OpEds: Never Mind Whether Obama’s Red Line Has Been Crossed—Is It Even Legitimate?

By Stephen Gowans

S. Gowans

S. Gowans

US officials say they’re convinced that the Syrian government gassed its own people. This might mean something, if US officials weren’t notoriously bad at getting the facts straight. In 1998, the Pentagon flattened a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant with a cruise missile, because US officials said they were convinced it was a site for manufacturing chemical weapons (CW). In turns out the plant made pills. In 1999, Serbia and parts of Montenegro were bombed by US and NATO warplanes for 78 days because US officials said they were convinced the Milosevic government was carrying out a genocide in Kosovo. They were wrong.

 

Over a million Iraqis were sanctioned, bombed and invaded into early graves by the United States and its British subaltern because the officials of both countries said they were convinced the Iraqi government was hiding weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Wrong again. The weapons Iraq was said to be hiding, but had destroyed, had only a tiny fraction of the mass destructive power of the weapons in the arsenals of the US and UK militaries, which didn’t call their weapons WMD, but “deterrents” and “guarantors of our national security.” The Libyan government was ultimately toppled by NATO warplanes because US, French and British officials said they were convinced Libyan leader Muamar Gaddafi was about to commit genocide. Gaddafi had neither the means nor intention to do so. Yet another spectacular error.

In making the point that Washington has waged unprovoked wars on the basis of faulty intelligence at best, but far more likely contrived intelligence and sheer deception, we mustn’t implicitly accept the idea that the United States has the right and obligation to outrage the sovereignty of any country it wishes because the country’s government has crossed a red line the United States has unilaterally established. In doing so, we become locked in a framework of the US ruling class’s making, accepting its claim to have a moral right to assume the role of global rule-maker, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner—in other words, the planet’s autocrat.

Accepting this framework could limit the questions we ask, making us miss important ones. When is an intervention legitimate, and when is it not? Is intervention to punish a country for using a class of weapons in a civil war legitimate? If not, why even talk about whether the trigger for intervention has been pulled if the trigger is invalid? Why talk about whether Obama’s red line has been crossed, rather than whether Obama’s red line is even legitimate? Why are the United States’ massively destructive weapons not called WMD while Syria’s not so massively destructive weapons are? If the Americans, British, French, Russians, Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis, and Israelis have a right (de jure or de facto) to have nuclear weapons as a deterrent, why not the North Koreans?

Diana Johnstone eloquently pointed out in Counterpunch yesterday that, “There are many ways of killing people in a civil war. Selecting one as a trigger for US intervention serves primarily to give rebels an excellent reason to carry out a ‘false flag’ operation that will bring NATO into the war they are losing.” [1] True. But we could also note, There are many ways of killing people in a civil war. Why single out CW? It can’t be because they’re uniquely destructive or gruesome. All the deaths due to reported use of chemical agents in Syria are dwarfed by the number of deaths due to other weapons. And dying by gas is no more gruesome than evisceration by an al-Qaeda rebel or having your head blown off by a Saudi-supplied RPG.

Part of the answer, I think, for why CW have been singled out is because Washington can’t single out the Syrian government for using violence to put down a rebellion. That’s because the United States’ satellites, the ruling generals in Egypt, and the Arab royal dictators, are using violence in Egypt and Bahrain to put down rebellions there. To punish the Syrian government for using violence to defend itself against a rebellion is a tough sell, given that Washington’s friends are doing the same in their own countries. UK leader David Cameron says that the plan to use US WMD (cruise missiles) against Syria “is about chemical weapons. Their use is wrong and the world shouldn’t stand idly by.” So, what has the Syrian government done (or said to have done), that the military dictatorship in Egypt and royal dictatorship in Bahrain haven’t done? The answer is: been accused of deploying CW. Hence, CW have been singled out as one of many ways of killing people in a civil war, that will provoke an intervention. The motivation is purely political, and the singling out of CW has been customized to the Syrians to provide a pretext to attack them.

If we’re to use the term WMD descriptively, then WMD cannot be limited to nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, or be something that only countries that insist on safeguarding their political and economic independence have. It must include all weapons that can create mass destruction, no matter who has them. Incendiary bombs are WMD. The destruction of Dresden, Tokyo, Hamburg and other cities by US and British firebombing raids, attests to that. A Tomahawk cruise missile is a WMD. Nuclear weapons have become less attractive to the US military, as it develops conventional bombs that have near-nuclear destructive power, without the radioactive mess. Are these not WMD?

We should ask, Why is it not wrong for the United States and the United Kingdom to use sanctions of mass destruction to kill over a million Iraqis, and conventional bombs and missiles of mass destruction, along with depleted uranium, to invade Iraq, when it is wrong to use CW to kill a few hundred people (which, for reasons I’ve outlined elsewhere, there is no proof, open to examination, that the Syrian government used, and cogent reasons to believe it didn’t)? We should also ask, Is there not something morally grotesque about the United States and the United Kingdom planning to use their own WMD to punish Syria for the deaths of a few hundred people through CW, when the Anglo-American alliance used sanctions of mass destruction and weapons of mass destruction against Iraq, on contrived grounds, producing vastly more deaths and engendering a humanitarian catastrophe on an immense scale? Isn’t this even more grotesque considering that the evidence points more strongly to the alleged gassing incident being the work of the opposition, allied to the United States, than the Syrian government?

Meanwhile, one of Washington’s servile friends, the royal dictator, King Abdullah of Jordan, has called for a peaceful settlement of Syria’s civil war. Abdullah’s hypocrisy is stunning. He has turned Jordanian territory over to the CIA and Saudis as a center for training Syrian rebels and distributing weapons to the Syrian opposition. Hardly a contribution to a peaceful settlement. [2]

Turkey, which once maintained a vast prison house of nations that included the Arabs, says it will join other former colonial powers, France and Britain, in the campaign to punish Syria. The Syrian government, it should be stressed, remains part of a movement of Arab national emancipation and colonial liberation. Unlike the US Communist Party and other leftists who make conspicuous displays of turning up their noses at the Syrian government, I’m happy to recognize the role it plays in the movement for Arab emancipation, and regard it as progressive. I measure no movement for emancipation against utopian standards, and acknowledge that the Syrian government, as every other organization in the movement for liberation, whether of race, class or gender, also fall short by utopian standards. The question is not whether the Syrian government is inerrant and beyond reproach, but whether it is advancing the cause of emancipation. The servile Arab League, from which the legitimate government of Syria has been ejected, and which has settled comfortably into the role of US puppet, is not so concerned about emancipation, and the same leftists who publicly revile the Syrian government are not so concerned about showing their distaste for the reactionary Arab regimes, all friends of the West.

Finally, the Wall Street Journal reported today that according to a June poll it sponsored with NBC News, US public opinion is opposed to a military intervention to respond to “the Syrian government’s killing of protesters and civilians.” Only 15 percent of respondents backed a US military intervention. The newspaper didn’t say whether respondents were asked if they favored US military intervention in response to the Egyptian military’s killing of protesters and civilians in Egypt, or Bahrain’s royal dictatorship killing of protesters and civilians in Bahrain, although we can be pretty certain they weren’t. Within the ruling class framework of acceptable thought, punishing allies for doing what enemies are punished for, is unthinkable. It could be said that the poll results are irrelevant, because the survey question didn’t ask about CW. That’s true, but even if the CW question had been posed, the poll results would still be irrelevant. US state officials don’t make decisions on the basis of public opinion, and aren’t particularly swayed by it. The taking and presenting of public opinion polls simply create the illusion that public opinion matters in the formulation of US foreign policy. It doesn’t. What matters are the interests of major investors, bankers and the top executives of America’s largest corporations, and the opinions of the members of the power elite that represent them. And what matters to them is securing more markets, labor and natural resources for US capital to exploit and plunder by toppling governments that insist on using these for their own country’s development and people’s welfare, rather than for the enrichment of Wall Street investment bankers and the expansion of corporate America’s profit margins. Syria’s crime isn’t to have used CW (and it’s unlikely it did), but to have insisted on political and economic independence.

STEPHEN GOWANS is founding editor of What’s Left, and a prominent social justice activist.

1. Diana Johnstone, “US uses past crimes to legalize future ones”, http://www.counterpunch.com, August 26, 2013.
2. Michael R. Gordon and Thom Shanker, “U.S. to keep warplanes in Jordan, pressing Syria”, The New York times, June 15, 2013; Adam Entous, Julian E. Barnes and Siobhan Gorman, “U.S. begins shipping arms for Syrian rebels”, The Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2013; Adam Entous, Nour Malas and Margaret Coker, “A veteran Saudi power player works to build support to topple Assad”, The Wall Street Journal, August 25, 2013.




Hollywood’s ludicrous portrayals of Black American history

When entertainment tycoons like schmaltz queen Oprah Winfrey or capitalism evangelist Russell Simmons enter the picture you know the result will be a travesty of truth or worse.
Whitewashing the imperial status quo via personal success stories

••••

Lee Daniels’ The Butler: Identity politics at odds with history

By Joanne Laurier, wsws.org
23 August 2013

Directed by Lee Daniels; screenplay by Danny Strong, based on the article by Wil Haygood

Lee Daniels’ The Butler is a fiction film based on the life of Eugene Allen, an African American who worked in the White House for 34 years, from the tail end of President Harry Truman’s administration to Ronald Reagan’s second term in office.

With a screenplay from Danny Strong (HBO’s Game Change) that was inspired by a 2008 Wil Haygood article in the Washington Post (“A Butler Well Served by This Election”), Daniels (Precious, 2009) has crafted his movie to encompass the period from the mid-1920s to the election of Barack Obama in 2008. This potentially fascinating story of an encounter between a black worker and the upper echelons of the American political elite is fatally marred, however, by Daniel’s shallow, identity politics outlook.

On a cotton farm in Georgia in 1926, a young Cecil Gaines [the fictional stand-in for Eugene Allen] witnesses his mother (Mariah Carey) raped and his father (David Banner) shot by the landowner (Alex Pettyfer). Out of pity and a sense of guilt, the farm family’s matriarch (Vanessa Redgrave) makes Cecil a houseboy, where he learns skills that will eventually land him a job at an elite hotel in Washington, DC.

The Butler

A White House staff member eventually hears about Cecil (Forest Whitaker) and offers him a position as a butler. Cecil is now able to provide a comfortable lifestyle for wife Gloria (Oprah Winfrey) and sons Louis (David Oyelowo) and Charlie (Elijah Kelley).

Cecil, who maintains a low profile and avoids airing any controversial views, becomes a historical witness to the Little Rock school desegregation crisis under Dwight Eisenhower (Robin Williams); the assassination of John Kennedy (James Marsden); the escalation of the Vietnam war under Lyndon Johnson (Liev Schreiber); the political disgrace of Richard Nixon (John Cusack) in the Watergate Scandal; and the support extended by the Ronald Reagan (Alan Rickman) administration to the continuation of the apartheid system in South Africa.

The Butler

Meanwhile, on several occasions, during the transition from one administration to the next, Cecil approaches his supervisor to request that the black staff be paid wages in line with their white colleagues.

At home, tensions grow between Cecil, loyal to US government policy, and his son Louis, who views his father as an “Uncle Tom” and leaves college to become active in the civil rights movement. Cecil grows increasingly dismayed and angry as Louis participates in the campaign to desegregate Woolworth’s lunch counters through sit-ins, becomes a Freedom Rider and has a brief stint in the Black Panther movement, enduring numerous incarcerations and beatings.

[pullquote] Lee Daniels’ The Butler is a train wreck of a film which leaves a bad taste for anyone even dimly aware of the basic facts of American history.”—Margaret Kimberley[/pullquote]

In the aftermath of the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., Louis runs for office as a Democrat (“Dr. King’s philosophy got him killed … the next step is politics.”). Meanwhile, Cecil’s younger son Charlie joins the military in support of the Vietnam War. Cecil and Louis ultimately reconcile after the former resigns from his White House position and both participate in the fight to free Nelson Mandela.

The high point of Cecil’s life—and, according to Daniels’ film, the civil rights movement—is the election of the first African American president in 2008.

In tackling The Butler’s numerous false premises and artistic flaws, it is worth taking a brief look at the film’s departures from the facts of Eugene Allen’s life. First, Allen did not grow up on a brutal farm in Georgia, whose owner committed unspeakable acts, but in a segregated town in central Virginia. He worked as a waiter in whites-only resorts and country clubs. In the Haygood article, Allen says, “We never had anything. I was always hoping things would get better.”

That is not to say that such things as Daniels depicts in the opening sequence did not happen, but here they serve to set a certain tone and reveal a definite social agenda. Racism and Jim Crow in the South are not seen as functions of class rule in America, which had as their central purpose keeping the black and white poor divided in order to better exploit both, but as a series of violent atrocities committed by maddened racists. They also indicate a Tarantino-like willingness to sensationalize and fantasize for the purpose of “making a point.”

More liberties are taken to pump up the action. Allen’s wife Helene never became an alcoholic or cuckolded her husband like the Winfrey character. In addition, Eugene and Helene had only one son, Charles, who was never a Freedom Rider or Black Panther. He did go to Vietnam, but survived (unlike his cinematic counterpart) and went on to work for the US State Department.

The scenes in The Butler that have the air of the greatest historical and social truth involve the activities of the black White House staff. The filmmakers carefully depict how these workers perform their duties, in the course of which they reveal their frustration with their demeaning conditions. (When Eugene Allen started at the White House, he was a “pantry man” washing dishes and polishing silverware. The job paid $2,400 a year [$20,800 in 2013 dollars], compared to the national average wage of $3,400.)

The big historical events fare far worse. The movie races through the evolution of the civil rights movement, a vast social experience, only touching superficially on certain well-known events, as if its major preoccupation is hurtling us toward the 2008 presidential election. Almost nothing is made of the enormous August 1963 march on Washington—the largest integrated demonstration that had ever taken place in the nation’s capital. Fragments of footage of the actual events are haphazardly thrown in to provide a veneer of credibility. This approach reaches a low point when the assassination of King in April 1968 is primarily treated through a video of Jesse Jackson, the opportunist and Democratic Party operative, speaking about the killing.

While Daniels directs individually moving scenes in The Butler, he fails as a whole to create an integral, coherent or convincing drama. But how could he, starting with such false premises? The effort to present the Allen-Gaines story, and its related elements, as some sort of entirely unique “black experience” was bound to end badly. It inevitably requires the filmmakers to distort social and personal relations to fit their schema.

In the world of Daniels and his ilk, the immense sacrifices made and blood spilled in the civil rights struggle, by blacks and whites alike, find their central meaning and value in the eventual elevation of an African American stratum to wealth and fame, reaching its summit in the gigantic figure of … Barack Obama, who currently presides over the most reactionary, anti-democratic administration in American history.

How would it be possible for Daniels, even with the best of intentions, to do justice to the life of the oppressed when, at the same time, he finds cause for celebration in the career of one of the chief oppressors? The artistic outcome must be half-hearted and murky.

The movie has a brief scene in which Nixon calls for the promotion of “black capitalism.” Do the filmmakers grasp the significance of this development? The scene is not followed through on. The great difficulty here is a terribly limited understanding of history and an equally limited perspective.

The emergence of conservative, self-absorbed petty bourgeois constituencies, among blacks, women, gays and other minorities is a major event of the last several decades. In 2011, a WSWS article on King aptly described this process: “The co-opting of a section of the black middle class was itself part of a broader development. … The goal was to cultivate a new ‘left’ constituency for American imperialism.

“Obama is the apotheosis of this process: a right-wing, militarist, pro-Wall Street African-American president. His elevation to the presidency is not the legacy of decades of civil rights progress, but rather an effort by wealthy corporate interests within the Democratic Party to use the candidate’s skin color to disguise their reactionary policies.

“[Martin Luther] King was assassinated at the height of his public career, at the point where he was beginning to draw radical conclusions about the necessity to link the struggles of blacks in the South with those of the working class throughout the country, and to connect the fight for social justice at home with opposition to imperialist war abroad.” [He spoke out forcefully against the Vietnam War.]

The night before his assassination, King told a group of striking sanitation workers in Memphis, Tennessee: “We’ve got to give ourselves to this struggle until the end. Nothing would be more tragic than to stop at this point in Memphis. We’ve got to see it through.” This spirit of struggle is entirely absent from The Butler .

It’s almost embarrassing to point out that the basic framework of The Butler is conformist respect for the various right-wing residents of the White House. There is sympathy for Nixon’s downfall and, after all, Reagan was a good sort—didn’t Nancy Reagan (Jane Fonda) invite Cecil and Gloria to a state dinner as guests, not servants?

In a recent interview with the New York Times, Daniels says: “Initially, the script had Obama in it, but I thought that would have been overkill. And we didn’t even know whether we could get him. He was doing a campaign, and if they heard he was doing a movie in the middle of the campaign—God knows. I was tempted to call Oprah to call the president, but I couldn’t bring myself to ask her.” Thank heavens for small mercies!

••••••

Freedom Rider: Sex Tapes and Butlers

 By BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley

Racist propaganda comes in many forms, and from many sources. Russell Simmons and Lee Daniels are well-paid Black purveyors of the anti-Black propaganda arts. Daniel’s turns history and truth on its head in The Butler, while Russell Simmons depicts Harriet Tubman as a whore who turns tricks for freedom.

The fact that Simmons chose to make Harriet Tubman a character in a porno reveals much about him, his feelings about black people and his high regard of white people.”

On August 14, 2013, Russell Simmons posted these words on twitter: “Funniest thing I’ve ever seen Harriet tubmans [sic] sex diary.” Those are words guaranteed to catch one’s attention, the way a bomb going off gets attention. Simmons wasn’t lying or joking either. His latest entertainment venture, All Def Digital, had in fact produced something he called The Harriet Tubman Sex Tape. For the worst and most despicable reasons possible, Mr. Simmons chose to commit a character assassination of Harriet Tubman, one of the greatest in the pantheon of black American heroes. By extension he defamed not only Tubman, but all black people and perpetrated the worst slanders used against black women. The fact that Simmons chose to make Harriet Tubman a character in a porno reveals much about him, his feelings about black people and his high regard of white people.

One might conclude that Simmons is nothing more than clueless and ignorant of the history of this country and of his people. Yet his treachery shows something far worse than obvious misogyny, self-hatred and stupidity. This so-called parody existed because Simmons determined that the path to success must go straight through the heart of our heritage and bring down a woman whose actions were above reproach. Simmons obviously believes that his success depends on black people being demeaned and willing to laugh about it.

Simmons claims that he wanted to show Tubman “turning the tables” on the slave master. The vulgar and stupid impresario, entrepreneur, mogul doesn’t even know why Harriet Tubman is so revered. By first stealing herself away from the chattel slavery system and then taking hundreds of other people from their slave owners, she turned the tables quite adroitly, all without having sex with anyone. She followed up her individual feats of bravery when she led a Union attack on Confederate forces near the Combahee River in South Carolina in 1863, the only woman to have led an army into battle in the Civil War.

Simmons obviously believes that his success depends on black people being demeaned and willing to laugh about it.“

In Simmons’ turgid imagination, the woman who John Brown referred to as “General Tubman” becomes nothing more than a whore. An enslaved woman had no means by which she might empower herself. She had no control over her body and thus no control over her sexuality. She could be forced to have sex with any white man or even with a black man when slave holders wanted to create more babies and thus more profit. For Harriet Tubman to have overcome these circumstances with her bravery and genius, only to be depicted as a woman who enjoys having sex with her slave holder is the worst thing that any black person might do to her memory.

Black people should have had nothing worse than Russell Simmons to contend with, but he chose to do his dirty work in the same week that another awful depiction was unleashed by Hollywood. Lee Daniels’ The Butler is a train wreck of a film which leaves a bad taste for anyone even dimly aware of the basic facts of American history.

The Butler is a fictionalized account of the life of Eugene Allen, a man who served as a White House butler from the Harry Truman through Ronald Reagan administrations. This story could be interesting on many levels but in the hands of the ham fisted and black hating Daniels the civil rights movement is in the end just a useful backdrop for absolving white people of any guilt.

Daniels does know what makes for an engaging film and it is this skill that makes The Butler so insidious. He cleverly depicts how the lead character, named Cecil Gaines for the purposes of the movie, must escape from the cruelty of Jim Crow era South, where America’s apartheid took shape. Most of the black actors in the film are talented and popular audience favorites. The combination of seeing our experiences validated in an entertaining film guarantees box office success.

Lee Daniels’ The Butler is a train wreck of a film which leaves a bad taste for anyone even dimly aware of the basic facts of American history.”

It is true to this very day that black people show two faces, or in the case of people like the Gaines character, only one face, not being allowed to be fully human when interacting with white people who have power over them. Having seen lynching and terror, Gaines is fearful for himself and for his son who chooses to be in the forefront of the black freedom movement.

What might have made for an intriguing dynamic is turned into a hodge podge of phony hopefulness about how the “good negro” inspires white people to do the right thing. Movies of course depend on some degree of dramatic license. But it is absurd in the extreme for the Gaines character to literally be serving breakfast to presidents and their top staff people as they discuss what to do in Little Rock, Selma or Birmingham.

Every president in the movie confesses his sins to the magical Cecil and then tries his best to help the Negro. In fact, however much or little any of these presidents did was dependent upon the intensity of the struggle among the masses of people and not by their liking of any domestic worker. Yet the Lee Daniels butler inspires Eisenhower to send troops to integrate Central High School in Little Rock. John F. Kennedy spent most of his term in office looking for ways to placate the Dixiecrats. He and his brother Robert were opposed to the March on Washington and any other actions that might force them to do the right thing. As for the Freedom Riders, Kennedy asked an aide, “Can’t you get your goddamned friends off those buses?” In the end he was forced by the demands made in the streets to finally give a speech in support of a civil rights bill.

The movie does tell some historic truth but with an underlying message that political action is acceptable only within very narrow parameters. The son in the film goes on a journey from the lunch counter sit-ins to the Freedom Rides to the Black Panthers. Daniels should have just left the Panthers alone instead of depicting them as disrespectful young people who never remove their black berets and give offense at the dinner table. But he couldn’t leave the Panthers alone. If white people can be appeased with the right attitude there is no need for radical politics to be taken seriously. The Black Panthers also have to be brought low in the popular consciousness of a Lee Daniels movie.

Not only are white people made good if the black people around them are silent enough, but the black people in Daniels world don’t amount to much. Their relaxation time is spent drinking and dancing and cheating on their spouses, while at work they tell dirty jokes in mixed company and get angry if a co-worker gets a perk. No wonder white people have to be coaxed into helping them.

Daniels should have just left the Panthers alone instead of depicting them as disrespectful young people who never remove their black berets and give offense at the dinner table.”

They live happily ever after because Barack Obama is elected president of the United States at the movie’s end. All is well in Daniels land where eventually the right kind of protest brings white acceptance and a black face in the highest place.

Lee Daniels and Russell Simmons are also in high places. They get the deals to create images of black life because they can be replied upon to do the right thing by white people. Russell Simmons is a bottom feeder who didn’t even know how to be smooth with his slander. Lee Daniels is made of sterner stuff and knows what black people want to see. We want to see black people on screen who do great things even if it is just getting a raise for the domestic help or sneering at the struggles of young people when they try to change the system.

After being properly scolded for the sex tape horror, Simmons removed the sex tape from his site and now says he has plans to produce biographies of Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass. He probably has no real interest in doing this but for the sake of argument he must be treated as if he does. He can’t be trusted with our image ever again and must never be allowed to live down this shameful episode.

Daniels will probably get more movie deals and more opportunities to create outwardly uplifting fare that is in reality anything but. He is equally untrustworthy but more dangerous. He is after all the man who gave us Precious.

Black celebrities cannot be given a pass to treat us any way they want but the yearning for black success is still quite strong. As with politicians and other misleaders, they get consideration where none is deserved. Hopefully there will be no more black historical figures in sex tapes or white people being given phony and undue credit, at least not for a while. Two such episodes in one week is simply too much.

Margaret Kimberley’s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.

 




Why a Left Movement Has Never Really Happened

Working the Sidelines
by CHARLES HAYMARKET

A lot of water has passed under the bridge since the Wobblies shook American society.


A lot of water has passed under the bridge since the Wobblies shook American society.

 

In my heart I’m a lifelong leftist, but a very frustrated one. I see too little of a movement at a time, when it’s never been more needed. I understand too often the movement was run by white men talking over everyone, so I’ll not be bossy and be as brief as possible. Here are the reasons why I never felt plugged in, and possibly, why many others, especially workers, don’t tend to join. I’m not blaming. Maybe you saw it different, but maybe some of this will help in trying to gather a thriving movement. The dialogue has moved so far to the Wrong Wing that “leftism” or “leftist” are seen as almost dirty words today, but almost every single beneficial thing in society we had, and barely have left, was originally a leftie cause. And won against major opposition. All of these gains were paid for by blood in the streets, literally. We owe it to the martyrs to remember, to never forget; yet, it’s so hard to keep gains and to progress further. 

The overall, first major reason for our defeats, is we compete against a gigantic corporate owned tsunami of purposeful idiocy, by an army of high paid spokes idiots on all the airwaves. TV, in particular, is a brainwashing machine that would even make Joseph Goebbels blush. We have to slowly undo their instantaneous media lies with our truth. And do that without much access at all to the so called public airwaves. It’s encouraging when Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Chis Hedges, Naomi Klein, and so many other great thinkers break through, and it’s encouraging to see their ideas resonate. People love them. We need far more of that. Like the chapter in Moore’s Stupid White Men book, people poll much further far to the liberal/left than the media credits them with. We don’t have big left donors like the Koch brothers. It is our piggy banks against their billions. It’s probably why Air America went down. Every advance of left ideals has been hard fought to get established, then hard fought again, as it was wrecked and undone. We have to dust ourselves off and push further.

People are hungry in their hearts for these ideas. They know our present path can’t last. It’s produced a world of want, while a tiny handful have the vast majority of the cash, resources, and our politician’s ears. They are able to ride roughshod over us, because we practically have to concede the field. It’s a very noisy battle, but for now, only their side gets a national voice. Job one is to fix this dramatic imbalance. Education is the key in fixing a dumbed down nation. Just in my lifetime, leftism, liberalism, and even minor democratic thinking, has been totally vilified by the Wrong Wing. Why do we call them right wing? When are they ever right? The entire public conversation has shifted so far to the Wrong Wing that it poses as near center, almost mainstream now, which allows the so called “liberal media” to create and spin even more outrageous Wrong Wing talking points, outright propaganda, or for an appearance of objectivity, always an unobtainable ideal in a media completely owned by a corporate driven agenda. It’s their professed mantra, but there is never a true balance.

Five huge corporations, guided by wrong wing values, own every media outlet. We already tried most of the Wrong Wing’s horrible ideas and they failed. Legislation was fought in place to stop their abuses. The lack of a collective memory, with constant media misdirection, let’s paid shills undo those laws, dragging our nation back to the future. A failed past, offered as the way forward, with too few voices to remind us we’ve already been there, regarding poor worker safety, no voting rights laws, with no livable wage, or proper housing, along with so many other pressing issues. Issues we long ago should’ve gone forward on. For instance, we work eight hours a day. An accident? No. It  took a hundred years to get eight hours legislated as a work day. Like voting rights, it had to be enacted and enforced by federal law. The bosses will never do the proper thing on their own without force. Their police murdered workers in the streets for decades, trying to get the 10 hour day, then decades more for the 8 hour day, and to stop child labor. We not only allow the corporate owners to export all of these abuses to the Third World, we allow them to also be subsidized by our tax dollars to do it, the same way our taxes subsidize their massive CEO pay.

The owners do not mind that it’s a worldwide race to the bottom regarding hours, wages and safety. There has been no time in America when the left had a seat at the table of power. The best years, for most people, were the mid 1960s to mid 1970s, anti-Vietnam War to No Nukes era. We seemed powerful during, and slightly post war, but fell into smaller identity groups and issues after.  We only won the culture war. Maybe. If we keep the gains. Another time in history was the late 1800s into the pre – World War 1 era, after the horrors of slavery, the Civil War, and decimating the Native Nations, sparked the U.S. peace and justice movement, and even a Populist Movement. The ideas of Marx, Engels, unions, trade guilds, fraternities about  workers’ rights bloomed across Europe, to join practical ideas here. Eugene Debs was widely popular. Millions of people felt Socialism had real merit. Soon Mine, Mills, and Factory unions grew, and even unaffiliated , like the I.W.W., The International Workers Of The World, more famously known as Wobblies, became widespread. Their efforts threatened owners so much they were brutally beaten and some members given huge prison sentences, when not murdered. I dream I see Joe Hill every night, in a nation that barely remembers him.

The companies and government fought, but didn’t destroy, others unions like the AFL, which  later joined the CIO. Unions were slowly usurped by industry and government, then taken over by criminals [and class collaborators like George Meany]. Companies moving to “Right To Work” southern states, Reaganism, and endless compromise nearly extinguished them. Now they’re tiny and easily whipped, but it’s the only solution to ever having real workers’ rights. Unions delivered the only long term safety and wage improvements for working people. It helped all of society. Early union organizing was brutal. You never knew when a snitch, or agent, would end your life. Later, it was more about your family, and business connections. I was lucky to have an Uncle who knew all this history. Most people don’t know or remember. They see their city possibly thriving, and don’t realize that an instant corporate decision can make their lives hollowed out like Detroit. Companies flee overseas to avail themselves of far worse conditions, and far lower pay. You might think with all this love, knowledge, and passion for them, that I’m a union man, but I’ve never once been asked, or allowed, to join a union. Nor allowed to organize, no matter how badly  I needed it. My life was the worse for it. All our lives are worse without unions. Unions groom activists.

The picket line, sit down strikes, or walkouts, are all original union tactics that moved over to  the Peace, Justice, Civil Rights, and anti-war movements, but they won’t help whenever the company moves overseas. They don’t help when the government turns blind. The companies essentially walk out on us. No discussion, no bargaining. Just go to Walmart and buy the crap you used to make, if you can afford it. Businesses and government rolls on with its rogue, self enriching program oblivious to us all. They no longer hear a word we the people say. Millions protested the Iraq Invasion, but it drags on, and those huge demonstrations are now long ago echos. The government’s arrogance and elitism cuts across all strata of society. There is a two sided elitism in society as a whole, and deep in left circles as well. One is defined by age, and the other by education level. If you were born a minute after any boomer, you might as well stay quiet. Ironic, this later became born a second before an X’er. Either side of that age and you are almost mute. Especially so, if you were in college or had a university event. At that point the strata was based on under, and post grad, levels.

Later many activist groups demanded college degrees, with a Master or a Phd, if you wanted leadership. Working people, even veteran activists, were too often shunned by the learned ones. It had a great bearing on tactics and how effective the tactics were, and were not. Being leftist is hard enough work. One has to study a lot and know the issues, but it takes the wind completely out people’s sales if someone who studied War 101 over rides those who did not attend college, but had actually been in war. It was sad to be continually gut checked by party hard liners, or dogmatic intellectuals, or naive wanna be types, to see that your ideas were thought bourgeois , when you had got your head cracked the last few demonstrations while they were busy studying, or leading some steering committee. Since the September 11, 2001 terror false flag, our government has become far more abusive, arrogant and unresponsive, treating citizens like enemy combatants, to be spied on, harassed, threatened, locked up, or gang stalked. Leftist activists in particular get this treatment. It is no fun for a working person to fight for justice, laying  it all on the line, but be lectured about “the workers” by someone whose Daddy, or Ivory Tower purchased their lecturing ways.

I was born too late for much of the anti- Vietnam War groups, but those members held sway in every activist group after, taking, or trying to, all leadership. But sometimes they would get marginalized too. If channeled correctly, it’s awesome knowledge. If channeled improperly, it is just boomer snobbery. Eventually one wears out on it, whether from academics, or lifer  legacy activists, particularly Trots, or from young anarchy types, that can’t define what that even is. Working people get things done. We are usually at our jobs during the planning meetings based on student, or professional’s schedules. We might not know all the minutia of arch analysis, but we make clever signs, make things instead of talk about it, and maybe can keep you from getting beat up. I don’t really want to hear about how to evade riot police injuries by someone doing their Master’s thesis on it. I want street knowledge. And every step along the way, as individuals and a movement, we were hamstrung by “pacifism”. Violence may not be the answer, but we get no respect by not defending ourselves. Everybody honors Gandhi and Dr. King, but we don’t face a long ago power structure with enough of a conscience to give way. Presently, ours is sicker, more abusive, and drunk on power.

Our power structure loves its abuses. It might pay million dollar lawsuits to a lucky few later, but it will mess you up today. Many of us celebrate Cubans, the Viet Cong and Nicaragua, and Zapatistas, yet somehow, it’s never ever time for a violent overthrow here at home, in this  most violent of nations, one founded on violence, predicated on violence, that seeks only violence. In some future, apparently for the first time in human history, a government that spends massive efforts, and money, for its pipe dream of Total Spectrum Dominance to try to prop up for its world wide Petro Dollar fiat currency control scam, will see our parades, look at our signs, hear our chants, and simply give us back our rights, our freedoms, and peace again. It’s frustrating to continually be taught non-violence, like a religion, by scholars usually home when violence hits. It’s beyond frustrating to live and work in the ghetto yet get shunned by academics who say we can’t keep have a gun for personal protection. The worker, unless he sees Matewan, or Deacons For The Defense, feels we conceded our right to self defense to the domain of Right Wing Militias. A worker may march with you sometimes but generally is not going fully join on those terms.

I personally don’t decry Right Wing Militias, if only as a suburban exercise program. It’s kind of hopeful, how left and right thinking can often converge. Why do we concede worries over the Constitution and Bill Of Rights being usurped to the Righties? It IS long past usurped. It states right in that document that we must dissolve the government whenever its usurpations become intolerable. Do we know our peaceful change is won’t cut it? Now “our” party, the Democrats, usurp these rights. Usurpation is usurpation isn’t it? We worry about a  war crazy government spawning these militia groups as a byproduct, but in practice, they too, see an out of control government, and at least are thinking of ways, however futile, to try to counter it. The same way our government tends to avoid invading nations who could actually fight back, like North Korea, they are far more worried over the righties than our unarmed left. They manipulate it, and stir their hatred, but when they’re caught eaves dropping and directing IRS investigations on them and their Tea Party pals, it shows that they are enemies of the state too. We should stand beside them as brothers in persecution. Yes, they were silent when we got attacked by police, agents and stalkers, but now is a great time to double our ranks.

How can we, as people, and groups, like Move On, simply give Obama a free pass on abuses that we would be livid over had Bush Junior done them? Rightly so. They are the very same abuses. Often Obama has made them worse. We have a government now completely out of control. Why are we too silent? Righties say they want to drown government, which means basically letting corporations to have unfettered control, but it deserves to be drowned and dismantled anyways. The elite tell us our dictator is careful, but those same abusive powers used by the other team is evil? Why do self promoting groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center, make detailed reports on “right wing, probable racist groups” yet completely ignore massive Israeli spying and blackmail, from the ADL, AIPAC, JDL and their telecoms, along with  their criminal gang stalkers Protest Warriors? Who commits real crimes, and who simply runs around the woods in cammo and stores canned food? The left neuters itself with elitism and allows arrogance to cuts its own ranks by not addressing ALL government abuses. Our groups in fight and brow beat ourselves on very trivial matters, so how are we going to reach out to others? Workers see this conundrum. They’ll join you on a few things, but never truly join.

Another way of losing out on truly bonding with the left is culture work, particularly playing original music. One runs across strict reconstructionists, who know all great songs came from  Pete Seeger and (maybe) Bob Dylan. One runs against party liners nit picking your lyrics, but then you face the public who is not likely to dance to diatribes. I remember when I released my first record and sent it to the gatekeeper left ‘zines, but they were too busy praising Billy Bragg and The Clash. The Clash helped a little, but I bet no one has ever danced to Billy Bragg or Dave Rovics. Unless you also included Rage Against The Machine, Midnight Oil and Michael Franti, you could not get a crowd for leftie music, as it is now. Too much of it is too boring. There are gifted songs that manage to say something, like Marley and Dylan, but seldom does “saying something” translate into a gifted song. Musicians faces a brutal task of buying gear, getting ideas down, recorded, and out into a cruel market place, as others try to copy, and steal it, or steal our style. The last thing we need is lyric checked by dogmatists who can only get a tiny handful of people to a show they’re kind of miserable at. Working folks are not dumb. They know what fun is. It’s seldom fun to sit around our leftie circles criticizing everything.

I’ve been a vegetarian a long time. Leftie circles are not as cool with that as you might think. How do people matter if animals don’t? How are we human if we don’t consider ALL of the living world? At one time slaves were seen as less than people too. When I started, I could  preach the merits of vegetarianism and few would listen. But now that I’m older, as a living example of how fun it is to age slower, and avoid doctors, it attracts a lot more. I have done Civil Rights and neighborhood work, yet looking white, am sometimes excluded from joining minority groups, As a man I’m typically excluded from women groups. Straights are seldom welcomed in gay groups. I’m part native, but don’t want to trade on that. But if I can go out in the cruel world and get people on their feet rocking, while presenting history, a good living example, and to present ways out of our mess, I don’t deserve to be shunned by a local yokel leader who thinks Bruce wrote the last best song. It chaffs me if my songs are ignored but far worse when my lyrics, style and manner, ends up being stolen by someone who is accepted. If you’re ever given a choice, be a pop star who sometimes says something, not the home boy of ideologues. Stay to the edge of groups who want to control you. Truly joining is a dead end to your soul, and career.

Anyways, to end on a higher note, it was really encouraging to see Occupy. I would prefer to occupy the inside of banks and government until they are jailed, but we do not yet have the numbers. Like the Star Trek episode “Tribbles” I would like to see millions of people fall upon D.C., Wall St, and military centers and pack them so densely, we’d to hand criminal politicians, lobbyists, banksters, war mongers, profiteers and all their enablers, over our heads into jail. Congress has to return to serving us. Even if it takes new members. The Supreme Court needs replaced and all of its errors undone. It was smart talking about the 99% versus the 1%, though it’s probably the top  10% with another top 20% doing their dirty work, that is the issue. If we’d back Occupy with a ground up political party it would start seeing real power. Remember, the Wrong Wing took its power slowly from the bottom, taking over churches, school boards, city councils. People keep saying third parties won’t work, but there was another political party, focused on one issue, slavery, who climbed from a few people gathering to having the White House in just fifteen years. It was Republicans.

They are completely different than their founding creed. So radically deluded from even just a few decades ago, that Ike, Nixon, and even Reagan, would now be too liberal to join them. This needs pointed out loudly. Too many people identify as Republicans over them, and fail to see how far they have been Limbaugh-ized, and Fox-ed away, from their core values. Occupy was  great. So was the original honest Tea Party, not the Koch funded version. They could go further together. Populism is good, even if the powers that be work to usurp it. I was with Occupy. I am a behind- the -scenes type. I do things, make posters, tend to logistics and leave leadership to those who cat fight over it. Occupy’s leaderless example literally saved their lives, as the FBI colluded with businesses to assassinate them. But as a worker, I wasn’t homeless hippie drum circle anarchy punk enough to really fit in. Frankly, most of the 99% isn’t that style either. So I stayed on the edges trying to keep people from being hurt. Why did other workers not join in? We occupy our jobs, and can not just camp out. Workers saw too many spare change types, not a sustainable movement. A movement isn’t about just hanging out. It has to pay its own way equitably, otherwise it’s just another party, and a poor party at that, not a Political Party people want to join. I’ll keep working the sidelines. I have no other team, but thought I would say this. Good luck to us all.

Charles Haymarket is a life long activist, organizer, author, watchmaker timepiece technician,  and original music playing half of The Haymarket Orphans, a cool band you should have heard. He can be reached at Haymarketorphans@hotmail.com

 




Liberal degeneracy: Floyd Abrams praises Manning verdict

Abrams

Abrams

By Tom Carter, wsws.org

Floyd Abrams’ July 31 letter to the New York Times praising the Bradley Manning verdict underscores the degree to which what was once the liberal intelligentsia has abandoned any serious defense of democratic rights.

Abrams famously served as one of the lawyers for the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case (1971), establishing a certain reputation at the time as a defender of free speech and freedom of the press. In the intervening decades Abrams has shifted far to the right, together with an entire layer of once-liberal professionals, intellectuals, and academics. Abrams now writes in support of the conviction of Bradley Manning on espionage charges, which constitutes a monumental assault on those basic principles he once defended.

In his letter, published on the Times front page, Abrams begins by asserting that the young soldier is guilty: “Pfc. Bradley Manning’s conduct in providing WikiLeaks with more than 700,000 confidential government documents undoubtedly violated some provisions of federal law, as his pleas of guilty to some of the charges and Col. Denise R. Lind’s rulings as to others make plain,” Abrams wrote. The rest of Abrams’ letter is dedicated to a celebration of Manning’s acquittal on the “aiding the enemy” charge, which carried a possible death sentence.

“Colonel Lind’s brave decision — it is nothing less than that — rejecting the government’s misguided efforts to convict Private Manning of violating military law in ‘aiding the enemy’ is worthy of special commendation,” Abrams wrote. A conviction on the “aiding the enemy” charge, according to Abrams, “would have imperiled a good deal of invaluable journalism.”

As an initial matter, contrary to Abrams’ assertions, Manning’s guilty pleas—extracted through torture, a rigged trial, and the Obama administration’s pursuit of a charge carrying the death penalty—do not signify anything.

More importantly, absent from Abrams’ letter is any mention of the content of Manning’s disclosures, which included evidence of war crimes, systematic deceit and lying by successive American administrations, and globe-spanning conspiracies to violate domestic and international law. In the US, the political establishment—with the aid of the media and figures such as Abrams—has sought to prevent a discussion of the criminality revealed by Manning by focusing instead on whether Manning himself violated any laws.

Manning’s conviction represents the first time in American history that a government whistleblower has been convicted in a full trial on espionage charges. Under the Obama administration’s logic, Manning committed “espionage” against the United States because he leaked classified documents “having knowledge that intelligence published on the internet is accessible to the enemy.”

There is no allegation that Manning turned over the documents to any foreign government or political entity in particular, or that he was paid anything or sought to benefit personally from the disclosures. His only motive was to serve the public interest by exposing crimes. Nevertheless, according to the Obama administration’s theory, if a document is designated as “classified” and its contents are leaked to the public—no matter what the content of the document is—then the leaker is guilty of “espionage” because the document can be accessed online by Al Qaeda. This new and reactionary theory constitutes a frontal assault on a long line of legal precedents, from the Nuremberg Trials to the Pentagon Papers case to the core historic First Amendment protections of free speech and freedom of the press.

[pullquote] If a person, especially in the military, encounters illegal activity, then his or her duty is not to participate in that activity but to try to stop and prevent it. [/pullquote]

The Nuremberg Trials following the Second World War affirmed the basic principle that “following orders” is not an excuse for participating in crimes. If a person, especially in the military, encounters illegal activity, then his or her duty is not to participate in that activity but to try to stop and prevent it.

The world-spanning corruption, deceit, and thuggery exposed by Manning have been the subject of dozens if not hundreds of articles on the World Socialist Web Site —including the murder of journalists and civilians by helicopter in Iraq; backroom deals with MasterCard and Visa in Russia; violations of international treaties by US spies posing as diplomats; and conspiracies to install Shell Oil men in the Nigerian government. Cables leaked by Manning contributed to anger that fueled protests that brought down US-allied strongmen in Tunisia and Egypt and rocked the entire region. Human civilization as a whole owes this brave young soldier a debt of gratitude.

Not a hair has been touched on the heads of any of the criminals exposed by Manning within the US political establishment, military, and intelligence apparatus, as well as their corporate and financial co-conspirators. These individuals continue to sit comfortably in their luxurious offices enjoying lavish incomes and lifestyles. On the subject of the “guilt” of such individuals, figures such as Abrams are silent. Instead of prosecuting the criminals exposed by Manning, the Obama administration has done its utmost to make an example of Manning, including through the use of torture.

Abrams’ emphasis on the judge’s acquittal of Manning under the “aiding the enemy” theory is a red herring. Colonel Lind did not refuse to allow the Obama administration to proceed under this theory as a matter of law. She only ruled that Manning was not guilty under the facts of this specific case, holding the door open to similar charges in future prosecutions.

The factual circumstances of Manning’s disclosures and their publication are in all pertinent respects identical to the leak and publication of the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Ellsberg himself, who handed copies of the Pentagon Papers to a New York Times reporter in March 1971, has publicly defended Manning and has rejected any false distinction between the “good” Pentagon Papers and the “bad” WikiLeaks.

Abrams himself emerged in 2010 to pen a long New York Times column falsifying the history of the Pentagon Papers as part of an attempt to discredit Julian Assange and Wilikeaks. (At the time, the World Socialist Web Site published a detailed response setting straight the historical record.)

The falsification of the history of the Pentagon Papers case serves definite political ends. In 1971, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote, “Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.”

Can anyone imagine such statements being made today in the judiciary, in Congress, or in the media?

There is no legal or moral substance to any of the charges against Manning, who had every right to do what he did. Democratic rights cannot be entrusted to figures such as Abrams. The defense and expansion of basic democratic rights—and the struggle to safeguard heroic individuals such as Manning, Edward Snowden, and Julian Assange from retaliation by the state—requires nothing short of the independent mobilization of the working class on a socialist program.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Tom Carter writes for the wsws.org, information arm of the Social Equality Party.




Does color mean anything in high government positions?

Many black Americans are sore at Barack Obama for his failure to appoint more blacks to high level positions. They may be missing the point, says Black Agenda Report executive editor Glen Ford. Race means nothing when not matched by commitment to working class values and objectives.