book, I attended several events that Teamsters Mobilize put on and interacted with members of this organization.)

    As to the content of what I said about TDU now, Sernatinger and I actually agree on the state of this once-impressive organization.  In spite of his claim that my text fails “to analyze the current role of TDU” and that it gives the “the first, last, and only word on TDU and the Teamsters to Ken Paff,” I carefully analyze the devolution of TDU since the Carey presidency of the IBT, including an analysis of the disaster of TDU’s support for Sean O’Brien.[1]  My discussion of TDU’s role in the non-strike at UPS in 2023 is totally at odds with what Sernatinger claims:

    Even though I had observed the ways in which TDU had become an electorally oriented reform movement over the years, and had in many ways become an ally of union officers and staff who were discontented with the Hoffa leadership and its extreme willingness to accommodate company interests, TDU’s actions in siding with O’Brien and opposing the “vote no” campaign surprised me. In some ways, I see it as parallel to what happened in 1914 when the Social Democratic Parties of the major European countries voted to support “their” countries during the First World War in that it showed the way in which the dialectical process of negation could flip workers’ organizations from one side of the class struggle to the other without it having been visible before a crisis occurred.

    I would think that a claim that TDU had flipped to the other side of the class struggle shows that I have analyzed the current role of TDU (even if I may have gone too far in my rhetoric.) I might add that I describe a number of other ways in which TDU has acted undemocratically and has exerted effort to keep socialist politics out of its annual conferences. My list does not include some of those Sernatinger mentions since they happened after I had sent the final copy of the text to the publisher.

    Sernatinger takes umbrage at my including quotations from my interactions with Ken Paff.  I think he fails to understand what I did in doing so.  As a preface, I want say that I followed the example of many great socialists, including Marx, Luxemburg, Lenin and many others, in presenting the views of highly-articulate holders of perspectives with which they disagreed before critiquing them. Somehow, Sernatinger’s fails to recognize that this is what I did with Paff.  I let him describe and defend both TDU’s other actions and why it supported O’Brien.  I then critiqued these views in ways that are far from giving him the last word. Here is what I said:

    As I see it, and Paff might disagree, these are the responses of an honest and democratic business unionist—the kind of response that Alex Maheras (then the Secretary-Treasurer of Local 208) might have given me in 1974 after he took over leadership after the Trusteeship. It is not a socialist response in any way, nor even the response that a militant steward in Local 208 might have given in the preceding Blackmarr regime of the 1960s when wildcats were part of the workers’ toolkit. It is also not what is needed today, as I discuss in the following section of this Introduction

    I want to emphasize what this means: Paff responded to my questions as an honest business unionist.  This is a tragic fate for someone who was a proponent of socialism-from-below when he helped form TDU decades ago.  A large part of my discussion of TDU focused on analyzing why a rank and file organization founded at the initiative of socialists of our tendency could have led to a business union-focused organization that would support someone like O’Brien and do its best to keep any hint of socialist politics out of its annual conferences.  Unfortunately, Sernatinger missed this, and interpreted it by saying that “Friedman ultimately characterizes TDU as a longtime success. He leans on nostalgia for the IS as he dismisses the many controversies as merely unfortunate.” What is unfortunate is that he dismisses such analysis of how a socialist-inspired project devolved into anti-democratic business unionism as nostalgia and as characterizing TDU as a long-term success.

    Notes

    [1] I might add that I cite works by Joe Allen and Dan La Botz several places in this Introduction, based in part on my conversations with them about how to provide support for my descriptions and analysis.

  • Can CIO Best Practices Aid New Union Organizing Now?

    Can CIO Best Practices Aid New Union Organizing Now?

    Unions, Race, and Popular Democracy: Building a Progressive Labor Movement, by Kim Scipes (Ithaca: ILR Press, 2026)
    Industrial union building in the 1930s has long been the lodestar for the post-New Deal labor left. If organized labor in the U.S. could go from historic membership lows in the 1920s to an early 1950s peak union density of nearly one-third of all private sector workers, maybe that great leap forward could be repeated again, sometime in the future?
    Other than the public sector worker upsurge of the late 1960s and 1970s—which has propped up (with less success over time) overall unionization rates ever since—there has been little sign yet of the second coming of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), in some 21st century form.
    Unless a union like my own, the Communications Workers of America (CWA), or the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), or the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) was able to neutralize management opposition, using bargaining leverage with a partially unionized employer, there have been few recent private sector organizing breakthroughs on a large scale, certainly not industry-wide ones.
    Starbucks workers have won hundreds of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) elections in small retail store units but, so far, have been thwarted in their effort to reach an acceptable national agreement covering thousands of workers. At Amazon, representation votes have been far harder to win; when bargaining rights have been won, union supporters face even longer first contract delays.
    In their own struggle for collective bargaining, workers in basic industry in the 1930s also had to overcome past defeats and find new ways of organizing themselves to change the balance of power between themselves and giant corporations. In his new book, Unions, Race, and Popular Democracy, sociology professor Kim Scipes examines parallel efforts to build two CIO unions in the Midwest—via the Steel Workers Organizing Committee (SWOC) and the Packinghouse Workers Organizing Committee. (PWOC).
    The author is a long-time labor educator and faculty union member, as well as an academic researcher with many prior publications. He has devoted much of his career to mixing theory and practice and is adept at popularizing his findings and ideas to reach a non-academic audience.
    In his detailed case studies, Scipes recounts the key role that rank-and-file activists played in the creation of what became the United Steel Workers of America (USWA) and United Packinghouse Workers of America (UPWA), respectively.
    The book is full of valuable lessons for those hoping to have 21st century success in “developing an inclusive, rank-and-file based unionism guided by democratic decision making,” rather than having full-time officials, far removed from the shop floor, exercise too much bureaucratic control.
    Just like Depression-era radicals in the SWOC and PWOC, activists in present-day networks like the Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee, co-sponsored by Democratic Socialists of America, have to navigate a labor landscape still overly dominated by the latter-type of labor organization.
    Scipes’ book includes a compelling indictment of the US labor movement’s historic failures to resist racism and, in the case of some unions, their disgraceful record of discriminating against black workers and even white women as members.
    He also provides much evidence that denying workers of color an equal voice in union affairs—where and when that was the case—ended up being self-defeating, because it reinforced the divide-and-conquer strategies of management and hampered efforts to raise working class living standards for all. The result was a steady “weakening of labor’s power” and “white workers getting less themselves than they would have gotten had blacks and other peoples of color been included as equals…”
    Among the book’s many strengths is the author’s understanding that rank-and-file militants can also be “marginalized” and deprived of “appropriate attention” in labor history because both academic researchers and authors of labor leader biographies have, in the past, focused too much on the role of top officials.
    The author highlights the UPWA’s exemplary record of developing black leadership in half of its founding locals “in racist, segregated Chicago,” which will be very instructive for seekers of greater racial and gender diversity among elected local officers today.
    Scipes’ discussion of the UPWA’s approach to membership education and political action, building alliances with non-labor groups, and fighting racial injustice on the job and in the community has great contemporary relevance and resonance. Modern day organizers face similar challenges to building unity between “white ethnics,” African Americans, and recent immigrants from Latin America, the Middle East, and Haiti.
    Unions, Race, and Popular Democracy very much follows in the footsteps of Toni Gilpin’s The Long Deep Grudge, a history of the militant, racially integrated, and internally democratic Farm Equipment Workers, a left-led union similar to the Packinghouse Workers in its heyday.
    The evolution of PWOC into a far more democratic and progressive union than the USWA—deeply committed to developing and elevating African American leadership long ago—will be of particular interest to union reformers now seeking to transform the United Food and Commercial Workers.
    That AFL-CIO affiliate, with 1.3 million members, is the conservative amalgamated union that UPWA eventually ended up in, via a series of mergers that much diluted its original organizational heritage and culture.
    As Scipes suggests, if more unions today were like the original Packinghouse Workers, they might not have had such a hard time rallying their own members against the clear and present danger of right-wing, anti-union Republican control of Congress and the White House.
    During three presidential election cycles, Donald Trump’s Electoral College win in 2016 and popular vote victory two years ago exposed how the decline in union social and political influence and membership density in the rust belt has left too many working-class people overly receptive to MAGA appeals, based on “white supremacy” and immigrant bashing.
    The “social justice unionism” that Scipes advocates as a better way forward, now as in the 1930s, definitely proved to be a buffer against fascism during the Great Depression. Readers of Unions, Race, and Popular Democracy will find it to be an important contribution to current discussions about how to create more militant, progressive unions through internal restructuring, democratization, and reform—or starting all over again with independent labor organizations outside the AFL-CIO.
  • The DSA, Fidel Castro, and Cuba

    The DSA, Fidel Castro, and Cuba

    The young Fidel Castro, 1959.

    A few days ago, the Democratic Socialists of America, of which I am a member, posted a statement, the opening paragraph of which reads:

    “Today is the centenary of Fidel Castro, and the Democratic Socialists of America recognize the historic significance of both this day and the man. Fidel was an organizer, a fighter, and endures as a stalwart symbol of anti-imperialist struggle and self-determination for the Global South. DSA has a long history of solidarity with the Cuban people, their revolution, and their self-determination. We choose this historic day to recommit ourselves to acting in solidarity with the Cuban people and to starkly opposing Marco Rubio’s genocidal war against the Cuban people and US imperialism writ large.”

    We concur with the last sentence which calls for opposition to Marco Rubio’s “war against the Cuban people and U.S. imperialism writ large,” (though it is not a “genocidal war).” And we agree with the statement’s list of demands such as ending the blockade, stopping all forms of military threats, and normalizing relations between the U.S. and Cuba. Of course, we must stand against U.S. imperialism.

    But somehow the statement neglects to mention that Castro established a Communist one-party state, of which he himself was the dictator for almost sixty years.

    One has to wonder how an organization that calls itself Democratic Socialists of America tailed to notice the lack of democracy in Communist Cuba. As if the authors of the statement don’t actually care about democracy. How can DSA oppose Trump’s attempt to create a monarchy here—many DSA members marching in the “No Kings” protests—while praising Castro’s monarchy in Cuba?

    In 1959, as a fourteen-year-old boy, as I explained in an earlier essay, I supported the Cuban Revolution, but later became disenchanted with the revolution when Castro who was quite rightly striving to take Cuba out of the U.S. empire then took it into the Soviet empire. Since the revolution, no political elections with opposition parties were permitted. Within a decade Cuba had assimilated to the political and economic structures of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Workers could not organize independent labor unions, and since 1960 the unions were controlled by Castro, and labor unions could not strike. The one-party state also controlled women’s organizations and youth groups. No independent organization of any sort was permitted.

    Social protests were forbidden and when they happened, they were repressed. DSA claims to support the Cuban people, but when in July 2021 there were national demonstrations involving thousands of Cubans who took to the streets to protest economic conditions and demand freedom, with hundreds then arrested and imprisoned, where was DSA? Why didn’t it stand with the people then? As I wrote at the time, socialists, even while opposing U.S. imperialism, should have been standing with the Cuban protestors. DSA didn’t. DSA supported the Cuban Communist government, not the Cuban people.

    I wish I could say that this most recent DSA statement comes as a surprise or that it is an aberration, but I can’t. DSA also supported the authoritarian government of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela. When DSA visited Venezuela, its members fawned over Maduro and met with government officials, but not with independent labor unionists or socialists in the opposition. And some members of the DSA International Committee also pledge to “support the People’s Republic of China and to promote understanding of Chinese socialism.” China, of course, like Cuba is a one-party state without political democracy or labor rights.

    While DSA issues statements on Venezuela and Cuba about the right of nations to self-determination and national sovereignty, sometimes joins demonstrations in support of those governments, and sends delegations to visit, DSA is not so enthusiastic about Ukraine’s struggle against Russian imperialism. Ukraine has issued two statements on Ukraine, both rather ambiguous. On the one hand, DSA formally condemns the Russian invasion, but implicitly blamed NATO for causing the war. DSA emphasized peace and condemned war rather than expressing solidarity with Ukraine in its fight against Russia. Nor did DSA mention the principle that people fighting for their self-determination have a right to get arms wherever they can get them.

    The DSA, and especially its International Committee, have no understanding of democracy or internationalism, and so it finds itself explicitly or implicitly supporting a series of dictators, from Castro to Maduro to Putin. And the DSA National Committee permits this, while the DSA membership seems to ignores most international questions.

    But let’s return to the subject of Cuba. The United States appears to be poised to take control of Cuba just as it did Venezuela in January of this year. There is speculation that Trump and Rubio might attempt to use Raúl G. Rodríguez Castro, a colonel in the interior ministry, the grandson of Fidel’s brother Raúl, as their tool to administer the island on their behalf. But it is possible, that the Cuban people might take advantage of the breakdown in control by either the Cuban or the U.S. government to launch a rebellion from below, to assert both Cuba’s independence and their own desire for freedom. Samuel Farber has written from a democratic socialist point of view an important article on how we on the left might respond. Future events taking place in Cuba offer the DSA an opportunity to break with its support for the Cuban Communist States and to actually support the Cuban people in a fight for democracy and perhaps even for democratic socialism.

  • Marieme Hélie-Lucas (1939-2026): Transnational Feminist Solidarity, Secularism, and Resistance to Fundamentalism

    Marieme Hélie-Lucas (1939-2026): Transnational Feminist Solidarity, Secularism, and Resistance to Fundamentalism

    Marieme Hélie-Lucas as a young woman.

    We learned of Marieme Hélie-Lucas’s death on August 9, 2026. Her passing marks the loss of an extraordinary feminist intellectual, organizer, and political activist whose influence extended across continents and generations. For those of us committed to gender equality, secularism, and human rights, her legacy will continue to challenge, inspire, and guide us.

    Marieme Hélie-Lucas, born in Algiers in 1939, was an Algerian sociologist, political theorist, feminist activist, and author. She was the founder and former International Coordinator of Women Living Under Muslim Laws (WLUML), an international solidarity network, and later founded Secularism Is A Women’s Issue (SIAWI), an international network dedicated to defending and reclaiming secular spaces for women and girls from all forms of religious fundamentalism.

    I first came to know the name Marieme Hélie-Lucas through Women Living Under Muslim Laws established in 1984 and later more through Women in Black. I subsequently read much of her writing and came to feel a profound intellectual affinity with her analysis of religious fundamentalism, secularism, women’s rights, and transnational feminist solidarity. Her insistence on distinguishing religion as a matter of personal belief from political movements that mobilize religion for political power particularly resonated with me.

    For those of us working on gender equality and human rights in Iran, this distinction is not merely theoretical. Religious fundamentalism is a political project that uses religion to establish, maintain, or legitimize power. Whether expressed through a state or through non-state actors, political Islam can become profoundly repressive when it seeks to regulate individual lives, restrict freedom of conscience and expression, and deny women and minorities equal rights. Respect for universal human rights is, in my view, foundational to any effort to make our deeply troubled world more just and humane.

    Marieme was one of the most formidable political and intellectual forces confronting religious fundamentalism. Her work anticipated many of the debates that have since become central to contemporary feminist politics. For those of us who have witnessed the consequences of the Islamic Republic of Iran over nearly five decades, her analysis carries particular significance. She understood that opposing imperialism, colonialism, racism, and Western domination could never require us to remain silent about fundamentalism or the systematic violation of women’s rights.

    Her feminism was uncompromising in its defense of women’s autonomy, freedom of conscience, and universal human rights. She challenged the tendency to treat women living under religious fundamentalism as passive victims or to romanticize the political forces that sought to control them. Instead, she centered women’s agency and insisted on the right of women everywhere to define their own lives, freedoms, and political futures.

    Marieme’s intellectual courage was matched by her commitment to feminist organizing and transnational solidarity. She helped create spaces in which women from different countries and political contexts could recognize common patterns of oppression while preserving the complexity of their own experiences. Her work reminds us that genuine solidarity does not demand silence about difficult questions; rather, it requires the courage to confront all forms of domination, including those carried out in the name of religion, culture, nationalism, or political ideology.

    Her passing is therefore not only a moment of mourning but also an occasion to reaffirm the principles to which she devoted her life. Marieme Hélie-Lucas leaves behind an extraordinary body of work and a feminist legacy that will continue to shape struggles for secularism, equality, freedom, and justice. We honor her by carrying forward the questions she raised, the boundaries she challenged, and the unwavering commitment to women’s freedom that defined her life.

    Marieme’s worldview was deeply shaped by the Algerian struggle against French colonialism and the war of independence. She experienced both the enormous hope generated by national liberation and the painful reality that women’s liberation can be subordinated, postponed, or sacrificed even within broader struggles for national liberation and political freedom.

    She worked as a senior civil servant during the first three years following Algerian independence before leaving to teach at Algiers University, where she taught for twelve years. Her intellectual formation in sociology, social history, and political economy became central to the way she understood political movements and social transformations.

    She later witnessed the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and its implications for women, minorities, dissenters, and civilians. Rather than treating these developments as simply religious phenomena, she understood fundamentalism as a political force and insisted that the Left develop an adequate political analysis of its rise.

    In a 2015 interview with the socialist journal Solidarity, she explained:

    “Solidarity: For many years, large parts of the global left have regarded political Islam as essentially progressive against the dominant (US) imperialism; what do you think about this analysis? What are its roots?

    We can incriminate several factors. The left’s traditional focus on the state impeded its ability to decode in time the warning signs of supposedly religious non-state forces rising as powerful extreme-right political actors. Human rights organisations sorry, comrades, for this unholy comparison but I must make it also have trouble delinking from an exclusive focus on the state and considering these new players for what they really are. I situate this difficulty at the same level as that of re-identifying and re-defining classes today. One badly feels the need for innovative, intellectually fearless, communist thinkers and theorists to account for the many changes in the world in the last century.”

    This analysis was central to Marieme’s political contribution. She challenged the tendency of parts of the Left to regard political Islam as inherently progressive or minimize the atrocities of it because of its opposition to Western imperialism. For her, there could be no progressive politics that required women to surrender their rights or minorities and dissenters to surrender their freedom.

    Marieme also understood that feminist movements were often among the earliest and most consistent forces to recognize the danger posed by religious fundamentalism. As she explained in her interview with Solidarity in French.

    “Solidarity: What are the key progressive resistance movements (working-class, feminist, secular-democratic, etc.) to the religious far-right?

    In my experience, the women’s movement has been the most steadily opposed to religious fundamentalists everywhere, for the simple reason that women are their first victims. To start with, under the political influence of the religious far-right, governments are far too happy to negotiate social peace at the cost of women’s rights. Hence, one of the first steps that is generally taken to appease the Muslim far-right is to change the laws on personal status (or family codes) and make them more “Islamic”, i.e. laws which affect primarily women by regulating marriage, divorce, polygamy, repudiation, alimony, custody of children, inheritance, etc.”

    This observation remains remarkably relevant. Marieme understood that the regulation of women’s bodies, sexuality, marriage, family relationships, inheritance, and mobility is often among the first arenas in which fundamentalist “ political projects” as she referred to them seek to establish power.

    Her politics therefore rejected the notion that women’s rights could be deferred until after other political struggles had been resolved. Liberation could not be hierarchical. Opposition to imperialism could not come at the expense of women’s equality; opposition to racism could not require accommodation with religious fundamentalism.

    She expressed this position clearly at the conclusion of the interview with Solidarity:

    “The either/or situation between allying with US imperialism or allying with the Muslim far-right is intolerable. It is for the left to reclaim the lost terrain at international level, and, may I say, some credibility amongst the rank and file in Muslim-majority countries.”

    For Marieme, solidarity was never merely a principle expressed in words, theory, or slogans. She lived solidarity through action. She built networks, brought women together across borders, amplified voices that were often marginalized, and stood alongside women confronting religious fundamentalism and other forms of oppression. Her feminism was not simply something she wrote about; it was something she practiced.

    In 1984, Marieme founded Women Living Under Muslim Laws (WLUML) and served as its International Coordinator for eighteen years, building an international solidarity network connecting women across diverse political, cultural, and religious contexts. In 2004, she founded Secularism Is A Women’s Issue (SIAWI) and continued her international organizing around secularism, women’s rights, and resistance to religious fundamentalism.

    Through these organizations and through her own political engagement, Marieme demonstrated that feminist solidarity requires more than shared language or declarations of support. It requires presence, courage, organizing, and action. She did not simply speak about solidarity she built it, practiced it, and made it a living political commitment.

    Marieme repeatedly insisted that women could not be sacrificed in the name of culture, religion, community, nationalism, or anti-imperialism. Her work challenged the false choices that continue to shape political debates: feminism versus anti-racism, secularism versus cultural diversity, opposition to imperialism versus opposition to fundamentalism.

    Her intellectual legacy is particularly important at a time when religious fundamentalist movements continue to expand their political influence in different parts of the world, while women’s rights are frequently negotiated away in the name of social stability, cultural authenticity, religious identity, or political expediency.

    For Iranian feminists and human rights activists, Marieme’s work has a particular resonance. The experience of the Islamic Republic demonstrates with devastating clarity how a political project that claims religious legitimacy can institutionalize gender inequality and restrict virtually every dimension of women’s autonomy. Marieme understood these dynamics decades ago and insisted that the international Left and human rights movements confront them rather than explain them away.

    As Harsh Kapoor, wrote following her death:

    “I hadn’t lived with Marieme since 2015, but we remained close friends, comrades, and members of the same family. I am devastated, not knowing how to pick up the pieces. But our pact was never to say goodbye, and to preserve all those precious memories. “Lal Salaams” [red salutations] to you, “meri jaan,” who were so full of life… and loved Serge Rezvani and his beautiful song—Le Tourbillon de la vie (from Jules et Jim), performed by Jeanne Moreau.”

    Harsh Kapoor captured her historical significance: “She had already lived half her life when Imet her; she was a true living memory of the Algerian revolution”

    Marieme’s life reminds us that feminist solidarity is not simply a shared identity. It is a political practice grounded in intellectual courage, mutual responsibility, and the willingness to stand with women even when doing so challenges dominant political narratives.

    She thought internationally, documented resistance, connected struggles, and transformed solidarity into action. Despite her advancing age, she remained relentlessly engaged. As Harsh Kapoor recalled, she “bombarded us daily with a dozen or more emails reminding us of another struggle, another injustice, another person who needed solidarity.” Those who worked with her sometimes struggled to keep pace with her. That extraordinary energy was part of her legacy.

    Marieme Hélie-Lucas leaves behind not only institutions and networks but also an intellectual and political method: analyze power critically; refuse false binaries; defend universal rights; listen to women whose voices are marginalized; and transform solidarity into concrete action.

    Marieme’s life spanned the anti-colonial struggle in Algeria, the emergence of transnational feminist networks, the rise of religious fundamentalism, and decades of feminist resistance across continents. She remained committed to the conviction that women’s freedom cannot be postponed and that no political project, religious, nationalist, anti-imperialist, or otherwise, has the right to demand women’s subordination.

    Her death is a profound loss. But her arguments, her networks, her documentation, her mentorship, and the generations of feminists she inspired remain with us.

    Respectful salute, Marieme. You are with us through your writings, your recorded conversations, your organizing, and the countless women and movements whose lives you touched. May your intellectual courage and practice of transnational feminist solidarity continue to guide us.

    August 17, 2026

     

  • America: How We Got Here and Where We Are Now

    America: How We Got Here and Where We Are Now

    In this video Dan La Botz, an editor of New Politics, discusses two of his recent articles:

    These issues are also discussed in Dan’s article in the current New Politics (Summer 2026) titled: “A Referendum on Democracy? A Chance for a New Direction?”

    The interview was conducted by Traven Leyshon and Joseph Gainza for the “Bread and Roses Too” show on Vermont radio, wGDR. 91.1 FM

  • 81 Years in the Shadow of the Bomb

    81 Years in the Shadow of the Bomb

    Eighty-one years ago this week, on August 6 and August 9, United States dropped two atomic bombs  on Japan, the first on Hiroshima and the second on Nagasaki, killing an estimated 200,000 human beings and poisoning and sickening many others. The bombs were dropped unnecessarily since Japan had already been defeated; the islands could have been conquered with traditional strategies and weapons, but the bombs were dropped as a demonstration of U.S. power and a threat to the Soviet Union. Within four years, however, the Soviet Union also had the bomb and not long after so did other nations. Ever since we have lived with the threat of planetary annihilation.

    Now Trump has once again reminded us of the threat of a nuclear war. Last week former Soviet president Dmitry Medvedev and Donald Trump threatened each other and all of us with the use of nuclear weapons, Trump sending two nuclear summaries “to appropriate regions,” that is, closer to Russia. Eighty years later we still live with the threat of the destruction of all life on our planet.

    Six years ago, I wrote an essay titled “A Life in the Shadow of the Bomb,” which I republish here in an updated form, sure that my experience was shared by many others of my generation, and subsequently other generations. I publish it to encourage us to find a way to prevent nuclear war.

    A Life in the Shadow of the Bomb

    I am a child of the atomic age. The atomic bomb, that is, the threat of nuclear war and mass destruction, has been in my consciousness — sometimes in the background but frequently in the foreground — nearly all of my life.

    I was born on August 9, 1945 at the Lying Inn Hospital of the University of Chicago, the day that the second atomic bomb was dropped in Japan on the city of Nagasaki, killing tens of thousands of people. My birthplace, the U of C, was also the birthplace of the atomic bomb, which had been conceived there a couple of years before. Enrico Fermi and other scientists in the Manhattan Project carried out the first chain reaction on December 2, 1942 in a secret laboratory hidden in the university’s football stadium. Of course, when I let out my first shriek at the shock of birth and the awakening into life, I knew nothing of any of that.

    I first became conscious of the issue of nuclear war when I was eight years old. My parents had moved to Whittier, California, where my father was to manage a Co-op Grocery Store. The local public elementary school that I attended held “duck-and-cover” drills and we students had to get under our desks and put our hands over our heads. We were told this would protect us in the event of a nuclear attack. A duck-and-cover public service announcement of the era shows, among other scenarios, an elementary school class much like mine. I don’t remember ever discussing this with my teacher or my parents at the time, though I am sure that it is from that time that I began to experience the vague and chronic nuclear anxiety that so many of us of my generation felt and still feel.

    In 1957 Norman Mailer, after describing the post-war period in America, wrote about that vague anxiety in his famous essay “The White Negro”:

    It is on this bleak scene that a phenomenon has appeared: the American existentialist — the hipster, the man who knows that if our collective condition is to live with instant death by atomic war, relatively quick death by the State as l’univers concentrationnaire, or with a slow death by conformity with every creative and rebellious instinct stifled (at what damage to the mind and the heart and the liver and the nerves no research foundation for cancer will discover in a hurry), if the fate of twentieth century man is to live with death from adolescence to premature senescence, why then the only life-giving answer is to accept the terms of death, to live with death as immediate danger, to divorce oneself from society, to exist without roots, to set out on that uncharted journey into the rebellious imperatives of the self.

    Obviously, I was too young to understand those ideas, but those feeling of existential angst and rebellious attitudes would come to me later.

    Throughout my elementary and secondary school years, first in Chicago and later when I lived in San Diego County, television frequently carried news or programs about the U.S. Strategic Air Command (SAC), a special force of bombers carrying nuclear weapons. We were told that SAC would deter war, but that if it failed to deter, American bombs would obliterate the Soviet Union, as was explained in the film “The Power of Decision” and other U.S. Air Force publicity into the 1960s.

    The military also publicized the U.S. Army’s defensive Nike Missile system deployed in and around cities throughout the country. I remember seeing Nike Missile bases in Chicago along Lake Shore Drive when I returned to visit my father’s family in the early 1960s. The Nikes we were told would defend us from incoming Soviet H-bombs.

    There were also TV shows and films about civil defense and fallout shelters. Some of these suggested that every suburban family should have a well-provisioned underground fallout shelter where mom, dad, and the kids could ride out the storm until the radioactive dust settled. New York, which had a population of 7.7 million, had 18,000 such shelters in 1963 and the Department of Defense had plans for 34,000 more. Where I now live in Brooklyn I occasionally see the yellow and black fallout shelter signs of the 1950s posted on some apartment buildings. Cities all over the country had the shelters. When the TV and radio told us or the alarms went off, we were all to hightail it to the shelter and wait for the all clear that would surely come.

    A small percentage of shelters were fortified underground bunkers stocked with emergency supplies, but these were rare and primarily built for high-ranking government officials. The majority of shelters, including nearly all those that were visibly marked, were known as “community shelters,” and by all accounts, they offered little special protection.

    Many of the New York City shelters reportedly became overrun with rats as big as dogs.

    At the time of the Berlin crisis in 1961, President John F. Kennedy told the country in a nationwide televised speech on July 25, that, “in the event of an attack, the lives of those families which are not hit in a nuclear blast and fire can still be saved if they can be warned to take shelter and if that shelter is available.”

    The president went on say: “We owe that kind of insurance to our families and to our country. … The time to start is now. In the coming months, I hope to let every citizen know what steps he can take without delay to protect his family in case of attack. I know you would not want to do less.”

    Though I do not remember it, in all likelihood I saw Kennedy make that speech, since I watched the national news every evening as we all did then. I was fifteen years old. Did I believe it? I don’t know. Talk of nuclear war and civil defense had by then become normalized, so I suppose I did.

    At the time people discussed, analyzed, and even wrote poems about bomb shelters. One of the questions — the Noah’s Ark question — was whether or not one would have to defend one’s shelter gun-in-hand from neighbors who had had not had the foresight to prepare for the hard rain that was gonna fall.

    But by the time I was in high school, I was aware that all of the duck-n-cover and fallout shelter stuff was nonsense. In part that was because I had read the 1950 book Hiroshima Diary: The Journal of a Japanese Physician by Dr. Michihiko Hachiya, director of the Hiroshima Communications Hospital, who in his diary described the destruction and suffering caused by one A-bomb being dropped on his city.

    One H-bomb could take out the entire city of San Diego. Images of the A-bombs and H-bombs I’d seen in those films destroying actual Japanese cities or test sites with buildings built to be blown apart, were burned into my brain, sometimes actually worrying me, but more often just hovering in the background contributing to a lingering uneasiness.

    Giclee Print, , large

    The 1959 film “On the Beach” (based on Nevil Shute’s novel of the same name) imagined a Third World War in 1964 that because of a mistake or accident brought about global nuclear annihilation. The spectacular cast–Gregoary Peck, Ava Gardner, Anthony Perkins, and Fred Astaire–draws us into the human drama as hope gives way to despair and in the United State and around the world people take suicide pills. The film was as compelling as it was depressing.

    I was a junior in high school during the Cuban missile crisis in the fall of 1962 when it was learned that the Soviet Union had installed missile bases on Cuba that could carry nuclear warheads to the United States. Now, we learned, Soviet bombs were only 96 miles from the United States. President Kennedy demanded their removal. Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and President Kennedy who negotiated the crisis held the fate of the world in their hands. For a couple of weeks, every night on television there were discussions of the dangerous developments and images of nuclear bombs. John F. Kennedy spoke to us through the TV, telling us we were on the “abyss of destruction.” Many people thought we might all be incinerated. When it ended, we were advised that we had escaped the “most terrible threat of holocaust since World War II.” When, we wondered, would it happen again?

    When I was in college, I read Kurt Vonnegut’s book Cat’s Cradle, a darkly comic book about the bomb, about science, technology, and morality. In the book, the dangers of the A-bomb are paralleled by those of the fictional substance ice-nine which has the capacity to turn all water to ice. The book had a big impact on those of us living in the 1960s.

    During the period from my high school graduation in 1963 until I finished college in 1968, nuclear war was not at the forefront of my consciousness. We all had other things on our minds. The television, that had been bringing us images of the civil rights movement through the early 1960s now brought us the Black urban rebellions and the anti-Vietnam War movement. Coming from a socialist, pacifist family, I had registered as a conscientious objector upon my graduation from high school in 1963 and for the moment had a draft deferment as a college student. The possibility of being called up and sent to kill or die in Vietnam pushed the more abstract idea of nuclear war further back into the recesses of my mind.

    After graduating from San Diego State College in 1968, I went for one semester to the Library School at the University of Chicago, returning to the place of my birth, the place of the bomb’s birth. One day, walking through the campus I came upon Henry Moore’s magnificent sculpture “Nuclear Energy,” located more or less on the site where the bomb had been developed. It seemed to me to depict both the atomic bomb and the human brain that conceived it. It appeared to be a tribute to the wonder of human intelligence and to its folly, to our genius and to our stupidity. Moore declined to say exactly what it represented or the source of the imagery.

    Moore, who was British, was himself an opponent of the bomb.

    When the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) was launched in 1958, Moore was among its founder members. He had already sponsored its predecessor the National Campaign for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons Tests (NCANWT). He also supported disarmament groups local to his home in Perry Green such as the Hertford Group of Nuclear Disarmament, which he donated to in 1959.

    Such was Moore’s involvement in the CND that the critic John Berger proposed that his Falling Warrior, 1956–57 (LH 405) be used as their emblem, and a CND sponsored exhibition be held of the sculpture and its preparatory maquettes and working models. The exhibition was never held nor the emblem adopted, however, CND imagery would prove important to Moore.

    In any case, Moore’s sculpture moved me as it had moved others.

    The following year I returned to San Diego and attended the University of California at San Diego (UCSD) to study Literature with Fred Jameson, the literary critic, and occasionally sat in on classes of Herbert Marcuse, the Marxist philosopher. I find it interesting that I don’t remember any discussions of the issue of nuclear arms in those years at UCSD where (despite its implosion at the 1969 convention) SDS — Students for a Democratic Society — was still active on our campus protesting the Vietnam War and there was also a Third World Coalition of students of color protesting racism, while professors and graduate students discussed Marx, Freud, and Sartre day and night. There may have been some anti-nuclear discussions, but not that I remember. Perhaps because Richard Nixon became president and we had entered into a period of détente with the Soviet Union, the bomb became less of an issue. In any case, it was at that time that, after reading Sartre, that I came to think of myself as an existentialist; and perhaps it was living with the anxiety of the bomb, that brought me to that conclusion, as Mailer had suggested a dozen years before that it would.

    I left graduate school in 1971, and once again returned to Chicago as part of the International Socialists’ labor-organizing project, becoming a steel worker for a short while and for several years a truck driver, active in helping to organize Teamsters for a Democratic Union. We on the left — or at least in my part of the left — were well aware of the issue of nuclear warfare, but it seldom came up, since we were focusing on more immediate issues: civil rights, the Vietnam War, and workers’ struggles for a decent life. We on the far left at that time were all engaged in party building, but our various parties, which opposed the U.S. war in Vietnam, only occasionally took up the issue of the atomic bomb.

    Because I had grown up in a pacifist family, I was aware of the anti-nuclear weapons movement, of organizations like the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, better known as SANE, that had been founded in 1957. In a big city like Chicago where I lived throughout the 1970s and into the early 1980s, one occasionally saw anti-nuclear-weapons activists demonstrating. Some came from the Quakers and the Unitarian Church or from some liberal Jewish Temple, some from the War Resisters League, while others were gray-haired idiosyncratic socialists. Occasionally there were some students, but the Peaceniks, as they were known, tended to be mature people, older folks. Compared to the young people in the streets demanding civil rights or protesting the Vietnam War, the peace and anti-nuclear movement seemed somewhat quaint. Of course, some of these folkloric Peaceniks were heroic draft resisters who had gone to prison for their beliefs and others became founders of the anti-Vietnam War movement. Another group, Women’s Strike for Peace seemed to be made up mostly of older women in the 1960s, but by the 1970s it had been transformed by the new feminism so that it combined the exuberance of the emerging women’s movement with the sense of urgency to end nuclear weapons.

    In 1970 the nuclear powers negotiated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and they said lead to nuclear disarmament. The non-nuclear states agreed not to acquire nuclear weapons and the nuclear state agreed to help them with the peaceful us of atomic power for energy. But Israel acquire nuclear arms around 1970, India in 1974, Pakistan in 1998, North Korea in 2006. The treath was a failure.

    The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty (1987), supposedly banned U.S. and Soviet ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. Both sides violated the treaty.

    After the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the START treaty was intned to imit the deployed strategic nuclear warheads and delivery systems between the U.S. and Russia. Once again both sides violated the treaty.

    The problem with treaties was that none of the great powers trusted each other and we didn’t trust them either. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) was adopted by the United Nations on July 7, 2017, it officially entered into force on January 22, 2021. Today U.S President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin both openly threaten to use nuclear weapons.

    It was in 1980s that the anti-nuclear movement suddenly took off. It was not nuclear weapons or nuclear war that so unexpectedly made things nuclear a big deal, it was the nuclear power plant accident at Three Mile Island in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, that led to a partial meltdown in a nuclear reactor releasing radioactive gases and iodine into the atmosphere. Local anti-nuclear power groups that had existed in various parts of the country prior to the Three Mile Island accident began to mobilize to shutdown nuclear reactors and to organize many local protests and a couple of large scale national demonstrations of between 100,000 and 200,000 people in late 1979. These demonstrations around nuclear power melded with the movement against nuclear weapons.

    Then too, there is the fact that the era of U.S.-Soviet détente had ended and another Cold Warrior had been elected president: Ronald Reagan. Reagan’s anti-Communism was enough to make people worry about nuclear war, but his occasional off-hand remarks about using tactical nukes or fighting an actual nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union in Europe added to our anxiety.

    Then too the left took up the issue. In 1980, the great British labor historian E.P. Thompson, author of The Making of the English Working Class, who was also an anti-nuclear arms activist, published his pamphlet Protest and Survive. It was originally a parody of a British government civil defense pamphlet called Protect and Survive. The large English and European anti-nuclear movements, of which Thompson was a spokesperson, had reverberations in America. Another landmark of the anti-nuclear movement at the time was writer Jonathan Schell’s important The Fate of the Earth in which he argued that a nuclear war might destroy all human life and make the planet uninhabitable. We on the left now had a couple of tomes to educate us and provide a direction.

    All of this came together in 1982. I was working as an I.S. staff person and was in New York City on June 12, where I joined the demonstration that day of one million people in Central Park calling for an end to the nuclear arms race; at that time it was the largest political demonstration in U.S. history. Throughout the 1980s the anti-nuclear movement with its slogan — “Never Again” and brandishing Peter Kennard’s horrifying poster (left) — grew, and spread, and became more militant with thousands being arrested. It was about this time too that the Greenham Commons Women’s Peace Camp, protesting the British government’s installing nuclear cruise missiles at the Royal Air Force base there, caught everyone’s attention. Women chained themselves to the fence and many were arrested, and it lasted almost twenty years. The 1983 television film The Day After, about ordinary people and their experience of the the outbreak of a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union, was seen by 100 million people in 39 million households and also contributed significantly to the anti-nuclear arms sentiment at the time.

    In the mid-1980s, my wife Sherry Baron and I moved to Los Angeles where she did public health research at UCLA. I found work with Jobs with Peace, a remarkable campaign mounted by a number of unions and community organizations. Informed by the idea that the Cold War ought to be wound down, Jobs with Peace called for a transition from an economy based on military production — which in Los Angeles meant the aerospace industry producing fighters and bombers — to an economy based on production for society’s needs. The national Jobs with Peace Campaign was associated with SANE/Freeze, so one can say it formed part of the anti-nuclear movement. My work with Jobs with Peace had me knocking on doors in the harbor towns, Wilmington and San Pedro, talking with working class people about the need to make a transition while preserving union jobs, and the response was generally very good.

    In the late 1980s my wife Sherry and I moved to Cincinnati where she had gotten a job with the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), part of the Centers for Disease Control and soon we were raising two children. The city was conservative, a political backwater for the left and busy with our family, our involvement in politics declined until the police killings of Black men led to a rebellion there in 2001. Involved in organizing protests against racist police, the bomb was in the background.

    Still, we read the newspapers and followed international events and joined the movement against the first U.S. war on Iraq. I remained a socialist, now in Solidarity, a group formed by the merger of the I.S. and another two groups. We were aware of the tensions in the Middle East and that they might possibly lead to nuclear war and concerned about it, but once again there were other developments competing for our attention. The terrorist attack on the Twin Towers in September 2001 meant that Sherry spent a lot of time in New York City looking into the health affects on first responders and other workers in the area of the explosions as well as creating programs to help them. Once again a more immediate challenge pushed the nuclear question down on the agenda. Then there were the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we joined the protests against those wars, which terrible as they were, did not seem likely to lead to nuclear war.

    Some people believed that with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 there would be a “peace dividend,” since the United States would no longer have a mortal enemy. The government could spend less money on the military and more on social programs. And perhaps, said the optimists, it would be possible to phase out nuclear weapons. But that did not happen, though with the fall of the Soviet Union the anti-nuclear movements declined, perhaps because people believed war was now more unlikely. But nuclear weapons didn’t go away. As I am sure you know, at least nine nations have nuclear weapons and though five (the U.S., Russia, China, U.K. and France) have signed a treaty to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to other nations and promised — someday — to destroy their current stockpiles — there is no evidence that the number of nuclear weapons is being reduced. Four other nations — India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea — also have nuclear weapons but have not signed the treaty. Japan and Iran both appear to have the capacity to make a bomb, but have not done so.

    Now Turkey and Saudi Arabia want the bomb too and the Washington Post suggests that 2020 could be an “especially dangerous year.” What year, I wonder, has not been? In 1947, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists began to publish the “Doomsday Clock” indicating how close the scientists thought the world was to nuclear war and destruction. In January of this year they announced that we were 89 seconds from Doomsday. We must be even closer now.

    I have been and remain skeptical of the notion that the world’s governments, run as most of them are by groups of political gangsters who serve capitalist moguls, would ever take any step that limited or reduced their power by curtailing nuclear arms. Only a powerful international movement that seeks to change our economic and political system will make possible the elimination of nuclear weapons.

    So, we continue to live with the fear that a nuclear war might be triggered by some incident in the Middle East or in Punjab, in Ukraine or who knows where. And we continue to wear the button with the peace symbol that was created in 1958 by Gerald Holtom for the British Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND).

    Of course now we have the overriding issue of global warming, and pandemics like COVID-19 and perhaps next H1N1. And as in the past, current issues, like the rise of right wing parties throughout the world, push the danger of nuclear warfare into the background once more. Even though those parties’ ambitions may trigger another world war, this time an atomic world war.

    But here it is, August again. I will turn 80 in a few days and so will my age-mate the atomic bomb. You and I will continue, as we know, to live in the shadow of the bomb until we create a movement to rid ourselves of it.