Another Joe Hill Dream by: slick riddles February 25, 2006 at 19:54:56 America
My first diaries at Dkos, during March of 2005 were a series in which I dreamed I had conversations with Joe Hill the famous labor martyr and songwriter. I had almost forgotten about them when just this week Joe popped into a dream of mine and reminded me why he is known as "the man who never died."
These diaries (as well as others) can be seen here at Slick's DKos Page. Come dream a little dream with me!

The scene is the Central Cafe, across the street from the Railroad station in downtown Gävle, Sweeden. Joe was born here and Slick visited in July 2001. It's also the home of Gevalia coffee, both Slick and Joe's favorite.
Slick Enters.
Slick: Hey Joe! Joe Hill is that you? Joe puts down his newpaper.
Joe: Hey Slick how ya doing?
Slick: Ahh pretty good. Where've you been? I ain't dreamed you in close to a year.
Joe: Well, I got tired of Daily Kos and then I got busy with, you know, "where working folks defend their rights it's there you'll find Joe Hill." That keeps a fella on his toes. But then a couple weeks ago I was checking the blogs and seen that you had done some pieces for MyLeftWing and had gotten front-paged. Congrats!
Slick: Thanks!
Joe: So I thought I would drop into a dream and see what's up. So, what's up?
Slick: Well, if you've been checking the blogs, you know. But I would characterize it as what to do about the Democratic Party, continue to support it, abandon it, use it as a strategic outpost, what? It's not at all clear and a lot of people get very emotional about it.
Joe: Sure they get emotional about it! The USA is in a pretty sorry state and people are discovering just how powerless they are to stop the slide. Now me, I was always a direct action guy. I didn't see how voting was going to emancipate the class. Even in towns where the Socialists were voted in, that just gave you socialist cops and socialist jails. And I was out of the picture by 1917 so I never had to make a decision on Bolshevism. I don't know what I would have done.
Slick: So supporting the Democrats was not an issue?
Joe: No, the Democrats were the enemy. Of course this was before the New Deal, the CIO and the Wagner Act all of which allowed the Democrats to act as "the friend of the working man." In fact, the CIO was like a fruition of the IWW's industrial union strategy. Although the IWW generally didn't care for signing contracts. But the Democratic Party under the "progressive" Wilson wasn't really worker friendly unless the workers were keeping their mouths shut, buying liberty bonds and cooperating with the draft.
Slick: Yeah I've been thinking lately that Wilson's administration is like Bush's in some ways. But what about that "friend of the workingman" stuff, that's not still operative is it?
Joe: Hell no! The New Deal has been gone since Carter's days. I think, ironically, Nixon was the last New Dealer. The economy wouldn't allow Carter to be a New Dealer if he had wanted to. And since then we've seen an anti-New Deal, with declining union memberships, rising poverty, growing inequality in wealth and incomes etc. Yet it remains true that the Democrats are marginally better than Republicans on issues that affect working people.
Slick: I think that's what gets a lot of people. They see a difference between Democrats and Republicans so they want to vote for the Democrats. But then the Democratic politicians feel they have to move to the right, to the center, in order to win elections. This may be true but it makes the lefty voter feel like a chump. For example, Sen. Clinton finds it necessary to co-sponsor an anti-flag-burning ammendment to the Constitution. This is obviously an example of pandering to the right. Now I've never burned a flag in my life and if they passed such an ammendment, and I had a need to burn a flag I'm sure I could get around it. But in some way it just bothers me, probably not enough to change my vote, but still.
Joe: Well, that's part of the whole problem with the game of electoral politics. This whole system is set up to pull things in the direction of conservatism and cut out alternatives to the way things are. The New Deal was an anamoly brought about by the Great Depression. It lasted for about 30 years but it is over now. I sometimes think the Democratic Party exists soley to tie left-wing types into the system. Can you imagine if the Dems disappeared? Lefties would get much more rebellious but the rightwingers would have no target for their rage.
Slick: Hmmm. What would happen? Ya see, I think it's a conundrum. Democrats marginally better but useless if they can't get elected. When they move right they seem more like Republicans ahhhh!
Joe: Yeah that's it. You can elect to sit out elections, you can put your energy into progressive candidates, or you can do what I gather you do, which is vote but not much else as far as electoral politics is concerned.
Slick: Well Joe, you aren't all that much help. But I've got to be doing more.
Joe: I'm no expert on electoral politics that's for sure. But people just have to decide how much and what they are willing to work for.But here have you ever read this. (Joe pulls out a card upon which is written:

Preamble To The IWW ConstitutionThe working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.
Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth.
We find that the centering of the management of industries into fewer and fewer hands makes the trade unions unable to cope with the ever growing power of the employing class. The trade unions foster a state of affairs which allows one set of workers to be pitted against another set of workers in the same industry, thereby helping defeat one another in wage wars. Moreover, the trade unions aid the employing class to mislead the workers into the belief that the working class have interests in common with their employers.
These conditions can be changed and the interest of the working class upheld only by an organization formed in such a way that all its members in any one industry, or in all industries if necessary, cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all.
Instead of the conservative motto, "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work," we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, "Abolition of the wage system."
It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for everyday struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old.
Slick: Hell, that's some pretty strong stuff.
Joe: Sure is. Hey speaking of strong stuff, you had enough coffee? Should we move on?
Slick: Well I feel like I'm about to wake up, so I'll see ya around Mr. Hill
Joe: Alright Mr. Riddles.

As American as Elvis by: slick riddles February 19, 2006 at 19:25:59 America
In my first diary here, I am not now, I discussed anti-communism. A large part of that ideology was to determine what persons activities and ideas were Un-American.
The second diary was about the limitations of the two-party system and in a way was also about what is American and what is not.
Tonight, I'd like to discuss part of my vision of what is American and I'll use the iconic figure of "The King" to help me discover my mother country. As they say "There's Good Rockin' Tonite."
I'll be straight with y'all. Part of what i'm doing with this diary is trying to get the title's simile to sprout legs and walk into the English language. Were Elvis to replace apple pie as the standard of Americaness, I believe that would be a good thing for the left side of the spectrum.
Besides, I can't remember the last time I had apple pie, but just last week Garrison Kiellor sang "Can't Help Falling in Love With You" on "the Prairie Home Companion." Not only is this an Elvis song, it is also Ms. Riddles and my wedding song. I'm always hearing Elvis, hardly ever eating apple pie.
It should be self-evident that Elvis is a symbol of America, but let's dig into it a bit. First thing is Elvis's southern background. The Tupelo, Mississippi birthplace and the rest of his life spent in Memphis establish Elvis as a son of the south. This is actually crucial to his Americaness. In fact the South as a whole has had an inordinate power to define American/Un-American.
This goes back to the Declaration (and before) when Jefferson wished to insert a paragraph blaming George III for slavery. Southern delegates forced any mention of slavery out of the document. Later with the Constitution, a similar situation prevailed. Southerners are able to define slavery as wholly American and constitutional.
This has gone on for centuries and still goes on today. As an example, Robert E. Lee, leads an insurrection against the US and yet is still highly regarded even in the North. While on the other hand John Brown who wanted to free the slaves 5 years before they were actually freed, is normally vilified as a zealot, an abolitionist, a madman. Who is more American?
So the fact of southerness is crucial to Elvis. Equally crucial is that he arrives simultaneosly with the Second Reconstruction. You all know the 2nd Reconstruction, that's the one that was necessary because white southerners had defined the first one as share-cropping, black codes, Ku Klux terror, lynching, Jim Crow and general white supremacy. Activist judges interpreted the 14th and 15th ammendments in a way that destroyed legislative intent. So a second Reconstruction was called for. This time scalawags and carpet-baggers would be known as commies, nigger-lovers and generally un-American.
The loss of New Orleans makes me think we need a 3rd Reconstruction or an ongoing reconstruction. But these days the white supremacists wear hoods made from the party of Lincoln. No matter, like John Malkovich in Places in the Heart we all know who they are don't we?
Southerness is crucial but if Elvis doesn't manage to transcend that he can't become a fully American Icon. This is something we all have to go through -- transcending localness to become Americans. And localness can be a place, a religious grouping, an ethnicity or something else. Elvis transcends his localness in two important ways. First by crossing a cultural color-line and then by becoming a Hollywood star.
The first of these is, I believe, the more important and does the most to make him a symbol of America as I understand it. Shortly before Elvis showed up at Sam Philips' Sun Studios in Memphis, Philips had said to an associate that if he could find a white man who sang like a Negroe he could make a fortune. Elvis apparently fit the bill. Philips needed Elvis because he couldn't market the Black artists he was recording to white audiences.
This ability that Elvis had to give a convincing (to whites) performance of Black cultural product put him in a long tradition that most Americans find embarassing but which nonetheless serves to define us.
As far back as the 1830s lower-class white men (mostly Irish at the time) began to stage minstrel shows that featured plantation songs and dancing and rascist comedy routines that played off stereotypes. Of course the performers all "blacked-up" for the performance. Critics evaluated these shows based on how closely they mimicked actual African-Americans. Minstrelsy becomes the most poular form of American entertainment. Later after the Civil War, when Black performers joined some of these shows they also had to black up so they would look like the white performers.
Minstrelsy is always in the background of American popular music and culture. The first talking movie The Jazz Singer featured Al Jolson in blackface. Watch the Blues Brothers the next time they are on TBS. Akroyd and Belushi know that blackface is totally off limits so thay make everything but their faces black. Shoes, socks, pants, jacket, tie, fedora and sunglasses. The Blues Brothers are classic color-line crossers.
Beyond minstrelsy, in the 20s,, 30s, 40s there is a long line of white jazz musicians who do what Elvis does. But Elvis is just in a right place at a right time to drastically change the ways Americans think about these things.
His first single featured "Blue Moon of Kentucky" by Bill Monroe and "That's All Right Mama" by Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup. Crudup was a black blues performer and Bill Monroe is of course, the "Father of Bluegrass Music" possibly the whitest music in America. This is emblematic of how Elvis's music went. His career opened up oppurtunities for many black artists like Little Richard. Rock n' Roll was bi-racial in its early days and Elvis helped to create that. At the end of his career he would perform "An American Trilogy" that brought together Dixie, the Battle Hymn of the Republic, and All My Trials, a spiritual. Makes me think he might have been conscious of his role.
Besides the white black thing there is also a way in which Elvis's career is classically American. It's a perfect Horatio Alger story including the luck of walking into Sun Studios. Rags to riches indeed! I've read somewhere that Elvis gained thirty pounds in the first year he was making money. He must have been hungry for years before that. In no time he is a wealthy recording star buying houses and Cadillacs. A movie career comes next and even though the movies are those stupid formulas he is a part of Hollywood -- tres Americain
There's the stint in the Army which somehow takes the rock n roll out of Elvis and then the long decline as a fat guy in a jumpsuit in Vegas. But even all this seems to bespeak his Americaness. In fact there's a parallel between Elvis's life and America. Both start off rebellious and energetic. In mid-career both are dealing with made-up happy stories and finally Vegas Elvis is a perfect symbol for an America that is bloated and thinks no one will notice if it wears a jumpsuit and hands out sweaty scarves.
As American as Elvis? I don't know.

Who You Calling a Democrat? February 13, 2006 at 08:43:22 America

This semester I'm teaching the 2nd half of the US history survey. We've already had a discussion about race in connection to Reconstruction and some discussion of class tied to late 19th century strikes and industrialization.
The other day a student said, "You're a Democrat" in response to something I'd said. My reply was no, I am not a Democrat I just vote for Democrats.
They didn't seem to think there is a difference. Is there?
Another student tried to pin me down by asking what Republicans I would vote for. At this point I figure I've got a "teachable moment." Maybe I can get them to see that there are politics outside of the two parties.
The fact is that I've only ever voted for a single Republican, a guy I knew personally who was running for Family Court judge. But when I first registered to vote in 1972 a gang of us did it at a friend's house and his father was a local Repub pol. So I registered as a Republican. At that time it made no difference.
I had become politically aware during the Vietnam War and had come to really despise LBJ and HHH. Their Cold-War liberalism was repugnant to me. My older brothers were in Chicago in '68 for the convention and that event soured me on the Democrats. Of course, Nixon was no better. I had in fact organized a walkout at my Catholic HS in 1970 over Cambodia and Kent State. So basically I saw both parties as part of the Establishment and not worth supporting.
Then in '72 the Democrats nominated McGovern. I watched the convention speeches, got the impression that this was a different party (different delegate selection) and was moved by McGovern's speech and his anti-war platform. I decided to volunteer for McG. and when I showed up they were ecstatic that I was a Republican because they needed repub signatures on thosands of voter registration forms. This was the only time I have ever actively worked on a campaign.
I was disappointed when McG lost but I didn't start to feel hosed until Nixon's administration started to unravel. Agnew went (yayyy!) Ford gets appointed. Finally Nixon resigns (triple yayyy!!), then Ford pardons Nixon. I got to tell you, I lost all faith in this government. I know the lesson of Watergate is supposed to be that the crooks get caught but it seemed to me as if the crooks got away with everything. I mean they broke into Democratic party HQ during a presidential election. To me it seemed like the system had NO integrity -- none.
In the wake of that I went back to the idea that both parties are part of the system or establishment. Nothing would change in the US by voting. I didn't see any significant difference between Ds and Rs.
So I didn't vote in 1976 or 1980. Carter got elected without my help and mostly because Republicans had been responsible for one of the worst scandals in US history. The Carter years weren't great ones and he was just too born-again for my taste. But I think mostly he was a victim of circumstance. Nobody in their right mind would pick those four years to be president. Lousy economy, gas lines, Iranian revolution, hostage crisis, no they weren't good years.
The hostage crisis killed Carter and gave life to the idea that Democrats suck at security. On the Republican side they got the Big Blowhard to run and like the trained actor that he was he sold an American dream to people like he used to sell 20-mule-team Borax. Reagan scared the shit out of me. He was like Goldwater with hair --yikes!! Also, I got sober and quit smokin' hooch in 1983 and as part of that process I attempted to reconnect with "normal" citizen life. I tried going back to church and I registered to vote once again.
So I was on board to vote for Fritz Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro as they got their asses kicked. And when Dukakis ran I also voted for him. I recently saw the video of him in the tank -- what the hell was he thinking? I don't know that I knew what these candidates platforms were, I just knew that they weren't Reagan and they weren't Bush Sr. They couldn't have possibly been worse than those guys could they?
By the time 1992 rolled around I was in graduate school and had little time to waste on politics. I did watch debates but mostly so I would get the jokes on SNL. I found Perot particularly entertaining. And was glad that Clinton, a Democrat, had been elected.
However, watching the attack on Clinton was horrible and I began to really despise all Republicans who I had merely been hating since 1968. I wasn't crazy about NAFTA or the welfare reforms but motherfuck those Republicans. I had a list of the Repub judiciary committee members and I was trying to put evil on them.
So I voted for Gore and saw that election stolen by the Supreme Court. And watched as Kerry was pummeled by lies and slanders.
By 2004, I had found my way to the blogs. I remember doing a search for left blogs and DKos came up. That was a whole other world for me. People for whom the Democratic party was a religion weren't on the same wavelength as me. But it was early over there and there were many voices and stances not all of them strictly Democratic. It's funny, my first diaries at DKos were dream conversations I had with Joe Hill the wobblie songwriter. This was a device to talk about working-class politics without getting attacked. From the very first I realized that I had to be careful about what I said over there.
Also from blogging I've come to realize that there are many, many Democrats with whom I have serious differences. On questions of war, flag burning amendments, taxing corporations and a host of others I am often aghast at the positions some people hold. Nowadays, when I check out DKos I rarely find really interesting diaries. It is mostly, it seems, a machine for electoral politics, which is fine. But I'm still not sure to what extent Democrats can change things. I'll go on voting for them, mostly because they aren't Republicans. But I don't really have a sense that I AM a democrat. I'm not anti-communist enough, I'm not convinced that there are "good" wars, I'm not very patriotic to tell the truth. I don't much like capitalism, although I don't have an alternative. I'm not a liberal, rather a lefty in an old-left-working-class kind of way. I don't like that Democrats voted against the filibuster and I hate that some of them voted for the bankruptcy bill.
No, I'm not a Democrat. I'm just forced to vote for them.

Waving a Red Flag March 08, 2006 at 08:29:36 America
Two days ago gottlieb posted a diary that twice referred to a red flag. Once to say that we were mezmerized by red carpets but couldn't see a red flag and then to say that America needed a big red flag that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Of course gottlieb is referring to one kind of red flag. The kind you see in the hands of a construction worker who is giving you that slow-down hand motion or the bandana tied to lumber sticking out of a truck. In other words, the warning flag. But there is another red flag and when I read the diary I thought "what if you waved that red flag? Would people respond?

Of course they would and it would be totally negative. Because they would associate it with big "C" communism and the capitalist revolutions in peasant countries that dominated the 20th century. Those'd be the red flags that were co-opted by one-party dictatorships and had various national symbols (hammers, sickles, stars) attached.
But the Red Flag I'm talking about is a simple field of red. I don't know its complete history but I know it is the worker's flag and as such has no connection to a particular nation. You can't get "patriotic" about it. The symbolism is pretty obvious -- it stands for the blood that is the same in all of us and is shed to benefit others mostly. It certainly predates the Bolshevik revolution and I believe it was being used before "The Communist Manifesto" (if I'm wrong I know someone will correct me).
I haven't seen it flying in a very long time. In the mid-70s I went to some Mayday celebrations at Union Square and there were lots of red flags and pretty good speeches if I remember. But since then not so much. I read last night that during WWI, 33 states had made it illegal to posess or display a red (or black--anarchist) flag!! What a powerful symbol! When the state has to ban a flag you know it's a dangerous thing.
I would be legal in those states because I don't own or display a red flag. I do however, own a couple of red bandanas, not the cowboy kind but a plain field of red. And come to think of it I've got some dowels and a staple gun downstairs, guess I could whip up a red flag if'n I needed one. But don't tell nobody, ok?
But why would I ever need one? Well here's my reasoning. We actually don't know that much about worker's revolutions in advanced capitalist nations. But we do know that such revolutions happen spontaeneously. The little groups that you see at demonstrations that get some people so upset will be totally sidelined in any real action. At some point the workers will get fed up with the way things are going and all hell will break loose and I'll need a red flag that day -- maybe two.
Because that is what the red flag stands for. The workers' movement. Not a higher minimum wage and better benefits but a system wherein we work to make life better for each other rather than to enrich some plutocrat. The red flag stands not for the piecemeal reform of capitalism but for getting rid of the whole schlamazel. We are told constantly that this is utopian but the red flag sez "look how far we've come" and "of course they would say it's utopian -- you're plotting to get rid of their priviliged positions."
To me, the Red Flag calls up a vision of a society where rich people are not able to hire other people and dictate to them what is going to be done. Where things are accomplished because they are the right things to do not because they will enrich somebody. Where levees are built where they are needed. And it reminds me of an important thing that Marx said to the effect that emancipation of the working class has to done by the working class itself.
So, would people respond to that Red Flag? I don't think the time is right but I do think that talk about class and capitalism and democracy -- real democracy, is called for.
A great Irish Socialist, James Connell, wrote a song about this Red Flag, Billy Bragg has recorded it with a much livlier arrangement.
The Red Flag LyricsThe workers' flag is deepest redIt shrouded oft our martyred deadAnd ere their limbs grew stiff and coldTheir hearts' blood dyed to every fold
Chorus:Then raise the scarlet standard highBeneath its folds we'll live and dieThough cowards flinch and traitors sneerWe'll keep the red flag flying here
It waved above our infant mightWhen all ahead seemed dark as nightIt witnessed many a deed and vowWe must not change its colour now
Chorus
It well recalls the triumphs pastIt gives the hope of peace at lastThe banner bright, the symbol plainOf human right and human gain
Chorus
It suits today the meek and baseWhose minds are fixed on pelf and placeTo cringe beneath the rich man's frownAnd haul that sacred emblem down
Chorus
With heads uncovered swear we allTo bare it onward till we fallCome dungeons dark or gallows grimThis song shall be our parting hymn
Chorus
Words: Jim Connell
In the end I'm not much of a flag person but a workers' flag does have some attraction to me. And maybe it is something of a warning flag as well. A warning to capitalists that people may not choose to live this way forever.