But mostly U.S.A. is the speech of the people.

But mostly U.S.A. is the speech of the people. by: slick riddles April 02, 2006 at 21:16:30 AmericaThese are the words at the end of a two-page prolouge to John Dos Passos' great trilogy U.S.A. I'm drawn to these words this evening because I've been reading through Maryscott's traitors diary and the rebuttals and the spin-offs on diaries here.
Let me say that John's not talking about the great orators here. Not the Lincolns, the Wm. Jennings Bryans, the Eugene Debs or the Martin Luther King Jrs. That ain't the speech of the people. And he's not talking about advertisers or PR speech or newscasters or spinmeisters or political consultants or any of that crowd. He's talking about the speech of the PEOPLE. That's what U.S.A. mostly is.
The speech that informs, entertains, warns, uplifts and inspires all of us all the time. It's speech that isn't afraid to call bullshit on a liar and at the same time will contribute to some outlandish tall-tale. Speech that jokes, speech that rants, speech that outrages when outrage is called for. Yes, yes the fucking speech of the people. It's goddamn music to my ears, and it's what I come to the blogs for.
But some of the blogs are no fucking good for that anymore. Not the speech of the people, they've become the speech of climbers on the rungs of power, calculated, focus-grouped, antisceptic, dried out ol' rhetoric that couldn't move a second hand around a clockface.
Then there's other blogs where you can find the most resonant speech of the people. Outraged, clear, funny, invigorating speech that rings like a motherfuckin' fire bell across these spaces. And if someone wants to call that no-account all-hat cowboy in the Whitehouse a traitor I'm with them on that. Because even if your definition of treason hasn't been met yet there's a doctrine of preemption, isn't there?
The speech of the people will not be contained. This is U.S.A. damnit! The first thing the first Congress did was pass an ammendment that said we could say whatever we needed to. U.S.A. is a lot of things (and you should read it if you haven't) but mostly it is the speech of the people

Freedom

Freedom by: slick riddles March 01, 2006 at 08:05:15 America
I missed "Racism Awareness Day" a couple of days ago, unless you count this earlier Elvis Diary But it got me thinking about race in America and now it's Ash Wednesday and Black History Month is over and I've got time so I'm putting together my late contribution.
Much of American life is still segregated. And since I'm a northern European mutt, I've lived most of my life among white people. But a lot of American life is also integrated so there have been points where I have escaped those boundaries.
Until I was twelve I didn't personally know a single black person. Then we moved to Flatbush and I joined the Flatbush Boys Club. The next two years I spent playing pool and dogeball and swimming with a diverse bunch of kids. I still remember walking down Flatbush Avenue one day and getting that "what's up nod" from a black kid named Johnson. This would have been 1966 and to me it was, not a big deal, but significant. I had begun to play folk songs on my brother's guitar and was beginning to uderstand what the civil rights struggle was all about.
In junior year of high school because of some scheduling thing I was in a different lunch period than the other juniors. The only kids I knew were the black and hispanic kids who were in the "B" band with me. So I sat with them. And by that time Black Power and the Panthers were in the news and I was attracted to that and these guys were very funny and it was "all good" as they say. Of course, they lived in different neighborhoods, so we didn't really socialize outside of school. After I left that school I lost contact with them all.
Later, in the mid-70s I was doing political work on a "Jobs for Youth" campaign and my roomates were a black guy and a Puerto Rican guy. This also was no big deal, yet significant. One more barrier broken down.
In July of 1978, I was hired at the Edison NJ Ford Plant and assigned to dept. F (F troop) on the chassis line. The plant drew workers from two sources south Jersey working class suburbs (and the pine barrens) and Newark and its suburbs. I have no idea how the workforce brokedown on racial lines but there were many African Americans as well as hispanics and recent European immigrants etc. Pretty much what you would expect to find 40 minutes away from NYC.
The first week they put me on an easy job screwing in shields over the headlights. This was just to get me used to working on a constantly moving assembly line, it wasn't going to stay that easy. One night they had me screwing this chrome trim around the wheel wells with self tapping screws. The next day I couldn't hardly move my arms.
The first payday they shorted me and I got into an argument with this stupid white foreman. It wasn't a big argument but he was wrong and I think it pissed him off. Shortly after that he assigned me to the dreaded tire job. I think he was hoping I'd quit.
We were building 1979 Pintos. The line was running at about 52 cars an hour. The company got 6 mandatory Saturdays per model year and 10-hour days whenever they needed them. I was on probation so I couldn't take any time off. The tire job, or the left side tire job which is what I did, required you to pull a tire from a chute, carry it to the car, load four lugs in this big ass gun suspended from a track, and bolt the tire on, then the same for the rear, and also put every other spare in the trunk. Nothin' to it right?
When they sent me to the job, there were two utility men doing it and they were falling behind. Apparently, not everybody could do this job and I'm certain Jim (the foreman) was hoping I wouldn't be able to do it. But the contract gave me 3 or 4 days to get it and at first I had a helper. So I got used to hanging the tires first while someone else did the bolting and then I'd handle the gun for a while and they hung the tires. But putting it all together seemed immpossible.
The right side tireman was a tall black guy with a moderate afro. He was nicknamed Supe and it was short for superstar and he was the center on the UAW locals basketball team. The whole time I was struggling to learn the job, I gradually became aware that Supe wasn't carrying any tires. He was bouncing them and then slapping them on to the wheels. He gained so much time with this technique that it hardly seemed he was working.
I don't recall exactly how this happened, I may have gone over to his side on a break and talked a little, but Supe decided I was alright for a white guy, and it would be in his interest to have me on the other side 58 hours a week. So what he would do is work up the line and then come over and show me how to bounce the tires. I'm pretty sure he even devoted some of his break time to the task of schooling me. It worked. As far as Supe knew I was the only white guy that ever learned to do the job his way. And doing it his way turned a horrible job into a position of power in the plant.
I worked that job from the summer of '78 to December of 1980, when I went days (big mistake). So I spent thousands of hours across the line from Supe and we talked about every fucking thing. We shared joints, he showed me how he could read a book a sentence or two at a time. So I read The Autobiography of Malcolm X and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. We gossiped, talked about our love lives, discussed cars, union politics, education. He had some Essex CC I had three semesters at Brooklyn College. In short we became really good friends. And because I was Supe's partner I had entre to a whole black social scene. Which was very valuable because the white social scene such as it was was either far gone hippies or redneck peckerwoods.
I quit Ford in the Spring of 1981. I shouldn't have gone to the day shift and Supe actually warned me about it but I wanted a life outside the plant and the nite shift wasn't going to do that. Anyway I began to lose contact with Supe when I went days and after I quit I totally lost him. But when I was reading the Rascism awareness diaries I thought of Supe because he represents a real breakthrough for me. And it's significant that it happened at work.
Freedom. Almost everything I know about this concept, what it means, how you win it, in what ways can it be resticted, how valuable it is, comes from the struggles of African American people. Those years working alongside Supe got me thinking about our freedom. There we were two free men who had arrived at this freedom by different paths. My Irish and German forbears had to somehow escape serfdom or English oppression to get themselves to America. His family was brought here to be enslaved, had ended up in North Carolina, emancipated by the Civil War and then around WWII moved to NJ to get away from segregation.
But how free were we. Bouncing tires made the job a little easier, but 10 hours a day, sometimes six days a week, that's a lot of work. And what were we doing? Building Pintos the crappiest car ever (remember exploding gas tanks?) We had a strong union so we could get away with a lot of little crap but like most jobs it was still a bit of a dictatorship. I didn't feel free. I felt as though I was chained to this giant machine and actually had daymares where the line was starting and I wasn't ready.
We all certainly enjoy a great deal of freedom but I think there are a few more steps to take. I think we should be free, as a people, to decide if we want 52 Pintos/hour, or 7 kinds of Pepsi Cola, or any of the other crap that gets created because someone can make a profit and has the capital to force some people to make that crap. Yeah that would be freedom -- democratic decisons instead of "whatever will make a buck"
"...and before I'd be a wage-slave, I'd be buried in my grave..."

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.

"I am not now, nor have I ever been..." by: Slick Riddles, February 10, 2006

These words are from loyalty oaths that were required of government employees in the late 40s and 50s. They are a potent symbol of anti-communism, a political ideology that allows ANY idea one doesn't like to be tarred as a subversive and un-American idea.
This ideology has crippled and continues to cripple political discourse in this country. It also marginalizes any left alternatives to the status quo. Both major parties engage in it, but it has generally benefited the Republicans.
A little background:
Although I have seen evidence of striking workers in the 1870s being denounced as "communists," the preferred bogeyman until 1917 was the bomb-throwing anarchist. Anybody who went on strike or advocated for the working class was likely to be denounced as an anarchist.
The IWW, founded in 1905 was under attack by 1912. Debs' Socialist Party was also under attack. But anti-communism proper doesn't arrive until 1917. Under Wilson's administration anti-communism is part of a series of repressive measures to quell dissent and working class activism. In 1918 11,500 people were arrested for criticizing the government or the war. Debs was jailed, the IWW as an organization was indicted, and everything German was repressed. There were also the famous Palmer Raids and the first "red scare."
Wilson also struck the first blow in the Cold War by intervening (he loved to intervene: Haiti, Mexico, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic) in the Soviet Civil War on the side of the counter-revolutionaries.
It is important to note the purpose of anti-communism at this early date. It it used to criminalize dissent and to destroy workers' organizations.
For most of the 20s the Communist Party US (founded in 1919)is underground and a decent economy gives the impression of quiescent workers. But with the arrival of the Depression in 1929, that changes rapidly.
The CPUSA begins to engage in activity on a number of fronts; organizing the unemployed, unevicting people, organizing black and white sharecroppers into unions, defending the Scottsboro boys. They are also opposing fascism in Europe as part of a united front strategy coming from Moscow.
This united front strategy called on Communists to unite with any democratic forces that were opposed to fascism. It was thus possible for reds to be allies of the New Deal and I suspect that many voted for and supported the Democrats.
That was until August of 1939 when Stalin, shutout by England and France, signed a non-agression pact with Hitler. The "line" changed a 180 degrees, many reds left the party and people observing this (many sympathizers)were astounded. Then when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in June, 1941 everything switched back. But this left the Communists in position to fully support WWII. Which they did by enlisting, selling war bonds, etc. Did some go into the State Department? I don't know but it would make sense. Some Communists had the language abilities, the penchant for politics and the analytical skills that would be needed.
Another area where Communists had a role to play was in helping to organize the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). The CIO was perhaps the most important feature of the New Deal and it wasn't even a government program. But in the Wagner Act the right to organize had been made explicit and legal. John L.Lewis,the head of the CIO, who had no use for Communism as an ideology, nevertheless didn't mind using young, dedicated, well-trained activists no matter what ideology was driving them.
This is the situation going into WWII. The CPUSA is practically mainstream and is hardly revolutionary. The US is allied with the Soviet Union and Stalin is portrayed as a kindly uncle in photo essays in Life magazine. Oh, and the Republicans have been out of power since 1932.
The post-war Cold War has many causes which I am not going into. But I do want to break down the international and the domestic implications of the Cold War. In foreign policy, the Cold War, with its "containment" policy, its germ theory of Communism, dominoes, Truman Doctines, etc. was merely a rationale for the US to dominate as much of the world as possible both militarily and economically. It also called forth the National Security State, an entire apparatus of secret government agenies, NSA, NSC, CIA. The Cold War also allowed continued, monumental spending on the military. You wouldn't want to slide back into the depression now would you?
Domestically, the anti-communism, connected to the Cold War tried to, and came close to suceeding, in making thought a crime. People lost their jobs in government, not because of anything they did but rather their political ideas. Hollywood blacklists, the same thing.Many of these people were not even communists but had "associated" with reds years ago. Witchhunt indeed. The purpose of this? To eradicate the left-wing in American politics.
One of the saddest aspects of this to me is the way Communists and former Communists were driven out of the unions they risked their lives to build. Drive out the Commies and who's left to run these workers' organizations? Organized crime figures and moderates who routinely get their asses kicked.
THe Republicans have used this anti-communism to the greatest effect although Democrats jump on the bandwagon more often than not. When China became communist,1949, the repubs had a campaign that asked "who lost China?" Implying that traitors in the government had helped Mao somehow.There were regular implications that Democrats were "soft on Communism." Sound familiar? This has driven a number of US presidents to get involved in wars.
The whole McCarthy period was aimed at removing any left thinkers from government but also at "subversives" wherever they were. Your kids' teacher, the young Priest at the parish, your neighbor. This worked for most of the 50s and people just thought about TV dinners or whatever (rock n' roll was clearly subversive).
When the 60s with the civil rights movement and opposition to the war arrived they indicated that anti-communism doesn't always work. But all through the 60s there were attempts to stifle dissent by talking anti-communism. MLK was called a communist, Mark Rudd, Huey Newton, and Abbie Hoffman were called communists. I was called a communist.
When the Democrats nominated McGovern, somebody probably called them communists. Now what do you do if you're a politician and you are accused of being a commie or "soft on communism?" You can deny it, you can laugh at it, or you can try and show how anti-communist you are by moving to the right. I think the last is how most pols go.
I could bring this up to date and show how anti-communism is now anti-Islamo-fascism but I trust you all get the point. Which is, the reason the left (however you define it) is so weak in this country is because whenever you raise an idea that is outside the staus quo to the left there is an entire arsenal of anti-communism aimed at you. And large parts of the population have been programmed to respond negatively to that charge. I was told recently by someone that we (Americans) don't use the term working class because it is a communist term. And this poor guy is working at a Taco Bell!!
As I wrote in a comment recently the result of this anti-communism is that all sorts of ideas that are not communist can't get a hearing. Minimum wages, strong unions, healthcare, secular education, taxing corporations or just a graduated income tax and many others. They are all seen by some as subversive and "other."
I don't know what the solution is but I was led to write this because anti-communism was a part of the John Gibson flap. Ms. O'Connor used the word socialist and some folks just flipped out

DIctatorship of the Bourgeoisie

How about we talk about dictatorship as a way of approaching democracy? Because it's a given that democracy doesn't exist apart from its class content.But it's not proletarian dictatorship that interests me it is bourgeois dictatorship.
Now I think it's agreed that the capitalists can exercise dictatorship through a variety of forms; parliamentary democracy, constitutional monarchy, democratic republic, clerical facist, military junta, one-party "workers'" state, etc. How is it that the bourgeoisie can do this? Why is it that it doesn't seem to matter what the political form is. The capitalists can always exercise dictatorship.The solution is that politics is only one leg of the bourgeoisie's dictatorship.
Their real dictatorship, their real source of power and control in society comes from the system of wage slavery. As owners of the means of production they are in a position to purchase labor-power and then exercise dictatorship over this labor-power. This is a dictatorship that existed before the capitalists even thought about political power, and it will exist after they loose their political power.Workers know this. I don't care what illusions they might have about the "democratic process" or reformism or any thing else they know that at work the boss is the boss. For those hours (like all their life) they are under a dictatorship--no bill of rights no declaration of independence. This is one reason unions are so important, they attenuate this dictatorship somewhat but workers know that a union job is just a softer dictatorship.
It's at work under a system of wage slavery that the working class can really see its enemy. Get to work! Here wear this! Do that! No do it this way! It really is a system of slavery, you are a slave at work. The capitalists also know this. That's why after WWII they were willing to try and buy off the unions so they could retain this dictatorship. The social relationship of wage labor is fundamental to the rule of the bourgeoisie.
The petty bourgeoisie on the other hand doesn't get this. They see the worker as just someone who didn't go to college or whatever and doesn't have the skills for a "better profession." So when they see a worker who is not interested in calls for revolution or whatever he or she becomes "conservative" or "bourgeoisieified." They don't realize they are looking at someone whose survival depends on adopting a certain attitude towards life -- a wage slave's attitude Cuidado Hombre! Play it close to the vest!
The point to all this is that overthrowing the political power of the bourgeoisie is only part of the battle and not the most important part. In fact, the main reason to overthrow the capitalist class politically is so the system of wage slavery can be done away with. As long as THAT dictatorship exists, as long as one class is the bosses and the other is the bossed the bosses will think and act like bosses and the wage slaves will have that attitude.Some of the difference between anarchists and communists comes down to how and when to deal with the legs of Capitalist dictatorship not whether to deal with them.

"Bourgeoisified" Workers "Enlightened" Petite-Bourgeois

I've been reading the Draft Programme of the Revolutionary Communist Party (USA) and I've come across some very intriguing comments about class structure. They all come from The United Front Under the Leadership of the Proletariat parts 1 and 2 in Part 2 of the Draft Programme. I believe that, taken together, these comments reveal what the class stand of the RCP is.

The first comment in Part 1 comes from the section on International Factors. Discussing how international factors will affect the United Front the Programme says the international situation will affect "the concrete policies that a sucessful revolution might have to adopt, including concessions it (the revolution?) might have to make to better-off strata in order to maintain their support." It's not clear from the context which class these better-off strata come from but it just seems like a bad policy. Especially coming from Maoists who claim to be hyper aware of the possibility of capitalist restoration. Isn't this going from a system where the rich get richer to one where the better-off at least maintain their better offness? It's crazy, it basically says to the petite-bourgeoisie "You can get concessions by threatening to withdraw your support."

This is not the heart of the matter though. In Part 2 the RCP goes deeper in depth on which classes they see backing their revolution. Page one discusses the middle class standard of living being connected to the position of the US in the world economy and then adds "[b]etter-off sections of workers receive benefits too." The implication of course is that better-off workers are benefitting from the position of the US in the world economy. Well everybody in the United States benefits from that position - some more than others of course. But what this comment serves to do is to begin to portray the "better-off" workers as allies of imperialism not as members of the working class who can be won to revolution.

I can already hear the cries of "proof-texting" but that is not what I'm doing. I read several sections of the Draft Programme and these parts cried out to be dealt with. On page 7 there is a discussion of strengths and weaknesses in the proletariat. The strengths are such things as; working in socialized conditions, the rebeliousness of proletarians who are "locked out" of the labor force, the understanding of some immigrants of US imperialism. The first example of a weakness that the vanguard will have to deal with is "the condition of more regular employment can also have some conservatizing influences on workers (fear of losing the job, etc.)" The other weakness is that those locked out may take up semi-criminal activities. Are these people kidding or what? Their stand is that regular employment is a weakness because some conservative influences may develop. Have any of them ever worked at one of these jobs? Have any of them dragged their asses thru the streets looking for work. These jobs with regular employment are what the working class calls "real jobs" you get a job like this and you don't have to (maybe) worry about finding a second one. In addition, regular employment often leads a worker away from conservative thinking. In my limited experience the most class conscious proletarians were in exactly these more secure jobs.


On page 8 under the heading "Three Major Sections" there is this:

"The upper sections of workers are tossed a share of the spoils of international plunder to corrupt them into defenders of the system. But only a relatively small number are permanently corrupted, while a much larger number experience only a temporary benefit at most."

Now I know this is a classic statement of Leninist theory (and I actually enjoy the "pirateness" of it - you know a capitalist ship filled with plunder pulls up to the factory gates and "tosses off" the spoils) but I just don't think it works this way. Workers in certain industries can be paid more because they are more productive due to the amounts of capital invested. And even so capitalists don't give up that extra ( they certainly don't toss it) it has to be won by the workers and their unions. And what is all this about corruption? Sounds more than a little Calvinist to me. Preterite Proles?


Here is the paragraph (pg 9) that pushed me to write this post:

"Another section of the proletariat consists of relatively priviliged 'bourgeoisified' workers. These workers are concentrated in large-scale industries -- like auto and steel, heavy machinery, utilities, the postal service -- and particularly where there have been strong unions " [emphasis added]

The Programme goes on to give a short history of this section of the proletariat that manages to leave out the mass upheaval of the 30s that built those strong unions and in which Communists were very active. This also gives "the dominant position of the U.S. in the world" as the main cause of the better conditions for these workers. To tell you the truth I have no idea what is meant by bourgeoisification. I think I'll ask my Letter Carrier tomorrow when it's about 96 degrees out. Or I could ask a utility guy when he's way up that pole praying he doesn't drop his tool. Oh I know I'll ask an auto worker at the end of a compulsory 58-hr. week of 52 or 60 or 80 cars/hr. "Ms. can you explain bourgeoisification to me?" Does it mean that these workers own some part of the means of production? I'll grant you that they are in possession of them most days but "ownership"? No, they dress, work talk and live like workers. the RCP seems to think that better than average pay and benefits somehow turns one bourgeois.



Finally, after almost writing off a significant section of the proletariat for being conservative, corrupted by imperialist booty and bourgeoisified there is this about the group that one has to see as the RCP's main base:


" At the same time, there is the large number of 'enlightened petty(sic) bourgeoisie' who historically have played important roles in radical and revolutionary upsurges, speaking out or acting against the savage injustices and inequalities and crimes of U. S. Imperialism."


So I see, the working class is just a bunch of parasites living off of imperialism but the enlightened petite bourgeois are the real radicals and revolutionaries. Well they may be radical and they may be revolutionary but it has nothing to do with communism. Enlightenment itself comes from the struggle of the Capitalists to establish their rule. We are way past that now are we not? If you say your aim is communism then you have to base yourself in the proletariat and you have to practice some kind of mass line. It seems to me judging from the way they talk about different classes and sections of classes that the RCP might very well be a revolutionary party but that they really should remove the communist from their name.