Blog

  • The Revolt of the Fearless Generation

    The Revolt of the Fearless Generation

    When in early February Algeria’s ailing octogenarian president Abdelaziz Bouteflika announced his intention to run for the presidency for a fifth term, millions of Algerians took to the streets in response. After weeks of rallies, Bouteflika was forced to resign on April 2, only to be replaced by a triad of government cronies: Abdelkader Bensalah as interim-president, Noureddine Bedoui as prime minister and Major General Ahmed Gaid Salah, who has emerged as the key power broker in the country.

    Despite the arrests of two of the country’s former prime ministers and several business leaders on corruption charges, the protests are continuing with protesters demanding a radical overhaul of the military-backed regime. Fresh elections that were originally planned for July 4, were postponed by the constitutional council in early June, allegedly due to a lack of candidates. The postponement of the elections was seen as a victory by the protesters, who feared that hastily organized elections in the short term would benefit the old powers and leave little opportunity for civic parties to prepare.

    Leïla Ouitis, a feminist, housing activist and a French-Algerian teacher living in Seine-Saint-Denis, close to Paris, regularly travels to Algeria to visit her family. She has witnessed the protests first-hand, and in this three-part series she offers her reflections on the socio-economic roots of the popular uprising, the background of the different groups and individuals involved with the movement, and the role played by feminists and women’s rights activists in the protests.

    In this first part of the series, Ouitis looks at why Algeria remained relatively undisturbed during the Arab Spring that started in 2011, but is now — eight years later — rocked by some of the largest protests the country has witnessed in history.


    Although Algeria shares similar characteristics with other countries in the region — massive unemployment among the youth, who account for half the population, polarization of job opportunities over just a few sectors, systemic corruption by clan-like oligarchies in a rent-seeking management of resources — we should be careful with the expression “Arab Spring,” which has been used to describe the current uprising. Commentators tend to forget that it actually refers to a second wave of popular contestation in the Arab world.

    The first wave occurred between 1985 and 1989; it began in Sudan and came to Algeria in 1988. Forgetting that first wave means omitting the specificity of Algerian history: 40 years of perestroika in the context of a rentier economy dependent on gas and oil. When Algeria gained independence, it chose the path of socialism, but despite the Algerian bourgeoisie’s developmental projects — surely the most extensive in the region — the Algerian economy has remained totally dependent on hydrocarbon-generated wealth.

    What would at first seem to be a source of wealth turns into the opposite: the so-called “Dutch disease,” which refers to the link between exporting natural resources and the decline of the local manufacturing industry. Increased export revenues lead to currency appreciation. In all other sectors, exports become less favorable than imports.

    Algeria remains locked in a rent economy, completely dependent on hydrocarbons. Gas and petrol generate 95 percent of external revenue and 60 percent of the state budget, so any changes in the price of oil affects state revenue and the real economy. The country finds itself stuck in growth concentrated in few sectors: manufacturing industry is declining, as are formal occupations, which today account for less than 10 percent of jobs in the country. Manufacturing value added per capita is the lowest in the region and has been dropping since the 1990s. As a result, the employment rate is 40 percent, one of the lowest in the world. Rent allows for reductions in poverty during oil booms, but it does not improve the employment rate.

    To keep the peace in this context, the state absolutely must provide support for basic necessities (flour, milk, oil) and it must tolerate the black market, the trabendo, which employs hundreds of thousands of youth. In general, when someone tells you they do not work, what that means is they are caught up in one form or another of informal business and related frauds.

    From the Black Decade to the Black Spring

    For nearly 40 years, the history of Algeria has been profoundly determined by the price of hydrocarbons. In the 1980s, Algeria began transitioning to a market economy, but in 1986, the price of oil collapsed. The state coffers ran dry as income inequality surged. The 1988 riots, savagely repressed, brought an end to the single-party system. Political Islam emerged as both an expression of marginalization and a way to manage and maintain social polarization.

    One year after the 1991 military coup d’état, Algeria was in default and resorted to financial institutions that imposed a structural adjustment plan and new liberalization measures. Those 10 years of austerity devoted to paying off the debt were also the years of the decade-long civil war that left between 100,000 and 200,000 people dead.

    During that décennie noire (the “Black Decade”), privatization continued in bouts of clientelism and corruption, allowing for the formation of a rentier oligarchy: state property was ceded to certain dignitaries, some of the public companies were privatized, the old state monopolies on foreign trade were destroyed and replaced with a system of agreements authorizing certain venders and wholesalers to import consumer goods and industrial material to sell back to the state. These monopolistic positions were adopted from within the state, allowing each group to collect a kingly rent. In this way, behind each fraction of the bourgeoisie specialized in this or that import sector, there was a multinational, a major capitalist state and a major Algerian bureaucrat and/or general. This is what is called “the system”: a mechanism supplied with oil revenues that flow into all the little hustles of the informal economy.

    At the end of the Black Decade, the explosion in hydrocarbon prices as well as a policy of valuing natural resources following the opening to foreign direct investments (FDI) made it possible for Algeria to stay on schedule and pay off its debt after 10 years of austerity. President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, who came to power at that time, had the advantage of full state coffers, which allowed him to launch a series of stimulus plans in the early 2000s and again with accelerating public investment programs between 2005 and 2009.

    Compared to the civil war, Bouteflika’s first four mandates seemed relatively peaceful. This, however, would be forgetting all the regional struggles of the 2000s: the Black Spring of 2001 in Kabylie; the 2003 “movement of the children of the south for justice,” whose members were reduced to silence and terrorism; the struggles of the Mozabite minority; the struggles of the unemployed since 2011, notably those of the Ouargla activists who have suffered police and legal repression for years; the resistance in Adrar and Béchar; and the protests of In Salah locals against fracking.

    So actually, over the last 20 years, Algeria has seen myriad struggles and dissent, but these fights have not yet converged. Still, despite the repression, there have been some victories. In 2010 alone, the national military counted 11,500 riots, public demonstrations or gatherings throughout the whole country. These riotous contestations play an almost natural role in the forms of rent negotiation and redistribution as they are both repressed and implicitly accepted by the state. The class struggle is expressed in a rather clear way for everyone involved, and you could say that the power relations are laid bare: given all the money here from gas and petrol, everyone should be rich, were it not for the system hoarding so much of the wealth.

    A New Generation

    In this context, the riots in the winter of 2011 decidedly resonated with the international situation and the Arab Spring, but their frame of reference, if not origin, was the attempt of a fraction of the state’s liberal bourgeoisie to limit the informal economy. Indeed, since the mid-2000s, the boom in oil prices has reinforced a bourgeoisie made up of private entrepreneurs working in construction and industry, making it more rebellious in its confrontations with a bureaucratic bourgeoisie that maintains control of administrative authorizations; with what Algerians call the “system.”

    In reaction to measures to control and tax a portion of the informal economy, the barons of the black market immediately included the new value-added tax (VAT) in their prices. The price of basic necessities (notably oil and sugar) exploded, instantly ruining thousands of youths working in the informal economy. Riots spread like wildfire. With the help of the international community, the Algerian government, which in 2011 still possessed an enormous amount of foreign currency reserves, immediately lifted its measures and released several billions in social aid: raising salaries and offering a series of micro-credit initiatives.

    So what changed in 2019, eight years later? First, generational renewal. The population is exploding. And this new generation is experiencing what has been called the exhaustion of a dual rent system based on political and oil rents. Algeria is a very young country, with nearly half the population under the age of 25. During the civil war, people put off having children and the birth rate practically doubled after the Black Decade. The increase in oil prices during the 2000s allowed for home construction and rising salaries. The fertility rate reached 3.1 births per woman in 2015.

    In addition, this new generation is not afraid like the previous one. The attempts by those in power to instrumentalize the specter of civil war no longer work on the younger generations: at the beginning of the demonstrations we saw people over the age of 40 crying with emotion. As Adlène Meddi aptly put it, “Our generation was too traumatized by those years of civil war to dare to go out and protest. And then we saw all these young people in the streets. … We felt so old, but we were so happy!”

    This generation, who grew up knowing only Bouteflika, is today old enough to demonstrate. In Meddi’s telling, the humiliation of having a bedridden president was the trigger, but it quickly became obvious that they were not protesting against a man, they were protesting against a “system that wants to survive on the back of a living corpse.” In fact, since independence, all the presidents of the republic come from the “November generation” of 1954 — the start of Algeria’s war of independence — which has until now been the foundation of all political legitimacy in Algeria.

    Any conflict between successive governments was immediately associated with the war of national revolution. But this is over now. That generation is coming to its end: Bouteflika was practically the last survivor of that generation of combatants, apart from Ahmed Gaid Salah, head of the Algerian army. It is the end of political rent.

    Also, this new generation is the most educated in Algerian history, with more women than men in higher education. Despite the deterioration in the quality of education and health — the privatization of both has been constant — the oil boom of the 2000s has nevertheless made possible an increase in spending in these domains. Today there are over 1.8 million students. We are talking about a youth population that cannot afford to travel but reads the news and is very active on social networks. So the situation is very different from the one in 1988 when the coffers were empty. At that time, when young people from poor neighborhoods and workers from large metro areas rioted, they were fiercely repressed.

    Now, the social bases of the revolt have expanded, and the popular movement, the hirak, includes both the middle classes and part of the bourgeoisie. On this point, there are effectively quite a few aspects in common with the Arab Spring, which likewise came into existence after periods of improvement.

    The presence of the middle classes gives a very political, civic dynamic to the movement. It is not about a revolution in the way a leftist would use the term. For the moment, it is much more a gigantic interclassist movement of the radical democratic sort.

    Next Stop: Demanding Bread?

    Even if what triggered the hirak is not immediately connected to the economic situation, the economy has always been of central importance. The demographic boom of 2000 has encountered the progressive exhaustion of the oil rent. The new generation has been hit with a rate of structural unemployment and a slow but steady pauperization that also affects the middle classes. Since 2014, oil prices have again sharply declined (~65 percent for Brent between July 2014 and February 2016).

    The Algerian state is no longer in the financial position to buy social peace. The foreign currency reserves have dwindled from $200 billion in 2014 to just $95 billion in 2016. And in 2015, unemployment hit a new high, further limiting the prospects of young people. The term dégoutage has resurfaced in daily language to express disgust and frustration with poor living conditions. Inequality between regions has deepened with major difficulties in the interior where the unemployment rate can reach 60–70 percent.

    Hundreds of thousands of youth are stuck where they live, in the less developed mountains, countryside or urban zones, because the exorbitant cost of housing, especially in Algiers, prevents them from working in the cities where jobs might be had.

    In these conditions, as was pointed out in Le Monde, Algeriens have started to leave their country again: both legal and illegal emigration is on the rise. As far as legal migration is concerned, we are observing a very significant brain drain, including youths who have completed their studies. Nonetheless, they have little illusions about the possibility of finding a qualified job in France. With regards to illegal migration, Kouceila Zerguine, lawyer of the Collective of families of disappeared harragas — undocumented migrants — has remarked that “since a year or two, there are young women but also entire families who are leaving, whereas previously it was mainly men who left by sea”. There are even minors among them. It is a both a social and a global tragedy.

    In short, for the moment, we are still looking at a large-scale movement that is very political, interclassist, against corruption and for a reform of the state that would give each social segment its say in proportion to its role in the society. But inflation continues to rise (4.3 percent in 2018, 5.6 percent in 2019, projected at 6.7 percent in 2020). The middle classes and the proletariat keep growing poorer. If images of dancers continue to appear, along with pretty signs demanding “freedom and democracy,” then in three or four years, we could very well expect to see signs demanding bread.

    Originally posted at ROAR magazine.

  • Brazil: Success of the General Strike of June 14

    Brazil: Success of the General Strike of June 14

    In a week of intense political polarization, the movements of the working class, youth and the oppressed again held a strong national demonstration, in continuity with the expressive acts of 15 May and 30 May. There were stoppages in more than 100 cities. Street demonstrations took place in almost 200 cities, according to the G1 website. A survey by the CUT (Central Unica de los Trabajadores) shows a map with more than 380 protest points throughout the country.

    Strikes, stoppages, shift delays and street demonstrations occurred in all states and the Federal District. Mainly, in the capitals and in the big cities we saw the resistance expressed by the trade union federations, the Frente Brasil Popular (Brazil Popular Front), the Frente Pueblo Sin Miedo (People’s Front Without Fear), the student movement and the popular movements, among others.

    The size of the demonstrations was unequal. In some regions the functioning of the cities was significantly affected, mainly where public transport workers stopped work. In most cities, in practice, a significant national day of struggles and stoppages occurred. In eleven capital cities and in dozens of major cities, the banking system was paralysed.

    In the city of São Paulo, the rail unions (affiliated to the UGT-General Union of Workers) and the workers on the trains ended up backing down from strike action, a serious error. But we should highlight the heroic strike of the subway workers, which impacted part of the transport in the largest Brazilian city.

    Once again the movements linked to the defence of public education were at the forefront of the paralysis and protests. There was a strong national strike by teachers in the elementary network, in most states and large cities. The federal education workers also struck with force. The student movement was present in all these actions, unifying their struggle with that of the workers. Whether in the roadblocks, or in the big marches, the strength of youth fighting for their right to a future was felt once again.

    The MTST (Movement of Homeless Workers) and the MST (Movement of the Landless) also played a prominent role, building basic actions to guarantee the interruption of traffic in several regions of the country. With more difficulty, the workers’ sectors also staged strikes, stoppages and demonstrations, especially in some branches and regions: the oil tankers nationwide, the metallurgists of the ABC of São Paulo, Paraná and the Paraíba Valley (São Paulo), civil construction workers in Fortaleza, among other categories.

    Another feature of the day was the big unitary street demonstrations, at the end of the morning and at the end of the afternoon. Again, hundreds of thousands took to the streets for the right to work, to study, to retire. Particularly in Porto Alegre, Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, there was also repression, violent and criminal, carried out by the military police against legitimate popular demonstrations. Some activists remain imprisoned: we must demand they are immediately released and not criminalized.

    We must not exaggerate our strength, we know the obstacles in this war and the strength of the enemy, but we still believe in the fighting capacity of this resistance movement. Overall, nationally, it was a very expressive day of mobilization, a step forward in the resistance struggles against the Bolsonaro government attacks. It is time to continue betting on the strengthening of our mobilizations: we can have no confidence in closed-door negotiations with the government and Congress.

    The contradictions of the enemy

    The week began on Sunday night (9 June), when the explosive denunciations of the portal “The Intercept” revealed the intrigue of Lava-Jato, especially with the illegal and illegitimate relations between Sérgio Moro, the ex-judge of the operation and current Minister of Justice, and Attorney Deltan Dallagnol.

    These denunciations prove, once again, the illegality of the process that condemned Lula. The former president is a political prisoner, whose presidential candidacy was impeded by the intrigue of Lava-Jato. Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen the #Lulalivre campaign, which will have an important moment on 25 June, with a trial in the STF (Supreme Federal Court), and promote the campaign by #ForaMoro, as he has no legitimacy to remain at the head of the Ministry of Justice and coordinate the investigation against himself.

    Also, on the eve of the general strike, the rapporteur on social security reform in the Chamber of Deputies, Samuel Moreira (Party of Brazilian Social Democracy, PSDB) read his report to the Special Commission. In it, we saw a retreat from points the Bolsonaro government proposal presented previously. Despite these changes, which are explained by the conflictive relationship between the Bolsonaro government and its allies in Congress and the growing strength of the mobilizations in defence of Social Security, the report is far from representing a victory of our movement.

    In the end, the project continues to represent a strong attack on retirees. The combination of increasing the minimum age and increasing the time of contribution, will mean that millions of Brazilian workers will have the right to retire denied or, at least, hampered.

    In that sense, the role of the governors was extremely reactionary, including the governments of the PT and other opposition parties. PT governors and the opposition scored an “own goal” in the week of the general strike, supporting the reforms of Guedes and Bolsonaro, just criticizing four points, which were precisely those that were taken from the report by Samuel Moreira. And they are still going to try to reincorporate in the current reform the attacks on state and municipal public officials.

    The proposal for reform, now altered by the report presented in the Special Commission, is entering the decisive time of its progress through the Chamber of Deputies, To move forward, it needs to be approved, first in the commission, and then by the plenary of the Chamber in two rounds, with a minimum vote of 308 of the 513 deputies.

    We know that an agreement between the government and its allies opens the possibility of approval of this reactionary reform in Congress. But we are in the middle of the fight, nothing is decided yet. The defeat of this unacceptable pension reform of Bolsonaro, Guedes, their parliamentary allies and the governors, will not be conquered behind closed doors within the palaces and Congress.

    The only way to defeat it is to continue investing more and more in a unitary and grassroots national movement that resists the brutal attacks on social and democratic rights launched by this far-right government.

    A proposal for continuing mobilization

    The Trade Unions, fronts of struggle, the student movement and the opposition parties will meet again next week. In these meetings, the discussion must be the strategy for fighting the Bolsonaro government and its attacks. The meeting should begin by repudiating the policy of collaboration with the reform, with only occasional criticism, which has been applied by the governors of the PT and other parties. Our path must be the opposite.

    We must rely on mobilization to defeat the reform, the cuts in public education and other attacks of this far-right government. Therefore, it is essential that a new national day of struggle and paralyzes be scheduled, especially when the reform vote is near. Mainly, it is necessary to mark a new day to hold big demonstrations in the streets, which expressively marked the 15M, and the 30M and, now, the 14J.

    A first step in this continuity could be the holding of a demonstration attached to the Congress of the UNE (National Union of Students), which happens next month in Brasilia. These large demonstrations have become an important counterpoint to the reactionary acts of the right and the extreme right, who threaten to return to the streets on June 30. Our priority task continues to be to intensify the mobilizations to defeat the Bolsonaro government in the streets.

    Originally posted at International Viewpoint.

  • For Pride Month: Remembering Doug Ireland

    For Pride Month: Remembering Doug Ireland

    Doug Ireland, radical journalist, blogger, passionate human rights and queer activist, and relentless scourge of the LGBT establishment, died in his East Village home on October 26, 2013. Doug had lived with chronic pain for many years, suffering from diabetes, kidney disease, sciatica, and the debilitating effects of childhood polio. In recent years he was so ill that he was virtually confined to his apartment. Towards the end, even writing, his calling, had become extremely difficult.

    Once, Doug’s writing — in US publications like the Nation, the Village VoiceNew York magazine, his blog Direland, and in France’s Libération and the news website Bakchich — was easy to find. But in recent years, his voice was rarely heard outside of New York’s Gay City News, for which he continued to contribute reportage as international editor and political commentary until this year, and few younger radicals are likely to know about him.This is a pity, because Doug’s voice — his scathing polemical style, the vast breadth of his knowledge — was exceptional. Doug was a tireless champion of the oppressed of all kinds, but especially of those who are punished for loving members of their own sex, wherever they might be. With his uncompromising internationalism and refusal to allow cultural differences to stand as an excuse for denying LGBT people their human rights, there are few on the Left quite like him.

    Doug was always a libertarian socialist, who nevertheless had long-standing ties to progressives in the Democratic Party — going back to Allard Lowenstein, George McGovern and Bella Abzug, for whom he worked as a campaign manager, Doug hoped progressives might transform the party (a hope I didn’t share). But he was never an apologist for mainstream Democrats, including Obama; he never pulled punches in attacking their cynical amoralism. Ed Koch, he once wrote, was not a closet gay, but a “closet human being.”

    Doug had a special loathing for Clinton. One of his last published pieces was “Should We Forgive Bill Clinton?” in Gay City News in March, after the former President wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post against the Defense of Marriage Act that he had signed into law in 1996.

    Noting that the Post piece was timed to prepare for the kickoff of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign a week later, Doug wrote: “The truth is that an old and predatory libertine like Bill couldn’t have cared less if a guy or a gal wanted to marry a Volkswagen. He wasn’t a bigot himself — he just surfed on the bigotry of others like the opportunist he’s always been. And it is that opportunism that led him to write his op-ed piece against DOMA on behalf of his wife’s candidacy.”

    Doug reminded his readers that “there is a long list of vicious actions by President Clinton and his administration for which he owes LGBT people an unadulterated apology.” One of the items on this list was the Clinton administration’s use of “aid and trade blackmail targeting Third World countries to stop them from buying or manufacturing cheaper, generic versions of the AIDS-fighting drugs needed to prolong life. . .  How many thousands died because Clinton, in his subservience to the greed of Big Pharma, engaged in this shameful arm-breaking? We’ll never know for sure — but their blood, too, is on Bill’s hands.”

    Doug was a friend of the Campaign for Peace and Democracy (CPD), an antiwar and human rights advocacy group committed to radical democracy from below where I serve as co-director, and to the socialist journal New Politics, where I sit on the editorial board. In 1988, at a time when the CPD was heavily involved in defending democratic dissidents in the Soviet bloc, Doug reported for the Campaign’s newsletter on the persecution of gays in Eastern Europe:

    Of all the taboos in Eastern Europe, none has been more cruel or dehumanizing than the official attitude toward homosexuality. If one of the very first acts of the 1917 Bolshevik revolution was to abolish the laws making homosexuality a crime,  . . . Stalinism recriminalized homosexuality, and the theory that “fags are a product of capitalist decadence” has reigned malignantly in the Eastern bloc ever since, with anti-gay persecutions a favorite weapon of the political police throughout the bloc.

    Doug’s understanding of Stalinism’s crimes, and of the whole history of the Left’s troubled relationship to alternative sexualities, was brilliantly expounded in his piece “Socialism and Gay Liberation: Back to the Future.” In it, he paid tribute to the courageous gay socialist pioneers — John Addington Symonds, Edward Carpenter, Oscar Wilde, and Magnus Hirschfeld. But he also described the vicious bigotry that was made official in the Stalin-era Communist movement and persisted long after Stalin’s death.

    The great turning point, of course, was the birth of the post-Stonewall radical gay liberation movement in the United States — a movement, in Doug’s words, that was “against the State, which made us criminals; against the medical and psychiatric professions, which declared us sick; and against the cultural heterotyranny, which made us the target of disdain, ridicule, opprobrium, hate and violence.” He quoted the German filmmaker Rosa von Praunheim: “It is not the homosexual who is perverse, but the society in which he lives.” Like Doug, gay liberation saw itself as an integral, but never subordinate, part of all liberation struggles — feminist, antiwar, civil rights.

    Doug’s broad vision of gay liberation contrasted sharply with the narrowly parochial LGBT organizations of today, which support and shower dollars on any politician of either party who is “good on gay issues,” no matter how reactionary he or she is on anything else. Since the late 1990s, the gay movement has become tamed and institutionalized, symbolized preeminently by the corporate-oriented Human Rights Campaign.

    Doug never ceased railing against the established LGBT leadership for its political conservatism and for turning the movement into just another interest group, but he was especially critical of its near-indifference to the persecution of LGBT people in other countries. Doug called for the aggressive defense of gays under attack in Uganda, Russia, and Iraq, where they were being murdered by Shia death squads after a death-to-gays fatwa by Grand Ayatollah Sistani; the gay establishment was largely unmoved.

    Doug’s reporting on the persecution of gays in Iran, including the public execution of men and boys, elicited criticism from several quarters, including the director of the LGBT Rights Program of Human Rights Watch. Critics objected that he was improperly imputing a Western-style “gay identity” to same-sexers in Muslim countries, and some insinuated he was providing political fodder for U.S. intervention against Iran.

    But Doug continued to expose the homophobic criminality of Ahmadinejad and the Iranian theocrats. I don’t know if Doug would have seen it this way, but to me he was working in the great universalist tradition of the historic left, based on a single norm of human freedom and flourishing — a norm that justifies criticism of cultural traditions, wherever they might be, that support such practices as female subordination, racial and religious discrimination, and homophobia.

    As Paul Schindler, the editor of Gay City News put it in an editorial defending Doug’s reporting, “Cultural sensitivity is of course an absolute requirement for effective human rights advocacy. But absolute cultural relativism is a recipe for inertia and defeat.”

    In his New Politics piece, Doug insisted on the need “to begin a serious and radical rethinking of homosexualities and gender identities so as to understand at a deeper level why the fear and loathing of same-sex love and gender variants are so deeply engrained in society and culture.” Writing in 2009, he sensed “a hunger for a return to some of the earlier principles of sexual liberation for all with which our movement began, not just here but abroad.”

    Doug is no longer with us, no longer able to make his own contribution to the revival of these principles. Let us hope, nevertheless, that they can be revived, for the sake of a truly liberated future.

    Originally posted at the Jacobin website.

  • Behind the US-Iran Tension

    Behind the US-Iran Tension

    Clearly the attacks on Norwegian and Japanese tankers off the Gulf of Oman on Thursday 14 June increase the risk of a miscalculation leading to military clashes in the region. However, these attacks were probably not carried out by any of the Iranian regime’s armed forces, not even the Pasdaran or a section of the Pasdaran (though that can’t be completely ruled out).

    In order to assess them correctly we shouldn’t just zoom in on their level of sophistication but also follow up other factors, especially their political and diplomatic purpose. We have to ask: “Which state is going to benefit from delaying, or maybe even preventing, a deal?” That state is not the Iranian regime but one (or more) of US imperialism’s local allies. A regional power like Israel (although others can’t be ruled out) is probably behind them.

    Given the economic and social situation, it is highly unlikely that the Iranian regime would do this — no matter what US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo asserts. The attacks justify US imperialism sending even more troops to the region, including an extra 1000 soldiers announced earlier this week. They also justify the $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia and support for its military intervention in Yemen; building new Israeli settlements like Trump Heights in the Golan and carving up more of the West Bank; and repression by all US allies (like Egypt) in the region. The rising tension also keeps the price of oil above $60 a barrel, which helps not only the profits of the big oil companies but also of all sectors involved in facilitating this industry, like shipping, insurance and others.

    The main thing to remember is that the media excitement and focus on the military aspect of US imperialism’s relationship with the Iranian regime ignores the long-standing back-channels of diplomacy and mutually beneficial economic concessions — including, for example, allowing Iraq to import Iranian gas for another three months, the IMF delegation that went to Iran a few weeks ago, and so on.

    The economic pressure on the Iranian regime is constantly rising and the level of mass discontent, particularly among workers, keeps going up. Oil production has fallen below 227,000 barrels a month, the economy shrank by 4.9% last (Iranian) year, production of domestic appliances is at 25-30% of capacity, and so on.

    Following the repression of Haft Tappeh and other strikes, and the May Day arrests, there was a lull in strikes and protests. But these are picking up again, particularly by the Pensioners’ Unity Group, who will be demonstrating in front of the regime’s parliament on 18 June. They have had solidarity messages from teachers, Haft Tappeh workers, Vahed bus drivers and so on. It is important to step up our solidarity work, not only supporting workers’ struggles, but also campaigning for the release of all political prisoners and jailed workers in Iran. Especially those involved in the Haft Tappeh Sugar Cane workers’ strike, like Esmail Bakhshi and Sepideh Gholian.

    Originally posted at the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty website.

  • Stonewall and the Early Days

    Stonewall and the Early Days

    The “Stonewall riots”, which began on 28 June 1969 in New York, marked the start of the modern lesbian and gay rights movement.

    During the McCarthyite witch hunts in 1950s America it was believed that a homosexual underground existed as part of a “communist conspiracy”. It was sometimes called the Homintern (after the Comintern, the Stalinist Communist International). The fearful authorities went so far as to depict this threat to security as a contagious social disease. Despite the fact that it was completely illegal to be gay and despite rabid persecution by the FBI and other state agencies, some brave souls formed a “homophile” association called the Mattachine Society in 1950.

    Harry Hay, a longtime member of the Communist Party, was among the first to point out that homosexuals were a “cultural minority” and not just individuals. He and the Mattachine society had even begun to call for public protests for gay rights, thus pre-figuring later gay pride marches. Hay was expelled from the CP in 1951 as a “security risk”. The only left group to come vaguely close to supporting gay rights was the Young Socialists (then influenced by the “Shachtmanite” Independent Socialist League) which in 1952 published an article in the Young Socialist Review.

    The sixties blew apart the repressive political climate and stifling conventions of the 1950s, with massive civil unrest throughout America. The Black Civil Rights Movement was on the march against racism, and then the more militant Black Panther Party, and Malcolm X’s uncompromising message of political and social revolution. Black communities rose up against social injustice and there were “race” riots in many US towns and cities, notably the Watts riots of 1965.

    There were huge demonstrations against the Vietnam war from about 1967. Students rebelled and demanded greater democracy and freedom in education. The “counter-culture” refused to conform to the dictates of bourgeois norms. The growth of the Women’s Liberation Movement began a journey towards self-determination and freedom from the straitjacket of oppression and second class citizenship.

    “We homosexuals plead with our people to please help maintain peaceful and quiet conduct on the streets of the village” — Mattachine, September 1969.

    This plea from the Mattachine Society, now much more conservative in outlook, was posted in a window of the Stonewall Inn three months after the riots. The MS had become a liberal lobby group trying to influence and educate the great and good heterosexuals towards more “tolerance” of homosexuality, and was clearly spooked by the spontaneous uprising of the oppressed. They sought to prove that gay people could be assimilated into bourgeois society and favoured a non-confrontational, conformist approach. The new Gay Liberation Movement would be different.

    Gay people living under conditions of complete illegality had become easy prey for police entrapment, blackmailers, queer-bashers, criminal gangs, homophobic employers and landlords and were refused entry to bars if their behaviour or appearance was “odd”.

    The Stonewall Inn gay bar is on Christopher Street, Greenwich Village. That was the centre of liberal/radical/artistic/bohemian life in New York. The bar was controlled by the Genovese crime family (Mafia). Almost all of the gay bars were controlled by organised crime and money was extorted through overpriced alcohol, watered down beer and blackmailing the richer gay clientele. The bar was also paying off the police to allow this to happen, in weekly envelopes of cash.

    The bar had no liquor licence, no running water, overflowing toilets, no fire exits, and drug dealing was rife. Customers were inspected through a “speakeasy” peep-hole by a bouncer and (to avoid undercover police entrapment) only allowed entry if they were known or “looked gay”. People rarely signed their real names in a book to gain entry. Only a few trans people or men in drag were allowed in by the bouncers. A few lesbians came to the bar, but it was 98% male. Homeless young men would try to get in for free drinks from customers. The age of the patrons ranged from late teens to early thirties, and there was an even racial mix between white, black and hispanic people. It was the only gay bar in New York where dancing was allowed. The patrons included drag queens, transgender people, effeminate young men, butch lesbians, male prostitutes, and homeless youth — some of the most oppressed sections of the working class.

    Police raids against gay venues were routine and frequent. The Stonewall was raided at least once a month and patrons were arrested, handcuffed and herded into police wagons. The management knew about the raids beforehand and they were early enough for them to re-stock the bar from hidden supplies to carry on serving once the police had gone. The mafia still wanted its cut of the profits.

    This was the modus operandi during the raids: “… the lights were turned on, and customers were lined up and their identification cards checked. Those without identification or dressed in full drag were arrested; others were allowed to leave. Some of the men, including those in drag, used their draft cards as identification.

    “Women were required to wear three pieces of feminine clothing, and would be arrested if found not wearing them. Employees and management of the bars were also typically arrested. The period immediately before June 28, 1969, was marked by frequent raids of local bars—including a raid at the Stonewall Inn on the Tuesday before the riots—and the closing of the Checkerboard, the Tele-Star, and two other clubs in Greenwich Village.”

    Things came to a head when, so it was rumoured, the police where no longer able to receive kickbacks from blackmail and payoffs, including the theft of negotiable bonds from threatened gay Wall Street employees. It was more than likely that the Public Morals or the Food and Drugs Administration had decided to close the Stonewall Inn permanently on alleged “health and safety” grounds, as had happened with other bars in the neighbourhood.

    People began to defy the police. They refused to show ID cards or be hustled into the bathroom so that police could verify their sexual identity. Men in drag were immediately arrested. Those not arrested congregated outside the bar and were joined by others in ever increasing numbers from the neighbourhood. Some people were rescued from the patrol wagons, and when a lesbian resisted arrest the police started to beat her and knocked others to the ground.

    The police were pelted with coins and bottles to begin with, by the crowd, and later bricks and stones from a nearby building site. Barricading themselves inside the Stonewall Inn, police were forced to call for assistance. From there on as crowds swelled in numbers over several successive nights, the whole thing escalated into a full blown riot. It took three days and nights before the Tactical Patrol Force, trained to deal with Vietnam war protests, could finally subdue the rioters.

    The rioting was not organised or orchestrated by any particular group. It was a spontaneous uprising and rebellion by people who had been beaten down to the lowest level of human existence by repressive anti-gay laws, corrupt police and officials in cahoots with criminal organisations. After years of unchecked oppression they had reached the end of the tether and vented their fury on the oppressors. However during the riots leaflets were distributed, one of them reading “Get the Mafia and Cops out of Gay Bars”.

    Others called for gays to own their own establishments, for a boycott of the Stonewall and other Mafia-owned bars, and for public pressure on the Mayor’s office to investigate the “intolerable situation”. Within days of the rioting groups did begin to spring up to demand equality, and the Gay Liberation Front was born. Within a year or two, GLF organisations had spread to many towns and cities throughout the USA, making radical, revolutionary demands in line with black and women’s liberation movements of the time.

    The establishment of the Gay Liberation Front in Britain was a much more subdued affair. It was founded at the London School of Economics, by two Maoists, Aubrey Walter and Bob Mellors, in October 1970, despite Mao’s “Cultural Revolution” in China killing thousands or millions and homosexuality being illegal in China until 1997 and classed as a “mental illness” until 2001.

    Walter and Mellors had visited America, and were mightily impressed. The GLF imported the radical politics of its sister organisations in the USA and the revolutionary demands of the movement are embodied in the Gay Liberation Manifesto of 1971. Almost in a parallel way to the GLF in America, groups sprouted up in many towns and cities in Britain, and practically every University had a GaySoc.

    The GLF experimented with consciousness-raising “think-ins”, alternative lifestyles to what was expected in bourgeois “straight” society. Many campaigns were enhanced through street theatre and direct action, challenging anti-gay moral crusades, repressive legislation, media censorship and social intolerance in general. Always with a clear anti-capitalist objective in mind.

    Feminist, academic, and lesbian Elizabeth Wilson later looked back on the achievements of the Gay Liberation Front: “The ‘Manifesto Group’ was one of many launched in the ferment of activity that was the Gay Liberation Front in 1970-71.

    “Today it seems incredible that so many young adults had the time and energy to devote themselves full time to political struggle (although incidentally many of us also had paid jobs – the workplace just wasn’t as demanding as it is today).

    “GLF is best understood as a fabulous political firework display. Demonstrations, sit-ins, drag events, consciousness raising groups, street theatre, night graffiti raids, workshops, rallies, dances and ‘think-ins’ were all included in the stellar spectacular that was GLF.

    “The Manifesto Group came from the ideological, intellectual side of the movement and debated the question: What was it about society that led to the oppression of lesbians and gay men? The Manifesto’s answer was what would now be termed a ‘functionalist’ one: that capitalism ‘needed’ gay oppression – to shore up the nuclear family (a big bugbear for radicals at the time) and to police citizens into conformity.

    “The Manifesto reads today as a fairly one-dimensional attempt to account for gender and sexual victimisation. However, it asked an important and still relevant question about the sources of prejudice and hatred. The group met in my basement living room throughout a rather hot summer.

    “The atmosphere was sometimes tense and febrile, but however black and white the answers we developed appear today, it seemed crucial at the time to understand better the nature of the society we lived and live in. If it seems both raw and over-simplified now, it did actually (along with the work of feminists) spark a way of thinking about human relations in society that has led to significant change.

    “Like all pioneers, we sometimes got it wrong, but we believed in what we were doing. We believed in our power to change society. And that is surely a good thing.”

    Elizabeth Wilson has captured the political zeitgeist of the 1970s that affected the GLF. Scarcely a day would go by without some form of struggle going on, whether it be strikes, demonstrations, sit ins or pickets. Not just in the labour movement but right across the board including School Students’ strikes, anti Vietnam war demonstrations, Troops out of Ireland, anti-apartheid movement, Anti-Nazi League, the burgeoning Women’s Liberation and Black power movements, the start of the Environmental-Green Movement, continuing counter-cultural influences, the student movement sparking educational reforms and prompting the labour movement to engage with political issues beyond the workplace, the squatters’ movement for housing and alternative lifestyles and so on.

    Despite all that there was very little connection between the GLF and the labour movement — hostility and distrust on both sides. Despite some Marxist and socialist individuals, the GLFers hitched their wagon mostly to the Women’s Liberation Movement and to a lesser extent to the Black movement (macho posturing and aversion to gay people got in the way there. Huey Newton, a leading member of the Black Panthers, in a very strong statement urged solidarity with the gay movement. But others accused Black gay men of being traitors to their race for not producing black children).

    The lack of connectedness to the labour movement considerably diminished the GLF’s (I could write “our”, since I was active then) understanding of working-class consciousness and why that is important. Patriarchy and male privilege were the enemies and many gay radicals felt that ridding the world of male power and chauvinism and throwing in our lot with oppressed women was sufficient to bring about equality and freedom. Even today it is still a big task to stop LGBT+ people from being exiled from our class and raise awareness that as part of the working-class struggle for emancipation we can share in the potential to overthrow capitalism.

    Originally posted at the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty website. Be sure to also take a look at NP’s 2008 symposium on “Gays and the Left.”

  • “Is the New Deal Socialism?” by Norman Thomas

    “Is the New Deal Socialism?” by Norman Thomas

    Norman Thomas was the most prominent spokesperson for the Socialist Party of America in the 1930s and 1940s. He ran six times for president on the SP ballot line. Recently, an article by Seth Ackerman of Jacobin magazine argued that Thomas acknowledged that President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs had socialist aspects and this, essentially, is why Bernie Sanders isn’t wrong to invoke the New Deal legacy when he uses the term “democratic socialism.” Nevertheless, the pamphlet from 1936 that we partially reproduce here makes it clear that Thomas didn’t think that the New Deal equaled socialism and that Roosevelt was no socialist. 

    Special thanks to Louis Proyect for bringing Thomas’s pamphlet to our attention.

    Mr. Roosevelt and his followers assume that prosperity is coming back because of the New Deal. Al Smith and the rest of Roosevelt’s assorted critics assume that it is in spite of the New Deal and perhaps because of the Supreme Court. Mr. Hoover plaintively protests that the catastrophic depression of January – February, 1933, was due merely to the shudders of the body politic anticipating the economic horrors of the New Deal.

    As a Socialist, I view the Smith – Roosevelt controversy with complete impartiality. I am little concerned to point out the inconsistencies in Al Smith’s record, or to remind him that in 1924 and 1928, when I happened to be the Socialist candidate for high office against him, more than one of his close political friends came to me to urge me as a Socialist not to attack him too severely since he really stood for so many of the things that Socialists and other progressive workers wanted.

    But I am concerned to point out how false is the charge that Roosevelt and the New Deal represent socialism. What is at state is not prestige or sentimental devotion to a particular name. What is at state is a clear understanding of the issues on which the peace and prosperity of generations — perhaps centuries — depend. A nation which misunderstands socialism as completely as Al Smith misunderstands it is a nation which weakens its defense against the coming of war and fascism.

    But, some of you will say, isn’t it true, as Alfred E. Smith and a host of others before him have charged, that Roosevelt carried out most of the demands of the Socialist platform?

    This charge is by no means peculiar to Mr. Smith. I am told that a Republican speaker alleged that Norman Thomas rather than Franklin D. Roosevelt has been President of the United States. I deny the allegation and defy the allegator, and I suspect I have Mr. Roosevelt’s support in this denial. Matthew Woll, leader of the forces of reaction in the American Federation of Labor, is among the latest to make the same sort of charge.

    Roosevelt Not Socialist

    Emphatically, Mr. Roosevelt did not carry out the Socialist platform, unless he carried it out on a stretcher. What is true is that when Mr. Roosevelt took office he had to act vigorously.

    We had demanded Federal relief for unemployment. Hence any attempts Mr. Roosevelt made at Federal relief could perhaps be called by his enemies an imitation of the Socialists platform. It was an extraordinarily poor imitation. We demanded Federal unemployment insurance. Hence any attempt to get Federal security legislation could be regarded as an imitation of the Socialist platform. It was an amazingly bad imitation.

    Indeed, at various times Mr. Roosevelt has taken particular and rather unnecessary pains to explain that he was not a Socialist, that he was trying to support the profit system, which by the way, he defined incorrectly. In his last message to Congress his attack was not upon the profit system but on the sins of big business.

    His slogan was not the Socialist cry: “Workers of the world, workers with hand and brain, in town and country, unite!” His cry was: “Workers and small stockholders unite, clean up Wall Street.” That cry is at least as old as Andrew Jackson.

    What Mr. Roosevelt and his brain trust and practical political advisers did to such of the Socialist immediate demands as he copied at all merely illustrates the principle that if you want a child brought up right you had better leave the child with his parents and not farm him out to strangers.

    Reformism

    Some of it was good reformism, but there is nothing Socialist about trying to regulate or reform Wall Street. Socialism wants to abolish the system of which Wall Street is an appropriate expression. There is nothing Socialist about trying to break up great holding companies. We Socialists would prefer to acquire holding companies in order to socialize the utilities now subject to them.

    There is no socialism at all about taking over all the banks which fell in Uncle Sam’s lap, putting them on their feet again, and turning them back to the bankers to see if they can bring them once more to ruin. There was no socialism at all about putting in a Coordinator to see if he could make the bankrupt railroad systems profitable so they would be more expensive for the government to acquire as sooner or later the government, even a Republican party government, under capitalism must.

    Mr. Roosevelt torpedoed the London Economic Conference; he went blindly rushing in to a big army and navy program; he maintained, as he still maintains, an Ambassador to Cuba who, as the agent of American financial interests, supports the brutal reaction in Cuba. While professing friendship for China, he blithely supported a silver purchase policy of no meaning for America except the enrichment of silver mine owners which nearly ruined the Chinese Government in the face of Japanese imperialism. These things which Al Smith or Alf Landon might also have done are anything but Socialist.

    Mr. Smith presumably feels that the President’s Security Bill, so-called, was socialism. Let us see. We Socialists have long advocated unemployment insurance or unemployment indemnity by which honest men who cannot find work are indemnified by a society so brutal or so stupid that it denies them the opportunity to work. This insurance or indemnification should be on a prearranged basis which will take account of the size of the family. It should be Federal because only the national government can act uniformly, consistently and effectively.

    What did Mr. Roosevelt give us? In the name of security, he gave us a bill where in order to get security the unemployed workers will first have to get a job, then lose a job. He will have to be surge that he gets the job and loses the job in a State which has an unemployment insurance law.

    He will then have to be sure that the State which has the law will have the funds and the zeal to get the money to fulfill the terms of the law. This will largely depend upon whether it proves to be practical and constitutional for the Federal Government to collect a sufficient tax on payrolls so that 90 percent of it when rebated to employers to turn over to the State officers will be sufficient to give some kind of security to those who are unemployed!

    The whole proceeding is so complicated, the danger of forty-eight competing State laws — competing, by the way, for minimum, not for maximum benefits– is so dangerous that the President’s bill can justly be called an in-Security bill.

    “Billions of Words”

    If Mr. Smith means that the programs of public works either under PWA or WPA is Socialist, again he is mistaken. We do not tolerate the standards of pay set on much WPA work — $19 a month, for instance, in some States in the South. We do insist not upon talk but upon action to re-house the third of America which lives in houses unfit for human habitation, which is possible given the present state of the mechanic arts in a nation of builders.

    The administration, having spent billions of words, not dollars, on housing with little result, is now turning the job over to private mortgage companies. Would not Al Smith or Alf Landon do the same?

    But even if Mr. Roosevelt and the New Deal had far more closely approximated Socialist immediate demands in their legislation, they would not have been Socialists, not unless Mr. Smith is willing to argue that every reform, every attempt to curb rampant and arrogant capitalism, every attempt to do for the farmers something like what the tariff has done for business interests, is socialism.

    Not only is it not socialism, but in large degree this State capitalism, this use of bread and circuses to keep the people quiet, is so much a necessary development of a dying social order that neither Mr. Smith nor Mr. Hoover in office in 1937 could substantially change the present picture or bring back the days of Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland or Calvin Coolidge.

    What Roosevelt has given us, and what Republicans cannot and will not substantially change, is not the socialism of the cooperative commonwealth. It is a State capitalism which the Fascist demagogues of Europe have used when they came to power. The thing, Mr. Smith, that you ought to fear is not that the party of Jefferson and Jackson is marching in step with Socialists toward a Socialist goal; it is that, unwittingly, it may be marching in step with Fascists toward a Fascist goal.

    I do not mean that Mr. Roosevelt himself is a Fascist or likely to become a Fascist. I credit him with as liberal intentions as capitalism and his Democratic colleagues of the South permit. I call attention to the solemn fact that in spite of his circumspect liberalism, repression, the denial of civil liberty, a Fascist kind of military law, stark terrorism have been increasing under Democratic Governors for the most part — in Indiana, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas and, of course, in California, where Mr. Roosevelt did not even come to the aid of an ex-Socialist, Upton Sinclair, against the candidate of the reactionaries.

    I repeat that what Mr. Roosevelt has given us is State capitalism: that is to say, a system under which the State steps in to regulate and in many cases to own, not for the purpose of establishing production for use but rather for the purpose of maintaining in so far as may be possible the profit system with its immense rewards of private ownership and its grossly unfair division of the national income.

    Today Mr. Roosevelt does not want fascism; Mr. Hoover does not want fascism; not even Mr. Smith and his friends of the Liberty League want fascism. The last-named gentlemen want an impossible thing: the return to the unchecked private monopoly power of the Coolidge epoch.

    Must Abolish the Profit System

    All the gentlemen whom I have named want somehow to keep the profit system. Socialism means to abolish that system. Those who want to keep it will soon find that out of war or out of the fresh economic collapse inevitable when business prosperity is so spotty, so temporary, so insecure as it is today, will come the confusion to which capitalism’s final answer must be the Fascist dictator.

    In America that dictator will probably not call himself Fascist. He, like Mr. Roosevelt in his address to Congress, will thank God that we are not like other nations. But privately he will rejoice in the weakness of our opposition to tyranny. Under the forms of democracy we have not preserved liberty. It has not taken black shirts to make us docile.

    Given the crisis of war or economic collapse we, unless we awake, will accept dictatorship by violence to perpetuate a while longer the class division of income. We shall acknowledge the religion of the totalitarian state and become hypnotized by the emotional appeal of a blind jingoistic nationalism. Against this Fascist peril and its Siamese twin, the menace of war, there is no protection in the New Deal, no protection in the Republican party, less than no protection in the Liberty League.

    Who of them all is waging a real battle even for such civil liberties and such democratic rights as ostensibly are possible in a bourgeois democracy? When Al Smith appeals to the Constitution is he thinking of the liberties of the Bill of Rights or is he thinking of the protection the Constitution has given to property?

    As a Socialist, I was no lover of the NRA or AAA. NRA, at least temporarily, did give the workers some encouragement to organize, but at bottom it was an elaborate scheme for the stabilization of capitalism under associations of industries which could regulate production in order to maintain profit. AAA was perhaps some relative help to many classes of farmers. It was no help at all to the most exploited agricultural workers and share-croppers, but rather the opposite. And it was, as indeed it had to be under capitalism, primarily a scheme for subsidizing scarcity.

    This was not primarily the fault of the AAA. It was the fault of the capitalist system which Roosevelt and Smith alike accept; that system which makes private profit its god, which uses planning, in so far as it uses planning at all, to stabilize and maintain the profits of private owners, not the well being of the masses. In the last analysis the profit system inevitably depends upon relative scarcity. Without this relative scarcity there is no profit and there is no planning for abundance which accepts the kingship of private profit.

    When the world went in for great machinery operated by power it went in for specialization and integration of work. It doomed the old order of pioneers. The one chance of using machinery for life, not death, is that we should plan to use it for the common good. There is no planned production for use rather than for the private profit of an owning class which does not involve social ownership. This is the gospel of socialism.

    Abundance Possible

    We can have abundance. In 1929, according to the Brookings Institute — and that, remember, was our most prosperous year — a decent use of our capacity to produce would have enabled us to raise the income of 16,400,000 families with less than $2,000 a year to that modest level without even cutting any at the top.

    Instead, without any interference from workers, without any pressure from agitators, the capitalist system so dear to Al Smith and his Liberty League friends went into a nose-spin. The earned income dropped from $83,000,000,000 to something like $38,000,000,000 in 1932, and the temporary recovery, of which the New Deal administration boasts, has probably not yet raised that income to the $50,000,000,000 level. It has, moreover, burdened us with an intolerable load of debt.

    What we must have is a society where we can use our natural resources and machinery so that the children of the share-croppers who raise cotton will no longer lack the cotton necessary for underclothes. What we must have is a society which can use our resources and our mechanical skill so that the children of builders will not live in shacks and slums.

    It is not that Socialists want less private property. We want more private property in the good things of life. We do not mean to take the carpenter’s kit away from the carpenter or Fritz Kreisler’s violin away from Fritz Kreisler, or the home or the farm in which any man lives and works away from him.

    We do intend to end private landlordism, and to take the great natural resources — oil, copper, coal, iron; the great public utilities, power, transportation; the banking system, the distributive agencies like the dairy trust, the basic monopolies and essential manufacturing enterprises — out of the hands of private owners, most of them absentee owners, for whose profits workers with hand and brain are alike exploited. And we intend to put these things into the hands of society.

    Tax Private Wealth

    We intend to make this change to social ownership in orderly fashion. In the meantime we can avert fresh economic collapse by the road of crazy inflation or cruel deflation only by an orderly process of taxing wealth in private hands, by a graduated tax, approaching expropriation of unearned millions, in order to wipe out debt and to help in the socialization of industry.

    We do not mean to turn socialized industries over to political bureaucrats, to Socialist Jim Farleys, so to speak. The adjective doesn’t redeem the noun. For instance, we intend that a socialized steel industry shall be managed under a directorate representing the workers, including, of course, the technicians in that industry, and the consumers.

    We can do it without conscription and without rationing our people. We ought not to pay the price Russia has paid because we are far more industrially advanced than was Russia and should learn from Russia’s mistakes as well as her successes.

    Goal Is True Democracy

    Our goal, Mr. Smith, is true democracy. It is we who lead in the fight for liberty and justice which you in recent years have sadly ignored. It is we who seek to make freedom and democracy constitutional by advocating a Workers Rights Amendment in the interest of farmers, workers and consumers, giving to Congress power to adopt all needful social and economic legislation, but leaving to the courts their present power to help protect civil and religious liberty.

    Our present judicial power of legislation is as undemocratic as it is in the long run dangerous to peace. Remember the Dred Scott decision! Congress rather than the States must act because these issues are national. The religion of the Constitution with the Supreme Court as the high priests and the Liberty League as its preacher will never satisfy human hunger for freedom, peace and plenty.

    The Constitution was made for man and not man for the Constitution. We Socialists seek now its orderly amendment. We seek now genuine social security, real unemployment insurance. We seek now a policy which will make it a little harder for American business interests to involve us in war as a result of a mad chase after the profits of war.

    These, gentlemen who quarrel over the way to save capitalism, are the things of our immediate desire. But deepest of all is our desire for a federation of cooperative Commonwealths. Some of you may like this far less than you like the New Deal, but will you not agree that it is not the New Deal?

    You said, Mr. Smith, in a peroration worthy of your old enemy, William Randolph Hearst, that there can be only one victory, of the Constitution.

    And this is our reply: There is only one victory worth the seeking by the heirs of the American Revolution. It is the victory of a fellowship of free men, using government as their servant, to harness our marvelous machinery for abundance, not poverty; peace, not war; freedom, not exploitation.

    This is the victory in which alone is practicable deliverance from the house of our bondage. This is the victory to which we dedicate ourselves.

  • To Whoever Is Still Willing to Listen

    To Whoever Is Still Willing to Listen

    President André Manuel López Obador has deployed several thousand troops of the newly created National Guard to the state of Chiapas to deter Central American immigrants from entering Mexico from Guatemala and in that way to please U.S. President Donald J. Trump. There is fear that not only will the National Guard repress the Central Americans but that it will also be used against the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, its communities, and other indigenous peoples. The following statement, which we have translated here, has been issued by Mexican and international individuals and organizations. – Dan La Botz

    This is a message of concern for life and for dignity. Those of us who are signing this letter are worried about what is happening once again in the forgotten corner of southeast Mexico that became transformed into hope and rebellion, Chiapas.

    This is neither an ideological manifesto nor a declaration taking a position regarding the political changes that are taking place in Mexico. It is a message of genuine concern for what is felt to be developing down there after 25 years, after 500 years of resisting extermination and oblivion. We are worried about those who for a quarter of a century have fought for their autonomy, who have put their dignity above political pragmatism, and who have been an example of freedom in a world in world shackled by fear. We are worried about the Zapatistas.

    We are concerned to learn about the growing military activity in the territories of the Zapatista communities. We see that in the midst of the complex security situation that Mexico is experiencing, the movement toward the militarization of the country is gaining speed. It is a warning sign that under the very questionable strategy regarding the National Guard, just as has occurred so many times before, there is a “security” force that doesn’t distinguish between crime and resistance, between cruelty and legitimate rebellion. It is contradictory that when the statistics of the Government of Mexico itself indicate that the Zapatiasta zone has among the lowest crime rates, the security strategy is directed in a threatening way to these zones that are some of the few sanctuaries of liberty and safety for the Mexico of the underdogs.

    This appears to be a strategy of war rather than a strategy of security.

    We who sign this letter are a diverse group of people, some of whom perceive the administration of Andrés Manuel López Obrador with hope and others with skepticism, still we are all people who dream of a different and better world. Those of us who support this statement believe that change in Mexico cannot take place under the shadow of political pragmatism, giving into pressures that lead toward authoritarianism, exploitation, and violence on behalf of the 1%, nor can it change with the disqualification of critical voices that with their authenticity and consistency have won the respect of the world.

    We see a growing process of hostility toward authentic, historic and legitimate projects of resistance that oppose the Maya Train, the Transisthmian Corridor, and the Integral Morelos Plan, among others. We are concerned to learn about the recent homicides of members of the National Indigenous Governing Congress. We are concerned with the possibility that this government, with its liberal and conservative predecessors, will once again marginalize the indigenous people on the verge of extermination.

    The world is watching with its eyes and its heart what is happening in Mexico and in Chiapas.

    Stop the war against the Zapatistas and the indigenous peoples of Mexico!

    INTERNATIONAL SIGNATORIES

    Noam Chomsky

    Arundhati Roy

    Boaventura de Souza Santos

    Raúl Zibechi

    Yvon Le Bot

    Michael Hardt

    Oscar Olivera

    Hugo Blanco Galdós

    Jasmin Hristov

    Joe Foweraker

    Eric Toussaint

    Michael Löwy

    Carlos Taibo

    Pedro Brieger

    Manuel Rozental

    Mauricio Acosta

    Vilma Almendra

    Nicolás Falcoff

    Guillermina Acosta

    Iosu Perales

    Philippe Corcuff (profesor de ciencia política, Lyon, Francia)

    Enzo Traverso

    (Susan and Barton Winokur Professor in the Humanities, Cornell University)

    Mikel Noval (Eusko Langileen Alkartasuna-Solidaridad de los Trabajadores Vascos – ELA)

    Manuel Gari Ramos (miembro de la Coordinadora Confederal de Anticapitalistas)

    Francisco Louçã (Economista, miembro del Consejo de Estado, Portugal)

    Leo Gabriel (Miembro del Consejo Internacional del Foro Social Mundial)

    Pierre Galand (Senador honorario, ex-secrétario general de Oxfam Belgica)

    Alberto Acosta (Ex-presidente de la Asamblea Constituyente, Ecuador)

    Miguel Urbán (eurodiputado)

    Raúl Camargo (ex diputado de la Asamblea de la Comunidad de Madrid)

    José María González “Kichi” (Alcalde de la ciudad de Cádiz)

    José Luis Cano (diputado del Parlamento de Andalucía)

    Marco Bersani (porta voz de ATTAC ITALIA)

    Tomas Astelarra (periodista, Argentina)

    Derly Constanza Cuetia Dagua (Indígena Nasa, Pueblos en Camino)

    Antonio Moscato (Universidad del Salento Lecce -Italia)

    Jaime Pastor (editor de Viento Sur)

    Aldo Zanchetta (periodista free lance Lucca -Italia)

    Miren Odriozola Uzcudun (País Vasco)

    Kepa Bilbao Ariztimuño (profesor)

    Rogério Haesbaert (geógrafo y profesor universidades Federal Fluminense y de Buenos Aires)

    Gilbert Achcar (Profesor en la SOAS, Universidad de Londres)

    Antonio Moscato (Italia)

    Virginia Vargas Valente (Perú)

    Rommy Arce (ex concejala del Ayuntamiento de Madrid)

    Josu Egireun (Redacción Viento Sur)

    Mariana Sanchez (sindicalista, Francia)

    Jorge Costa (diputado del Bloco de Esquerda en el parlamento de Portugal)

    Franck Gaudichaud (Catedrático, Universidad Toulouse Jean Jaurés, Francia / Miembro del colectivo editorial de Rebelion.org)

    Arturo Escobar (Prof de antropologia emerito, U de Carolina del Norte, Chapel Hill)

    Olga Luisa Salanueva (Directora Maestría en Sociología Jurídica UNLP, Argentina)

    José Murillo Mateos

    Hilda Imas

    Jorge Ignacio Smokvina

    Hernan Parra Castro Presidente Comité Ejecutivo Nacional FENASIBANCOL

    William Gaviria Ocampo Fiscal Comité Ejecutivo NACIONAL FENASIBANCOL

    César Augusto Cárdenas Ávila Secretario General C.E.N. FENASIBANCOL Detlef R. Kehrmann Camille Chalmers (PAPDA – Haïti)

    José Angel Quintero Weir (Organización Wainjirawa para la Educación Propia-Venezuela)

    Vanda Ianowski (Docente Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Río Negro Argentina)

    Maria Adele Cozzi – camminardomandando (Italia)

    Luis Martínez Andrade (chercheur post-doctoral Collège d’études mondiales/Fondation Maison des Sciences de l’homme) Roberto Bugliani (Italia)

    Juanca Giles Macedo (Perú)

    Joxe iriarte “Bikila” (Escritor y militante de Alternativa y EHBILDU, Euskal Herria- estado Español)

     

    MEXICAN SIGNATORIES

    Juan Villoro

    Ely Guerra

    Oscar Chávez

    Francisco Barrios “El Mastuerzo”

    Márgara Millán

    Juan Carlos Rulfo

    Jean Robert

    Javier Sicilia

    Luis de Tavira

    Gilberto López y Rivas

    Jorge Alonso

    Paulina Fernández Christlieb

    Eduardo Matos Moctezuma

    Isolda Osorio

    Raúl Delgado  Wise

    Alicia Castellanos Guerrero

    Sylvia Marcos

    Carolina Coppel Mercedes Olivera (CESMECA-UNICACH)

    Carlos López Beltrán

    Magdalena Gómez

    Rosalva Aída Hernández

    Bárbara Zamora

    Beatriz Aurora

    Néstor Quiñones

    Fernanda Navarro

    Alejando Varas

    Raúl Romero (Sociólogo, UNAM)

    Marta De Cea

    Servando Gajá

    Rosa Albina Garavito Elías

    Eduardo Almeida Acosta

    Ma. Eugenia Sánchez Díaz de Rivera

    Ana Lidya Flores Marín

    John Holloway

    Sergio Tischler

    Fernando Matamoros

    Gustavo Esteva

    José Luis San Miguel

    Lucía Linsalatta

    Paulino Alvarado

    Peter Joseph Winkel Ninteman

    Isis Samaniego Mayra I Terrones Medina (Posgrado en Desarrollo Rural, Profesora investigadora, UAM Xochimilco)

    Carolina Concepcion González González (profesora-investigadora de la Universidad Autónoma de Baja California Sur)

    José Javier Contreras Vizcaino (Estudiante Doctorado en Sociología ICSyH-BUAP)

    Mayleth Alejandra Zamora Echegollen (Estudiante Doctorado en Sociología ICSyH-BUAP)

    MAYLETH ECHEGOLLEN GUZMÁN.- PROFRA-INVEST.- BUAP.

    Rene Olvera Salinas (profesor de la UPN y UAQ ,Querétaro, México).

    Rogelio Regalado Mujica (Instituto de Ciencias Jurídicas de Puebla)

    Edgard Sánchez (miembro de la dirección del Partido Revolucionario de los Trabajadores)

    Karla Sánchez Félix (filósofa)

    Estefania Avalos Palacios (antropóloga)

    Francisco Javier Gómez Carpinteiro

    Ana María Verá Smith

    Rodolfo Suáres Molnar (UAM- Cuajimalpa)

    Álvaro J. Peláez Cedrés (UAM-Cuajimalpa)

    Mara Muñoz Galván (Observatorio de Justicia y Derechos Humanos de Mujeres y Niñas)

    Aline Zárate Santiago (Colectivo Liberación Ixtepecana)

    Alejandra Ramìrez Gaytán (Desempleada y en ocupación alternativa)

    Ita del Cielo (socióloga)

    Gabriela Di Lauro

    David Rodríguez Altamirano Byron

    Eduardo Lechuga Arriaga

    Carolina Martínez de la Peña

    María del Pilar Muñoz Lozano

    Juan Jerónimo Lemus

    Cecilia Zeledón

    Ana Laura Suárez Lima

    Lilia García Torres

    Iliana Vázquez López

    Silvia Coca Katia Rodríguez

    Pilar Salazar

    Miguel López Girón

    Rogelio Mascorro

    Alexia Dosal

    Edith González

    Priscila Tercero

    David Hernández

    Roberto Giordano Longoni Martínez

    Renata Carvajal Bretón

    Beleguí Rasgado Malo

    Mario Hernández Pedroza

    Monserrat Rueda Becerril

    Erika Sánchez Cruz Jannú

    Ricardo Casanova Moreno

    Marisol Delgado

    Alejandro Gracida Rodríguez

    Ariadna Flores Hernández

    Tamara San Miguel

    Eduardo Almeida Sánchez

     

    ORGANIZACIONES 

    Red Europa Zapatista

    Confederación General del Trabajo (Estado Español)

    Union syndicale Solidaires, Francia

    txiapasEKIN (Euskal Herria – País Vasco)

    Centro de Documentación sobre Zapatismo (CEDOZ) (Estado Español)

    Asamblea de Solidaridad con México (País Valencia, Estado Español)

    Humanrights – Chiapas (Zurich, Suiza)

    Comitato Chiapas “Maribel” (Bergamo, Italia)

    Y Retiemble! Espacio de apoyo al Congreso Nacional Indígena desde Madrid (Estado Español)

    Mutz vitz 13 (Marsella, Francia)

    Associació solidaria Cafè Rebeldía-Infoespai (Barcelona-Catalunya)

    Adherentes a la sexta (Barcelona, Catalunya)

    Ya Basta! Moltitudia Roma” (Italia)

    Cooperazione Rebelde (Napoli, Italia)

    Espoir Chiapas – Esperanza Chiapas (Francia)

    Manchester Zapatista Collective (Reino Unido)

    ASSI (Acción Social Sindical Internacionalista)

    Pueblos en Camino (Colombia)

    La Insurgencia del Caracol (Argentina)

    FM La Tribu (Buenos Aires, Argentina)

    Radio El grito (Córdoba, Argentina)

    Red de Solidaridad con Chiapas de Buenos Aires (Argentina)

    Federación Nacional de Sindicatos Bancarios Colombianos “FENASIBANCOL” (Colombia)

    Red Contra la Represión y por la Solidaridad (México)

    Unidad Obrera y Socialista – ¡UNÍOS! (México)

    Unión de Vecinos y Damnificados “19 de septiembre” (México)

    Editorial Redez (México)

    Desarrollo y Aprendizaje Solidario (México)

    Colectivo Detonacción Puebla (México)

    Editorial En cortito que´s pa´largo (Querétaro, México).

    Unitierra Puebla (México)

    Universidad de la Tierra en Oaxaca (México)

    Centro de Encuentros y Diálogos Interculturales (México)

    Tianguis Alternativo de Puebla (México)

    Comisión Takachiualis de Derechos Humanos (México)

    Nodo de Derechos Humanos (México)

     

     

  • On Being An Organizer

    On Being An Organizer

    There prevailed among the twentieth-century left a barbarous tradition of settling political differences by use of the most monstrous methods. The worst aberrations were the aggressions that Stalinism naturalized. But those who suffered the most from this violence were not themselves immune.

    Trotskyists valorized theoretical debates. And although we took up ideas as our weapons, we became specialists in cruel polemics, even heartless ones. Perhaps others were as devastating in their internal discussions, but Trotskyists elevated political masochism to another level, to a new form of dramatic art, almost a new genre of literature.

    We developed a reputation. We became known as selfless organizers, but arrogant ones. Well-trained, but sectarian. This fragility has a history. Whomever swims against the current long enough, struggling as a minority, will sooner or later inevitably develop sectarian reflexes. There’s an old Trotskyist joke we tell amongst ourselves that there those of us who are of us are so sectarian, they don’t even realize it.

    Here’s hoping that the new generation will be capable of overcoming our habits. A little revolutionary passion is welcome because it can be exciting. Yet excessive enthusiasm in a debate over ideas rests, almost always, on exaggerations.

    There are different types of polemics: frontal, lateral, and rearguard. Frontal polemics are arguments with our class enemies. Lateral ones are those conducted within the left between distinct currents. And rearguard polemics take place within a collective. In general, they all go on simultaneously. But they should not be made in the same manner, nor with the same intensity, because the rules are different and excessive pride is childish.

    All polemics have their place and time. Some are resolved very quickly, others go on for years and require patience. Much depends on the course of events and reality does not always operate within hasty deadlines. Hypotheses must be proven by the facts and every debate must have beginning, middle, and end. Each discussion has its own tone as well. The tone of a debate, be it amicable and fraternal, or harsh and bitter, is comprehensible within its own limits. What are these limits? Respect.

    We on the Brazilian left are too tolerant of “disproportion.” Of course, rigor is very important, but rigor should not be funerary. Rigor means being accurate, succinct, precise. In other words, calibration is a good measure of maturity. We are a fraternity of fighters, we do not need pomp, we need balance.

    The heat of any debate ought to depend more on the magnitude of the differences than on the personality of the activists. We should not let a debate over ideas become emotionally contaminated. We should cultivate self-control, self-discipline, and self-restraint. Differences over tactics, nuances, and nuances should be routine and experimental. Strategic differences are by their nature intense and programmatic, but any serious polemic deserves respectful treatment.

    There can be no collective elaboration of ideas without a struggle. Every argument contains a criticism and, therefore, a polemic. But freedom of discussion always means freedom for those who think differently from us and we should not be afraid of having differences. We should be wary of making mistakes because errors come at a high price. However, if there is no internal democracy in an organization, there can be no mutual development of ideas and without this collective elaboration we will make more mistakes. It’s unavoidable.

    Furthermore, there is no point organizing in a collective without the genuine right to participate in developing its views. Any such activism is incomplete, stunted, mutilated. Organizing is a gift, but it must be understood as a complete package. We must think together and act together. If only a few people exercise the democratic right to think, while others have the obligation to act, something is very wrong.

    Everyone should have the right to say what they think. But they also have a duty to listen to what they would rather not hear. Learning to listen takes time. After all, it is very common for an idea to be presented clearly but not be understood. And it is not uncommon for ideas to be presented without clarity, with even worse results. Knowing how to listen, and to understand what was said, is as important as knowing how to speak.

    Of course, the right to participate cannot be limited to that because we must designate the manner in which decisions are made. Who gets to decide, and what they get to decide, is very important, too. These rules may change over time, but whatever they are, they must be clear.

    At the same time, the right to participate should not be interpreted as a duty to agree. No one should feel uncomfortable, embarrassed, or constrained because they disagree with anyone else. There shouldn’t be pressure for unanimity. If the cohesion of an organization rests solely on the authority of leaders, then it is really very fragile. It may look like an impregnable castle, but all it is, in reality, is a sand castle.

    Of course, all this means that emotional or psychological education and training is necessary in order to conduct real debates. To participate fully in a discussion, it takes maturity to avoid interpreting a disagreement as a personal offense. This kind of quiet, adult, and balanced attitude is learned, meaning that there is a subjective dimension in our political relations. And this subjective dimension means we must take care not to hurt each other.

    A socialist collective is a very intense sort of school where we are not only educated as organizers, but we grow to become more complete, more responsible, well-rounded people. Training and educating leaders for popular struggles is the core task of any serious Marxist organization.

    Certainly, there is the danger that activists may get upset during an argument, but polemics are only destructive when they become simply ad hominem attacks. A sure sign of such ad hominem attacks are arguments that seek to diminish, exclude, or demoralize the person who thinks differently from us. Wonderful and long-term comrades, who have undergone many tests, can end up defending mistaken ideas, even absurdities, nonsense, and aberrations. And sometimes confused or dubious people, or people of doubtful character, may be right. The guiding rule in the struggle of ideas is respect for those with whom you disagree, in other words, intellectual honesty. Conflicts over ideas must be understood as a swordplay of arguments.

    The most dangerous symptom of sectarianism is factionalism. On the one hand, factionalism is not the same as the formation of a trend. A trend can be a temporary union of activists around a platform on one or more issues. The same with a faction. A faction is an internal grouping who wants to run for office or leadership positions and asks for the right to proportional representation. During a debate, those who espouse the same ideas and organize themselves along those lines have the right to do so. Trends or factions like this are legitimate and, to a large extent, unavoidable. On the other hand, factionalism is the formation of a faction united on bonds of personal trust, even if their members have different ideas, that is, a clique. And the worst factionalism is secret factionalism.

    There are two types of factionalism, that of the majority and that of the minority. The majority kind is much more serious. This factionalism is a political disease, and its most common symptom is intolerance of plurality of thought, that is, the ideas of others. Along these lines, constructing a conspiracy theory is a common feature of majority factionalism.

    But this is only one symptom. Factionalism is distinguished by clique behavior and the inexorable consequence is fragmentation. When the disease of factionalism sets in, then distrust and suspicion sets in as well. What are the hidden intentions of those who disagree with me? It is not difficult to construct an imaginary narrative from a few grains of truth.

    When confronted with such a situation, honesty and respect are indivisible. Honesty is respecting others and their ideas, but also admitting mistakes when they happen. A willingness to be self-critical is essential. Anyone incapable of self-reflection is untrustworthy. Admitting a mistake never diminished anyone, and activists and organizations that do not critically examine the balance sheet of their ideas have no future.

    Being consistent does not mean being obtuse. Consistency means coherently defending of a program of ideas. Coherency does not mean not making mistakes. Consistency means being able to admit the need to correct oneself. Only obtuse people never admit to mistakes, and such an attitude is base, crude, primitive.

    Respecting the positions of others is not only the mark of a good political education and good character, it constitutes the most basic humility. Every socialist organization, due to the Balkanized context in which we are immersed, is only one embryo amongst others. Any self-aggrandizing conception of its own past, however important, imposing, or grandiose, is substitutionist and incorrigibly divisive.

    The process of reorganizing the left will be expansive and slow and we will have many discussions. But in a good discussion, there are no winners or losers.

    Originally published at www.EsquerdaOnLine.com.br, translated from the Portuguese by Todd Chretien.

  • Review: We Need To Talk About Putin

    Review: We Need To Talk About Putin

    This week a fabricated case against Russian anti-corruption journalist Ivan Golunov was dropped, following a campaign by colleagues and the public. It presents an embarrassing setback for president Vladimir Putin, who in response has called for the heads of top Moscow police officials. However many of those who protested in support of Golunov have been arrested. In this context Mark Galeotti’s alternate perspective on Putin, as presented in his recent book We Need to Talk About Putin, provides an interesting read.

     

    Mark Galeotti, We Need to Talk About Putin: How the West Gets Him Wrong (London: Ebury Press, 2019). 160 pp.

    ***

    The BBC announced their new satirical chat show, Tonight With Vladimir Putin, shortly after Mark Galeotti’s We Need To Talk About Putin was published, but I imagine he will dislike it almost as much as the Kremlin, albeit for different reasons. The 3D animated version of the Russian President looks set to embody many of the lazy assumptions about Vladimir Putin – as a Machiavellian, publicity-hungry control freak – that Galeotti tries to discredit in his pithy Putin primer.

    Putin occupies a similar space for many Western liberals as George Soros does for alt-right anti-Semites – a shadowy puppet-master behind, according to some, ‘Donald Trump’s election, Brexit, the rise of populism in Europe, the migrant crisis and even football hooliganism’. Galeotti makes a convincing case that Putin is less the master chess player of popular metaphor, more a reactive judoka (judo practitioner), opportunistically seizing the advantage created by the mistakes of his enemies.

    He is aided in this effort by an army of smaller judokas – politicians, generals, entrepreneurs, media bosses – looking to exploit opportunities in the direction of policy that Putin, a much less detail-focused leader than state propaganda maintains, has broadly outlined. Galeotti compares this method to that of tsarism, an ‘adhocracy’ of courtiers aiming for advancement by pleasing the Boss. Galeotti rhetorically asks, ‘did Russia back Brexit?’ He concludes that, though the news channel Russia Today, news agency Sputnik, many Russian commentators, diplomats and social media ‘troll farms’ certainly did, ‘it is hard to say whether or not Putin or the Kremlin specifically backed the campaign. They certainly did nothing to stop it, but a consequence of this bottom-up system is that it can often be hard to know where a specific initiative originated.’

    At the risk of opening the door to spurious ‘Putin is a Nazi’ comparisons, it also reminded this reader of Ian Kershaw’s description of Hitler’s underlings ‘Working Toward the Fuhrer’. Galeotti is right to insist that Russia’s authoritarianism is of a different breed, but when he balances the brutal repression of ‘traitors’ such as Chechan rebels, off-message oligarchs and LGBTQ+ people against, for example, the existence of women’s rights, he at times underplays the extent to which these are under attack. For example, in March 2017 the government decriminalised some forms of domestic violence, and Moscow’s mayor denied authorisation for protests in response. There is perhaps a more selective approach to dominating the social sphere when compared to fascism. Galeotti argues that local independent pressure groups are able to effect change as long as they are not seen to threaten the state, and points to a multi-party system filled with sock-puppet candidates and managed dissent instead of openly one-party rule. There is no internet parallel with the ‘Great Fire Wall’ of China, with self-censorship largely serving the same purpose. However these nuances will be of little consolation to those attracting the ire of the security services, such as the anarchists and anti-fascist students from Penza and St Petersburg tortured into confessions of supposed terrorist activity.

    Putin’s own paranoia ironically mirrors that with which he is so often viewed. His ascent up the KGB involved little active espionage, with the late 1980s spent filing reports in East Germany and getting plump on German beer rather than acting as a Russian James Bond. But perhaps because his career was not very distinguished, he places inordinate trust in an overlapping web of spy and security services, who compete for favour by increasingly dubious briefings.

    Putin is immensely rich – Galeotti estimates his wealth at £156 billion – as much as Jeff Bezos of Amazon and Bill Gates of Microsoft put together. As detailed in Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine, policies initially driven by Yeltsin and the oligarchs with the full connivance of American neoliberals have caused income inequality to rocket since the fall of the Soviet Union, with about 65% of Russia’s net wealth now belonging to the top 10%, and Russian wealth stratification the worst of any of the major economies analysed in the World Inequality Database. Putin’s introduction of a massively regressive 13% flat rate tax in 2001 has exacerbated this trend. But Galeotti is not primarily interested in this large scale larceny, focusing his argument on the contention that Putin is primarily motivated by power, both as an individual (hence the ludicrous topless hunting pictures) and for Russia. His nationalism glorifies tsars and Stalin alike, as strong leaders in whose tradition he sees himself. He bridled at Obama’s description of Russia as a ‘regional power’, and much Russian foreign policy can be seen as asserting militarily a stronger presence than its economy merits (though the same is also true of the USA).

    Galeotti argues that Putin ‘is aware that overall and when united, the West is so much more powerful than Russia, with twenty times its gross domestic product, six times the population, and more than three times as many troops’. And yet, it’s by failing to emphasise the lack of Western unity that Galeotti’s analysis is most limited. He considers Putin to be practising a 19th century imperialism, unlike the 21st century foreign policy of the West, but though the form may have altered the essence of inter-imperialist rivalry persists. As a consultant to ‘governments and commercial and law-enforcement agencies’ Galeotti must understand this, but this book instead posits advice to a monolithic ‘West’ in which we, the readers, are assumed to share the perspectives and interests of an alliance of Western governments.

    This book does not aim to be a panoramic evaluation of Russian society, so perhaps should not be judged for what it is not. There are a range of useful examples deployed as Galeotti responds to a succession of Putin myths, most of which he successfully challenges. But Russia’s support for Bashar al-Assad’s murderous war in Syria gets only a cursory mention, a weakness that is hard to explain given the tenor of the rest of the book. We needed to talk about that as well.

    Originally posted at rs21.

  • The Latest Charter School Scandal

    The Latest Charter School Scandal

    Charter schools are big business opportunities and lax oversight rules make them ripe for financial manipulation and outright theft. The latest charter school scandal just broke in California where two business operatives are accused of siphoning over $50 million in public dollars into companies they owned or controlled in a multi-year-long charter school scam.

    Sean McManus, an Australian national, and Jason Schrock, his Long Beach business partner, the CEO and president of something called A3 Education, and nine others were just indicted in San Diego County. A3 is accused of enlisting small school districts in creating nineteen bogus online charter schools in order to obtain additional state funds.

    A3 Education claims to provide a “wide variety of start-up services to aid school developers prior to and during launch. Working with school leaders and governing boards during the application and petition stages, A3 Education can assist with creating budgets, staff, marketing, financial, and strategic plans. Our dedicated team can review applications to ensure the mission and vision of the school is clearly portrayed throughout.”

    However, according to San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stephan,“These defendants engaged in a devious, systematic public corruption scheme on the backs of students, their parents and the public that over time diverted millions of taxpayer dollars into their own pockets. Our team of investigators and prosecutors uncovered widespread misappropriation of public funds that extends across the state.” Charges include conspiracy, misappropriation of public funds, paying for student information, and conflict of interest. A3 “enrolled” about 40,000 students across California without providing them with any services. Among other scams, McManus and Schrock are accused of paying youth programs for student information and then listed the students as enrolled into their summer charter school programs. They received $2,000 for each student whose name appeared on their books. If convicted, McManus and Schrock face more than forty years in prison.

    Los Angeles Times report found that at least $8.18 million in state money went into McManus and Schrock’s personal bank accounts. Another $1.6 million was spent purchasing a private residence for McManus.

    The Dehesa Elementary School District east of San Diego is one of the districts accused of conspiring with A3 Education. While the school district has only about 150 students, its authorized online charter schools that supposedly served 20,000 students. The district superintendent is one of the people charged in the case.

    Even the charter school industry is outraged by A3, but it is also trying to protect itself. The California Charter Schools Association, which lobbies for charter schools, raised concerns about illegal activity by A3 Education with the California state education department in February 2018 and urged that allegations against A3 Education be investigated. Charter schools have every reason to worry as the industry sets up independent school “accrediting agencies” to circumvent legitimate oversight. A3’s Valiant schools, Valiant Academy of Southern California and Valiant Academy of Los Angeles were “accredited” by an organization called AdvancED, which also accredits online schools operated by K12, Inc., Pearson’s Connections Education, and Responsive Education Solutions. In its recent annual report, Pearson told stockholders that its online schools offered the company “high growth potential” in a market valued at $1.5 billion with a “5% annual market growth potential.”

    Originally posted at Daily Kos.

  • Lessons from the East Bay Democratic Socialists of America

    Lessons from the East Bay Democratic Socialists of America

    A recent article, written by Abigail Gutmann-Gonzalez and Keith Brower Brown, in the Bread and Roses caucus’s blog, The Call, asserts that the East Bay DSA’s campaigns have been a remarkable success. The title of this essay, “Lessons from The East Bay,” purports to dissect the chapter’s campaigns thus far.[1]The East Bay DSA (EBDSA)—a chapter that I am a part of—covers an expansive geography and has a number of barriers that are admittedly difficult to tackle. So far, the chapter has put most of its focus on difficult electoral work in which underdog candidates and electoral measures are pitted against a well-heeled opposition. Credit is due for EBDSA leadership for their dedication in these endeavors. However, in my view, Gutmann-Gonzalez and Brown’s essay does not sufficiently assess the chapter’s work.

    The piece in question neglects two important points that can allow us to derive lessons from the EBDSA experience. First, the analysis should have asked if the chapter, with and alongside the East Bay working class, have become materially empowered by the EBDSA’s campaigns. I will detail this below, but the article omits some obvious problems. Most troublesome is the Oakland Educational Association’s (OEA) teachers strike. The tentative agreement was bitterly contested by many leftward OEA members who ultimately were unsupported by EBDSA. Their concerns rightfully aligned with a general socialist perspective: the contract did not prevent 24 planned school closures[2], and that OEA pay raises might be given at the expense of essential school programs and other union classified staff. One day after the strike’s end, the school board implemented nearly 22 million dollars in cutbacks.[3]

    Second, given the deep problems with the particular campaigns, Gutmann-Gonzalez and Brown should have been compelled to critically assess the larger strategic presumptions that animated each. This is especially essential if the stated campaigns did not work as intended. Yet no strategic assessment appears in their essay. Instead, we are offered a ‘just-so’ story that renders the authors preferred strategic vision as the only alternative. Ossification of strategy is a problem that has dogged socialist and communist formations for some time. If we do not account for our strategic presumptions, they may quickly harden into doctrinaire principles that are divorced from the material reality, the kind of which Lenin famously refuted.[4]

    In conveying these criticisms, my hope is that a wider debate about the organizational work within, and outside of, the EBDSA chapter may ensue.

    A Critical Look at EBDSA Campaigns

    Gutmann-Gonzalez and Brown’s essay mostly focuses on the Jovanka Beckles campaign,[5]Proposition 10 for rent control,[6] and the Oakland Teachers Strike.[7] The authors praise these efforts as building the chapter, and for providing socialist-friendly information the public. Yet, the deeper meaning of these remains vague. Gutmann-Gonzalez and Brown’s piece lean on quantitative information—perhaps unintentionally stated as if they are ‘deliverables’—so as to evidence the effectiveness of our chapter’s work. Behind quantitative information—like the essay’s argument regarding how many people viewed EBDSA’s online videos—are deeper, qualitative questions. What is the relationship between a person who views an EBDSA video online, and that person’s organizational capacity and readiness to engage in struggle? Is the person who voted for Beckles in the primary now organized with many others within the broader working class? How do volunteer phone banks translate into lasting organizational power? Difficult questions like these are not found in the essay. In its place is a sustained acclaim for the chapter’s work done thus far. It is certainly important to praise our collective efforts; there’s no doubt that our chapter’s political organization takes a lot of time, effort, and resolve. However, to rest on one’s laurels is hardly the correct tool for deriving lessons from our actions. We must be able of being critical of what we have done so that we might not repeat the mistakes we have already made. In my view, such a critical look reveals significant problems with all of the EBDSA campaigns. It’s from this critical view that lessons are had.

    Oakland Public Teachers Strike. The teachers strike is treated by Gutmann-Gonzalez and Brown as a historical success. They write: “It was a victory, if not a resounding one.”[8] I am dismayed that the authors appear satisfied with what is, in reality, a troubling outcome that is not unrelated to the EBDSA’s strategic choices. The tentative agreement that was narrowly approved was highly compromised. The three-year contract does not ensure against school closures beyond the first five months.[9] What is perhaps more important is the contract’s impact on class organization in the long-term. On this topic, the contract appears detrimental because it potentially frays intra-class alliances. First, between local union workers, as OEA wage increases came at the expense of classified union workers.[10] Second, between parent-students and the teachers, as popular student services and afterschool programs in response to OEA wage increases.[11] Both of these problems were known in advance, well before the contract was voted on. It was for these reasons that the proposed contract faced stiff opposition by dissident OEA members. Yet, the EBDSA chapter did not effectively work against the contract by way of supporting the dissident teachers. Nor did the EBDSA widely promote that its premiere mutual-aid program—Bread for Ed—would continue alongside a protracted strike. This all signals a deep strategic blunder. To make this clear, it is necessary to briefly narrativize the strike.

    Set against the wider educational strike-wave, the Oakland strike was well-footed and highly popular. Students, some charter teachers, parents, informal left groups, formal leftist organizations and unaffiliated community members all coalesced in a way that strengthened practically all of the OEA’s picket lines. The strike’s power was also bolstered by the Bread for Ed mutual-aid initiative, which provided school lunches for students who relied on district-provided food. Here, credit is due to the EBDSA and the now-defunct International Socialist Organization (ISO) for building and facilitating the program.[12] The Bread for Ed program was important because it materially reinforced the idea that the strike was about wider community concerns. Thus, the reactionary description of the strike as harmful for precarious students, especially students of color, was short circuited. Furthermore, the Bread for Ed program brought an awareness of, and trust between, OEA strikers and local socialist organizations. This latter aspect was important because it granted EBDSA some potential legitimacy in supporting leftward dissident teachers. However, as we will see, this potential was squandered.

    Remarkably, as soon as the strike began to catch an ever more militant stride, a deeply compromised tentative agreement (TA) was announced. After five days of very successful pickets, the TA was haphazardly announced in the midst of a real demonstration of force. Early evening on Friday, over 1,000 people picketed and barricaded a school site with the intention of blocking a school board meeting from convening. Strikers swarmed school board members, fashioned doors with locks, and in one case fought off a school board member’s personal bodyguard. The participants exhibited a steeled resolve to carry the strike into the following week. Yet, the union leader’s announcement of the TA produced immediate confusion and contestation among the OEA membership regarding the day’s blockade and the tentative agreement. Was the union calling off the blockade? Was the strike over? And most importantly, were the school closures nixed? The TA was initially described as a no-concessions agreement, but as details flowed it became clear that the proposed contract paused closures for only 5 months, and that funding for other programs and services wasn’t guaranteed. Many teachers who were facing closure were clearly angry and refused to leave. Classified employees associated with another union, who were there in full force supporting the blockade, were also incensed because the contract meant potential layoffs for them. In short, the TA was immediately contested by members within the OEA, and by key allies outside of it.

    Outcome aside, there were strong strategic reasons for opposing the TA. The proposed contract compromised the relationships that empowered the strike to being with: between teachers and students, by funding wages with cuts to programs that students wanted; between teachers and classified employees, by funding wages through layoffs that affected another important local union; and, damningly, within the OEA membership itself, by allowing school closures to continue after a very brief moratorium. The strike thus had—and will likely continue to have—organizational and political implications well into the future.

    Few will disagree that our strategic orientation must center on rebuilding durable class power, as an antidote to the dissolution of class organization wrenched from decades of counter-revolution. Yet, proletarian power is not reducible to economic concessions. Proletarian power is instead a product of lasting social patterns—material capacities, organic solidarities, mass institutions and a collective sense of belonging—that are byproducts of class struggle. Understanding this, Marx argues in The Communist Manifesto that the task of communists is to advance the interests of the entire proletariat.[13] Inasmuch as Marx’s perspective rings true, socialist groups like the EBDSA had a responsibility to support dissident teachers whose active opposition to the contract pivoted on wider concerns of the class.

    Certainly, struggle cannot be forced, but supporting a substantial group of dissident teachers is far from voluntarist. Four site representatives told me that the representative council (a rank-and-file council that coordinated strike activities)[14] were largely against the contract. This was an uphill battle. Powerful entities stood against them. With significant pressure from leadership to accept the deal, and with no strong allies to counteract this institutional pressure, the 120-person site-rep council narrowly voted in favor of the TA by 3 votes. Eventually, the TA was accepted, but by a narrow margin: 42% voted against it.[15] By contrast, 81% of the LA Teachers Union voted to ratify their contract.[16] If dissident teachers had strong and well-organized allies, the strike might have continued.

    The EBDSA was unable or unwilling to assist dissident teachers. Room to assist dissident teachers clearly existed. Instead, my chapter remained neutral. Neutrality is hardly possible under conditions of political contestation. As a former member has elsewhere argued, the terrain upon which the TA vote took place was far from neutral; the political pretensions of the strike—to challenge closures and characterization—were deeply unpopular with the union’s state and national echelons.[17] Practically every aspect of today’s bourgeois reality works against militant action: institutional pressures from national and state-wide bureaucracies that move locals to moderate their activity; the legal system’s restriction of what strike’s may address; the repressive apparatus of the state that haunts our collective actions with clubs and jailhouses; the deeply-felt social relations of property and ownership; and, the liberal sociality of comprise we are all embedded within. There’s no neutrality in the class struggle. My chapter—the EBDSA—simply failed to act decisively.

    Proposition 10 & Jovanka Beckles. The campaign for proposition 10 resulted in significant demobilization and did not establish a base of organizational activity around housing after its electoral defeat. The East Bay is in the throes of an intense housing crisis, with surges in rental costs, homelessness and evictions.[18] These tendencies make Gutmann-Gonzalez and Brown’s omission of the medium-term impact of the Proposition 10 campaign all the more troublesome.

    Proposition 10 was a statewide ballot initiative that, if passed, would have allowed municipalities to set up their own rent control measures. The bulk of the EBDSA’s Proposition 10 activity consisted of canvassing, often alongside organizations like Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment. Here, door-knockers implored persons to vote for the measure. The most obvious, but superficial, problem with the campaign is that it failed. Proposition 10 lost, with nearly 60% against it.[19] More importantly, the campaign did not build independent organization outside of the election itself. This is because the campaign was manifestly electoral rather than housing-based. Proposition 10 canvassers were not attempting to forget long-term links with tenants. Long-term links could have been accomplished in a number of ways. For example, canvassers could have included inquiries regarding the tenancy-related problems of those they interfaced with. This could have been the basis of medium to long-term building-level housing organizing. Instead, the passing of the election season washed away the campaign’s basis for existing.

    Proposition 10’s ultimate demise is not what is important here—winning is not always key—what’s key is what we get out of losing, and what takes root beyond the loss. The Proposition 10 campaign did not adequately organize working class people in a manner that could outlast the electoral season. Gutmann-Gonzalez and Brown argue that many conversations about housing occurred through the campaign effort. Yet, materially speaking, the EBDSA is left with very little to show after Proposition 10’s defeat.

    Although the content of the Beckles campaign is different than Proposition 10, its form was very similar. Beckles—who is a member of the Richmond Progressive Alliance—challenged neoliberal Democrat Buffy Wicks for the California Assembly 15th district seat, which covers the cities of Berkeley, Emeryville and Richmond. This campaign was an uphill battle, as Wick’s held a significant advantage fiscally, and also by way of support of her campaign by prestigious persons like Barack Obama.[20] Yet, what is important here is not the act of “winning,” but rather the production of organized class power that comes about in the campaign’s process. Unfortunately, Gutmann-Gonzalez and Brown’s accounting does not specify what material organization did outlast this campaign, likely because the campaign did not have a lasting organizational impact.

    Similar to Proposition 10, the most obvious problem with the campaign is that it ultimately failed. Ultimately, Wicks defeated Beckles with 56% of the vote.[21] The campaign’s less facile problem is its lack of enduring organizational capacity beyond the electoral season. Strikingly, since the close of the campaign, practically no EBDSA organizing efforts have taken place in Emeryville and Richmond. Additionally, it does not appear at all evident that socialist activity has been augmented by the Beckles campaign in Berkeley, as a vast majority of our chapter’s activity still takes place in the city of Oakland.[22] The closure of the campaign season was, in a sense, final—it did not produce any meaningful material or organizational change for the chapter or the class.

    CA Single Payer: The ‘Forgotten’ Original Campaign. Sometimes what has been forgotten is more telling than the easily recalled. Such is the case with the EBDSA’s long-lost 2017 campaign for single payer in California (SB 562). What makes the SB 562 campaign striking is not merely that its failure has never been accounted for, but that its operational form[23] has been replicated in the official DSA Medicare for All organizing document[24] that was written by many of the same people. According to the EBDSA’s website, in 2017 many canvassers were trained to knock on doors and discuss the policy.[25] Like the Proposition 10 efforts and the Beckles campaign, the SB 562 campaign sought to educate voters who, in turn, would pressure their representatives to move on legislation. Despite its being in one of the “bluest” states in the US, SB 562 was shelved by a Democratic assembly person.[26] I was a new member at that time, but it was obvious that the chapter had no meaningful mechanisms for pressuring the state. The campaign had not built the class’s capacity to engage in coercive action. What was needed then was an openness to reassess strategic parameters. But a reassessment did not take place. Rather than interrogating a presumed theory of power, it appears that this strategic view has become elevated from the state-level to the national stage.

    The California Single-Payer effort are like the Beckles and Proposition 10 campaigns in that they resulted in obtaining volunteer’s information and spread awareness of a set of policy positions. Speaking of Proposition 10 and the Beckles campaign, Gutmann-Gonzalez and Brown imply that the important outcomes were that contact made with volunteers, and that consciousness was raised. For them, a key lesson is that the chapter needed to learn to communicate more widely. They tell us this: “we had barely begun to make full use of social media, textbanking, and transit station canvassing to reach a bigger audience.”[27] Propaganda certainly has an important role to play. However, propaganda is not sufficient for solidifying class consciousness, let alone producing class organization. The most important element for building class power are the socially-functional relationships built between groups of people as they continue to act together over time.[28] This is why workplace organizing has often become a central part of communist and socialist organizing—workplace organizing leverages the fact that proletarian subjects are forced to work alongside one another almost every day. Another example is the neighborhood and building-level organizing done by groups like the LA Tenants Union, among others.[29] Or we may look to the history of class organization; for example, the sharecroppers union, which was built by the 1930s Communist Party USA.[30] Checking a box in a booth or volunteering during an election cycle both end in participants returning to their private life, believing, as it were, that the political deed has been done. Unfortunately, this strategic dynamic hardly augments the organizational and political capacities of our class to become a historical agent.

    Herein lies a strategic quagmire. At its core is the idea that actually-existing “democratic institutions” are sufficient for building socialist organization. All evidence appears to make a different case.

    Critically Assessing Strategic Presumptions

    Behind these faltering campaigns is a larger strategic vision, with a particular ideal if what political power is. To “fix” the EBDSA also means to rethink some of the core strategic assertions that have animated the EBDSA chapter for nearly two years.

    EBDSA’s three electoral campaigns were centered on a specific vision of how to do politics. What the Proposition 10, Jovanka Beckles and the SB540 campaigns share is the presupposition that organized voter blocs can make effective demands through the state’s electoral organs. All orient towards an electoral issue, and then deploy canvassing groups whose objective is to compel people to vote in the EBDSA’s favor. Beyond getting out the vote, canvassing is said to raise consciousness and awareness of alternative policies and candidates that relate to socialism. This orientation contradicts the view—well accepted, even among liberal political scientists—that the U.S.’s democratic institutions are deeply anti-democratic.[31] The electoral organ of the state, and its ideology of “representation” couldn’t be farther from true; as it stands, the electoral state is the product of decades of counter-revolutionary tinkering to prevent leftward changes from happening.

    This misinterpretation of liberal democratic mechanisms under the capitalist state as somehow neutral—perhaps similar to what Nicos Poulantzas called “power fetishism”[32]—is the root problem of the EBDSA’s campaigns thus far. Poulantzas argues that individuals who are not forced to regularly encounter the state’s repressive apparatus often believe that the state is a neutral force that can arbitrate between groups with different interests. While the rhetoric of my chapter appears to align with Poulantzas, the structure of our campaigns does not. Each campaign has taken for granted the “democratic” story that the capitalist state provides us: that real representative mechanisms are in place that can transmit popular desires into actionable policy. This thinking “naturalizes” the electoral sphere, despite that this sphere is predicated on ensuring capitalist domination.

    A similar form of fetishism is implied with regards to the Oakland Teachers Strike. Here, the EBDSA’s discourse of “neutrality” out of “respect for union democracy” see today’s union structures as neutral. Yet, this entire view is founded on a faulty perception for how the internal “democratic” mechanisms of today’s union’s actually work. It’s a view that demonstrates misunderstanding for how today’s institutionalized, bureaucratic union formations tend to pressure members to act conservatively. Taking undue risks—like making demands that are beyond the scope of negotiations, like ending charterization—is a significant risk for those who inhabit the greater union’s institutional and bureaucratic layers. It is not difficult to imagine the institutional pressure, from the California Teachers Association and the National Education Association, who want to avoid a potentially illegal strike. These are the conditions that produce “business unionism,” rather than a handful of bad union officials occupying leadership posts. What is important is the historical form that many contemporary unions have grown into—largely depoliticized legalistic and bureaucratic institutions.[33] No local—however reformed—is entirely free from these historic shifts.

    What is needed, from a broad perspective, are independent bases of power from which socialist organization can stage itself. Today’s working class is highly unorganized. Most are not part of unions. A great many of the U.S. proletarians do not vote, either. If we are going to organize them—locally, even—we need to have a sufficient plan takes the real limits to the electoral system and union structures seriously.

    Conclusions

    When it comes to strategic orientation, the stakes are high. Yet another U.S. presidential election looms. Whatever the outcome, a sound strategy will ensure that the end of the election season does not preclude enduring working-class organization. The electoral campaign of Bernie Sanders may have added some dynamism to the Democratic Socialists of America, but as with most spurts of vitality, it also contains an inherent barrier to the course of socialist political development. Here, the electoral endeavors that my chapter has engaged in are deeply instructive for outlining the contours of this barrier. By consistently speeding headlong into very similar campaigns, the DSA risks the perennial leftist problem of organizational sclerosis. This may be avoided, but only if we are willing to critically reassess our work.

    Amidst our turbulent moment is room for maneuver and space for political growth. But we can’t treat this opportunity mechanistically. The outcome of our actions, from how to organize daily, to the tactics we deploy, are all subject to intense contingency and they must be evaluated on this basis. The U.S. socialist and communist left has been insignificant for some time. Yet, the growth of the DSA suggests that we may have been down, but not out. If we are to build a working-class movement that outlasts this political sequence, we must become willing and able to change our strategic course.

    [1] Abigail Gutmann-Gonzalez and Keith Brower Brown, “Lessons from the East Bay,” The Call(blog), May 14, 2019, https://socialistcall.com/2019/05/14/lessons-from-the-east-bay/.

    [2] Julia McEvoy, “Oakland’s School Closure Plans Off to a Rough Start for Some Parents,” KQED, January 10, 2019, https://www.kqed.org/news/11716967/oaklands-school-closure-plans-off-to-a-rough-start-for-some-parents.

    [3] Matthew Green and Vanessa Rancaño, “A Day After Teachers Strike Ends, Oakland School Board Approves Nearly $22 Million in Cuts,” KQED, March 5, 2019, https://www.kqed.org/news/11730554/one-day-after-teachers-strike-ends-oakland-school-board-approves-nearly-22-million-in-cuts.

    [4] Vladimir Lenin. “‘Left-Wing’ Communism: An Infantile Disorder,” 1920.  https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/.

    [5] “Elect Jovanka Beckles for State Assembly,” accessed May 16, 2019, https://www.eastbaydsa.org/campaigns/electoral/.

    [6] “DSA Endorses California’s Proposition 10,” Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), October 2018, https://www.dsausa.org/news/dsa-endorses-california-proposition-10/.

    [7] “East Bay DSA Stands with Oakland Teachers,” accessed May 16, 2019, https://www.eastbaydsa.org/news/2018/12/12/east-bay-dsa-stands-with-oakland-teachers/.

    [8] Abigail Gutmann-Gonzalez and Keith Brower Brown, “Lessons from the East Bay,” The Call(blog), May 14, 2019, https://socialistcall.com/2019/05/14/lessons-from-the-east-bay/.

    [9] “After Seven-Day Strike, Oakland Teachers Approve New Contract | EdSource,” accessed May 17, 2019, https://edsource.org/2019/tentative-agreement-reached-in-oakland-unified-teachers-strike/609342; “Oakland Education Association and Oakland Unified School District TENTATIVE AGREEMENT 2018-2021” (Oakland Educatinal Association and the Oakland Schoolboard, March 1, 2019), 2018–21, https://oaklandea.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/OEA-Tentative-Agreement-with-OUSD-March-1-2019-2.pdf.

    [10] Wyatt Kroopf, “Oakland Unified School District Plans to Eliminate 100 Classified Workers’ Positions,” Oakland North, accessed May 17, 2019, https://oaklandnorth.net/2019/04/24/ousd-plans-to-eliminate-100-classified-workers-positions/.

    [11] When the TA was announced, I sat in on a student-teacher discussion about the contract. Students were immediately concerned and upset with the prospect of these programs being cut. When the TA was accepted, hundreds of students posted angry messages on OEA’s social media posts.

    [12] “Bread for Ed,” East Bay DSA Democratic Socialists of America, accessed April 19, 2019, https://www.eastbaydsa.org/campaigns/bread-for-ed/.

    [13] Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto: A Modern Edition, Pbk. ed (London: Verso, 2012).

    [14] Daniel Roland, “Did the Teachers Win? • Commune,” Commune (blog), March 8, 2019, https://communemag.com/did-the-teachers-win/; “Site Reps,” Oakland Education Association(blog), accessed May 17, 2019, https://oaklandea.org/site-reps/.

    [15] “Oakland Education Association Members Voted to Ratify Our Contract,” Oakland Education Association (blog), accessed May 16, 2019, https://oaklandea.org/updates/oakland-education-association-members-voted-to-ratify-our-contract/.

    [16] “Members Pass TA | UTLA,” accessed May 16, 2019, https://www.utla.net/news/members-pass-ta.

    [17] Jack Gerson, “Oakland Teachers’ Strike: Balance Sheet, Lessons, and What Next?,” New Politics, accessed April 19, 2019, https://newpol.org/oakland-teachers-strike-balance-sheet-lessons-and-what-next/.

    [18] Terra Graziani et al., “Alameda County Eviction Report” (Anti-Eviction Mapping Project), accessed May 24, 2019, https://antievictionmapd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/StorytellingSwipe/index.html?appid=d70c5b933be04c669bde2c1df6fc8266.

    [19] Liam Dillon, “Voters Reject Proposition 10, Halting Effort to Expand Rent Control across the State,” latimes.com, accessed May 16, 2019, https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-proposition-10-rent-control-20181106-story.html.

    [20] “Obama Endorses East Bay Assembly Candidate Buffy Wicks,” East Bay Times (blog), August 3, 2018, https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/08/03/obama-endorses-east-bay-assembly-candidate-buffy-wicks/.

    [21] Guy Marzorati, “Buffy Wicks Defeats Jovanka Beckles in East Bay Assembly Race,” KQED, November 7, 2018, https://www.kqed.org/news/11702200/buffy-wicks-opens-up-early-lead-over-jovanka-beckles-in-east-bay-assembly-race.

    [22] Since my joining in 2017, the geographic scope of our chapters work does not appear to have significantly altered. A quick count of the EBDSA’s facebook events shows that a vast majority of events are held in specific areas of Oakland and some parts of Berkeley. Some events have taken place recently in Hayward (six out of 40+ in the last year). Unfortunately, many cities in the East Bay appear to have no EBDSA presence to date.

    [23] “Single-Payer Campaign Kickoff: Building Power to Win Big,” March 1, 2017, https://www.eastbaydsa.org/news/2017/2/27/single-payer-campaign-kickoff/.

    [24] “Launching a Medicare for All Campaign: A DSA Organizing Guide,” accessed May 16, 2019, https://medicareforall.dsausa.org.

    [25] “Single-Payer Healthcare,” accessed May 16, 2019, https://www.eastbaydsa.org/campaigns/healthcare/.

    [26] Melanie Mason, “California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon Shelves Single-Payer Healthcare Bill, Calling It ‘Woefully Incomplete,’” latimes.com, accessed May 16, 2019, https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-single-payer-shelved-20170623-story.html.

    [27] Gutmann-Gonzalez and Brown, “Lessons from the East Bay.”

    [28] See, for example, Thompson’s Marxist history on how the English proletariat built itself into a class that could act in its own interest. E. P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (New York: Vintage, 1966).

    [29] Armando Aparicio and David Zlutnick, “These Tenants Are Leading the Largest Rent Strike in LA History,” August 20, 2018, https://www.thenation.com/article/these-tenants-are-leading-the-largest-rent-strike-in-la-history/.

    [30] Robin D. G. Kelley, Hammer and Hoe: Alabama Communists during the Great Depression, The Fred W. Morrison Series in Southern Studies (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1990).

    [31] Yascha Mounk, “America Is Not a Democracy,” The Atlantic, March 2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/america-is-not-a-democracy/550931/.

    [32] Nicos Poulantzas, Political Power and Social Classes, 2nd edition (London: Verso, 1982).

    [33] Holly J. McCammon, “Legal Limits on Labor Militancy: U. S. Labor Law and the Right to Strike since the New Deal,” Social Problems 37, no. 2 (May 1990): 206–29, https://doi.org/10.2307/800649; Michael Burawoy, Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process under Monopoly Capitalism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979).

  • It’s Profitability: A Response to “Why Stagnation?”

    It’s Profitability: A Response to “Why Stagnation?”

    Recently in the Marxist Sociology blog, David Kotz, Professor Emeritus of Economics and Sheridan Scholar at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and Distinguished Professor in the School of Economics at the Shanghai University of Finance and Economics offered an explanation as to why over the last ten years since the end of the Great Recession in mid-2009, the U.S. economy (and I would argue, all the major economies) “has been stuck in stagnation.”

    Professor Kotz said that the reason could not be due to low profitability in the U.S. capitalist sector keeping investment low. Indeed, profits have never been higher for large U.S. corporations; instead they have sat on their cash or just bought back their own shares to drive up stock prices.

    Professor Kotz’s explanation is that there is a social structure of accumulation (SSA) currently in operation that “throws up obstacles to plowing profit back into accumulation.” Apparently, the neoliberal SSA that began in the early 1980s, which aimed to drive up profitability through deregulation, privatization and attacks on labour rights, has turned into its opposite in the last ten years with an institutional structure that obstructs accumulation.

    What is the explanation for this change in the neoliberal SSA offered by Professor Kotz? Well, the global financial crash generated a massive slump which has led to “stagnating demand” so “corporate decision-makers have little incentive to expand.” At the same time, “big capital has been facing growing challenges to its primacy, from workers demanding a living wage and from citizens demanding a growing role for government in provision of essential services.”

    Really? Neither of these explanations seem convincing to me. First, has there been “stagnating demand”? There has not been if we mean by that, consumer demand. The swing factor in every slump in the U.S. economy since 1945 has been investment demand, not consumer demand. Indeed, one year before the start of the Great Recession (January 2009), personal consumption in the U.S. fell only 2.4%, while private sector investment fell 30%. And within one year after the end of the slump in mid-2009, real personal consumption returned to its pre-crisis level. In contrast, business investment did not return to its pre-crisis level until the end of 2011.

    In his paper with Professor Basu, Kotz’s stats also reveal that the major contribution to the recovery after the end of the Great Recession was business investment, contributing 53.3% of GDP growth, almost as large as the 61.8% contribution from consumer spending growth, even though the latter constitutes 60-70% of GDP and business investment only 10-15%. After 2013, consumer spending became more important as investment tailed off, leading to the mini-recession of 2014-16. Stagnating demand is down to stagnating investment, not consumption.

    And is it really true that companies are not investing as much as before because they face challenges over wages from labour? Wage growth, until very recently, in the U.S. has been pitiful in the last ten years and corporate profit margins have reached post-war highs. Corporate taxation has never been lower.

    Surely, there is another explanation for lower and weak business investment in productive assets? In my view, the causal connection between profitability and capitalist investment in productive capital, first argued by Karl Marx over 150 years ago, remains at the heart of the explanation for low investment growth and the consequent stagnation (I call it a ‘long depression’ in my book) in the U.S. economy since 2009.

    Professor Kotz shows in his paper that this causal connection was valid throughout the post-war period. “Our analysis found that the rate of profit had a strong and statistically significant stimulatory effect on the rate of capital accumulation during 1948-73 when regulated capitalism was working effectively and also during the crisis phase of 1973-79. We found the same effect in the neoliberal era from 1979-2007. The size of the effect was almost identical in the three periods.” But apparently, this connection was “not statistically significant” in the period since 2007”.

    Well, I have to say that there are several studies that show this connection is still strong. I cite the work of Jose TapiaCleveland Federal Reserve and for that matter, JP Morgan.  Moreover, my own empirical work shows that, while U.S. corporate profitability recovered somewhat after 2009, it is still no higher than in 2007 (depending on how you measure it) and is actually below where it was in the late 1990s.

    Low profitability is still the best explanation of poor productive investment, low productivity growth and low real wage growth since 2009.  Indeed, Professor Kotz’s own paper shows that the modest fall in US profitability from 2014-2016 was accompanied by a mini-recession. Fixed investment plummeted in 2016 to near zero, as Professor Kotz also shows. So the connect between profits and investment and growth is still there after 2007.

    It is easy to be fooled by the high profits of the big multi-national tech companies, the so-called FAANGS. But they are not representative of the broad swathe of U.S. companies. Most do not have huge cash stocks and a sizable minority are increasingly ‘zombie companies’, making just enough to cover costs and debt servicing but with little to invest productively. With profitability (not profits) near historic lows, the move into financial speculation by companies as a counteracting factor is explicable. Indeed, recent research by Australian Marxist economist, Peter Jones, shows that when profits from financial speculation (buying back shares, etc.) is stripped out, non-fictitious (to use Marx’s term) profitability is very low.

    Professor Kotz may not agree but I think what his analysis tells us is that business investment is still the driver of growth under capitalism, while consumption is the dependent variable in aggregate demand. It’s the same story in the neoliberal period as in the “regulated period.” What happens to profitability and investment is thus the crucial indicator of the future, not the emergence of any “new institutional structure.”

    Contrary to Professor Kotz’s view that “the usual profit mechanism that drives accumulation no longer works in the normal fashion,” it is doing just that. The solution for capital will not be some as yet unclear new “institutional change” but the inevitable one of the “profit mechanism,” another slump in investment and production, designed to restore the profitability of “restructured” capital, in order to start to whole accumulation process again.

    Originally posted at the Marxist Sociology Blog.

  • It’s Time For a People’s Court

    It’s Time For a People’s Court

    Draconian legislative attacks on abortion access in Georgia, Ohio and Alabama require a renewed defense of women’s and trans men’s bodily autonomy. The Supreme Court cannot be relied on to provide this defense under any circumstances. The American left should hear the call to defend Roe v. Wade and come back with a more radical demand: abolish the Supreme Court.

    Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the conservative majority in the Supreme Court decision overturning the court’s commitment to precedent set by previous Supreme Court majorities, wrote that “stare decisis is not an inexorable command and we have held that it is at its weakest when we interpret the Constitution.” A majority may rule as it likes; the until-now-sacred adherence to precedent is a matter of convenience. Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the minority on the court, wrote that “today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next.” The majority’s new prerogative to ignore stare decisis poses a renewed roadblock for all progressive efforts and threatens to strip women and trans men of bodily autonomy. We must entrust defense and advancement of rights to popular power, not to a historically conservative institution.

    The Supreme Court is undemocratic and reactionary in its history and design. The court has a long record of taking decades to swing towards social justice, meanwhile handing down decisions that make real progress difficult. Landmark shifts in civil rights are marked by Supreme Court cases not because the court reliably decides in favor of protecting and extending social rights but because it is often the last thing in the way after public opinion and even legislators have climbed aboard the engine of social change driven by mass movements. At best, the court is ineffective, unable to enforce Brown v. Board or the decision meant to stop the horrific Indian Removal Act. Most often, it is a bastion of reaction, stymieing efforts to build a more just world. Recent—and, given the court’s history, relatively mild—examples: the court gutted the voting rights act, which led to renewed voter repression in the black belt; removed the Affordable Care Act’s mandate, effectively hobbling any chance that legislation had at lowering insurance premiums; took the brakes off bourgeois political spending with the Citizens United decision; crippled public sector unions in the Janus decision; narrowed the protections afforded to whistle-blowers by Dodd-Frank; and on and on. This historical unreliability is enough to make us rethink the wisdom of entrusting political judgment to a handful of judges whose legal careers invariably cement them in the hegemonic order. The court has never reflected the will of the people. This is by design. The court’s function is to enslave the living to the dead, binding us to the will of the slave owners and reactionaries who chartered the court. The court has and will continue to protect capital at all costs, and can only be used to advance social justice within that impossible confine. If we want to protect hard-won progressive victories, we must give the people the power to judge our laws.

    A call to abolish the Supreme Court is not a call to abolish judicial review. No socialist, nor any progressive with common sense, should trust in a bourgeois legislature. Rather, the Supreme Court should be replaced with a people’s court, selected by lot with a requirement of residency and not citizenship. The court would sit for a year and participants would be given a salary during that time. A people’s court should have 150 seats. 150 persons is the upper limit for a deliberative body. Beyond that number and the difficulty of deliberation increases. In choosing the upper limit, we ensure the maximum number of people get to practice political judgment at a given time. This maximizes the transformative impact of that practice, encouraging the widespread an awareness of and use of world-building power among American residents. We already entrust to the people decision-making in our criminal courts, where they have little control over the norms they are asked to enforce. We should expand the people’s power of judgment and entrust judicial review to the masses.

    Drawing lots was and is the way of democracy. Historically, partisans of democracy have considered elections aristocratic. Elections are meant to select the “best” of a class of eligible governors—as David Van Reybrouck writes, “a government led by the best—did that not mean aristokratia in Greek?” Sortition, or drawing lots, is the truly democratic practice. Lots eliminate the influence of personality and family as well as oligarchic tendencies. Selection by lot gets rid of the fundamentally aristocratic notion that some people are better than others and more deserving of a say, whatever the guise in which that notion comes to us. Drawing lots prevents the sorting of people into classes of decision-makers and subjects. Continuing in that same vein, drawing lots from the total pool of residents instead of citizens ensures that distinction is not smuggled through customs by excluding marginalized communities from citizenship. An elected court only gives us illusory power—the power to constitute another class to rule over us. As Rousseau wrote in 1762, the people “deceive themselves when they fancy they are free; they are so, in fact, only during the elections of Members of Parliament: for, as soon as a new one is elected, they are again in chains, and are nothing.” We must not turn over political judgment to the people only to have elected representatives steal it from them as legislative power has been stolen.

    Drawing lots to establish a popular court is not enough to ensure just political judgment, especially not in a state built on slavery and genocide. The lot should be weighted to ensure the new court is liberatory. The lot should be weighted according to the following idea: identity populations are personalities. An identity community constitutes a fictive person, a “species of man” as Frantz Fanon might put it. Each community is itself heterogeneous, but shares basic constitutive experiences. These personalities all must make decisions together in order for any judgment to be actually democratic. Each personality, each community with its own set of common experiences and its own perspective and voice, must have an equal say. This is the truly progressive and liberatory interpretation of “one person one vote”. We must apply that principle at both the individual and social-historical level. We should weight the lot so that each gender, sexual and racialized community is represented in equal proportion. This would be simple enough math that all could understand it and be sure of its fairness. If we fail to do so, we will not be able to overcome Rousseau’s problem of interest groups. The hegemonic identity will institute tyranny of the majority, and democracy will be suffocating rather than liberating. As Rousseau rightly noted, we could never ask any person to accept such a body as legitimately expressing the general will, let alone their own will.

    Establishing a people’s court along these or similar lines disproportionately represents marginalized communities who historically and presently don’t have access to the means of world-building and who are always disproportionately subjected to the current norms of political judgment. The court would be dominated by workers and caregivers since the overwhelming majority of American residents are both those things. The class interests involved in political judgment would change overnight as housewives, sex workers, day laborers, service and office workers, and the unemployed replaced lawyers and political appointees. Judicial review would be transformed from a conservative force to an organ of considerate popular power. Women and trans men would not have to rely on political appointees to protect Roe; black people would not have to place their faith in a White court to uphold voting rights; workers would not have to trust in lawyers to protect collective bargaining; those affected by disability and chronic illness would not have to count on the able bodied to defend their right to care and accommodation. Prisoners and their loved ones would decide cases on criminal justice reform; trans folks would judge transphobic laws; immigrants and the children of immigrants would write opinions on nativist policy; indigenous people would rule on betrayals of their traditional sovereignty. The people’s court would be a place where civil rights are protected and expanded by those to whom they matter most.

    We all share in the labor of making a social world, but the political boundaries around that social world are drawn by bourgeois elites. Political judgment, even more than legislation or executive authority, is responsible for defining the norms that bound the political world. Devolving the power of political judgment to the people would be a real measure of democracy for the first time since colonization. To demand a people’s court is to demand a vast redistribution of power from bourgeois elites to the masses of people. A people’s court is the first step to creating genuinely public political space, a space for popular politics that is not cordoned off and divided up ahead of time by the people wielding actual power. A people’s court will give the people an institution where they can constitute their will for themselves. The people’s court could constitute a counter-hegemony to the bourgeois state. It would, speaking with the late Mark Fischer, “subordinate the state to the general will.”

  • Mexico’s President Knuckles Under to Trump, Woos Mexico’s Business Class

    Mexico’s President Knuckles Under to Trump, Woos Mexico’s Business Class

    Mexico’s president Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO), a left-of-center populist in office for only six months, finds himself under enormous pressure from the United States—and he is yielding. U.S. President Donald Trump has demanded that AMLO’s government do more to stop the flow of Central American migrants fleeing poverty and violence in their own countries and passing through Mexico and to seek asylum in the United States, threatening Mexico’s government with a tariff of 5 percent and possibly rising to 25 percent. Such a a tariff would be devastating to the Mexican economy, and, in fact, to the U.S. economy as well.

    Trump’s threat of increased tariffs has led the Republican Party to take its strongest stand so far against the Republican president, while U.S. industrialists, especially auto industry CEOs, have also opposed the tariff. Yet Trump has refused to back down, no doubt seeing his battle with AMLO as a demonstration to the white working class part of his base of his commitment to protect American jobs from foreign workers. Vice-President Pence is now meeting with Marcelo Ebrard in an attempt to reach an agreement on Trump’s terms. Trump wants Mexico to hold asylum seekers in its territory while the U.S. processes their requests.

    While AMLO speaks sympathetically about the Central Americans who “migrate because of necessity, because of hunger, poverty, and violence” and says his government will not use force, in fact the police and army have been mobilized along Mexico’s southern border and leading figures of the migration movement have been arrested. AMLO called at his June 6 press conference for all Mexican political leaders, government officials, church leaders, and business figures, and Mexican people in general to join him in Tijuana for a national unity rally for “Mexico’s dignity” on Saturday, June 8.

    Populist Politics—Ambivalent Policies

    Disgusted with the corruption of Mexico’s historic ruling party, the Institutional Revolutionary Party and of the conservative and pro-business National Action Party, a year ago the Mexican people voted for change. AMLO won the July 1, 2018 presidential election with 53 percent of the vote and carried 31 of 32 states. It was a landslide.

    The party that he himself founded and led, the Movement for National Regeneration (MORENA), also won a majority in the Senate and a large plurality in the lower house, representing a complete break with Mexico’s recent political party history. Shortly after he took office, AMLO’s popularity reached an astounding 85 precent approval, and today he remains incredibly popular, with an 80 percent approval rating. He took office promising to restore democracy, to end corruption, and to improve the lives of the Mexican people, but does he really intend to do so? And will he be able to do so?

    Since taking office he has pursued policies that are at best ambivalent and at worst a capitulation to the powerful foreign and domestic banks and corporations that rule Mexico. And, his attempts to deal with the country’s most important problems—the economy and criminal violence—have not proven successful, at least in his first six months in office. While his election has encouraged some progressive social struggles, for example among maquiladora workers and the union at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, there is not yet any major shift in social power toward the country’s underdogs.

    A Friend of the Banks—But a Stumbling Economy

    As The Wall Street Journal recently wrote, “Mexico’s Leftist President Emerges as Unlikely Friend to Big Banks.” He meets regularly with the bankers and he calls for reductions in banking regulations, while working with the banks to reduce customers’ fees. Many of Mexico’s banks are foreign owned, among them U.S. banks such as Citigroup. In a recent speech to bankers, he said that the banks should regulate themselves just like the press regulates itself. Need I say that the bankers applauded?

    While he AMLO has been favoring the banks, so far his friendship with the financiers has not resulted in any improvement in the Mexican economy. On the contrary, the most recent economic reports indicate that Mexico’s economy grew by only 1.3 percent in the first quarter of this year, compared to 1.7 percent in the fourth quarter of last year. AMLO initially called for a growth rate of 4 percent, has now reduced his hopes to 2 percent, though most national and international financial institutions suggest that growth will be 1.6 percent.

    AMLO is being friendly to finance, but the financiers don’t necessarily return the favor. The credit rating agencies Fitch Ratings and Moody’s both reduced ratings on Mexico’s PEMEX oil company on June 5, Fitch from BBB+ down to BBB and Moody’s changed its outlook from A3 to negative. They did so because they believe AMLO’s government doesn’t have the money to carry out his plan to overhaul the company, and the change in ratings means that Mexico will find it more expensive to borrow money.

    And the Violence Continues—and Worsens

    Since former Mexican President Felipe Calderón initiated Mexico’s drug war in 2006, something like 200,000 Mexicans have been killed and tens of thousands more have disappeared, let’s say a quarter of a million people, and nearly everyday someone stumbles on a previously undiscovered mass grave. Thousands of women have been killed, enough that the systematic and widespread murder of women has its own name, “femicide.” Many Central American migrants have also been among the victims. AMLO recently said that the violence was under control and that homicides were down, but in fact some 33,000 were killed in 2018, and in the first three months of 2019 another 8,493 were murdered, a 9.6 percent increase.

    AMLO’s plan to deal with the violence is a new National Guard, approved by the Mexican Congress in May. The National Guard will initially have 50,000 members going up to 80,000 within a year or so, most of them recruited from the Federal police, the army, and the navy. They will have greater police powers and be heavily armed and may stay for longer.

    Why this new police force—especially made up as it is of other armed forces—should be any different than other Mexican police forces is unclear. Since the drug war that began in 2006, according to Mexican international human rights organizations, the Mexican Army committed many human rights violations, including extra-judicial killers. Mexican police forces are notorious for the routine torture of suspects, robbery, kidnapping, and murder.

    AMLO’s Government Uses Violence against Migrants

    While AMLO was talking about Mexico’s sympathy and solidarity with the migrants, his government was taking a harder line against undocumented migrants in Mexico, mobilizing both the police and the Army to stop the migrants at the Mexican border, and arresting migrant movement leaders. AMLO’s government has tripled the arrest of migrants, deporting 15,654 in May, which will rise to an annual total of some 800,000 people.

    On June 5, Central American migrants crossing the border were met by both police and soldiers who blocked their entry. And on June 6 the Mexican authorizes arrested two leading figures in the migrant caravan movement, Ireneo Mujica of Pueblos sin Fronteras and Cristobal Sanchez who was leading a migrant caravan.

    AMLO’s government’s repressive policies toward the migrants are motivated by a desire to stop Trump’s threats, and to do so, it appears that AMLO is prepared to do Trump’s work. AMLO may have a sincere desire to carry out, from the top, progressive policies to benefit those at the bottom, but he believes he needs to buy time by placating Mexican and foreign bankers and the U.S. government. His strategy for reform is a problematic one that risks giving up his country’s national sovereignty, which has never been very secure, and the humanitarian ideals he has expressed, even while failing to carry them out.

  • The Road to Prison Abolition: A Practical Solution

    The Road to Prison Abolition: A Practical Solution

    Seemingly overnight, politicians are tripping over themselves as they clamor for prison reform in a climate where cases of police murder and prison abuses have drawn thousands in protests onto the streets. Today, few would doubt that America’s criminal justice system is racist and unfair. Moreover, many now point to the hypocrisy of mass incarceration in a country that touts itself as a global leader and standard bearer of democracy in the “free” world. It is within this climate that prison abolitionists need to challenge the piecemeal reforms and link up with criminal justice activists to build a movement to abolish America’s prisons.

    Far from some pie in the sky idea as some critics would maintain, the road to prison abolition is the only humane and practical alternative to a system that locks people in cages as a solution to poverty and mental illness. American political icon, academic and author Angela Davis asks a fundamental question: “why do we take prisons for granted?” in her book Are Prisons Obsolete?”[1]

    Davis asks that we put prison abolition in the same context as the movement to abolish the death penalty, Jim Crow, and Slavery, arguing that there was a time when abolition of those racist institutions seemed insurmountable. Key to any argument for prison abolition is a greater awareness of the perpetuation of systematic racism that Black Lives Matter activists have argued is at the root of the murder of thousands of Black men and women in the last few years.

    As author Khalil Gibran Muhammad points out in Condemnation of Blackness: Race, Crime and the Making of Modern Urban America, the criminalization of African Americans reaches back to the end of Reconstruction. Over the last four decades, systematic racism has been a key mechanism in the build-up of America’s carceral state in order to divert workers attention away from growing socio-economic disparities. As Mike Davis exclaims in his book City of Quartz, nowhere have we seen such a growing gap between rich and poor without a revolution.

    It is, therefore, a shock that even the racist demagogue President Trump, who ran a tough on crime campaign, has introduced what he calls “groundbreaking criminal justice reform,” in the First Step Act. The act is not in isolation but in the context of politicians of all stripes introducing laws aimed at reducing the prison population.[2] More significantly, because the expansion of the carceral state has not improved workers living standards or seen any reduction in crime, and has actually been met with increasing class polarization and rising recidivism rates,[3] many are questioning the legitimacy of mass incarceration and calling for genuine reform.

    Two decades ago, few would have predicted that politicians from both sides of the isle would use the rhetoric of prison reform to garner votes. President Bill Clinton had doubled the rate of incarceration, created stricter sentencing, and expanded possible death penalty convictions by 50 percent. The Three Strikes Law was introduced in California and spread to other states.[4]

    Hillary Clinton had coined the phrase “the Black Predator” to stir up white voters by blaming Blacks and Latinos for crime, and Senator Phil Gramm was calling prisons country clubs. The racist rhetoric fueled the largest prison construction in world history and decimated communities of color. Today, of the 2.2 million in prison, over half are Black or Latino.

    Bill Clinton didn’t invent the use of racism to build up the criminal justice system he just expanded it. Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater used “law and order” as a centerpiece for his 1964 campaign against Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson admired the strategy enough to incorporate it into his “war on crime.” Nixon also used the law-and-order theme as a way to distract people’s attention from issues, such as the rapidly deteriorating economy and the failing war in Vietnam. Nixon appealed to voters’ fears of social unrest, especially on white fears of Black street crime. By the late 1970s, nearly half of all Americans were afraid to walk home at night, and 90 percent responded in surveys that the US criminal justice system wasn’t harsh enough.[5]

    But it was Ronald Reagan who “became a master of linking the law-and-order theme with covert, and sometimes not so covert, racial messages,” writes author and activist Phil Gasper. Reagan described the Black ghetto rebellions of the 1960s as “riots of the law breakers and the mad dogs against the people.” On a radio commercial in the same period Reagan warned: “[E]very day the jungle draws a little closer. Our city streets are jungle paths after dark…. The man with the badge holds it back.[6]

    After California governor Jerry Brown signed into law a new statute in 1976 abolishing parole—which read in part, “The purpose of imprisonment is punishment”—a series of states followed suit with similar laws, including some that lengthened prison sentences. New York state passed stringent mandatory sentencing laws, known as the Rockefeller Drug Laws. Thirty-six other states enacted similar “reforms.”

    The tough-on-crime juggernaut gained momentum under President Reagan—accelerated qualitatively by a new campaign against illegal drugs, in particular, crack cocaine. Spending for the war on drugs skyrocketed. In 1980, the federal budget for this war was $1 billion. Today, it’s more than $17 billion.[7] In the Reagan and Bush years, spending on employment programs was slashed in half, while spending on corrections increased by 521 percent. In this same period, the chances of being arrested for a drug offense increased by 447 percent—even though statistics showed a considerable decline in drug use.[8]

    In 1984, Congress enacted the Sentencing Reform Act, eliminating parole for all federal crimes committed after November 1, 1987, and curtailing the discretion of judges to set sentences. Federal mandatory minimum sentences for drugs came in 1986 and 1988, with the Anti-Drug Abuse Act and the Anti-Drug Abuse Amendment Act respectively. The 1986 act was passed by a vote of 378 to 16 by a Democratic-controlled House. The act established mandatory six- and ten-year prison terms for drug dealing, as well as the now-famous 100-to-1 crack-to-cocaine ratio, in which possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine triggered the same prison sentence as possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine. A life sentence now requires the sale of just 3.3 pounds of crack. “By 1995…the average federal prison term served for selling crack cocaine was nearly eleven years. For homicide, by comparison, the national average was barely six.”[9]

    These drug laws led to a massive increase in the U.S. prison population. Federal prosecutions for non-drug offenses increased by 4 percent from 1982 to 1988. For drug offenses, federal prosecutions increased by 99 percent.

    The majority of those held in federal prison for immigration and drug offenses are people of color. Black men have a 1 in 3 chance of being incarcerated and for Latinx males it is 1 in 6, compared to white males at 1 in 17, Black women are a startling 1 in 18 and for white women the ratio is 1 in 111. The targeting of Black youths by the police has been met with a drastic increase in incarceration rates.

    The human toll on Black and Latinx lives from the incarceration of 1.2 million people of color, the decimation of Black and Brown communities, and the murderous assaults by police of Black and Latinx men and women is incalculable. A smaller minority of incarcerated people are Native American and Asian, the rest are mainly white and working class. There are few rich people in prison and white-collar crime goes virtually unpunished.

    The most influential book in recent years is The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. Published three years before the official beginning of the Black Lives Matter movement in response to the murder of Trayvon Martin in 2013, author and civil rights attorney Michelle Alexander lays down a fortuitous gauntlet in her claim that America’s criminal justice system is a form of racial apartheid comparable to the Jim Crow era born at the end of Reconstruction. Cornel West called it, “the secular bible for a new social movement in early twenty-first century America.” “Once you have read it,” he continues, “you have crossed the Rubicon and there is no sleep walking.”[10] Paul D’Amato, former editor of the International Socialist Review concurs: “The fight against racism…cannot be separated from the class struggle as a whole. Only by challenging oppression in all its forms can workers unite and become the threat to capitalism that they must become if we are to win a better world.”[11]

    Incarcerating the have-nots isn’t a new trend. The penitentiary was born not simply as a reform away from corporal punishment, but as a means for the ruling class to control the emerging impoverished working class that was growing up alongside the abundance of 19th-century capitalism–as well as the Black population freed after the end of slavery. “There is no very great danger of a rich man going to jail,” said the progressive lawyer Clarence Darrow to a group of Cook County Jail inmates in 1902: “First and last, people are sent to jail because they are poor.”[12]

    And although America has seen its first dip in incarceration rates in twenty years, at 2.2 million, it still holds the ignominious title of the World’s biggest jailer, incarcerating at a rate 7 percent higher and imprisoning more people than China and Russia. The United States holds more people in its prisons than were killed in the Vietnam War.[13] And the numbers hide the additional 5 million who are in the carceral state’s grip most of whom are on probation and parole and the gross imprisonment of migrants along U.S. Mexican border.[14]

    Youth incarceration and solitary confinement

    Much of the activist and media spotlight has been aimed at prisoners and in particular juveniles who face years in solitary confinement.

    The high-profile Kalief Browder story exposed the nightmare on primetime of what it’s like to be a teenager living alone 23 hours a day seven days a week in a 6-by-9 foot cell. In addition to being beaten by guards and other inmates, all captured on video surveillance tape, Kalief spent three years as a teenager at Rikers—two in solitary confinement—without ever standing trial. Thanks to activists who kept up protests and press conferences the case got national attention, which led to the plan to close Rikers under the supervision of Elizabeth Galazer, Director of New York City’s Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice.

    All of this was too little, too late for Kalief, who committed suicide after being released without charge at home using a hangman’s rope he had learned to tie at Rikers Island. As his mother, Venida Browder, recounted at a press conference with Speaker Melissa Mark-Verito in 2016:

    Physically, he was here, but mentally, he was still in Rikers. The solitary confinement really messed him up. It made him very paranoid. He was terrified of ever having to go back to Rikers. He felt that people were police plants, trying to get him. He even told me…“I don’t know if I can trust you.”[15]

    Kalief’s nightmare is just the tip of the iceberg. Over half of all juvenile suicides occur in solitary. Over 9,000 (1 in 5) juveniles haven’t been found guilty of any charge and are locked up awaiting trial. Nine-hundred are in long-term facilities, and only a third are charged with violent offenses. Juveniles are more likely to end up in solitary in adult facilities because by law they have to be separated from the adult population. The Juvenile Law Center reported that hundreds if not thousands of youth are kept in solitary and that juveniles in solitary are typically Black or Latino, often do not receive a disciplinary hearing before they are placed in isolation, and can be deprived of medical treatment, showers, eating utensils, reading and writing materials, mattresses, and sheets.

    High profile cases such as Browder’s have led some states to end the use of solitary for juveniles because it violates the Eighth Amendment on the prohibition of Cruel and Unusual Punishment. President Obama banned the use of solitary for juveniles in the Federal prisons, a largely symbolic move given that there were only 26 juveniles held in federal prisons at the time. In spite of the rush to reform and in light of Obama’s ban and op-ed piece stating that solitary for juveniles was “an affront to our common humanity,” there is still a long way to go, as columnist Eli Hager reminds us: that “for youth advocates, ending juvenile solitary will take more work. Twenty-three percent of juvenile facilities nationally use some form of isolation, according to a 2014 study by the U.S. Department of Justice.[16]

    The threat of solitary confinement, including temporary confinement in Administrative Segregation and security housing units, is one of the key punitive mechanisms used by prison officials to control individual prisoners and the prison population as a whole. In an article in The Atlantic, Natalie Chang says the “paths that lead to time in solitary confinement vary from institution to institution, but they are also the result of a criminal justice system that emphasizes control over rehabilitation.[17]

    The situation of juveniles in prison is particularly egregious. 53 thousand are held in facilities away from home, two thirds of which are in the most restrictive facilities. In a 2017 press release for the Prison Policy Initiative, Wendy Sawyer asks, how many of the 18,000 children and adolescents in juvenile detention centers should really be there? According to government guidance, “…the purpose of juvenile detention is to confine only those youths who are serious, violent, or chronic offenders.” Yet over 5,000 youths are held in detention centers for these same low-level offenses.”[18]

    The sheer numbers of all individuals in solitary confinement is staggering. According to the Bureau of Justice’s 2011–2012 study, nearly 20 percent of prison inmates and 18 percent of jail inmates (approximately 240,000) had spent time some time in restrictive housing, including disciplinary segregation, administrative segregation involving isolation and little out-of-cell time. The characteristics of those who are thrown into solitary confinement is even more disturbing. For example, younger inmates, inmates without a high school diploma, and lesbian, gay, and bisexual inmates were more likely to be in restrictive housing than older inmates, inmates with a high school diploma and heterosexual inmates.

    The use of solitary confinement became front page news in 2013, when the largest hunger strike in California’s history began in Pelican Bay’s notorious Security Housing Unit (SHU) and spread to prisons throughout California. Prisoners were protesting inhumane conditions and the lack of any step-down program that would allow prisoners to get out of solitary confinement. Thousands of SHU prisoners had spent years in solitary confinement some even decades. One strike leader and former prisoner, Joey Villareal, a leader of the Free Aztlan Movement, says “living there was hell. Nice and bright was one of the ways they tortured us. We never saw any color. Inside, egg shell white. Outside eggshell white, white boxers, tee shirts, jump suits, everything we see white and bright lights left on 24/7.”

    Thousands of SHU prisoners had spent years in solitary confinement—some even decades. Their struggle won the release of most of the prisoners and the dismantling of the SHU. Nevertheless, there remain security housing units throughout the state of California and nationwide where prisoners to this day are serving in isolation.

    The case of Sandra Bland received national attention after she committed suicide in solitary in the notorious Harris County Jail after being held for a routine traffic stop. Her arrest went viral and the officer was dismissed after everyone saw her horrifying arrest video. As the Nation reports, Sandra posted on her Facebook years before, “I’m here to change history.” Little could she have imagined that her death would spark national protests and documentaries as the world asked, “What happened to Sandra Bland?” by many who doubted she actually committed suicide.

    High profile cases such as Sandra Bland and Kalief Browder, coupled with large-scale protests against the use of solitary confinement have exposed the hypocrisy of a prison system that calls itself rehabilitative. They have led to a flurry of reforms around the use of solitary confinement but have not put an end to its widespread uses. Today, hundreds of thousands languish in solitary confinement on any given day with little hope of release some serving years in isolation. In spite of the preponderance of evidence that solitary confinement drives people insane and has the propensity to make prisoners more violent, solitary remains as the main mode of discipline within America’s prison system.

    The incarceration of the mentally ill has also garnered attention. It is estimated that one third of all prisoners are mentally ill and that America holds over two million mentally ill individuals in its prisons, now commonly referred to as the New Asylum. According to the National Alliance of Mental Illness, 83 percent of individuals receive little to no treatment in prison. Mentally ill individuals experience more brutalization and are thrown into solitary more often because of challenges in navigating each prison’s strict codes of conduct.

    From reform to abolition    

    It is within this atmosphere of greater awareness and a call for genuine reform that Angela Davis, American political icon, asks in an interview with Dylan Rodriguez, how do we stop taking the prisons for granted and see the urgency of building a prison abolition struggle within a reform movement. She explains that “it is when people struggle for reforms that such awareness can lead to the asking of fundamental questions about the necessity of such brutalities and the imagining of a better world without racism and incarceration.”[19]

    Davis highlights why fights to reform prisons shouldn’t be separated from the fight for prison abolition:

    “The most difficult question for advocates of prison abolition is how to establish a balance between reforms that are clearly necessary to safeguard the lives of prisoners and those strategies designed to promote the eventual abolition of prisons as the dominant mode of punishment….I do not think that there is a strict dividing line between reform and abolition. For example, it would be utterly absurd for a radical prison activist to refuse to support the demand for better health care inside Valley State, California’s largest women’s prison, under the pretext that such reforms would make the prison a more viable institution. Demands for improved health care, including protection from sexual abuse and challenges to the myriad ways in which prisons violate prisoners’ human rights, can be integrated into an abolitionist context that elaborates specific decarceration strategies and helps to develop a popular discourse on the need to shift resources from punishment to education, housing, health care, and other public resources and services.”[20]

    The history of prisoner reform movements adds credence to Davis’ claims, but there are others who would disagree with Davis’ conclusions. Roger Lancaster, a professor of Anthropology and Cultural Studies at George Mason University and author of Sex Panic and the Punitive State writes in “How to End Mass Incarceration,” published in Jacobin magazine, that prison reformers should reject Angela Davis Are Prisons Obsolete? Lancaster claims that, “abolitionism promises a heaven on-earth that will never come to pass.”[21] He counter poses prison reform to prison abolition, the latter which, he argues, is “unlikely to win broad public support.”

    Lancaster is wrong to accuse prison abolitionists of being “remarkably innocent of history,” or that their position is that we must “choose between abolition and reform, while discounting reform as a viable option.”

    One only has to look back to the largest prison rebellion in U.S. history in 1971 at the Attica Correctional Facility in upstate New York to see reforms won by those with revolutionary ideals. More recently, it was the 2016 prison abolition movement that generated the largest prisoner work stoppage in U.S. history. The 2013 Pelican Bay State Prison hunger strike, led in part by a sizable number of revolutionaries, resulted in a near-dismantling of its notorious Security Housing Unit (SHU), the passage of multiple new sentencing laws which have gained the release of thousands of prisoners, and an educational reform movement inside the prisons that is challenging the “lock them up throw away the key” model in California. As Joey Villareal states, “the Pelican Bay Hunger strike began as an isolated fight to end solitary confinement helped people become conscious about state repression and helped forge a new abolitionist movement.”

    Lancaster has his own utopian dreams. He recommends that the United States could adopt Finland’s rehabilitative system. To suggest that the U.S. would move to a model like Scandinavian prisons that “have no walls and allow prisoners to leave during the day for shopping” is ludicrous.

    Lancaster is not the only one calling for a kinder gentler prison system. Philanthropist, Frank Gehry, invited an audience of architects and students, corrections officials and campaigners for criminal justice reform to assemble at the Yale School of Architecture for the finale of Gehry’s semester-long “studio” on architecture and mass incarceration. A dozen students would present their projects—designs for a humane prison—to a jury consisting mostly of Friends of Frank and funded by George Soros. Christopher Stone, the outgoing president of Soros’s Open Society Foundation said, “We asked Frank, what would it mean to design a maximum-security prison if you treated the corrections officers and the prisoners as the clients instead of the state bureaucracy.” During the planning students went to Finland and Norway, but it proved too idealistic and impractical to most who wondered how a prison in the United States would work without walls and bars.

    Instead of imagining a kinder and gentler prison, Angela Davis suggests that no prisons would be better to reduce crime more than the current state of mass incarceration. As a second alternative she proposes, “building the kind of society that doesn’t need prisons.” She calls for a massive redistribution of “power and income” by taking resources away from the prisons and moving them into social service agencies:[22]

    She calls for the “demilitarization of schools, revitalization of education at all levels, a health system that provides free physical and mental care to all, and a justice system based on reparation and reconciliation rather than retribution and vengeance.”[23]

    Lancaster rejects this idea: “While the state-sanctioned brutality that now marks the American criminal justice system has motivated many activists to call for the complete abolition of prisons, we must begin with a clearer understanding of the complex institutional shifts that created and reproduce the phenomenon of mass incarceration.”

    Lancaster fails to see that the “punitive turn” that he argues took place in the early 1970s in the U.S. penal system was not just a “cultural shift,” but a refashioning of a racist tool that does not “exceed,” but is integral to the survival of the penal system. His blind spot is to see only institutional effects rather than the more dynamic changes that have occurred within America’s prison system. He states: “The American prison system is brutal and unjust. But the rhetoric of prison abolition won’t help us end its depravities.”

    In couching his understanding of a single “punitive turn,” he misses the reform waves that swept through American prisons in the early seventies. Two weeks after the murder by prison guards of Black Panther and revolutionary George Jackson at California’s San Quentin State Prison, one of the most significant prisoner rebellions erupted in a demand for better living conditions and political rights in upstate New York. Heather Ann Thompson recounts in Blood in the Water: A History of the Attica Prisoner Uprising what an era of educational reforms had on the Attica prisoners.[24] She explains how in the area of education “instructors were instrumental in inspiring Attica’s incarcerated to see the world both within and outside of Attica’s walls as inexorably linked.[25]

    This reform wave paralleled the Black Power movement that swept the country in the late sixties and early seventies. The Attica rebellion and prisoner reform movement were a reflection of the renewed radicalism outside the prisons. Their chant: “We are Men! We are not beasts and we do not intend to be beaten or driven as such” from the prison yard echoed the sentiments of the Black Power movement against police brutality and for better urban living conditions.

    The gains won through the early seventies prison reform wave lasted until 1992 when President Bill Clinton introduced his notorious Omnibus Crime Bill that brought in stricter sentencing, an increase in death punishable crimes, and an elimination of Pell Grants. This attack was part of a much broader attack on workers to destroy the social safety net by scapegoating African Americans to divert people’s attention away from the draconian cuts.

    Clinton’s policy of ending welfare as we knew it in exchange for workfare workers was an attack on all workers, especially unionized workers. In understanding the age of mass incarceration as a reflection of larger societal forces, there is hope that as societal forces such as the Black Lives Matter movement challenge systematic racism, the prisons themselves will again become hotbeds of radicalism that can unite with the resurgence of anti-racists struggles now gaining steam across America

    Race, Class and Prisons: It’s Personal

    I know the only humane and practical solution to America’s racist criminal justice system is abolition from my years of teaching in California prisons and from my decades-long fighting on the streets of New York City and Chicago, shoulder to shoulder with families and friends of those whose loved ones had been brutalized by the system.

    My first exposure to police brutality was with the case of Leonard Lawton, an unarmed fifteen-year old Black youth who was shot in the face from ten feet away while hanging out in his building at the Polo Grounds Housing Projects of New York City’s Harlem. I can still see the stunned Mrs. Lawton sitting quietly on the end of the sofa in her empty apartment with her hands in her lap as I began to interview her for a story for Socialist Worker the day after a cop killed her son. After the interview, I met Leonard’s father and brother, both of whom spoke on numerous panels and attended rallies organized by the International Socialist Organization.

    After covering stories equally horrific to Leonard Lawton, all inflicted on Black and Brown, none with indictments for perpetrators. I became increasingly aware of the systematic nature of police abuses. I also became inspired by families willing to take to the streets regardless of police reprisals.

    When I moved to Chicago in 1998, I shifted focus to a group of men railroaded on to death row on the basis of confessions extracted under torture by veteran detectives led by Police Commander Jon Burge. The tortures included electro-shock, suffocation and severe beatings along with the cover up by cops, supervisors, judges, states attorneys and mayors. Marlene Martin, Director of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty, asked me to coordinate what came to be known as the Death Row Ten Campaign. Through the help of lawyers and the tireless marches, rallies, press conferences and forums with family members, we were able to fuel a growing wrongful conviction movement. It finally reached Governor George Ryan who pardoned four of the Death Row Ten and commuted all 176 death sentences to life without parole.[26]

    The sheer viciousness of the police torture scandal that led to hundreds being sent to prison on the basis of tortured confessions, and the depth of the conspiracy to cover it up, convinced me of the need for abolition. Our victory in Illinois also showed me how that ordinary people can prevail over the most repressive aspects of the system.

    Thus when I first stepped onto a California prison yard as an instructor in 2007, I was already committed to abolishing the prison system. I saw our reform work as but a stepping stone to help raise expectations among prisoners for a broader fight. As the Co-Founder and Director of Feather River College’s Incarcerated Student Program, I brought a handful of instructors behind the prison walls.

    The first time I taught a literature class to a student at High Desert State Prison, a level four maximum security prison, I was accompanied by one guard beside me and another perched behind. I peered through the dusty Plexiglas window of the steel door into the eyes of my student who was surrounded by darkness in his tiny cell with his cell mate on the bunk behind him. As he I responded to my question about extended metaphor in Macbeth, the space around us seemed to melt away. I was stunned by the capacity of the human mind to transcend even the most barbarous of circumstances. When I walked into my first classroom at Central California Women’s Facility, the world’s largest female prison, I saw a packed room of women sitting up straight each with a stack of books in their laps and a gleam in their eyes transformed from prisoners to students.

    My opportunity to bear witness to this capacity of human beings to strive for some immeasurable good in the face of the most repressive of circumstances changed my life. Through all I’ve beheld, including men and women living in over heated or freezing tiny cells and humans in upright cages, and all the stories I’ve heard about beatings and murder by guards and people wearing only boxer shorts in driving bitter rain forced to spend hours in cages, and the sheer callousness I’ve seen displayed by the custodial and service staff to the men and women forced to abide by their dehumanizing rules, I remain steadfast in my conviction that these men and women have an indomitable will and the ability to rise up against their oppressors.

    A recent interview with Nube Brown, a leading member of California Prison Focus and facilitator for Liberate the Caged Voices explains how working with prisoners inside the system should go beyond simple reforms [27]: “we have to do that work on the road to abolition. I don’t consider that reform. It’s what they are asking for on the inside. It’s not something that you do, it’s the place that you land. It’s not about reform but about building.”

    Prison abolitionists are right to draw such conclusions about the potential of real human beings’ ability to win through struggle rather than waiting for some “emergent institution.”[28] The only practical solution is to build an abolitionist movement within the struggles to win prison reforms. In doing so, activist will finally tear down America’ racist prison system brick by brick and free those who reside in its cages once and for all. The main task of socialists today should be to help link prison reform movements to a broader anti-racist movement that exposes the lie of the United States as the standard-bearer of democracy and fights to end the capitalist society that gave birth to such hypocrisy in the first place.

    Notes

    [1] Angela Yvonne Davis. Are Prisons Obsolete? (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2003).

    [2] The First Step Act is a refinement rather than a reform of Federal prisons. It is divided into six Titles I. Recidivism Reduction; II. Bureau of Prisons Secure Firearms Storage; III. Restraints of Pregnant Prisoners Prohibited; IV. Sentencing Reform; V. Reauthorization of Second Chance Act of 2007; and VI. Miscellaneous Criminal Justice. That include, prohibition of anything but temporary juvenile solitary confinement; important data collection on solitary confinement, pregnant women, and medical care, treatment for opioid and heroin; notification to families and partners of the terminally ill and/or mental incapacity to apply for sentence reduction; compassionate release; home confinement for low risk prisoners; and transfers closer to families. The act does not offer sentencing reform but does reduce Life without Parole sentences to 25 to life.

    [3] A Bureau of Justice Statistics study from 2005 to 2010 about two-thirds (67.8 percent) of released prisoners were arrested for a new crime within 3 years, and three-quarters (76.6 percent) were arrested within 5 years, compared to BJS study from 2009 to 2014, when an estimated 68 percent of released prisoners were arrested within 3 years, 79 percent within 6 years, and 83 percent within 9 years. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005, 2017, May 23, 2018.

    [4] The Three Strikes Law, first introduced in California in 1994, impose harsher sentences after someone has been convicted of certain felonies three times. In a notorious case in 1996, a California man with prior convictions for robbery and attempted robbery was given 25 years in prison for stealing a slice of pizza.

    [5] Manning Marable, “Racism, prisons, and the Future of Black America,” ZNet Daily Commentaries, August 31, 2000, at www.zmag.org.

    [vi] Phil Gasper, “Cruel and unusual punishment: Politics of crime in the U.S.,” International Socialist Review, Spring 1995, 65.

    [7] William J. Chambliss. “Misperceptions of Crime,” introduction, Power, Politics, and Crime (Colorado: Westview Press, 1999), 7.

    [8] See Marc Mauer (The Sentencing Project), Race to Incarcerate (New York: New Press, 1999).

    [9] Joseph T. Hallinan, Going up the River: Travels in a Prison Nation (New York: Random House, 2003), 40.

    [10] Michelle Alexander. The New Jim Crow, 186.

    [11] Paul D’Amato. “They Divide Both to Conquer Each,” International Socialist Review, March 22, 2002.

    [12] Clarence Darrow. Crime and Criminals: Address to the Prisoners in the Cook County Jail & Other Writings on Crime & Punishment (Chicago: Charles H. Kerr, Clarence Darrow 2000), 15, 16.

    [13] Bureau of Justice Statistics.

    [14] Peter Wagner and Wendy Sawyer. “Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie.” Prison Policy Initiative, March 14, 2018.

    [15] Alysia Santo, “What Kalief Browder’s Mother Thinks Should Happen to Rikers,” The Marshall Project, February 17, 2016, https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/02/17/what-kalief-browder-s-mother-thinks-should-happen-to-rikers.

    [16] Eli Hager. “Ending Solitary for Juveniles: A Goal Grows Closer.” The Marshall Project, August 1, 2017.

    [17] Natalie Chang. “This Is Solitary.” The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/spike/this-is-solitary/1245/.

    [18] Wendy Sawyer. “Youth Confinement: The Whole Pie.” Press Release, Prison Policy Initiative, February 27, 2018.

    [19] Angela Davis. “The Challenge of Prison Abolition: A Conversation,” https://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/davisinterview.html.

    [20] Angela Y. Davis. “The Challenge of Prison Abolition: A Conversation.”

    [21] Roger Lancaster, “How to End Mass Incarceration,” Jacobin Magazine, August 2017, https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/08/mass-incarceration-prison-abolition-policing.

    [22] Angela Y Davis. Are Prisons Obsolete?, 107.

    [23] Angela Y Davis. Are Prisons Obsolete?, Ibid.

    [24] Heather Ann Thompson. Blood in the Water: The Attica Prison Uprising of 1971 and Its Legacy (New York: Vintage, 2016).

    [25] Ibid., 28.

    [26] Marvin Reeves, Mark Clements, Ronald Kitchen, in collaboration with Stanley Howard. Tortured by Blue: The Chicago Torture Conspiracy (Bloomington: Balboa Press, 2018).

    [27] Nube’s organization is one of many prisoner rights organizations that also fight for abolition and see it as a part of a more systemic problem. California Prison Focus, Critical Resistance, and Common Justice are just a handful of existing organizations.

    [28] Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor. From #Black Lives Matter to Black Liberation (Haymarket Books, 2016).

    This article has been updated, 8/17/2020, to correct the spelling of Kalief Browder’s name.

  • Are we at a tipping point? Assessing the US political terrain

    Are we at a tipping point? Assessing the US political terrain

    “Liberal democracy is crumbling.” A Harvard Law Professor opened a recent talk with this matter-of-fact statement and the audience readily murmured its assent.

    The daily headlines certainly seem to confirm this assessment—that we are a nation in crisis. Yet, the nature of the crisis remains murky. While it is clear that in 2016 we witnessed an unprecedented display of shifting political sentiments, it is far less clear what the implications of this shift are.

    There are numerous interpretations floating around. Some argue that the U.S. government has taken an authoritarian turn and that President Trump, through doltishness, design, or both, is sabotaging the functionality of the state, rendering it incapable of carrying out the basic duties of democratic governance. Others focus on the growing sense that ordinary people have lost faith in the government—both in its ability to act in their interests and in the belief that they have a meaningful voice or a place in the demos.

    Has America reached a tipping point in which the contradictions built up over the past three decades have become an insurmountable barrier to the continuation of the post-Cold War neoliberal consensus?

    As a point of comparison consider the triple crisis (economic, social, political) of the 1970s which marked the beginning of a new era for capitalism. Expenditure overruns and stalled productivity combined with skyrocketing inflation and erratic financial flows to generate a situation of severe economic turmoil. The effects of this turmoil on working people, amidst a broader dissatisfaction with the status quo, led to mass strikes and social movement organizing around issues of racism, sexism, colonialism, and consumer rights fomenting a widespread and disruptive social crisis. By the end of the 1970s, the economic and social crises coalesced into a severe political crisis in the United States, encapsulated in Carter’s 1979 ‘crisis of confidence’ speech and an emergent bi-partisan elite consensus to abandon Keynesianism.

    Are we seeing a similar dynamic today? A deep, intersecting crisis generating a chaotic environment that demands resolution from above?

    The situation looks different depending upon where one stands. From the perspective of regular folks struggling against precarity, debt, oppression, and violence a feeling of deep crisis is pervasive. An upsurge of demonstrations around racist police violence, entrenched sexism, gun control, immigrant rights, and a living wage illustrate a growing collective anger over these issues.

    From the perspective of skilled, upwardly mobile workers, elites, and corporations however the situation remains relatively rosy. Nascent social movements and consciousness raising haven’t touched the privileged status of these strata (albeit with a few notable exceptions). Unlike the seventies, when elites were forced to the table and the survival of capitalism seemed in doubt, today’s crisis feels more confined.

    Yet, despite a considerably different landscape of crisis compared to the seventies observers across the spectrum are convinced, as Nancy Fraser argues in an article for American Affairs, that we are in the midst of a “[broad], multifaceted crisis.”

    What are the implications of this widely expressed sentiment? Revisiting our earlier question, have we reached a tipping point similar to the 1970s, despite the absence (for the moment) of an economic crisis or an upsurge of mass social movement organizing demanding resolution from above?

    It depends. If reaching a tipping point means a loss of legitimacy for the status quo and a loss of faith in the reigning elite consensus—neoliberalism—then we have certainly reached it. But if the tipping point means the emergence of a powerful force that compels a response from elites in the form of a new legitimating framework, or a new way of organizing capitalism, then we haven’t yet reached a tipping point.

    Put differently, for the first time in decades a genuine political opening has emerged, but the potential for a progressive movement to generate a new consensus that replaces the reigning elite status quo is deeply uncertain. Shifting sentiments have not yet translated into gains on a broad scale. Moreover, as the recent midterm elections demonstrated, the country is increasingly polarized as the center collapses.

    That said, the passionate mobilizations we’ve witnessed over the past few years—both in organized labor and in broader civil society—are promising and hold the potential to both reform atrophied organizations and to develop powerful new ones. As radical scholars working today argue, there’s no reason the left can’t build strong social movements.

    The challenge in this political moment is, in many respects, the same as it has always been: to translate political discontent into a constellation of radical, democratic, anti-capitalist social movements that represent working people and have the capacity to challenge capital and win. But this challenge is also more urgent than it has ever been.

    This article is adapted from Nicole Aschoff, “America’s Tipping Point? Between Trumpism and a New Left,” Socialist Register 2019: A World Turned Upside Down, edited by Leo Panitch and Greg Albo.

    Originally posted at the Marxist Sociology Blog.

  • Climate, communism and the Age of Affluence?

    Climate, communism and the Age of Affluence?

    Aaron Bastani
    Fully Automated Luxury Communism
    Verso Books, 2019.

    Fully Automated Luxury Communism (FALC) was a slogan in search of a movement, and now it has its manifesto. The aim: to accelerate capitalism’s positives (technological progress), curb its negatives (neoliberal globalisation), and to re-invent communism for the coming Age of Affluence.

    Aaron Bastani’s overriding concern is climate breakdown. Anything over a 2°C rise “could be cataclysmic, creating a cascade of feedbacks” that would accelerate global heating and the sixth mass extinction. The glaciers that provide drinking water for billions are evaporating, nine-tenths of the largest fish in the oceans have disappeared, and soils are suffering from industrial farming and salination.

    Although “humanity’s rise” was built on agriculture and on our “unique ability to reprogram the gifts of nature,” the planet’s natural limits are now being trampled with such violence that the prospect of human extinction begins to appear plausible. Our present course is worse than inaction. It is “rushing full speed to oblivion”. We have a window of ten or twenty years.

    How does Bastani propose we use that window? For starters, we need to recognise that it’s “the meat and dairy consumption typical to diets of the Global North which have us living beyond our ecological means”. Animal products are a “highly inefficient way of using finite resources to produce food”. Ideally, we should completely eliminate them from our diets.

    But even as this recognition dawns, the solution is arriving, in the shape of lab-grown meat, eggs and dairy products. This is the next glittering chapter of the Green Revolution, that “most important achievement of the last sixty years”, and one that enabled us to see that “our mastery of nature could confer almost limitless abundance”.

    The Green Revolutionaries understood “that food is ultimately information” and that “information wants to be free”— ergo, food wants to be free. Their successors are making the revolution permanent. Thanks to such salivatingly named companies as Finless Foods, Memphis Meats and Impossible Foods we can look forward to “using a 3D printer to ‘print’ steaks, bacon rashers or even a leg of lamb”.

    ‘Like a music video’

    In bypassing the animal’s whole-body processes, the shift to synthetic animal products will, notwithstanding the soy inputs required, enable savings in land use and labour. Yet, the overall energy inputs could be higher than in today’s industrial agriculture, warns Bastani. He may be right. Methane emissions would fall but CO2 emissions could even rise.

    But even as the vats fill with tissue-engineered proteins, the solution has arrived, in the form of ever cheaper and exponentially more abundant renewable energy.

    Driven by a “tendency to extreme supply”, Bastani foresees “the end of energy scarcity altogether”. Thanks to the internet of things, “in just a few years saving energy—in your home, car and workplace—will be entirely automated”. The fulcrum of the renewables revolution will be our four-wheeled friends. “Cars won’t just be data processors on wheels, they’ll be giant portable batteries.”

    With the exponential ramping up of wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles and batteries, Bastani recognises that the supply of such minerals as nickel, zinc, copper, lithium, platinum and rare earth metals —will ”quickly become strained”.

    But even as the minerals-guzzling drive to a low-carbon economy revs up, the solution is arriving, in the shape of Elon Musk’s SpaceX setting sail for the asteroids. Of those big ball bearings in the heavens, Bastani’s telescope settles on one that gleams especially bright: 16 Psyche.

    Suspended midway between Mars and Jupiter, 16 Psyche consists of iron, nickel and copper, with gold and platinum too. Its iron alone could be worth $10 quintillion, and if you scoop up a bunch of other asteroids their combined mineral wealth, “if equally divided among every person on Earth, would add up to more than $100 billion each.”

    From this he concludes that “under FALC, we will see more of the world than ever before … and lead lives equivalent, if we wish, to those of today’s billionaires”. Luxury communism indeed, and awash with glamour. “Yes, when you’re relaxing,” FALC “will look like a music video”.

    Now, how can we get our pickaxes into Psyche? A NASA mission may be launched in 2022 and, courtesy of a Mars gravity assist, might reach it by 2026. At some point after that, our guide assures us, Psyche can be harpooned and towed from its current location “into near Earth orbit” where—as soon as a bunch of technological obstacles are overcome—off-world mining can begin in earnest.

    Asteroid mining is the prerequisite for FALC, because without it “the limits of the earth would confine post-capitalism to conditions of abiding scarcity [and] the realm of freedom would remain out of reach.”

    Seizing Psyche will mean “the limits of the earth won’t matter anymore—we’ll mine the sky instead”. Mineral scarcity will cease to thwart our ambitions, and raw materials will become available in “extreme supply”. This is the final link in a chain that will permit humanity “to entirely exceed our present limits”.

    Bastani’s Law

    There is metaphysics in the madness. It’s there in the claim that “information, resources, energy, health, labour and food want to be free”. This axiom is the cornerstone of the manifesto. Let’s call it Bastani’s Law. As he puts it, the “tendency to extreme supply” ensures that “everything will become permanently cheaper.”

    Bastani’s Law permits us to seek techno-fixes to climate collapse — and indeed most other social problems — with a blasé shrug at issues of resource constraint and scalability. What will all the robots be made of? Megatonnes of stardust. What of energy-saving innovations such as the Passivhaus—how much concrete will be poured if the world’s buildings are to be razed and replaced? Psyche will provide.

    If we are to gamble the planet’s future on Bastani’s 10-Year Plan its calculations need to be as hermetic as a cosmonaut’s suit. But they are nothing of the sort. The grasp of climate science—including current CO2 levels, and estimates of future heating—is wobbly, as is the claim that energy consumption is in secular decline in the world’s richest countries.

    When highlighting a recent fall in Britain’s energy use it forgets that this is in large measure an accounting trick, given the massive and rising CO2 imports from China and elsewhere. It proposes, without warrant, that fossil fuel prices will remain high even if demand falls due to renewable alternatives.

    Bastani can declare solar energy to be “Limitless, Clean, Free” only by pretending that no real doubts or debate exist over its EROI, by assuming that it displaces fossil energy rather than adding to it, and neglecting to mention either that there is a real prospect of its price ceasing to fall or that its sharpest cost plunge occurred when manufacturing was shifted to low-wage China — where, given coal-sourced power, the manufacture of photovoltaic panels is carbon-intensive as well as highly polluting.

    Saudi sunlight

    As the title suggests, this is a breathless manifesto. Its descriptions of technologies are gushing. Innovations are “dizzying”, progress is “exponential”. Plaudits are showered on any firm or state that has invested in solar photovoltaics, lab-grown meat, or asteroid mining.

    Without hesitation or irony, Saudi Arabia is extolled for its solar-energy plans. They demonstrate “precisely the scale and ambition that is needed to move the world beyond fossil fuels by 2040″.

    With a steady patter of quotes from CEOs, the tone is often less manifesto than marketing brochure for SpaceX and other “disruptive” corporations. We are whisked from one marvellous fact or promise to the next. New medical technologies could “spell the end of age-related and inherited illness altogether”, rockets can be 3D-printed using “lasers that melt a steady stream of aluminium wire into liquid metal”, and so on.

    Such gadgets may be cutting-edge but the tune is old. We hear the same notes as in Erasmus Darwin in the eighteenth century, Charles Babbage and John Ramsay McCulloch in the nineteenth, and we might almost hear Lenin’s adage—Communism is “Soviet power plus electrification”— except that in this manifesto the pylons are towering, the rest is secondary.

    Back to the Future Shock

    New tech isn’t just a source of awed admiration for Bastani, but the heartbeat of history, the wellspring of the great “disruptions” that drive progress. He identifies critical moments of disruption in which changing technology sparked social transformation.

    Thanks to settled agriculture, humans accumulated surplus, began to cooperate in complex ways, asserted mastery over all other creatures, and began, “for the first time in their existence, to think about the future and make plans”.

    Thanks to the printing press, Martin Luther and the Reformation triumphed. Thanks to the Industrial Revolution, the power of fossil fuels was unleashed, catapulting humanity to our present state of potential abundance. And now, with IT, we see exponentially accelerating progress in the “cost of collecting, processing, storing and distributing digital information”, leading to extreme supply and “making possible the Third Disruption”.

    It’s a remarkably Whiggish account. It overlooks the dark side of the Neolithic revolution. It notes only in passing that transformed social relations preceded the Industrial Revolution. The leaps in productivity and cheapening costs over which Bastani effuses were enabled as much by imperialist land grabs and by altered organisations of production, often with the aim of disciplining and controlling workers, as by new technologies per se.

    Bastani’s analysis of the three disruptions and the role of IT rehashes mid-twentieth century prophesies of the post-industrial order. It bears clear resemblances to Alvin and Heidi Toffler’s Future Shock, but Bastani draws especially on another prophet from the same era, the business guru Peter Drucker.

    Drucker, having come to see that information “had become the primary factor of production” and was supplanting the traditional factors (labour, land and capital), then, in the 1990s, noticed that the economy had entered not merely a post-industrial but a “post-capitalist” phase.

    Yet neither Drucker nor earlier prophets of post-capitalism (Bastani mentions Marx and Keynes) could foresee how the new information-based “mode of production would stitch itself into the fabric of the present.”

    The genius who grasped that needlework was the neoliberal economist Paul Romer. His insight was that technological change is in essence immaterial: it amounts to “nothing more than an upgraded re-arrangement of previous information.” It follows that the most valuable input into commodities today, information, is “capable of infinite replication at near zero cost”.

    From this Romerian yarn, Bastani spins his central thesis: the supply of resources under capitalism tends to infinity. But, he adds, in a departure from Romer, the gains won’t translate into fully democratic luxury under capitalist conditions. If there is one single shortcoming in capitalism it is “its inability to accept natural abundance” and to allow prices to fall as far as they should. Unlocking that cornucopia requires an automated communist cosmos.

    Hand-mill, steam-mill, asteroid mines

    If the FALC manifesto is idiosyncratic, it is because it splices the ideas of Romer and Drucker—and Keynes—together with those of Marx and Engels. Drucker and Keynes, it asserts, shared Marx’s prognosis of “how capitalism might lead to a system beyond it”. It’s a conclusion that Bastani can reach by reducing Marx’s work to a few crude motifs, almost all taken from his early work or from a brief fragment of the Grundrisse.

    Through Bastani’s ventriloquism, Marx is a technological determinist. Tools and inventions are the active agent in history, ushering humanity from one “paradigm” to the next. Each “economic foundation” gives rise to its own “superstructure”: the hand-mill gives you feudalism, the steam-mill gives you capitalism, asteroid mining gives you FALC.

    Technological change in capitalism is especially progressive, for in the continual substitution of machines for labour (both “animal and human”), capital “undermines labour as the central factor of production” until we reach the present day when capital, embodied in AI, itself “becomes labour”.

    The economic consequences are, first, “that the role of humans as the most important factor of production,” and the creator of value, “is bound to diminish”, and, second, a tendency to “ever cheaper and more efficient ways of producing commodities” and ceaseless improvements in the “goods and services available to consumers”.

    With this, Bastani arrives at capitalism’s fundamental contradiction: competition drives down the price of the key factor of production, information, but in so doing it cuts off the fuel supply—profits—to the capitalist engine.

    Capitalism is “a force of potential liberation”. Its record was “impressive” right up until the early 1980s, but then, with the advent of the neoliberal era (and the birth of the prophet of FALC), it all turned south. Today, capitalism is disintegrating, for it is incompatible with the digital revolution it has unleashed. (Those familiar with Paul Mason’s PostCapitalism or Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams’ Inventing the Future will hear the echoes.)

    Critique of political economy

    All this makes a caricature of Marx. In the FALC manifesto, there is little need for a critical analysis of capitalist social relations—Marx’s project—because communism will arrive automatically, through the acceleration of the logic of capitalist production, backed by state power.

    Bastani’s framing of capitalism as a delivery machine of ever-cheaper goods is rooted in the conceptual paradigms of bourgeois political economy, of which much of Marx’s life’s work was a critique. Marx slammed the ‘factors of production’ approach to economics to which Bastani subscribes, and whereas Bastani hails capitalism as profoundly progressive, Marx was ambivalent.

    Marx didn’t share Bastani’s belief that businesses are systematically driven to improve goods and services, and while, yes, there is in capitalism a systematic drive to reduce production costs, it relentlessly displaces other costs (‘externalities’) onto people and nature.

    Nor did he conflate technology with the “economic foundation,” extracting it from the complexity of social life and attributing to it unlimited powers, as does Bastani. Capital, for Marx, is a social relation. It does not “become” labour; and knowledge and information are not separated out as a value-yielding “factor of production” that supplants labour.

    Labour itself is not simply a factor of production, but the connecting tissue of social life: the agent of humanity’s metabolic interaction with nature, and of our collective life-making, but at the same time a commodified force that is exploited and put to work by capital.

    From the ensuing contradictions (exchange value versus use value) flow Marx’s analysis of class struggle and the labour movement, terms that are pivotal to the Communist Manifesto but are mentioned only in passing in the FALC Manifesto—and even then, with the stipulation that movements must not seek “to turn down the volume on modernity”.

    Whiggish urges

    In short: this is an entertaining but absurd book. It is quaint in its belief that its advocacy of a “disruptive green industrial policy” is in any meaningful sense radical—when this has already become the standard patter of international governmental organisations such as UNEP.

    Its alloying of a Whiggish ideology of technological progress with a recognition of impending ecological disaster, and of an excoriation of neoliberalism with tech boosterism, give it a distinctive flavour. It will be seen as a cousin to other tomes of technophilic socialism, such as Inventing the Future.

    Indeed the alikeness of Bastani’s central slogans—Full Automation and Universal Basic Services (UBS)—and Williams and Srnicek’s Full Automation and Universal Basic Income is hard to miss. But Bastani’s book differs in taking environmental crisis seriously, and in disavowing the dogmatic antipathy to “localism” that defines the Williams-Srnicek mission. His arguments for economic “re-localisation”, at least of finance and of workplace ownership, and for UBS, are well made.

    In closing, we may ask why this matters. First, Bastani’s book represents a new iteration of the view, propounded in different ways by theorists from Kautsky to Negri and Mason, that irresistible technological/economic forces lead inevitably to the dissolution of the capitalist system, and moreover that it is, behind everyone’s back, already ending. It’s a sanguine, ‘ever-upwards’ cast of determinist thought that, with its optimism of the intellect and pessimism of the will, can justify strategic inaction.

    Secondly, Britain’s Labour Party is calling for a Green Industrial Revolution but what sort of revolution will it be? Should it be from below, “built from the ground up,” as some Labour members have argued? Or will it continue the project of the Industrial Revolution and the Green Revolution, potentially a bonanza for capital but at an exorbitant ecological and social cost?

    Thirdly, in championing automation as the decisive and dynamic ingredient of social progress, Bastani is reproducing what Alf Hornborg identifies as the “central fetish of industrial capitalism”. For capital, technology is the only solution — and it is one that promises profits. The FALC manifesto peddles the nostrum that technology will save the planet — arguably the greatest delusion of our times. The effect of technophilic fantasies is to spread complacency.

    We saw it with BECCS at Paris. Just those three short years ago, BECCS was the wonder tech. The Paris Agreement was built on it. But it was quicksand. Today, it is increasingly apparent that BECCS is unviable at scale. The Paris Agreement is in tatters. Its magic bullet was a promissory note — that salvation lies through burning wood and burying the carbon — but the note was ink on paper, and it is now aflame.

    FALC has been aptly described as “soft science fiction,” an imaginary of magical sustainability that, in its techno-fetishism, bears the stamp of “the same fossil-fuel dependent system that it seeks to criticize”. Bastani may wish to reach to the heavens, to grapple with that scintillating Psyche, but we’d be better off looking for solutions below.

    Originally posted at The Ecologist.

  • Picturing the Revolutionary Mexican Working Class

    Picturing the Revolutionary Mexican Working Class

    Picturing the Proletariat: Artists and Labor in Revolutionary Mexico, 1908-1940.
    John Lear
    Austin: University of Texas Press, 2017, vii + 366 pp
    $29.95 paperback

    Any mention of Mexican art immediately brings to mind the high cultural achievements of two civilizations separated by long centuries. There are the artifacts and constructions of the indigenous peoples, the art of the Aztecs and Mayas that predate the Spanish Conquest. And in our own time, the spectacular murals that are the icons of contemporary  Mexico – particularly the celebrated works of the so-called los tres grandes, Diego Rivera, Jose’ Orozco and David Siqueiros. But if it is the muralists who captured and continue to claim attention and admiration worldwide, there were other types of artistic expression in twentieth century Mexico, less celebrated if no less vital and essential to the advancement  of a radical social movement.

    By the turn of the twentieth century, economic development under the dictatorship of Porforio Diaz had bred an industrial proletariat, an aggrieved peasantry, and an expanded middle class all grown increasingly restless and disaffected under the extended years of his rule. The revolt of 1910 against his regime launched a decades-long social and political revolution that inspired a generation of Mexican artists and illustrators and finally saw the emergence of a national culture of Mexicanidad – a blend of radical ideology and a new-found nationalism. John Lear presents the graphic results of the commingling of art and revolution, the works of artists that displayed, expressed, and encouraged  the radical and revolutionary impulses of the Mexican working class and campesinos at the same time that the artists themselves, largely of middleclass origins, formed themselves into collectives and became increasingly drawn into the front ranks of the popular movement for social change. Lehr notes the contributions of  artists like Luis Arenal, Pablo O’Higgins, Leopoldo Mendez, and a score of others relatively unknown in North America.

    The Mexican Revolution gathered momentum in the same years that war and revolt convulsed Europe, disturbing traditional sensibilities and provoking new and unique styles in the graphic arts – dadaism, expressionism, surrealism…all of these left their imprint  on  the work of Mexico’s’ artistic community in the early twentieth century, even as they illustrated social injustice and celebrated the power of collective action. But unlike developments in the totalitarian states – the reactionary “socialist realism” enforced by Stalin in the Soviet Union, with its twin counterpart in Nazi iconography – the blend of art and politics in Mexico never conformed to any “official” regulation, despite governmental subsidy of so many artistic projects and the artists who produced them. In their work on public displays and in the journals and posters of the Mexican labor movement, Mexican artists and illustrators maintained a general independence of style and expression, ranging from cartoon-like graphics to photo-montage to surreal depictions of social conflict and class solidarity.

    The ascension of Lazaro Cardenas to the presidency in the mid-1930s proved to be the high tide of Mexico’s social revolution. Cardenas took the side of the popular movements and his administration began a program of land reform, extension of labor rights ,the encouragement of cooperatives and finally the expropriation of the foreign owners of Mexico’s oil industry. At the same time the Mexican Communist Party, following directives from Moscow, initiated a Popular Front policy of cooperation with liberal and progressive elements in anti-fascist alliance. The outbreak of the Spanish Civil War further raised the political temperature. A reaction typical of Mexican leftists was Arenal’s drawing for the cover of the union periodical Futuro featuring an armed worker-soldier with the caption Mexico no sera’ Espana! (Mexico will not be Spain!) – a warning to right-wing elements.

    At the same time that he carried through policies of social reform, President Cardenas also reorganized and strengthened Mexico’s ruling political party, containing labor and peasant organizations within a corporatist system that would endure under his more conservative successors until the end of the century. Lehr takes note, but does not dwell on the various rivalries and quarrels both within and among Mexico’s labor unions and political organizations, Communist, radical and moderate. The dissident leftist Diego Rivera was expelled from the Mexican Communist Party and became an intimate associate of Leon Trotsky after the Bolshevik leader went into Mexican exile. Trotsky was later assassinated in Mexico City by an agent of Stalin’s secret police. Both Luis Arenal and David Siquerios had personally participated in previous failed attempts on Trotsky’s life.

    Lear’s presents this work along with a plethora of  reproductions, plates and photographs of the art rendered in labor publications, union journals  and public walls, illustrations that carry his narrative as well as the written text. His is a unique study of popular culture in a  society undergoing radical renovation.    

  • To the Arab Readers of “Marx at the Margins”

    To the Arab Readers of “Marx at the Margins”

    I greet with great pleasure the Arabic translation of Marx at the Margins.  As readers will see, the book takes up three intertwined issues within Marx’s thought, all them in relation to capital and the struggle for its transcendence: (1) race, ethnicity and class within a particular nation; (2) nationalism and national emancipation; (3) colonialism and the resistance to it.

    Obviously, I am not the first author to address these issues within Marx’s oeuvre, but I hope to have brought them together in a manner relevant to the second decade of the twenty-first century.  I also hope that my use of little known works and in some cases unpublished notebooks by Marx can shed some new light on old debates.

    Marx is of course a controversial author, but the intensity of those controversies show that he remains a living author, one whose shadow haunts even those of his opponents who claim that his ideas were discredited long ago.

    The most common charge against Marx in scholarly circles remains the notion that he misunderstood the creative power of capitalism, of its “free” market, and that therefore history has passed him by.  This cliché has become increasingly worn since the Great Recession of 2008 discredited neoliberal orthodoxy.

    However, a second charge against Marx in scholarly circles in recent decades has revolved around his supposed neglect of issues like ethnicity, race, nationalism, and even colonialism. One can find this charge in authors whose overall perspective is quite different from one another, for example, the sociologist Anthony Giddens (in his 1987 book The Nation-State and Violence) or the Palestinian-American literary theorist Edward Said (in his 1978 book Orientalism). Given the rising importance of these social issues, such charges against Marx could be devastating, were they correct.

    Marx at the Margins began as a response to those kinds of charges, influenced strongly by the last book of my mentor, Raya Dunayevskaya, Rosa Luxemburg, Women’s Liberation, and Marx’s Philosophy of Revolution (1982). In that book, Dunayevskaya intertwined non-class forms of oppression — around gender, race, ethnicity, and colonialism — with those around capital and class, and did so through a novel and original reading of Marx’s work, especially his late Ethnological Notebooks of 1880-82.  In her reading of Marx, the dialectic was not a closed, monist system, but a living thread that embraced universal human emancipation at the same time that it made room for particularity and difference.

    At no time was this more the case than in Marx’s last years, when he re-thought many of his earlier concepts concerning social development, placing societies outside Western Europe at the center of his concerns, and suggesting that these societies might take the lead in terms of bringing about revolutionary change.  Most notably, he wrote in the 1882 preface to the Communist Manifesto that in agrarian Russia, where capitalist social relations had only begun to appear, the resistance of communally organized villages to this encroachment could, if it linked up to the Western labor movement, become the starting point for a revolutionary transformation on a global level.

    Of course, in his earlier writings of the 1840s and early 1850s, Marx sometimes disparaged Russia, India, China, and other societies outside Western Europe as hopelessly backward and reactionary. But by 1856-57, he and Engels came out strongly in favor of the anti-colonial Sepoy Uprising in India, of Chinese resistance to the British in the Second Opium War, and also noted the growing agrarian unrest in Russia as a harbinger of radical social changes that were sure to come.  From about 1868 onwards, Marx came out against colonialism even more strongly, especially British colonialism in Ireland, at the same time embracing the Irish nationalist cause as never before.  On Ireland, as is discussed in chapter four, he acknowledged explicitly that he had changed his position, that he now saw Irish national emancipation not as something that would be achieved as a byproduct of the ascendancy of British socialist workers, but as the precondition of such an ascendancy.  His very last writings and notebooks suggest that he saw resistance to colonialism and to capitalist encroachment as a very significant factor in global politics and economics, not only in Ireland, but also in Russia, India, Indonesia, and North Africa.

    It is important to note that these themes – and these changes — can be found not only in Marx’s journalism, letters, and notebooks, but also in his core economic writings, from the 1857-58 Grundrisse to the various editions of Capital I that he personally prepared for the printer, the German editions of 1867 and 1873, and the French edition of 1872-75.  Moreover, as I argue in chapter five, some of this dialectic was lost in the way that Engels prepared what he considered to be the definitive German edition of Capital I of 1890.

    I have mentioned above Marx’s late notebooks and writings on Russia, India, Indonesia, and North Africa.  His notes on Algeria and North Africa, which cover both Ottoman and French rule, have been discussed before by several authors.  As I note in chapter six, the source for Marx’s notes is anthropologist Maxim Kovalevsky’s book on Communal Property, which covers India, Latin America, and Algeria. Concerning Algeria, Marx’s notes emphasize the extremely violent imposition of French colonialism and the fierce resistance of the Arab and Berber people to this imposition. He also emphasizes the particularly capitalist aspect of that colonialism, which, unlike the Ottoman version, uprooted the old communal agrarian relations in the village.  Here and there, he also shows that French imposition of more hierarchical and fixed property relations diminished women’s power in the villages.  Finally, he notes that the French colonialists were attempting to wipe out Algerian communal property at the same time that, back in France, the bourgeoisie was gripped with fear of another form of communal social relations that had emerged on the basis of the modern labor movement, the Paris Commune of 1871. In this sense, the struggles of French workers and Algerian peasants had a common basis, not as some kind of idealistic abstraction, but as a concrete example of the potential unity of working people across the world against capital.

    What I have tried to do in this book is to bring such notions to the fore, to help us to see a pathway forward in a time of crisis and struggle the world over.  At the level of pure theory, however, I have tried to link together a number of Marx’s writings on ethnicity, race, nationalism, and colonialism.  In bringing these issues together in a single volume, I hope that I have shown Marx as a creative thinker for the twenty-first century.  As we near the celebration of the two hundredth anniversary of his birth, 1818-2018, I hope readers will consider seriously my conclusion that Marx’s thought bears not only on capital and class, but also on a number of issues related to colonialism, ethnicity, race, and nationalism. And while I do not discuss it very much in Marx at the Margins, Marx was also concerned with gender and human emancipation throughout his life, but especially in his late Ethnological Notebooks, as discussed extensively in Heather Brown’s Marx on Gender and the Family (2012). In all these senses, Marx is not a thinker stuck in the nineteenth century, but one very much of and in our time.

    — Los Angeles, July 26, 2017

  • Discrediting Charges of Authoritarianism and Violence-Worship in Marx’s Worldview

    Discrediting Charges of Authoritarianism and Violence-Worship in Marx’s Worldview

    This blog post is based on a presentation on chapters 2 and 8 of Terry Eagleton’s Why Marx Was Right to the Lower Manhattan DSA Branch Political Education meeting, May 14, 2019.

    Milton Berle, the 1950s television comic superstar, had a saying: “If it’s not on the page, it’s not on the stage.” There was a time when I could give stem-winding speeches sans script: those times are gone, so I’ll do this Uncle Miltie’s way.

    Terry Eagleton crushes ten common arguments against Marx and Marxism; we’ll look at just two of them tonight. These are, first, that Marxism fails in practice because every regime claiming a Marxist pedigree has been both authoritarian and an economic disaster. Second, the mantra that the left’s quest for an egalitarian, classless society by nature requires a violent uprising against what is still widely assumed to be a “free world” and where armed struggle at the service of a partisan class interest is the socialists’ main and horrific remedy for ending the glories of “free enterprise” and individual economic mobility.

    Over the next several weeks we’ll highlight and take down other bourgeois criticisms of Marx’s radical critique of “capitalism,” a term that was only coined around the time of the 1848 revolutions, themselves political upheavals that collapsed in a host of European countries. Called “the turning point that failed to turn,” the defeats coincided with an industrial revolution advancing and a bourgeoisie lording over its laboring masses.

    With Eagleton, we aim to show up the arguments of Marx’s critics as puerile, themselves ideological justifications for existing power relations and a serious misreading of its own bourgeois revolutionary history. But I’d urge you to read the whole book, which is a wonder in its capacity to debunk anti-socialist caricatures not only sharply and exhaustively but with grace and humor, too. As one reviewer put it following its publication in 2011, “This book provides a formidable compendium that will be a useful reference for any socialist…At [its heart] is a simple but urgent truth: we need Marx more than ever before.”

    For Eagleton, “Marxism is a critique of capitalism—the most searching, rigorous, comprehensive critique of its kind ever to be launched.” Marx’s critics, Eagleton says “accuse him of being outdated, even as they “champion a capitalism rapidly reverting to Victorian levels of inequality.” What Marx focused on is not so much what a post-capitalist, post-scarcity society would look like—such is impossible to sketch in detail—except to say it will look nothing like a proto-slave-state of the Stalin era USSR. His focus was on what capitalism “bloody in fang and claw” allows, what it disallows and what its own corrosive internal logic leads to. Marx’s proper subject was how the conflict or contradiction between the growing socialization of the mode of production—now a world-straddling system—and its resulting alienation and exploitation of labor harms growing numbers of working-class people, potentially creating not just passive victims but a political response from its own active gravediggers.

    Modern capitalism’s high priests in the media and education extol “free enterprise” and individual economic mobility. They do so regardless of boom and bust in the economy even as disparities between rich and poor grow exponentially on a national and world scale. Marx, on the contrary, stressed the reality of class interests and class struggle as signposts of the system. Capitalism was his subject, socialism the popular resolution of the conflict inherent in capitalism. Rosa Luxemburg added a caveat: the future was a choice of either socialism or barbarism. Since World War II, with the advent of nuclear weapons and the real possibility of an environmental collapse leading to a sixth extinction, we 21st century humans have a good idea of what barbarism (or worse) may look like.

    A branch comrade wrote me that he couldn’t attend today’s session but wanted to share with me his thoughts on tonight’s reading. He wrote in part:

    “Instead of being overly defensive of the past (but also not disavowing it altogether), we should first offer a materialist explanation of why things happened the way they happened; and second, offer a path to socialism in the 21st century that’s more thoughtful and articulate than the Leninist impulse to say “we just need to overthrow this whole thing” as that’s not conducive to organizing. Whether or not there will be a rupture, we should be clear that we want to make structural changes to our economic system in the here and now and that doesn’t necessitate violence.

    There has never been a revolutionary rupture in a bourgeois democracy, and it’s unlikely that we’ll see one soon. But we also need the Berniecrats to pick up a methodology to get a longer view of social liberation (one might call this Marxism).”

    The comrade’s mandate could cover a life’s work, not just one session on two chapters of a solitary book. Let me deal with a bit of his.

    To be fair, Leninists don’t say “we just need to overthrow this whole thing” any more than do reformists say “all that is possible is gradual improvement over the slow course of centuries.” Both statements are more akin to bumper stickers, though that is often how arguments run over beers. What is at stake is differing views on the nature of the state and the role of a radical political party. That is something Eagleton touches on in conceding that Leninism and the “vanguard party” fit the needs of a movement in a backward, authoritarian country but not easily applicable to a western capitalist state with a sizably enfranchised working class, relatively high levels of consumption and a common if repressive bourgeois culture. I’d argue that the vanguard party concept is more flexible than either most Leninists or their critics would have it, and also that in its early instances in the Soviet Union and elsewhere before the Stalinization of the international Communist movement was not only innovative but democratic. But that’s another discussion for another time. Just know that a healthy party requires a healthy movement (one that at least knows the difference between the fight for reforms and “reformism”), a movement that operates not only electorally but substantively as an extraparliamentary force as well. Absent either a party or a real movement of the class, the other dies on the vine.

    Socialists certainly since Marx’s time never assumed they would be building a classless society in an industrially backward country, where as much as 90 percent of the populations were rural peasants or various degrees of landowners.

    If building socialism in largely agricultural Russia was at first a long shot, it was made nearly impossible by the ravages of World War I, the civil war that followed the world war, and the invasion by foreign armies—included those from Britain and the U.S.—to overthrow the new government. Add to that the failure of revolutions in the West to come to the aid of Russia—particularly in Germany, where the left was a growing force and numerous cities weathered general strikes, only to be undone by the right-wing socialist government and its ex-military allies. The result for Russia was as Eagleton says:

    “Building up an economy from very low levels is a backbreaking task. It is unlikely that men and women will freely submit to the hardships it involves. So unless this project is executed gradually, under democratic control and in accordance with socialist values, an authoritarian state may step in and force its citizens to do what they are reluctant to undertake voluntarily. The militarization of labor in Bolshevik Russia is a case in point. The result, in a grisly irony, will be to undermine the political superstructure of socialism (popular democracy, general self-government) in the very attempt to build up its economic base. It would be like being invited to a party only to discover that you had not only to bake the cakes and brew the beer but to dig the foundations and lay the floorboards. There wouldn’t be much time to enjoy yourself…It is not that the building of socialism cannot be begun in deprived conditions. It is that without material resources it would tend to twist into the monstrous caricature of socialism known as Stalinism.”

    Now—what about the issue of violence?

    As Eagleton makes clear, battling for structural changes in the here and now does not of necessity entail violence, but the push-back against those changes by the ruling class and its permanent government elite is itself often homicidal, based less on real threats than on perceived ones.

    For example, the nonviolent strike of the American Railway Union in 1894, led by Eugene Debs, was violently crushed by the U.S. Army under orders from Democratic Party President Grover Cleveland. The use of federal troops as strike breakers was made under the false claim that it was protecting the distribution of the U.S. mail, when in fact mail delivery was not being restricted, only passenger service. The attacks anticipated what an insurgent underclass might do, rather than what it was prepared to do, or did.

    At other times armed deputies murdered copper miners and their families at a peaceful encampment in Colorado in 1914. American Legion thugs under the watchful eyes of local police raided Socialist Party meetings after the armistice of 1919. The response of Southern racists to the nonviolent integration sit-ins of the 1960s was murderous, often done by police.

    Who can forget the Nixon administration and Henry Kissinger’s complicity in the murder of Chile’s Salvador Allende and the crushing of his moderate social democratic government? Let’s not turn a blind eye to the slaughter in 1871 of the Paris communards by the forces of order either.

    Add the efforts of the CIA to assassinate Fidel Castro following the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961, orchestrated by the Kennedy Brothers (as we now know thanks to research by reporter Seymour Hersh), along with the CIA’s success in murdering both Vietnam’s failing U.S. stooge Diem and the Congo’s anti-imperialist Lumumba, and it should be clear that violence is the option the ruling class takes when needs must. Often, it’s not even the last option, just the most convenient. They do it because they can.

    By comparison, left violence is scanty, reserved for the occasional anarchist incident, defended as “the propaganda of the deed” and exemplified in the classic line of a French anarchist justifying why he bombed a crèche serving upper class children. He said because “the bourgeoisie are never innocent.” Then there were the brief adventurist infatuations of the Weathermen in the U.S. or the Baider-Meinhoff Gang in Germany some 50 years ago. Hardly a tradition, let alone something we Marxists need to take responsibility for.

    And where the left has used force, its reasons are justifiable and need no excuses. In Britain, the battle of Cable Street in 1936 in East London was a clash between a broad section of the left, including Jewish workers, against a provocative march by the British Union of Fascists into the Jewish area. The fascists, soon routed, were at first protected by the police, and hundreds of counter demonstrators were brutalized by baton-wielding, horse-riding peelers. It is one of a number of international examples of working-class physical resistance to fascism, though rare in terms of left practice and nothing to apologize for. Eagleton doesn’t mention it. I think he should, and proudly.

    But what he does mention is worth knowing. He uses history to make the point that revolution and the resort to insurrection is hardly a tenet of the left alone. Eagleton notes how the British to this day don’t regret the violence of their own 17th century uprising. They barely acknowledge it as anything but heroic. As he writes:

    “Successful revolutions are those which end up erasing all traces of themselves. In doing so, they make the situation they struggle to bring about entirely natural. In this they are a bit like childbirth. To operate as normal human beings, we have to forget the endless anguish and terror of our birth. Origins are usually traumatic whether as individuals or political states. Marx reminds us in Capital that the modern British state built on the intensive exploitation of peasants-turned-proletarians came into existence dripping blood and dirt from every pour. This is one reason why he would have been horrified to observe Stalin’s forced urbanization of the Russian peasantry. Most political states came about through revolution, invasion, occupation, usurpation or in the case of societies like the United States, extermination. Successful states are those that have managed to wipe this bloody history from the minds of their citizens. States whose unjust origins are too recent for this to be possible—Israel and Ireland for example—are likely to be plagued with political conflict…So would it not be more honest to come clean and confess that it is socialist revolution one objects to, not revolution itself?”

    There is one point I wish Eagleton were sharper on, perhaps because it so bedevils strategic thinking in the United States. It deals with what constitutes class unity, expressed well in Kim Moody’s essay The Rank and File Strategy, which has become a key text for the DSA Labor Branch, DSA’s Labor Commission and for those of us who see union organizing and workplace agitation by socialists as key to our work. Moody writes:

    We want to make it clear that we do not proceed from some faceless, raceless, neutered idea of the working class. We endorse the thoughts of the Caribbean revolutionary Aimé Césaire who rejected the crude Stalinist version of class “universality” held by the French Communist Party when he resigned in 1955. In his resignation letter he wrote, “I have a different idea of a universal. It is a universal rich with all that is particular, rich with all the particularities there are, the deepening of each particular, the coexistence of them all.” Nowhere does diversity shape the particularities of the working class more than in the U.S. Nowhere is this diversity more central to the divisions, diversions, and strengths experienced by working-class people in different ways. Nowhere do working-class people see themselves and one another in such different, usually distorted, ways.

    Picking up from this, a recent essay by a Suffolk County DSA activist, writing under the aegis of Build, one more of the numerous up-sprung DSA caucuses I honestly know little about, nevertheless argued something interesting in this light.

    The author called for what he termed “unity in diversity,” or “unifying the working class through particulars.” He writes

    “This unity in diversity cannot be accomplished through the universalism of class-only demands, but only through the true universalism of full-class demands. Whereas class-only demands seek flat solutions to the problems of working-class life, full-class demands understand that to fully express the needs of the total working class, particular needs must be addressed. Organizing at the intersection of multiple burdens within the working class is of supreme importance for a full-class politics.

    …The more effective at unifying the working class across and through particulars, the more likely that socialists can actually produce a universal working class capable of defeating capitalism. There cannot be a world of “proletarians and capitalists” if the proletarians are divided by social domination and bigotry. There can be no papering over of these divisions either. They are not merely ideas in our minds, but matters of material.”

    I don’t cite this as evidence that we ought to sign up for this new caucus willy-nilly or accept any variant of identity politics without reservation. Taking this argument at face value also doesn’t allow a free ride for masking or encouraging careerist opportunism, as for instance the wannabe Democratic Party leader in my neighborhood who smoked like a furnace all her life while loudly proclaiming smokers’ rights. The moment she was diagnosed with emphysema she demanded slating on her party’s delegate list as a differentially abled person.

    Putting such personally enriching ploys aside, the notion of an expanded vision of organizing all parts of the working class on their particulars is a telling point, worth exploring at length and something missing even in discussions of intersectionality, which are often framed in non-class terms.

    Remember, too, that we face an uncertain and highly problematic future. What Italian revolutionary Antonio Gramsci wrote so presciently from his prison cell some 90 years ago is still true and haunting, that “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”

    Morbid times or not, it’s good to have a mentor such as Eagleton among us. Those of you who did the reading know how good is his work on Marx. And if you haven’t read it yet, you are in for a treat.

  • The State of the Sudanese & Algerian Uprisings: Livestream Event, June 1

    The State of the Sudanese & Algerian Uprisings: Livestream Event, June 1

    Saturday, June 1, 2019
    TIMES for Livestreamed Panel:

    12 PM United States Eastern Time (NYC)
    5 PM London Time
    6 PM Geneva / Khartoum

    Today in Sudan and Algeria, people’s uprisings that broke out this past winter have won momentous victories for the first time since the start of the 2011 Revolutions, overthrowing the heads of the regimes in both countries. But the people have vowed to go beyond the overthrow of their dictators, to take down the entire structure of the old regimes and replace them with governments that represent the people. They have also been working diligently to avoid the same mistakes as in Egypt and Syria, where the counterrevolution came to dominate by 2013 through the fracturing of peaceful protest and the large-scale acceptance of a military coup in Egypt.

    What sparked these latest uprisings, and what has made them so successful thus far? What are the balance of forces today in Algeria and Sudan? And what has changed since 2011 that may allow for a different outcome than the bleak reality we have seen across the Middle East for the past six years? What has been the role of women fighting patriarchy? What is the anti-racist dimension of these struggles, especially concerning solidarity with the victims of genocide in Darfur? How are labor unions involved? What role does the opposition to capitalism play in these uprisings? What kind of international solidarity is needed?

    SPEAKERS:

    Dr. Hamza Hamouchene is a London-based Algerian scholar-activist, commentator, researcher, and a founding member of Algeria Solidarity Campaign (ASC), and Environmental Justice North Africa (EJNA). He previously worked for War on Want, Global Justice Now and Platform London on issues of extractivism, resources, land and food sovereignty as well as climate, environmental, and trade justice. He is the author/editor of two books: The Struggle for Energy Democracy in the Maghreb (2017) and The Coming Revolution to North Africa: The Struggle for Climate Justice (2015). He also contributed book chapters to Voices of Liberation: Frantz Fanon (2014) and The Palgrave Encyclopaedia of Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism (2016). His other writings have appeared in the Guardian, Middle East Eye, Counterpunch, New Internationalist, Jadaliyya, OpenDemocracy, Pambazuka, Nawaat, El Watan and the Huffington Post.

    Sara Abbas is a doctoral candidate in political science and a feminist who researches social movements in Sudan. She has written for Transition magazine, OpenDemocracy and The Nation. The views expressed are her own and do not represent those of institutions she is affiliated with.

    Adam Baher is a Sudanese human rights activist based in Berlin, Germany. He is a member of Justice Equality Movement Sudan (JEM).

    Selma Oumari is a member of the New Anticapitalist Party in France, involved in anti-racist struggles as well as international solidarity.

    Link will be posted as soon as it is available.

    https://www.facebook.com/events/480716339335584/

    TIMES for Livestreamed Panel:
    12 PM United States Eastern Time (NYC)
    5 PM London Time
    6 PM Geneva / Khartoum

    Co-sponsored by:
    al-Manshour
    Alliance of Middle Eastern Socialists
    Socialism Conference

    ندوة: بث حي: ١٢ ظهرًا بتوقيت نيويورك // ٥ مساءً بتوقيت لندن // ٦ مساءً بتوقيت الخرطوم

    لأول مرة منذ بدايات ثورات ٢٠١١، سجّلت الانتفاضات الشعبية التي اندلعت في الشتاء الماضي في السودان والخرطوم انتصارات مهمّة أطاحت برأسي النظام في البلدين. لكن الناس قرروا المضي أبعد من مجرّد إسقاط الدكتاتور، مطالبين بتفكيك كامل هيكل النظام القديم واستبداله بحكم يمثّل الشعب، ومصرّين على تجنّب أخطاء مصر وسوريا، حيث سيطرت الثورة المضادة بحلول ٢٠١٣ من خلال كسر الاحتجاجات السلمية والوصول إلى قبول واسع باالانقلاب العسكري في مصر.

    فما هي الشرارة التي أطلقت الانتفاضات الأخيرة؟ وما سرّ نجاحها حتى الآن؟ ما هي موازن القوى اليوم في الجزائر والسودان؟ وما الذي تغيّر منذ ٢٠١١ والذي قد يؤدّي إلى نتيجة مختلفة عن الواقع القاتم الذي تشهده منطقة الشرق الأوسط في السنوات الـ٦ الأخيرة؟

    يستضيف البث الحي ٤ متحدثين/ات (٢ من الجزائر و٢ من السودان) في ١ حزيران/يونيو للإجابة عن هذه الأسئلة وغيرها.

    حمزة حموشين، كاتب وباحث وعضو مؤسس في “حملة التضامن مع الجزائر في لندن” وفي منظمة “العدالة البيئية في شمال أفريقيا”.

    سارة عبّاس، طالبة دكتوراه في العلوم السياسية في كلية الدراسات العليا للثقافات والمجتمعات الإسلامية في برلين.

    من تنظيم:

    المنشور
    تحالف الاشتراكيين في الشرق الأوسط

    Originally posted at the Alliance of Middle Eastern Socialists website.