Pete Seeger: a Troubadour for Peace and Justice

Farewell to a Great American

peteSeeger67676

by PETER STONE BROWN

Pete Seeger was my first hero.  I cannot remember a time when I did not know who he was.  I first listened to him on my parent’s 78s of the Almanac Singers singing “Talking Union” and “I Don’t Want Your Millions Mister,” and then on a Folkways record of work songs, singing “The Young Man Who Wouldn’t Hoe Corn.”  I begged my dad for more, and my first LP on Folkways was The Rainbow Quest and then American Ballads.  And of course there were Weavers albums.  Eventually I got all of them.

I was a little too young to know about the blacklist.  Somewhere around the time I was eight or nine, Seeger was supposed to play a concert at Temple University in Philadelphia.  We arrived at the show to find out it was cancelled.  Maybe a year later, I finally saw him at Town Hall in Philly.  The great Texas blues singer Sam Lightnin’ Hopkins was his special guest.  In 1961, when I was nine, Seeger was convicted of Contempt of Congress for refusing to name names before the House Un-American Activities Committee six years before citing not the Fifth Amendment, but the First Amendment.  He was sentenced to a year in prison.  I wrote him a letter and he responded on photographic paper below pictures of his family can his cabin home in Beacon, New York, saying the case was under appeal.  I still have that letter framed.  I saw him again in concert not long after, and again in 1963.

peteSeeger99876

At the concert in 1963, my life changed.  It was only a few days after his famous concert at Carnegie Hall, released on Columbia, We Shall Overcome.  Most of the songs at that concert weren’t old folk songs, but new songs.  Songs from the Civil Rights demonstrations in the South and songs from a new group of folksingers in Greenwich Village, including songs by Tom Paxton and Bob Dylan.  The Bob Dylan songs he sang that Father’s day afternoon were “Who Killed Davey Moore?” and “A Hard Rain’s A-Gonna Fall.”  I knew “Hard Rain” was like no other song I’d heard before.  It was my introduction to Bob Dylan.

Over the next several years, I saw Seeger several more times, at Broadside Magazine Topical Song Hoots at the Village Gate, at innumerable anti-Vietnam rallies and demonstrations and in concert at Carnegie Hall.  Seeger’s whole thing in concert was getting the audience to sing, and I will never forget being way up in one of the high balconies at Carnegie while the entire audience sang, “We Shall Overcome.”  At the beginning of the documentary film on Seeger, Power Of Song, Bob Dylan (decades after Newport) described it perfectly:

Pete Seeger, he had this amazing ability to look at a group of people and make them sing parts of the song.  He’d make an orchestration out of this simple little song with everybody in the audience singing, whether you wanted to or not, you’d find yourself singing a part.  It was beautiful.

Seeger came from a musical family.  His father was a musicologist.  He attended Harvard in the same class as John F. Kennedy, but dropped out to learn folk music.  He bummed around the country with Woody Guthrie, playing union halls.  He sang protest and topical songs early on.  He played with Leadbelly.  And he was a communist.

But he was also one of the great collectors of folk music.  He recorded hundreds of old ballads for Folkways.  The Leadbelly films easily findable on youtube today are because of him.  He consistently put other musicians first, and always pointed to those who came before.

In 1948, with Lee Hays, a fellow Almanac Singer, he formed The Weavers with Fred Hellerman and Ronnie Gilbert.  They soon got a gig singing at The Village Vanguard where they were a big hit.  Bandleader Gordon Jenkins saw them there, and signed them to Decca Records.  Jenkins orchestra backed them.  In 1950, they had a huge hit with Leadbelly’s “Goodnight Irene.”  They had other hits and were set to have their own TV show, but in 1953 it all ended when they were identified as Communists in the magazine Red Channels.  Seeger started playing solo shows at colleges and anywhere else he could play and wrote instruction books on the banjo, the guitar and the 12-string guitar.

In 1955, The Weavers reunited at Carnegie Hall and the concert was recorded by a small classical label Vanguard Records.  The Weavers At Carnegie Hall kicked off the folk movement that bloomed in the ’60s.  Every single folk group that came after is in their debt.

Though it is the last thing Seeger would want to be remembered for, he wrote or was involved in several hit records for other artists.  With Lee Hays, he wrote “The Hammer Song,” better known as “If I Had A Hammer.”  He wrote “Where Have All The Flowers Gone?” and “Turn Turn Turn.”  He brought “Wimoweh” later done by the Tokens as “The Lion Sleeps Tonight” to this country.  And he had an influence on the sound of several bands.  Roger (originally Jim) McGuinn of the Byrds started out as a side musician playing guitar and banjo for The Chad Mitchell Trio, Bobby Darin and Judy Collins among others.  His biggest influence on banjo and 12-string guitar was Pete Seeger.  Mike Campbell, lead guitarist of Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers was directly influenced by Jim McGuinn.  Peter Buck of REM was influenced by both McGuinn and Campbell.  It is not a stretch to say that there were thousands of kids who picked up a banjo and a guitar because of Pete Seeger and learned from his instruction books.

Seeger wrote a regular column for Sing Out!, the folksong magazine called “Johnny Appleseed Junior,” and that is how he saw himself musically, as the spreader of seeds.  And some will argue his versions of songs were corruptions of the originals, but because of him a lot of people went back and found the old records and the original musicians and there is no doubt that is what Seeger wanted.

And there are some who will say The Weavers may have been the biggest corruptors of all.  But The Weavers sang with a zest and a vibrancy that none of the groups who came after possessed.  During the Woody Guthrie Centennial two years ago, I discovered a little known fact, that Guthrie himself rewrote his own songs so The Weavers could turn them into hits.  He would sit on the floor of the studio while they were recording, rewriting his songs.  He was into it!

The other Weavers referred to Seeger as “The Saint.”  He quit the group after they recorded a commercial for L&M cigarettes.

In 1960 John Hammond took a bold step and signed Pete Seeger to Columbia Records, where he recorded some of his best albums, most of them live in concert.  One of the best is called Strangers And Cousins recorded during his world tour in 1963 and 1964.  On that record is a version of Dylan’s “Masters of War” recorded in Japan, while a translator translates the words to Japanese.  It is one of the scariest renditions of that song.

Seeger was blacklisted from TV for most of the ’60s.  In 1963, ABC TV started the Hootenanny Television show filmed live on college campuses with fresh faced folksingers.  Hootenanny was a word coined by Seeger and Guthrie, but he was not allowed on show.  Many singers including Joan Baez and Bob Dylan refused to appear o the show because of that.  In the mid-’60s, Seeger finally got a television show, The Rainbow Quest on educational television, and presented innumerable musicians from Elizabeth Cotten to Richard and Mimi Farina to Judy Collins, Reverend Gary Davis, Mississippi John Hurt and Johnny Cash.  Several of the episodes are on youtube.  Finally in 1967, The Smothers Brothers invited him on their show.  Seeger sang his original anti-Vietnam song, “Waist Deep In The Big Muddy,” but CBS cut it from the show.  The Smothers Brothers persisted and finally in 1968, Seeger finally appeared on national TV singing that song.  Johnny Cash followed suit a year or two later and had him on his ABC show, which was a hell of a bold move for a Nashville recording artist.

Seeger of course will be remembered for his activism as much as his music.  He spoke out for peace, for civil rights, for justice and for environmentalism his entire life and never stopped.  He risked his life going to the deep South early in the Civil Rights movement.  In the ’30s and ’40s he sang for the unions.  He sang for peace all over the world, and through his ship the sloop Clearwater, he is more responsible than anyone for cleaning up the Hudson River.

And in his own way, be could be pretty funny as his appearance not long ago on David Letterman’s show demonstrated.  When he sang “This Land Is Your Land” with Springsteen at Obama’s inauguration in 2009, you could see the delight on his face as he sang the once banned verses of the song, especially the verse about the sign that said private property, but on the other side it didn’t say nothing.  In 1965 or ’66 an article appeared in Sing Out!with the byline attributed to Seeger’s wife Toshi, that was a review of all of Seeger’s albums up to that point.  It totally ripped into the records and his performing style, how he sang harmony to himself, tearing into his banjo and guitar style.  Letters of protest followed in subsequent issues.  Several months later, Seeger owned up to writing the article.

Unfortunately, Seeger is maligned in the online Bob Dylan community over Newport ’65.  But Dylan made it clear in the movie clip and in an interview in Song Talk magazine in 1991 where he told interviewer, Paul Zollo, “Pete Seeger, he’s a great man,” that he doesn’t feel that way.

When Bruce Springsteen did his Seeger Sessions album and subsequent tour covering mostly the folk songs that Seeger recorded in the ’50s on Folkways, however well intentioned (and the shows and band were great), he kind of missed the point or more accurately the feel.  The shows were a fun romp, but not much more than that.  My memory of Seeger concerts was leaving them inspired and full of a now destroyed word called hope.  The only performer I’ve seen who makes you leave a concert feeling that way is Arlo Guthrie, who of course recorded a couple of live albums and did several tours with Seeger.  Seeger had the ability to make you believe that a peaceful [and just] world was achievable.

I stopped going to Pete Seeger concerts a long time ago.  I didn’t need to anymore.  But I still have all those records my dad bought me more than half a century ago, and every now and then I’ll pick one up in a used record store I didn’t get back then.  To me, his example as a man who stood up, lived live on his own terms and never stopped speaking out is equaled by very few.  He started me on this crazy road of a life in music and that’s something I’ll never forget.

Peter Stone Brown is a freelance writer and singer-songwriter.  His site and blog can be found at: http://www.peterstonebrown.com/




OpEds: As Ukrainian regime totters, oligarchs call for talks with right-wing opposition

By Alex Lantier, wsws.org

Amid spreading protests and occupations of state buildings in Ukraine, the country’s business oligarchs met and called on President Viktor Yanukovych to negotiate with leaders of the right-wing opposition backed by the European Union (EU) and the United States. The call came in the lead-up to an extraordinary session of the Ukrainian parliament and EU-Russia talks in Brussels, expected to focus on Ukraine, that are both occurring today.

With protests continuing in Kiev, centered on Independence Square, the Yanukovych regime is dissolving in the traditionally more pro-European western Ukraine. Thousands of protesters have seized nine regional administrations in western Ukraine, with three—Lviv, Lutsk, and Ternopil—declaring allegiance to a new “People’s Rada” government based in Lviv.

Protests have also spread to southern and eastern Ukraine, traditionally loyal to Yanukovych’s ruling Party of the Regions, in the Zaporizhzhiya, Dnipropetrovsk, and Kherson regions.

Most of the street battles around Independence Square, like the takeovers of regional administrations, were waged by only a few thousand protesters, mobilized by the fascistic, anti-Semitic Svoboda party and Right Sector group. The ability of such forces to destabilize Ukraine testifies to the unpopularity and the narrow social base of Yanukovych’s reactionary regime.

Broader social layers have also attended opposition protests to express anger at killings by the notorious Berkut riot police and opposition to the regime’s new, draconian anti-protest law. On Sunday, thousands attended the funeral in Kiev of Mikhail Zhizvensky, 25, a Right Sector member killed in clashes with police. Videos have also appeared showing riot police stripping protesters naked.

While the Yanukovych regime is teetering on the brink of collapse, the opposition cannot easily take power. It faces broad hostility in Russian-speaking parts of southern and eastern Ukraine. Pro-government protests were reported in recent days in Donetsk, eastern Ukraine’s industrial heartland, and in the Crimea, Kharkiv, Uzhgorod and Luhansk regions.

The Council of Ministers met yesterday to discuss the feasibility of resolving the crisis with a mass crackdown. It proposed increasing the number of riot troops six-fold, to 30,000, and buying more ammunition for Berkut and Griffon police units.

According to the BBC, however, the Council concluded that for now, “Nobody knows where the sympathies lie of each and every one of the country’s soldiers, interior troops, riot police…If authorities do choose to crack down, and they don’t have enough forces on their side, then, instead of restoring order to the country, it would very likely spell the end of Mr. Yanukovych.”

Under these conditions, a group of Ukrainian oligarchs met yesterday to call for reconciliation between the opposition and the regime. The leader—Rinat Akhmetov, a Yanukovych backer whose $12 billion fortune makes him Ukraine’s richest man—then issued a statement on the web site of his System Capital Management (SCM) group.

It read, “It is only by peaceful action that the political crisis can be resolved. Any use of force and weapons is unacceptable. With this scenario, there will be no winners in Ukraine, only victims and losers. But most importantly, the use of force will not help to find a way out.”

The regime and the opposition obeyed the oligarchs. In the evening, top Yanukovych staff met with opposition leaders: Vitali Klitschko of the Udar Party, Fatherland Party leader Arseniy Yatseniuk, and Svoboda’s Oleh Tyahnibok.

Speaking to the Guardian, Klitschko praised the oligarchs and boasted of his close ties to them. “In private conversations, all the oligarchs support the idea of the rule of law,” he said. “The leaders change, the rules change, and the lack of set rules means business groups can’t be sure they will keep their assets.” This statement points to the anti-worker agenda driving both the Western-backed opposition and the regime. Both are dedicated to defending the reactionary capitalist oligarchy that emerged from the restoration of capitalism in the USSR in 1991. The conflict between Yanukovych and the opposition is only over which geo-strategic orientation—to Moscow or, for the opposition, to the EU—will more reliably preserve the “assets” monopolized by the oligarchs.

The current political crisis and opposition protests emerged last year, when Ukraine faced the possibility of state bankruptcy over a $15 billion debt to international banks. Yanukovych first negotiated deep austerity measures as part of a deal to establish closer ties to the EU. His decision to back away from the deal and seek financial aid from Russia—fearing the social explosion that mass cuts to energy subsidies and social programs would create in the working class—triggered opposition protests.

Both the pro-EU opposition and the Yanukovych regime are united, however, in their insistence that the international banks will be repaid, and that the costs will be borne not by billionaire oligarchs, but by working people. As different factions of the ruling elite plan for violence and crackdowns—by the opposition’s fascistic goon squads or the regime’s security forces—they are united in their hostility to the working class, and fear of its opposition to their austerity agenda.

This situation is an indictment of the restoration of capitalism in the USSR in 1991.  Capitalist restoration has led to a social disaster in the Ukraine. From 1990 to 2000, the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) fell from $90 billion (4 percent of the world economy) to $31 billion (1 percent of the world economy). The fruits of what economic growth has taken place since then have gone overwhelmingly to a layer of super-rich, parasitic oligarchs who looted Ukrainian state assets during capitalist restoration.

In 2008, the net worth of Ukraine’s top 50 oligarchs was $112.7 billion, or two-thirds of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Their personal holdings gave them controlling stakes in businesses amounting to 85 percent of the country’s economy.

Popular anger with the exorbitant wealth of the oligarchs and their dictatorship over public life is a constant feature of post-Soviet Ukraine. However, due to the Stalinist Soviet bureaucracy’s suppression of the Left Opposition led by Trotsky and of all independent political activity to the working class, there is no organized opposition from the left, based in the working class, to this gangster oligarchy. No political organization inside Ukraine fights for the impounding of the oligarchs’ ill-gotten wealth by the workers in a struggle for socialism.

In the absence of any political representation of the working class, popular opposition has been manipulated by a series of right-wing political operatives. Thus, a rallying cry of the US-backed “Orange Revolution” that toppled Yanukovych in 2004 was to “get money out of politics.”

When the “Orange” regime was discredited by its right-wing policies, and Yanukovych returned to power, he cynically pledged that he would address social inequality in Ukraine. In 2012, he said: “We need to reduce the enormous gap that exists between rich and poor. We should reach out to the poor. We must create conditions to give the opportunity of working to healthy people and provide a reliable social protection for those disabled.”

The central issue facing the working class is developing its own, independent struggle against the Yanukovych regime and also the fascistic, Western-backed opposition forces, whose program is utterly reactionary. The support of US and EU politicians for the opposition reflects their hopes that, if the opposition rules Ukraine or a rump state in western Ukraine, it will enable them to step up operations against Russia and the Middle East.

In seeking to control Ukraine, US and European imperialism are pursuing broad geo-strategic aims. The country controls two of the three major gas pipelines connecting Russian gas fields to European markets—the Transgas and Soyuz pipelines, accounting for approximately 80 percent of Russian exports to Europe. Ukraine also hosts key naval bases used by the Russian navy during its deployments last September to oppose US plans for an attack on Syria.

The writer is a prominent member of the wsws.org’s editorial team, and an expert n European zone matters.




Obama’s buddy JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon gets 74 percent pay raise

By Andre Damon, wsws.org
I
T’S CLEAR THAT BILLIONAIRES ARE ABOVE THE LAW IN AMERICA

Dimon: among the ultra privileged.

Among the ultra privileged.

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has been awarded $20 million in pay for 2013, an increase of 74 percent from the previous year, the bank revealed in a filing Friday. Dimon has been at the center of a web of scandals resulting from JPMorgan’s criminal activities, which led the bank to make more than $20 billion in legal payouts in 2013.

In the past year, JPMorgan, the biggest US bank, has settled charges that it was an accomplice in Bernie Madoff’s $20 billion Ponzi scheme, that it filed false reports to conceal over $6 billion in derivatives losses, that it sold toxic mortgage-backed securities on false pretenses, and that it manipulated energy prices, defrauded credit card customers and forged home foreclosure documents.

As a result of these settlements, the bank posted a loss in the third quarter of 2013, its first quarterly loss since 2004, and reported a profit for the entire year of $17.9 billion, down by over 15 percent from 2012.

The bank’s stock nevertheless rose 21 percent in 2013.

Dimon’s raise comes after the bank laid off 7,500 employees in 2013 and told employees they would not get raises because of the bank’s multi-billion-dollar legal fees. His payout includes a $1.5 million cash base salary and $18.5 million in stock. Dimon has taken in more than $90 million since 2008, adding to a personal net worth reported to be in the hundreds of millions.

In an interview Thursday with CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Dimon said, “[Y]ou know, companies have problems, the press has problems, the military has problems, the government has problems… you’ve got to be a little careful about how you judge a whole company because something went wrong.”

He called the government charges “unfair,” and added, “I don’t care anymore. I’ve moved on. That was last year. I’m looking forward to 2014.”

Dimon personally negotiated sweetheart settlements with US Attorney General Eric Holder and other officials in which the bank admitted to the allegations of wrongdoing set forth in government complaints, but was allowed to escape indictment or criminal prosecution. Earlier this month, JPMorgan was given a “deferred prosecution” deal in connection with its 20-year relationship with Madoff, who is currently serving a 150-year prison sentence. In interviews from jail, Madoff has insisted that the bank was well aware of his Ponzi scheme.

In none of the settlements with US regulators or the Justice Department have Dimon or any other high-ranking bank officers been named. They have gotten away scot-free with violations of the law that have had devastating consequences for hundreds of millions of people in the US and around the world. JPMorgan’s actions contributed to the speculative frenzy and financial fraud that triggered the Wall Street crash of September 2008, leading to the deepest economic crisis since the Great Depression. That Dimon and JPMorgan have continued such practices since then is demonstrated by the “London whale” derivatives scandal of 2012, which the bank paid nearly $1 billion to settle.

Dennis Kelleher, head of Better Markets, a public advocacy group, told the Financial Times, that Dimon’s raise was “a real slap in the face to the [Department of Justice] and financial regulators who think that the actions that they’ve taken in the last year have been appropriate to punish and deter JPMorgan Chase.”

The bank’s board of directors unanimously voted to approve Dimon’s pay package and major shareholders spoke in defense of it, including billionaire JPMorgan shareholder Warren Buffet, who called Dimon a “bargain.”

JPMorgan’s board and major shareholders no doubt wanted to thank Dimon for his services in settling a dizzying array of investigations on the basis of cash settlements that posed no fundamental threat to the bank.

* On January 7, 2014, JPMorgan agreed to pay $2.05 billion in fines and penalties to settle charges that it was complicit in Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.

* In November of 2013, the bank agreed to pay $13 billion (the actual cash penalty will be substantially less) to settle charges that it defrauded investors by selling toxic mortgage-backed securities in the run-up to the collapse of the housing bubble in 2007 and 2008.

* That same month, JPMorgan paid $4.5 billion to settle charges that it defrauded pension funds and other institutional investors to whom it sold mortgage bonds.

* In September of 2013, JPMorgan paid another $390 million in refunds and $80 million in penalties for billing credit card clients for identity theft protection they did not receive.

* Also in September, JPMorgan paid $920 million to settle the US probe into the “London whale” trading and accounting scandal.

* In July of 2013, JPMorgan paid $410 million to settle charges that it manipulated electricity markets in California and other states.

* In January of 2013, JPMorgan, along with nine other banks, agreed to pay a combined $8.5 billion to settle a probe into wholesale violations of the law in relation to home foreclosure documents and procedures.

The bank is currently under investigation for its role in the Libor scandal, in which it and other major international banks illegally manipulated the world’s benchmark interest rate to increase their profits. It is also under investigation for bribing officials in China.

Known as Obama’s “favorite banker,” Dimon was a regular guest at the White House during Obama’s first term. Only days after Dimon announced in May of 2012 that his bank had lost at least $2 billion in bad derivatives trades [the actual “London whale” loss climbed to $6 billion], Obama publicly defended him, calling him “one of the smartest bankers we’ve got.” Obama added that JPMorgan was “one of the best managed banks there is.”

The author also recommends:

Why aren’t the Wall Street criminals prosecuted?




As expected: US media blacks out Snowden interview exposing death threats

Snowden's (and Manning's) popularity is solid around the world. Here Germans demonstrate for his asylum.

Snowden’s (and Manning’s) popularity is solid around the world. Here Germans demonstrate for his asylum.

By Bill Van Auken, wsws.org

The former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden appeared Sunday night in his first extended television interview. Citing published statements by unnamed US intelligence and military operatives calling for his assassination, he warned that he faces “significant threats” to his life and that US “government officials want to kill me.”

How can we expect the political behavior of the American public to be any different than pathetic given the existence of a criminal media that supposedly “informs them”? It’s come to the point that we can safely say being a member of the US media in any capacity, but particularly in the management, top producer and editorial levels, is to be an accomplice in huge crimes that endanger humanity and the rest of the planet. In this context, as this article makes clear, “the near blackout of Snowden’s interview by the US media is deliberate and highly conscious. From the outset of Snowden’s revelations last June, the media has lined up squarely behind the Obama administration, peddling the official lie that the mass domestic surveillance programs are justified by the “war on terror.” 

The interview, broadcast by the German television network ARD, was largely blacked out by the US media. The New York Times carried not a word of what Snowden said, while the cable and broadcast news programs treated the interview with near total silence.

The American media’s reaction stood in stark contrast to that of both broadcast and print media in Germany, where the interview conducted with Snowden in Russia was treated as a major political event.

The interview itself was preceded by a segment dedicated to Snowden on Germany’s most popular news talk show, with commentary delivered before a sizable live television audience. Those who spoke out in Snowden’s defense received enthusiastic applause, while the defenders of Washington’s spying operations, including a right-wing German journalist and a former US ambassador to Germany, were treated coolly or with outright derision.

Polls conducted in Germany have shown six out of ten surveyed expressing admiration for Snowden, with only 14 percent regarding him as a criminal. The public is evenly divided over whether he should be granted asylum in Germany. Anger over NSA spying on German telephone and Internet communications—including Chancellor Angela Merkel’s personal cell phone—is widespread.

In the interview, Snowden eloquently laid out the core questions of basic democratic rights posed by the massive NSA spying programs exposed in the documents he has made public.

“Every time you pick up the phone, dial a number, write an email, make a purchase, travel on the bus carrying a cell phone, swipe a card somewhere, you leave a trace and the government has decided that it’s a good idea to collect it all, everything, even if you’ve never been suspected of any crime,” he said.

Snowden went on to note that, while in the past intelligence agencies would identify a suspect through an investigation and then obtain a warrant for surveillance, “Nowadays what we see is they want to apply the totality of their powers in advance—prior to an investigation.”

The former NSA contractor told his interviewer that his “breaking point” in terms of deciding to make the NSA documents public came in March of last year, “seeing the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress” when he denied the existence of any programs gathering intelligence on millions of Americans. “Beyond that, it was the creeping realization that no one else was going to do this,” he added. “The public had a right to know about these programs. The public had a right to know that which the government is doing in its name, and that which the government is doing against the public.”

While Snowden stuck to his position of allowing journalists to determine what material to make public out of the estimated 1.7 million secret documents he took from the NSA, he did indicate that the agency was spying both on a wide range of German officials as well as carrying out industrial espionage against German corporations.

“If there’s information at Siemens [the German engineering and electronics conglomerate] that they think would be beneficial to the national interests, not the national security of the United States, they’ll go after that information and they’ll take it,” he said.

Snowden also answered the McCarthyite smears spread by politicians of both major parties and the media in attempting to brand him as a “traitor” or even a Russian spy.

Insisting that he acted alone and neither accepted nor required help from any foreign government, he stated: “If I am a traitor, who did I betray? I gave all of my information to the American public, to American journalists who are reporting on American issues. If they see that as treason I think people really need to consider who do they think they’re working for. The public is supposed to be their boss, not their enemy. Beyond that as far as my personal safety, I’ll never be fully safe until these systems have changed.”

Snowden insisted that what he had done was right, even though the government claims it was a crime, and that what the government is doing is a crime, even though it claims it is legal. He told his interviewer: “I think it’s clear that there are times where what is lawful is distinct from what is rightful. There are times throughout history and it doesn’t take long for either an American or a German to think about times in the history of their country where the law provided the government to do things which were not right.”

He added that, while he would welcome an opportunity to defend himself in open court, the Obama administration had no intention of allowing him to do so. Rather, it has charged him under the Espionage Act, whose terms would preclude his making any case to a jury that his actions were in the interest of the American people. “So it’s I would say illustrative that the president would choose to say someone should face the music, when he knows that the music is a show trial,” he said.

The near blackout of this interview by the US media is deliberate and highly conscious. From the outset of Snowden’s revelations last June, the media has lined up squarely behind the Obama administration, peddling the official lie that the mass domestic surveillance programs are justified by the “war on terror,” while joining in the vilification of Snowden as a traitor and possible Russian spy.

Prominent TV announcers like ABC’s George Stephanopoulos and NBC’s David Gregory have devoted airtime to arguing that not only Snowden, but even journalists reporting on the documents he has released, like Glenn Greenwald, should be jailed.

This form of “journalism” reflects the class interests of the giant corporations that control the mass media and of the capitalist system as a whole. Its coverage of the NSA revelations themselves has been abysmal, minimizing the significance of the mass domestic spying operations. It is significant that in the face of this media manipulation, Snowden enjoys powerful support within the American public, and hostility to the NSA spying has continued to grow since his revelations.

The media’s silencing of the German television interview has another, even more sinister implication. It wants to silence Snowden’s warnings about the threats against his life in order to facilitate the work of any death squad formed by the US government to make good on these threats.

The author also recommends:

Defend Edward Snowden!




Obama’s legacy

JOSEPH KISHORE, wsws.org

Obama: trying to fool us to the bitter end. How do you like that "Lesser Evil" now?

Obama: trying to fool us to the bitter end. How do you like that “Lesser Evil” now?

This evening, Barack Obama will deliver his fifth State of the Union address, an annual political tradition that over the years has become a hollow ritual, with little or no relationship between the president’s words and the actual state of American society. This year will be no different.

In the days leading up to this year’s address, administration officials have dampened expectations of significant initiatives. Instead, the speech will propose a series of minor measures aimed at shaping the “narrative” of the Obama presidency. According to a New York Times analysis over the weekend, Obama has “come to feel acutely the limits on his power,” but sees the State of the Union address as “a critical opportunity to drive an agenda that may yet shape his legacy.”

For the officials who occupy high-level positions within the state apparatus, separated by an immense social and political gulf from the realities confronting the majority of the population, Obama’s “legacy” is crafted with a handful of phrases borrowed from the latest handbook on corporate marketing. However, history—and, more immediately, the general public—will judge the administration not on the basis of honeyed phrases, but by its actions.

Here are some of the major actions that will determine how this administration is seen historically:

* It ordered the assassination of a US citizen without due process.

The former constitutional law professor, whose initial job was with a CIA-linked corporation, is the first president in American history to openly boast of executing a US citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, without judicial review. More than any other, his administration has sought to institutionalize and bureaucratize extra-judicial state killing, presiding over weekly meetings and the drawing up of “kill lists” to select targets for US drone missiles.

* It vastly expanded the global police state spying apparatus.

The revelations of Edward Snowden have exposed to the American and world population a spying apparatus that operates without constraint, monitoring the communications of virtually every person on the planet.

* It criminalized those who reveal government crimes.

The administration’s attitude to democratic rights is summed up in the fate of those who have exposed illegal state actions: Bradley Manning is in prison, Julian Assange remains trapped in the Ecuadorian embassy in Britain, and Edward Snowden has been forced into exile in Russia, facing death threats from US officials. Meanwhile, the administration has adamantly opposed the prosecution of government officials who ordered torture and carried out war crimes.

* It waged war without limit.

Obama continued the Bush administration’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and sent countless drone missiles to pulverize targets in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and other countries. He initiated a war in Libya to overthrow and murder Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi in 2011. For two years, the Obama administration and its allies have financed and armed an Islamist-dominated opposition in Syria, igniting a civil war that has claimed tens of thousands of lives and turned millions of Syrians into refugees.

The administration has carried out a “pivot to Asia” to militarily encircle and economically and diplomatically undermine China. It has deliberately provoked regional tensions that threaten, 100 years after the eruption of World War I, to unleash a new global conflict.

* It oversaw the greatest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in world history.

The 2008 bailout of the banks and the “quantitative easing” programs begun under Bush have been vastly expanded under Obama. His administration has made available virtually unlimited resources for speculation by Wall Street. Over the past five years, the Federal Reserve has purchased more than $1.5 trillion in essentially worthless mortgage-backed securities from financial institutions, and even more in US Treasuries. It has printed trillions of dollars and injected them into the financial markets.

As a direct consequence, the stock market has soared. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has more than doubled since the first months of Obama’s first term. The net wealth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans has risen accordingly, from $1.27 trillion in 2009 to over $2 trillion today, an increase of 60 percent, or more than $700 billion. Ninety-five percent of all income gains between 2009 and 2012 went to the wealthiest one percent of the US population.

Corporate profits are higher than ever, while wage growth is at the lowest level since the end of the Second World War. In the aftermath of the Obama administration’s 2009 restructuring of the auto industry, real wages for auto workers have fallen 10 percent and wages for manufacturing as a whole have fallen 2.4 percent. As a result of the collapse in wages, for the first time in history the majority of Americans receiving food stamps are working age.

* It gave a free pass to Wall Street criminals.

Not a single top banker has been held accountable for the crimes he committed and the disaster he inflicted on the world’s population. The Obama administration has shielded Wall Street criminals from prosecution, as epitomized by the fate of JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, known to Washington insiders as Obama’s “favorite banker.” Despite repeated and well-documented illegal activities, Dimon not only walks free, but has been awarded a 74 percent pay raise for 2013.

It carried out a social counterrevolution, beginning with the decimation of health care for workers under Obamacare.

Obama has overseen a relentless assault on every social program. As he delivers his speech tonight, 1.3 million jobless people face destitution, having been stripped of cash assistance by the decision of the White House and congressional Democrats to allow benefits for the long-term unemployed to expire. Yesterday, Democrats and Republicans reached a deal to cut $8 billion from the food stamp program, following a $5 billion cut imposed last November.

Obama boasts that his administration has lowered domestic discretionary spending to its lowest share of the US economy since the 1950s.

His principal domestic initiative, the health care overhaul, is a gigantic fraud, aimed not at expanding health care, but slashing it. His administration has sought to palm off a requirement that individuals purchase expensive, sub-standard health insurance from private insurers as a significant social reform. Obamacare is the opening shot in an assault on the core social welfare programs dating from the 1930s and 1960s, Social Security and Medicare.

Obama’s legacy is an indictment not only of one individual or one administration, but of the social and political system in which his policies are embedded. Obama is the willing tool of the massive corporations and the military-intelligence apparatus that run American society.

His administration has operated with the support of the trade unions and the liberal and “left” forces, wedded to identity politics, that championed his election in 2008 as a “transformative” event in American history. The State of the Union address will be aimed in large part at providing a phony “reformist” image around which these forces can coalesce to bolster support for the Democratic Party and block the emergence of an independent movement of the working class.

The political pundits believe that a staged event in Washington can somehow override views formed in the course of five years of bitter experience. But the mood in the country has changed markedly since Obama’s election as the candidate of “hope” and “change.” Among broader layers of the population, disillusionment is now deeply rooted. For them, Obama’s speech will have little effect.

Perhaps Obama’s most significant legacy will be that his administration demonstrated to millions that the ruling class has absolutely nothing to offer, and that it presides over an economic system, capitalism, that is historically bankrupt. The conclusion that follows, and is beginning to be drawn by wider sections of the working class, is that it must be overthrown.

Joseph Kishore is a leading activist with the Social Equality Party, publisher of wsws.org.