Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Update on Peace Rally

Well the event outside Congressman Clay's office went well enough.  6 people showed up, and I want to thank all of them.  We got a small number of appreciative honks of car horns, and drove up the blood pressure of several Tea Partiers.

We delivered over 1300 petition signatures in support of Peace with Iran to Congressman Lacy Clay's staff.

Their response was to say the congressman needed the full two month deliberation to make up his mind- even as fellow Missouri Democrats in far more competitive districts have risked much to support the peace agreement, and to point out how important it was that we occupied Vietnam to stop terrorism or something.  Apparently 2 million dead, massive man-made flooding, and chemical warfare on an entire ecosystem is not terrorism, but public ownership is.  Not terribly encouraging, but a lot of good points were raised on the side of diplomacy at least.

On a lighter note, apparently Lacy has got himself a good primary challenger- State Sen. Maria Chappelle Nadal, heroine of Ferguson, may be jumping in.  I'd love to work for her given the chance!

Solidaritaet, Genossinnen und Genossen

No War With Iran:



Hallo, Genossinnen und Genossen.

As you know, I've generally been a harsh critic of this administration's foreign policy as a needless continuation of Bush-era aggression, but the time has again come for me to say “Nice one, Barack”.

Obama's deal with Iran is a triumph, there are no two ways about it. The framework agreed to by both countries (no nukes (verified) in exchange for no more sanctions) will really improve things in the Middle East. We can show millions of people that the United States can negotiate in good faith, and that a country need not turn to nuclear weapons to keep the US from interfering militarily.

The Iraq war was one of the greatest mistakes this country will ever make: a war of choice, built on lies, with long running chaos and massive civilian casualties which may yet bankrupt our country both morally and financially. A war with Iran could be even worse on all of those counts, and this deal will preclude such a tragedy if Congress doesn't scuttle it.

As it stands, this will be a great opportunity to show the world that we can do business even with people we don't agree with, which will be the best thing for our future in the Middle East, our international goodwill, and containing Putin.


There's another, more personal reason for my enthusiasm here. In 2008, a majority of the electorate conclusively said “no” to war for the first time in decades, and I was proud to be a part of that movement. It was immediately ignored though- from supporting fascist coups in Venezuela and Honduras to expanding the bombing raids to ever increasing civilian deaths, there hasn't been much movement towards peacemaking for the last seven years. Now we can see our government finally catching up with that bright shining moment of reason and diplomacy- that beautiful moment in 2007-2008 when we all stood up and said- No more needless killing in our name.

Today I will be reading this at Congressman Clay's office. A resolution of censure scuttling the deal will likely pass Congress, but the Democrats can probably sustain a veto if more of them come out and support diplomacy with Iran.

Solidarität, Genossinnen und Genossen.

Genossin Elise

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Welcome, Genosse Sam Borgos!

Today, the goal for which I've striven for nearly a year has come to fruition:  Sam, my comrade and yours, is writing for us here at DGBFHTP.  Genossinnen und Genossen, I give you Sam Borgos!

Just back from a tour of progressive and peace organizations in Israel and Palestine, Sam is here to offer us his expert perspective on as many issues as I can persuade him to.  Kindly direct questions of labor history, Israeli politics, and jazz his way.

Sam is the best friend I've had throughout my education, and we've collaborated on a lot of issues- first smacking down fascists in philosophy and Nazi apologists in music history, then writing Socialist-Realist Dungeons and Dragons games, representing Beloit at Fighting Bobfest, the Anderson-Rodriguez campaign of 2012, Beloit's International Workers' Rights/May Day, and the College Democrats.  He succeeded me as Beloit College Democrats' president, and is ready to keep us thinking left thoughts!  He's also been there for me whenever I need a friend, and asks so little in return.  And now he's done me another favor, and shared his thoughts with all of us.

Welcome, Genosse Sam

Guest Post: Genosse Sam: In Defense Of Labour Zionism

In Defense Of Labour Zionism



Is Revisionist Zionism good for Israel? There is a prominent strain within the world Zionist Movement that seeks to refute any and all criticism of Israel, whether justified or not. Obviously, these people are passionate defenders of their cause and care deeply about the future of the Jewish state and should be applauded for that. But is this “my country right or wrong” attitude really healthy for the movement and, more importantly, is it good for Israel?

Many of Israelis of all political stripes write off Mahmoud Abbas and indeed his whole administration as a pathetic excuse for a governance and, worse, a foe of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. This is not an entirely unfair claim. Abbas and his fellow administrators have continued the culture of corruption begun under Yasser Arafat, allowing private interests to skim PA funds off the top. However, the claim that Abbas is being intangible and not willing to compromise for the sake of peace is dubious, at best, and specious in my opinion. Abbas is possibly the best friend that the Israelis have in the Palestinian political order (with the possible exception of Salam Fayyad). The typical Palestinian is far more anti- Israel and anti-Semitic than the administration that claims to represent them and Abbas’ “failure” to deliver of the peace process will only exasperate this. At some point, the Palestinians in the West Bank may very well ask themselves “why is this man in charge? He doesn’t share our views and he isn’t delivering on his promises for peace and stability”. Palestinians may then take a more Gazan approach to the conflict, namely turning to Hamas as political leadership.

On the other hand, the Palestinian people may reach the same conclusion about Abbas and turn to an alternative route of political action- the opposite, in fact. Palestinians in the West Bank will simply start agreeing to be annexed by Israel with the understanding that they be given the rights of Israeli citizens, a future approved by Israelis only either on the far-right and far-left.
No, Abbas is not the problem- he is a shrinking, if imperfect, window of opportunity. Where action is needed is on the Israeli side. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, for all his hawkish views, is not even the worst when it comes to Abba Eban’s old dictum “…never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity”. The “one state solution” has a number of different outcomes;
1
.      -Israel annexes the West Bank and enfranchises the Palestinians. This would mean an enormous demographic shift in Israeli society, one which the Revisionist Right would not appreciate. Millions of Arabs would now vote as Israeli citizens and in the near future may revoke Israel’s status as a Jewish State, a designation that would make little sense after the absorption.
2
.      -The Status Quo. Either Israel continues to occupy the West Bank or annexes it, but denies Palestinians Israeli citizenship. Though I have little respect for those who would call Israel an “apartheid state”, under this system it would de facto be running one in the occupied territories, denying Palestinian even basic rights while granting special ones to Israelis. Israel is already losing the Public Relations War; this would only continue to give Israel’s enemies ammunition by which they would delegitimize it.
3
.      -Israel ethnically cleanses the West Bank of Palestinians. Though it would solve the demographic problem once and for all, this extremely immoral solution is supported by next to no one in the Israeli mainstream and if it occurred, would engender an enormous backlash from all strata. As well, even Israel’s closest friends in the global community would run for cover, again delegitimizing the nation’s status as a liberal democracy.

The organization Peace Now was formed by group of Israeli peace activists to protest the Invasion of Lebanon by the Israeli Defense Forces at the behest of then- Prime Minister Menachem Begin. This group has noticed a change in Israeli attitudes towards war- that it is becoming a way of life, worrying that Israel is becoming “…a suit of armor”, in David Grossman’s words- shielded, but without a soul. As well, Peace Now advocates a gradual return of the West Bank into Palestinian hands, starting with the dismantling of Jewish Settlements and ending, hopefully, in statehood.
Unlike other so called “peace” groups such as BDS or Jewish Voices for Peace, Peace Now is Zionistic in nature, believing fully in the legitimacy of the Jewish state and seeking only to curb its more inhumane policies. There is a significant strategic advantage in Peace Now being a part of the Zionist Movement. BDS, JVP, etc. by attempting to delegitimize not only Israeli policy, but Israel itself, alienates themselves from the vast swath of Jewish Israelis who care about prospects of peace but remain wedded to the Zionist idea. These movements, while claiming to respect the work of Israeli activists, ignore the fact that anti-Zionism and its bigoted implications is practically a non-starter in Israel. This policy, in fact, plays into the hands of domestic rightists besides. Though much maligned by the Revisionists, this is not objectively true of Peace Now, which at least is an important part of the national conversation Israel is having about settlement policy.

Another strength of Peace Now is its ability to present a cohesive but nuanced critique of Israeli policy. Both the leadership and rank-and-file of Peace Now tend not to be pacifists, but as Amos Oz put it, “peaceniks”, most of whom served in the IDF or are currently reservists in it. Objections to hawkish policies both in the West Bank as well as in relation to other nation states do not stem from general opposition to violence or even war. Peace Now recognizes the importance of Israel’s armed forces and refuses to disparage soldiers. As well, opposition to the settlement of the West Bank does not necessarily mean writing off all terrorism as a response to this policy.










Thursday, August 13, 2015

Guest Post- Genossin Sophie: Black Lives Matter AND Bernie Sanders: How the Media creates separation

The Media would like you, and everyone else to think that the Black Lives Matter movement is against Bernie Sanders.  And unfortunately they played right into the hands of this media perception by being somewhat rude at one of his speeches.  But what they fail to realize is that the Black Lives Matter movement is hard on Bernie, not because he is their enemy but because he is their ally. As he should be.  The overenthusiastic protesters should of course keep in mind that Bernie Sanders is saying far more about issues that matter to black Americans than any other candidate ever has, or ever will.  But this is precisely why they keep nudging him to push the envelope even farther.  One must never rest on one's laurels.  It is of course understandable that Sanders would want to be careful, especially this early in the game.  He wants to prove that he is a viable candidate, especially since Clinton is under investigation, and it's not completely impossible that Sanders will end up as the nominee by virtue of being the one left in the race (which is the only way he'll end up as nominee).
But the Black Lives Matter activists should be patient too: it is still half a year before the general election begins in earnest.  You should not be expecting anyone to say anything important.

Furthermore it is rude to force a candidate from the stage.  One newspaper said "Bernie Sanders should turn over the microphone to those who need to be heard more".  If he were not a candidate then I would agree: and in former times Sanders has sometimes forgone a speech in order to allow a comrade to be heard.  But that was when he wasn't running for anything.   It is good that they are keeping him honest, and encouraging to push the envelope: but it is not good for them to compete with him for stage time.  Go ahead, show up at his speech with posters: chant before his speech or after he is done.  But for goodness sakes let the poor man speak his piece.  You want the right to speak? then show that you can listen.  And I don't mean stand around bored while someone speaks: I mean actually consider what they are saying.  Believe me I'm guilty of the former myself: for many years I refused to listen to politicians of any stripe, largely because they all sounded the same.  But for that reason I also believe even more strongly that really listening with care and politeness is extremely important when it comes to politicians.

Bernie Sanders is hardly likely to deny your right to free speech, being not only a socialist but also a Vermonter.  No person, no matter how uneducated, no matter how angry, no matter their race, creed, gender or other situation at a New England town meeting would ever dream of forcing a fellow villager off the stage.  Yes, even if this person was telling blatant lies.  This is what the first amendment was all about, indeed this custom was it's origin: That "without censor" part applies not only to what is said, but to what cannot be said because of intimidation.  Without trying to, that is what the Black Lives matter activists did that day: they intimidated Sanders, his staff and his supporters.  Now none of those people will turn out at the polls guaranteed.  Not a single one.  They were angered not because they do not like the Black Lives Matter movement, but because it was not what they came to the event to hear about: they came to hear Sanders speak.  Anyone who supports Sanders would not be caught dead admitting that they don't like the Black Lives Matter movement: but when people are told they are hearing a speech by Sanders they expect to hear a speech by Sanders, not a speech by some other person.

I am no stranger to impassioned arguments, nor to being forced because of my gender, age, sexual orientation and address to wait for others more privileged than me.  But I also know that what matters is what I say when my turn comes, not that I speak first.  Indeed, the mistakes of the other orators can become the platform upon which I stand: their discarded stones can form the base for my masterpiece.  This is the art of debate, and it is an art well worth learning.  Nor is it difficult to learn, for those with the patience to listen carefully and fully.  Anyone who wants to be an activist should first cultivate that skill: it is essential for many reasons but this is one of them.

But ultimately, the good progressive must remember that Sanders is being targeted by the Black Lives Matter activists because he is a progressive, and thus a sympathetic ear.  His audience is being targeted because it is also their audience.  They should remember this even when newspapers run headlines like "The Black Lives Matter Movement vs. Bernie Sanders" which attempts to discredit Sanders by portraying him as the enemy of the Black Lives Matter Movement.  This is because this movement, even though it is only a year old, has become a symbol for progressives, and a barometer by which they can measure their progressiveness.  Thus by saying that they are "against" Sanders the newspapers are attempting to discredit Sanders by suggesting that he will not uphold progressive ideals.

This is because, as many voters have realized, the primaries of today (especially in the Democratic party) are simply a circus act.  The party has already chosen Clinton.  And the party is in control of the papers, indirectly, but no less concretely.  For many of the people who are calling the shots in the party are the same people who own the newspapers,  who have surely informed their editors of the party's preferences.  The editor of course chooses the title for the article.  This is fine actually, assuming that there are equally well respected papers which are unaffiliated with the party: but there are not any more.  They have been forced out of business by those same Democratic shot-callers.  How? remember in the late 90s when everyone suddenly discovered the internet? well, remember how much those people, the Democratic shot-callers were pushing the use of this technology.  Why? because while the New York Times can continue printing even if it's subscriber base falls, the Berkshire Eagle cannot.  And no, for cases like this, iBerkshires does not fill the void because that isn't political.

But websites like Daily Kos are not considered official (and therefore reliable) sources: especially because "just anyone" (read: the proletariat) can write an article.  A socialist may consider this a plus, but it is decidedly not socially approved.  And thus when you tell someone that "oh I read on Kos the other day that..." they go, "yeah, well that's Kos, you can't believe everything you read there".  You might as well say you found it on Wikipedia, or Reddit.  But a newspaper is printed, and thus reliable (even when it contains obvious typos).  While this bias still exists in our culture, and it will for quite some time because there is simply no way to get rid of it quickly: this will continue to be a problem for progressive candidates.  But I know that this blog (unlike my own) gets a lot of readers and so I am entrusting you to spread the word across the internet.  Sanders is an ally of the Black Lives Matter Movement, and they could not ask for a better one: his record as mayor of Burlington and as a Senator leaves little doubt of that.

They push him hard, because he is their friend, not because they think he is the enemy.  He will speak of the issues when they become pertinent, and act on them as soon as he is elected: but at this moment he is walking on a knife edge over Niagara Falls if he falls right he dies and so too if he falls left.  Furthermore, the rightist nut-jobs blathering about the liberal media are not completely off the mark: there are in fact entrenched interests in our media which we must combat in order for the plain and simple truths to be heard, but this is hardly an impossible task indeed compared to the one that Bernie has shouldered it is easy.  And above all else all activists everywhere must remember that it is not when you speak, but what you say that will make the difference: so choose your words and your actions carefully, the future of this country is hanging in the balance.  Yes, we can take a whack at the overstuffed piñata that is Donald Trump (somebody, please, make a piñata shaped like him!) but we also know we cannot hit too hard.  Do not be the person who does.  Do not be that guy.
Solidarity,
Comrade Sophie

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Black Lives Matter- What Steps Can We Take?: Sunday's Anniversaries of Oppression

Every 28 hours, an African American is killed by police.

Sunday was worth marking for several reasons. For one, it made seventy years since a civilian population was last subjected to a nuclear attack- in 1945, some fifty thousand defenseless people were cruelly murdered in Nagasaki, and their deaths were weighing heavily on my mind.

For another, it was a year since the murder of Mike Brown and the emergence of the St. Louis resistance to police violence against People of Color.

As a white girl who has never braved the police even with the protections my identity affords me, guilt is obviously the first thing on my mind. I see an injustice- a massive pattern of injustices, and I've not risked anything trying to oppose it, even futilely. Maybe someday I'll be brave enough.

It's more productive to talk about those who are brave- the scores of comrades marching and sitting with Dr. Cornell West, after hearing his visionary speech Sunday night. He wove a masterful rendition of the need to address race and class oppression in the same movement, and it was amazing to hear him speak. The warmup speakers were great as well- focused a lot on whether or not the church could still be an ally of any progressive movement, particularly in bridging generation gaps within the Black community. I'm always troubled by overtures to ally with forces I regard as destructive, including Religion, but in this case I have to have a certain respect for the enemy of my enemy: the Black church wouldn't be the target of as much violence and repression as it is if it weren't something of a threat to parts of our racist system.

I went to the speech to listen and read- especially anything that might look like a legislative program that could be partially enacted at the state or local level. Most of us have heard a lot about two improvements- body camera surveillance of arrests and less weaponry for police departments which would certainly be an outstanding start towards ameliorating police violence against minority communities, but seem far short of the kind of comprehensive plan needed to begin checking centuries of racist practice and assumptions. The Ferguson PD, just to name one example, has returned to its old tricks of disproportionately targeting Black families with arbitrary fines and arrests, inflicting unemployment and violence on many. Body cameras won't fix all of that.

A pamphlet by a Civil Rights group called “Change is On Us” or “ONUS” - http://changeisonus.org/about/blog/ - was being distributed, with a 13 point program. Also, last Thursday, Bernie released his racial justice platform, and I wanted to plug both of these in some detail.

ONUS plan

#1-5- standardizes incident reporting across all American jurisdictions- every officer's reports will be in the same place which will also record patterns of which demographics the officer in question prefers to target, allowing instant transparency for every police officer in the country. This would document the patterns and make weeding out the most rotten apples a bit easier- we could see particular trouble spots and the most visible manifestations of the racist culture of policing.

#6- deputizes more attorneys, and gives them the power to initiate Civil Rights suits against law enforcement abuses.

#7- forever bars an officer fired for bias from working anywhere else in law enforcement, ending the revolving door we see in Balkanized municipalities like St. Louis where a high profile offender leaves his job and then gets another in a different municipality up the street.

#8- imposes burden to preserve life and prevent injury on arresting officers.

#9 gives the victim's family choice of investigators from a state-licensed team.

#10- empowers this investigator to present evidence directly to a grand jury- this bypasses the local County Prosecutors who are naturally close to the cops they're here asked to monitor or even prosecute.

#11- gives victims' families choice of prosecutor from a state-licensed list.

#12- provides for speedy removal of law enforcement agents deemed unfit.

#13- requires the Justice Department to create an office of Civilian Oversight and Accountability.

I must say I like the sound of it, and nearly all the proposals can be championed at the state or local level

Sanders' plan is significant as well- I love that from the getgo it starts on deescalation through community policing and demilitarization of police departments. The demilitarization can begin whenever the president wishes it, as he has generally has final discretionary authority over what weapons are sold out of the service. Community policing is a manyfold goal: draw officers from the community they will be policing and get them to maintain their involvement in the areas under their jurisdiction in gyms and community events and the like. Sanders also calls for a new federal standard in police training. His other plans include requiring public reporting of all police shootings and deaths in police custody, adjust training to incentivize non-lethal approaches, federal funding for body cameras, and pegging police department subsidies to reductions in disparities. Many of the positive steps here will require an act of Congress, but the Justice Department in particular has a great deal of regulatory authority at its disposal in these matters, and I trust Bernie to improve the situation with or without Congress.

What's also critical is the mass disenfranchisement of Voters of Color, and Sanders calls out the United States for allowing a patchwork system that often subjects African-Americans to 7 hour lines at polling stations in majority-minority communities, purges millions of voters from the rolls because of past or suspected felonies, universal voter registration and access to early voting.

Sanders' statement here really needs to be quoted in its entirety “If current trends continue, one in four black males born today can expect to spend time in prison during their lifetime. Blacks are imprisoned at six times the rate of whites and a report by the Department of Justice found that blacks were three times more likely to be searched during a traffic stop, compared to white motorists. African-Americans are twice as likely to be arrested and almost four times as likely to experience the use of force during encounters with the police. This is an unspeakable tragedy.

Addressing Legal Violence

  • We need to ban prisons for profit, which result in an over-incentive to arrest, jail and detain, in order to keep prison beds full.
  • We need to turn back from the failed “War on Drugs” and eliminate mandatory minimums which result in sentencing disparities between black and white people.
  • We need to invest in drug courts and medical and mental health interventions for people with substance abuse problems, so that they do not end up in prison, they end up in treatment.
  • We need to boost investments for programs that help people who have gone to jail rebuild their lives with education and job training.”

Sanders goes on to hit his stride in talking about the directly economic side of racism, and points out that his antipoverty platform is particularly relevant to the struggle for equal rights.



Addressing Economic Violence

  • We need to give our children, regardless of their race or their income, a fair shot at attending college. That’s why all public universities should be made tuition free.
  • We must invest $5.5 billion in a federally-funded youth employment program to employ young people of color who face disproportionately high unemployment rates.
  • Knowing that black women earn 64 cents on the dollar compared to white men, we must pass federal legislation to establish pay equity for women.
  • We must prevent employers from discriminating against applicants based on criminal history.
  • We need to ensure access to quality affordable childcare for working families. “
I don't usually quote so heavily, but I was inspired to do so by my favorite news source (AlJazeera America) actually denying that it exists, I thought some direct quotes would be important.



I really hope the Sanders campaign can be a useful vehicle for these proposals- unfortunately the debates for the Democratic nomination don't start until October, and with everyone from MSNBC to Markos Moulitsas to Nate Silver trying their hardest to destroy Bernie, we've got a lot of work to do between now and then. I promise to keep up a steady stream of Sanders coverage here-



But we should never lose sight of the people who are being killed every day or those who are sacrificing their freedom to protest the killings. All across my native south and in much of the rest of the country, Black and Brown lives are systematically devalued. The proposals I've reposted here are something of a starting point as far as specific strategies are concerned.



It's still a bleak reality, and one that I as a white person, don't have to live with every day. That alone should be frightening



Solidarität, Genossinnen und Genossen.

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Special Post: Purge of the Labour Party Underway

Just wanted to let you know that according to the BBC, the first 1,200 Corbyn supporters (out of a total electorate of about 250,000) have been purged from the party, with Acting leader Harman saying they will continue to weed out ballots marked for Corbyn after the votes are cast, and that other party brass say they may yet cancel the election if it looks like Corbyn can still win.

This is remarkably overt.

This didn't have to be about Jeremy Corbyn, but they made it so.  Now any outcome but Corbyn's selection will seemingly reveal the Labour Party to be a repressive tool of the elite, completing the desecration of the western world's most successful Socialist movement.  If Corbyn still wins, despite these purges...  I'll still have hope.

Friday, August 7, 2015

Special Post- Jeremy Corbyn: the British Bernie Sanders

Here's that extra post I promised you, Genossinnen und Genossen.

     One of the most continuous sources of good news over the last few weeks has been the Labour Leadership contest- the Labour Party (Great Britain) is currently conducting a campaign to determine who will lead the party during the next five years of opposition and effectively run for Prime Minister in 2020 (Or sooner if enough by-elections due to deaths or resignations cost the Tories their slim majority).  Socialist MP Jeremy Corbyn has rocketed to the top of the polls.

     To appreciate just how significant this is, we need a little history lesson.  After assuming majority status for the first time in 1945 under Clement Attlee, Labour carried out a remarkable program, assuming public ownership of many utilities, major transport companies, and all stages of health care, providing access to millions of people who had never been able to afford it before, while finally recognizing the long-fought for independence of many British colonies including India.  They followed this tour de force performance with a rather more tepid program in the 1960s, but still deserve credit for things like the abolition of executions and the legalization of homosexuality 35 years before the United States did.  The rise of Thatcher dealt a body blow to all that is good and nice- union rights, the NHS, welfare policy, the list goes on- and she kept Labour out of government for four terms.  In one way, she destroyed the Labour Party by convincing the British punditry that only conservative policies of war and austerity would ever be popular again, a delusion which Labour has only recently begun to question.  In another she certainly gave them a potent ally by waging a completely gratuitous economic war aimed at destroying key Scottish industries to please her banking masters, awakening a once-conservative region to the harsh realities of modern Capitalism, and Scotland has become the most progressive part of the UK in the intervening years.  But a further problem lay with the rest of Labour, which embarked on a continued path of invasion abroad, and privatization and regressive tax breaks at home under its "New Labour" ideology and Prime Minister Tony Blair.

     Labour ventured as far as an explicit focus on income inequality and a robust Climate Change policy in the last parliament under Ed Miliband, but proposed little in the way of substantial changes to make the economy fairer, and this leadership election looked to be a step back- with several centrist candidates backed by the establishment, and none of them holding Ed's redeeming feature of outstanding environmental responsibility.

     There was also Jeremy Corbyn.
                            File:Jeremy Corbyn.jpg
                                               image from wikimedia commons- thanks!

     Barely qualifying for the ballot, he is the MP for a London Borough called Islington North, has been in Parliament since 1983, and has been a consistent antiwar, socialist politician who has dared to vote against his party's own program of austerity more than five hundred times!  He's campaigning on a program of renationalizing Britain's transport system, rapprochement with Latin America, robust infrastructure spending, especially in the former industrial heartlands of the north, aggressive environmental regulation, the restoration of free university, abolition of Britain's nuclear arsenal, and a variety of other causes frequently regarded as hopelessly leftist by the Very Serious People and the Committee of Important Men with Huge Beards Who Decide Such Matters.

     But somehow, Jeremy Corbyn is winning, leading in Yougov polls- the most precise in Britain's last two major elections, and in a solid second in many others.  The betting markets have swung in his favor, and he has racked up more endorsements from local party chapters than any other candidate, and more from unions than for all the others put together.

     It turns out that not all Labour voters actually supported their party's abandonment of everything it once stood for.  Jeremy has been addressing overflow crowds, and has already inspired 20,000 young people to pay dues to join Labour for the first time- that may not sound like much but it represents a 10% increase in dues paying party membership and therefore leadership voters.  Hardly a day passes without a Tory cabinet (or New Labour Shadow Cabinet) member or major newspaper declaring that this is frightening and impossible; this grassroots movement of progressives and socialists has found a champion in Jeremy Corbyn, MP.


     Unfortunately, not all the right-wing hand wringing has been passive.  Acting Labour Party Leader Harriet Harman has directed all MPs and local organizations to submit lists of Corbyn supporters in order to expel them from the Labour Party and strip them of voting rights.  Loathsome as this is, it remains to be seen how effective this will be but it's a gross attack on democracy and could very well derail Corbyn's prodigious chances of victory.


     Even if the Blairites succeed, there is one hell of an upside:  Corbyn has offered a Textbook case for Bernie Sanders to imitate in the study of "Win or Lose, you run hard, become relevant, make them react to you".  Establishment candidate Andy Burnham has recently endorsed two key points of Corbyn's platform: free tuition and public ownership of the railways.  Corby has demonstrated that the actual Socialists in Labour require all the other factions piling on them at once to hold them back, and this presents a logical choice to the next Labour leader: Scotland, once home to a quarter of their seats, is a lost cause as long as they push for more Austerity policies, and now they have to contend with a seriously pissed off base in England too as long as they ignore Corbyn's ideas.

Because they're the ideas that made Britain great, and they're the ideas of the future.  They're the same ideas that we're fighting for in the Sanders campaign- we need to look everywhere for our comrades and spread the word about all of them.  We must build, and see ourselves building a truly global movement for Socialism.  There really isn't any alternative anymore.

So to Mr. Corbyn- we're all rooting for you here.  Any readers in the UK, please comment and let us know what we can do to help!


P.S.  I'm still very interested in comments, or even article submissions, from anybody!  Please send i anything you want to see here!

Edit- as of now, that's a 100% increase in dues paying supporters, 200% if the bulk of the active applications don't get purged.  The Labour Party has tripled its dues paying membership in five weeks thanks to Jeremy Corbyn.

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

To the Surprise of the National Review, Progressive Jewish Socialist is actually not a Nazi

     It is with great nausea that I write this at the request of my apparently more masochistic stepfather, but I promised to write on request...  It seems that bastion of responsible journalism, the National Review, through its editor Kevin Williamson, has issued an article.  After skillfully dismantling the legitimacy of everybody who supports Senator Sanders' campaign for the presidency (we young people are all victims of over-prolonged pubescent angst, and the older supporters are all intoxicated), after mercilessly sparing any of us the burden of attempting to oppose conservative talking points with our tiny, impaired brains which, as every conservative from Thomas Sowell to Antonin Scalia will attest, shouldn't even be allowed to vote, enlightens the world to the sad truth that all of us who are campaigning for environmental sustainability, an end to war, regulation of business, and the rights of labor, are actually Nazis, along with our candidate, Senator Bernie Sanders.

     Who knew?  By the way, I assume this means each of you reading us here is actually all Nazified and fascist as well.  (My endorsement of Bernie's campaign has been read more frequently than any other piece on this site -thank you, btw)

     My first reaction (well maybe not my first) to learning Williamson's Truth about myself and my beliefs was "Well, historically, being a Nazi in America has carried awesome perks.  Sweet- now I get mine!  Do I get a job at NASA like Wernher Von Braun?  Free oil from the Bush family, like every single goddamn fascist government in the 1930s?  The GOP nomination for governor of Louisiana like David Duke?  Major streets named after me in major cities like Charles Lindbergh?  There are serious perks to this, come on, cough them up, Herr Williamson!"

     Let's just leave my actual first reaction, as a German-American Queer Socialist Woman, to your imaginations.

     So, laborious and disgusting though the process will be, I suppose I'll go through the points Williamson offers as proof at this poor substitute for the Nuremberg trials.

     First- buying local is Nazi, and support for this movement makes Sanders a Nazi and a xenophobe.

     The only hint of truth I can concede this contains is that after experiencing the British blockade in World War 1, many German military theorists and Nazi warmongers did conclude that from a security standpoint it made sense to produce everything needed domestically (or in occupied territories at least) to reduce vulnerability to the Royal Navy. And thus the soft drink Fanta was created as a substitute for Coca Cola-enjoy your next orange soda, and that "Wanta Fanta, it is futile to resist" ad campaign with the dancing girls who could have been taken out of the Bund Deutsche Mädeln takes on a different meaning now, doesn't it?

     But seriously, Nazi economics were centered around increasing production of war materials at all costs, and exploiting the labor of the captive peoples they had enslaved.  The common progressive goal of supporting local manufacturers (and, full disclosure, I happily drive a secondhand Toyota which still gets 40mpg highway, reducing our oil imports if not auto imports) operates from a somewhat different standpoint:  Exploitation is wrong.  Business needs to exploit the cheapest inputs available to it to remain competitive, which means going abroad to use slave labor and driving down domestic wages, rather than paying a living wage anywhere.  A Socialist model in which we support fairer wages, closer to the selling price of the good or service provided by labor, is thus distinguished from both slave labor models in the view of everybody but Mr. Williamson.

     Williamson goes on to suggest that Sanders is tapping into Trump-style racism by pointing out that labor conditions are different and more objectionable in China than in Germany or the Scandinavian countries.  Specifically (aside from man in-the-street interviews with cherry-picked nativists), he points out that we have a large trade deficit with Sweden, and another with Germany, but Sanders isn't concerned about them.  This is a fundamental and deliberate misreading of our motivation:  German and Swedish Workers are generally better treated than their American counterparts, therefore the downward pressure on wages produced by the use of slave labor isn't an issue here!  Capitalism needs to develop new markets to keep business sucking more resources out of society than it produces- when your model of existence consists of expropriating value from those who create it, you need to expand or die- the fact that other countries have a strong manufacturing/export sector while still treating their workers with more mercy than we do shows the validity, not the folly, of Sanders' platform.

     One note about those interviews- one out of context quote from a self-described Sanders supporter suggests that we blame the lack of good social policy on the presence of minorities.  The old tired chestnut that progressivism can only succeed in homogeneous societies is trotted out as a philosophical absolute.  Anyone with a modicum of sociological/historical knowledge could however point out that any accidental truth in this prevalent maxim is due to the fact that scaremongering and the politics of division are easier in a racist society.  This has been happening in America for centuries, ever since the elites were terrified by the prospect of white laborers joining a major slave riot (which did happen at least once in the early 18th century, New York).  Since then, our culture has been consciously and unconsciously designed to produce an investment in white identity, solely based on the idea of alleged superiority over People of Color, to frustrate efforts at building solidarity.  The ruling classes do not necessarily have this option in a more homogeneous society, true.  That doesn't mean, oddly enough, that people like me support ethnic cleansing, it just means that we recognize the need to work towards addressing Racism just as seriously as addressing Capitalism itself.

     Ok, reading on, apparently addressing one's audience as "Brothers and Sisters" is wrong and close to saying "comrades".  I happen to address you all as "comrades", or, more frequently, as "Genossinnen und Genossen"- which means "Comrades", but that's beside the point!!!

      Let's see here, Williamson hates Brooklyn accents but doesn't suggest the Nazis had one.  So I suppose in his twisted worldview, that's an area where Bernie is worse than the Nazis?  (Though I admit I find the idea of Goebbels giving the Sportpalast/Totale Krieg speech in a Brooklyn accent to be absolutely bloody hilarious.

     Farther down, Williamson says that social policy requires consensus, and class consciousness precludes consensus.  Quite the opposite- our existing system fosters division and oppression for the benefit of a comparatively tiny elite- unless Williamson is saying that the influence of the oligarchs on our society is justified (and let's be honest, of course he is), he doesn't have much of a point here.  We do have consensus on many core issues- over 60% popular support for public infrastructure spending, socialized health insurance.  The American coalition for at least Social Democracy is strong, if only our election system and campaign finance laws would permit it to act.
 http://grahamkrueger.blogspot.com/2015/06/designing-perfect-election-system.html

     Later, Williamson mocks Bernie for pointing out the disparity between the few token billionaires interested in funding social justice measures and the billions spent to manipulate our every election cycle by the oil and finance industries.  Anyone with basic arithmetic skills can see that that is in fact a false equivalency, which Bernie is exposing.

     Ok, pointing out that the economy is rigged is somehow the same as claiming that it's the fault of the Jews?  Worth remembering that the Nazis made the contradictory claim that not only did the Jews supposedly control the Capitalist world, they also sought its destruction through equally illusory control of the Soviet Union, so logic isn't really part of the conservative playbook here.  There's really no relation between pointing out the existence of a capitalist class and its ability to dominate the rest of us, and bizarre and ugly claims that such an arrangement is somehow the scheme of a historically oppressed minority.

     There's a paragraph with extremely ambiguous syntax referring to the activities of Sanders' old partners in the Liberty Union Party, most of which happened when he was 7 years old.  Do I need to address this?  It's worth noting that Williamson's arguments are so ambiguous here that I can't tell whether he's accusing the 7 year old Sanders of supporting Henry Wallace or opposing him.

     Apparently, Williamson holds that anyone believing in a system of morality wants to abolish free speech.  Yes yes yes, exploitation and destruction are moral issues, that's the point of Socialism- we look at the world, see the forces of oppression and the forces of production, and know that of the two, only one can exist without the other.  That's a moral judgment all right.  I don't see anything from Bernie about limiting the people's free speech as a result of this knowledge.

     Williamson is terrified, admittedly, of our sinister agenda to return America to the dark days of pre-2010 where nobody had any freedom to express anything...  Wait, what?  Yes, he says that the First Amendment was only realized with the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions, allowing corporations to spend freely on political propaganda, and that therefore Bernie and I oppose freedom of speech.

    For someone so apparently concerned with economics, Williamson seems to have no idea of inflation.  Nominally Free Speech is worthless if it consists of little blogs like this one against billions of dollars of professional persuasion on behalf of the entrenched system.  Corporations are not people, they are one more tool for the owner class to control the rest of us, and there are better ways of ensuring free speech than letting corporations buy every source of information available to us and determine what we hear.

     He goes on to critique Sanders for always mentioning diverse causes in his standard stump speech, drawing the conclusion that this means Sanders supporters lack the attention span to remember all of his stances.  I would point out that any successful progressive movement is going to have to involve every oppressed group- we do not have the luxury of the Right; the ability to subordinate everyone to the singular narrative of an idealized view of the past: it is awareness of intersecting injuries that makes us Socialists, and which we must depend on to form ever more effective coalitions.  Furthermore, as long as he's still on this bloody "Sanders is a Nazi" argument that all the causes he mocks Sanders for enumerating (Women's Rights in the workplace and in our own bodies, solidarity against racially targeted policing, LGBT rights, and many more) were all vehemently and violently opposed by the Nazis.  (Women's role was to be confined to the Kitchen, Church, and Childrearing, tens of thousands of Gays were sent to the camps and the Berlin Gay Community, first of its kind
http://grahamkrueger.blogspot.com/2014/07/madchen-in-uniform-message-from-berlin.html ), was destroyed.  As for racial profiling in policing and mass incarceration, well, 12 million deaths, some 8 million of them for their ethnicity, does that sound familiar?

     Williamson quotes Hayek- strike three in my book, hell at this point it's strike 15 or so, and concedes in his penultimate paragraph that Bernie may not be a true Nazi but he is like Venezuelan Liberator Hugo Chavez and that's "bad enough".  I'll set aside (for the moment) his attack on comrade Chavez. In Williamson's worldview, voting against the Patriot Act every time it's been in Congress translates somehow to a view that the state should control everything.  There is no contradiction between an economically regulated and a civilly free society, and that is what Bernie is promising, and why I support him.

      Ok, that's the lot of it, I'm sickened which may mean Williamson won, I don't know.  But I'd like to think I've poked some more holes in his sludge-filled sieve of an argument, wasting my time and yours.  I hope I at least made it entertaining.


Commence your retching, then please donate what you can to Bernie.

https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/lets-go-bernie?refcode=homepage_main_nav

     If anything this shows us how far the Right will sink in their repeated attacks to stop any alternative to our current oligarchy from catching the public's imagination- they clumsily attempt to link Sanders with the most evil regime in history, one that would gladly have murdered him along with his family members for his ethnicity and politics.

Let's show them what we think of it.  Let us break them upon our resistance!

Genossin Elise