by W. T. Whitney Jr.

The online journal Cancer Epidemiology on March 4 reported that although breast cancer survival rates increased overall between 1990 and 2010, white women benefited far more than did black women. Over twenty years, survival rates for white women had improved 27 percent; those for black women, 13 percent. This study of data from 41 U.S. cities showed that disparities in rates of improved outcome worsened over time, moving from a 17 percent differential in 1990-1995, to a 30 percent discrepancy during the next five years, to a 35 percent difference, and during 2006-2010 to a 40 percent gap.

Cancer biologists know that black women are genetically susceptible to a particularly aggressive form of breast cancer. But results from New York, Minneapolis, Miami, Portland and Las Vegas give the lie to a genetic explanation for the discrepancy in death rates. Dr. Bijou Hunt, the study’s Chicago – based lead author, told Reuters that “If genetics were responsible . . . we would not have seen the rates go from being nearly equal in most places at the first time point to being so much worse for Black women than for White women at the last time point.” Dr. Otis Brawley, the American Cancer Society’s chief medical officer, agrees: “Black people in New York are not genetically different from black people in Chicago, but their outcomes are different.”

“Most of the disparities are actually due to access to care and access to quality care,” Brawley suggests. According to Hunt, “The advancements in screening tools and treatment which occurred in the 1990’s were largely available to white women, while black women, who were more likely to be uninsured, did not gain equal access to these life-saving technologies.”

Writing in the March 14 New York Times, Harold Freeman, former Harlem Hospital physician and past president of the American Cancer Society, reported that “in 1990, we pioneered the patient navigation program, which provided one-on-one support to patients with abnormal findings…. Applying the two interventions in Harlem — breast cancer screening and patient navigation — [we] raised the five-year breast cancer survival rate from 39 percent to 70 percent in 2000.”

For the present writer, who worked as a physician, this report is shocking, but does not surprise. On March 12, 2010 Amnesty International released a devastating document titled “Deadly Delivery, The Maternal Health Care Crisis in the USA.” Between 1987 and 2006, the report says, death rates for U.S. mothers during pregnancy and childbirth doubled, from 6.6 deaths per 100,000 births to 13.3 deaths. “African-American women are nearly four times more likely to die of pregnancy-related complications than white women.”

According to Amnesty International, “[W]omen face barriers to care, especially women of color, those living in poverty, Native American and immigrant women.” As of 2011, 48 other nations claimed maternal mortality rates more favorable than the United States.

It’s an old story: African American women are almost twice as likely to die from cervical cancer as white women. Black males are more than twice as likely to die of prostate cancer as white counterparts. In 2010, the infant death rate for black babies was 11.6 first-year deaths per 1000 births; the rate for white infants was 5.2.

Fractured U.S. health care tolerates discrimination. Recommendations for practitioners are in order. First, if and when practitioners find themselves shouldering increased responsibilities for the public’s health, they would do well to rely upon tried and true clinical methods, which will retain their usefulness. So, practitioners would continue to prioritize the discovery of causes of people’s illnesses in order to know what to do. They would leave no stone unturned in their search. And they would, as always, offer diagnoses and correct treatments to anyone appearing for help. Training, apprenticeship experience, and ongoing peer review undoubtedly will continue to reinforce such precepts.

In the situation presented here, practitioners would find investigation of cause to be no great chore. Demographic and epidemiological data have established the role of race discrimination. Recall of earlier instances of poor health outcomes from the same cause bolster the conclusion. The sticking point, however, is the matter of “anyone.” Comfortable in an artisanal mindset, many practitioners say, “I see patients one by one. That’s all I can do.”

Practitioners ought, therefore, to prepare themselves for extending notions of who they care for. They would think about people away from their hospital or on the other side of their office doors. To broaden their horizons, a push will be required beyond that provided by universalized access to insurance, providers, and facilities. Persisting problems include discriminatory attitudes of some physicians and low quality hospitals serving African Americans. Presumably societal consensus will grow as to meeting the needs of all. If so, an environment may materialize in which practitioners are encouraged to build new capacities, taking on roles, for example, of planning, advocacy, and collaboration,

They ought to know that this prescription is no wild dream. There is a basis in reality. In one way or another, all industrialized nations do offer universal health care – all of them, that is, except for the United States. International health investigator Vicente Navarro has documented how social democratic political parties and labor unions, working in tandem, fought for and achieved such health care systems.

U.S. circumstances are different: “[I]t is the weakness of the working class .., with the absence of a mass-based socialist party and with very low levels of unionization, together with the strength of the capitalist class … that explains the absence of a comprehensive universal health program in the United States.”

Struggle on a broad front for human decency and human rights would set a new stage allowing individual health care practitioners to respond to societal expectations. Class dynamics play a role. According to Navarro, we are to “help to strengthen the labor movement in the United States, and in doing so we should also capitalize on the diversity of the social movements, helping those movements to see the basic commonality of their struggles to unite rather than divide working people. This is, indeed, the best thing you can do to improve the health of our people.”

March 25, 2014

When Slave-Owners, Tied to a Globalized Economy, Turned to Empire

by W.T. WHITNEY, Jr. http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/25/slavery-cotton-and-imperialism/

“Cuba is already ours. I feel it in my finger’s ends.”

– James Buchanan, 1849

Historian Walter Johnson’s highly recommended book, “River of Dark Dreams,” centers on cotton production and slave ownership in the Mississippi River Valley prior to the U.S. Civil War. Planters, it seems, believed their fate was linked to imperatives imposed through an internationalized system of sales, manufacture, and re-supply. Johnson’s spirited, enthralling narrative casts slave ownership and cotton growing as precarious undertakings. Planters on the edge of disaster strategized and improvised in order to retain both land and slaves.

Their intransigence vis-à-vis northern compatriots derived, Johnson suggests, from immersion in a labyrinth-like alternative universe that set conditions for their economic survival. Planters were alienated enough from pretensions of their own government to seek deliverance through privatized military interventions in countries seen as hospitable to plantations and slavery.

Johnson focuses on actualities and people’s lives rather than on well-trodden slavery-era themes like abolitionism, or northern industrialization, or states rights . Social and economic history in his hands tells of ledger books; cotton “pickability;” slaves starving, stolen, rebelling, and running away; search dogs; slave babies dying, slave prices, soil fertility, droughts, sandbars, and Haiti. Steamboats feature prominently, along with their explosions, gamblers, races, high-pressure engines, and dining room etiquette. They were technological marvels of their era and absolutely crucial for marketing cotton,

During the period under study, Valley cotton production increased fortyfold, the slave population, 17 times. “The greatest economic boom in the history of the United States” was in progress. Cotton was “the largest single sector of the global economy.” Planters were part of “a network of material connections that stretched from Mississippi and Louisiana to Manhattan and Lowell to Manchester and Liverpool.” Indeed, the “rate of exploitation of slaves in a field in Mississippi … was keyed to the exchange in Liverpool (port of entry for 85 percent of U.S. planters’ cotton) and the labor of mill hands in Manchester.”

In New York southern cotton was re-sold, re-graded, and re-loaded onto other ships for the Atlantic crossing. That city consumed 40 percent of all income generated through cotton sales. Cotton made up two thirds of all U.S. exports. Yet only 10 percent of U.S. imports ended up in cotton-producing states. Southern manufacturers lacked essential equipment manufactured abroad. Cotton producers endured shortages of imported plantations supplies.

Johnson characterizes “the conceptual reach of the global economy in the first half of the nineteenth century” as “lashes into labor into bales into dollars into pounds sterling.” Cotton moved from plantations, to factors in New Orleans, to bankers and shippers in New York, to bankers, buyers, and manufacturers in England, all on a flood of promissory notes, loans, credit, and deductions.

Planters’ wealth took the form of slaves and land. Although land served as collateral for loans, “without slaves, land itself was worthless.” In effect, planters “buy Negroes to plant cotton and raise cotton to buy Negroes.” Facing hard times, slaveholders as a class could not simply transfer their investment from one form of capital to another… Their capital would not simply rust or lie fallow. It would starve. It would steal. It would revolt.”

Influential trade representatives and publicists determined upon a “spatial fix.” They envisioned the Mississippi River as conduit to southern venues favorable to cotton production and other investment possibilities. “In order to survive, slaveholders had to expand,” the author points out: “Proslavery globalism increasingly took the form of imperialist military action.”

“[F]or many in the Mississippi Valley … the most important issue in the early 1850s was Cuba.” Pursing annexation, former Spanish soldier Narciso López in 1851 invaded the island with troops drawn from “the margins of the cotton economy.” Slaveholders had donated supplies. The expedition failed, and López’ execution in Havana attracted 20,000 spectators. Former Mississippi governor and co-conspirator John Quitman raised 1000 men in 1855 for another invasion, which never materialized.

Johnson reviews the career also of slaveholder proxy William Walker whose small army in 1855 subdued Nicaraguan defenders and set him up as the country’s president. Mississippi Valley supporters provided supplies, arms, troops, and ample publicity.

Were slave-owners capitalist? Johnson rejects the notion of slavery as an “archaic” pre-capitalist mode of exploitation. He settles on “a materialist and historical analysis [that] begins from the premise that there was no nineteenth century capitalism without slavery.”

The author relies upon historical materialism, brain child of Karl Marx, as a social investigatory tool. Marx stipulated in his “German Ideology” that, “The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus the first fact to be established is the physical organization of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature… This conception of history … has not, like the idealistic view of history, in every period to look for a category, but remains constantly on the real ground of history; it does not explain practice from the idea but explains the formation of ideas from material practice.”

Explaining his own methodological approach, Johnson echoes Marx: History is often “approached through durable abstractions: ‘the master-slave relationship,’ ‘white supremacy,’ ‘resistance,’ ‘agency.’ [Yet] these categories have become unmoored from the historical experience they were intended to represent.” Moreover, terms like “agency” and “power” are “thick with the material givenness of a moment in time.” The story of the hybrid cotton strain “Petit Gulf” shows “that beneath the abstractions lies a history of bare-life processes and material exchanges so basic they have escaped the attention of countless historians of slavery.”

For the author, “The Cotton Kingdom was built out of sun, water, and soil; animal energy, human labor, and mother wit; grain, flesh, and cotton; pain hunger, and fatigue; blood, milk, semen, and shit.”

Johnson documents early stirrings of U.S. imperialism. The take among many leftists is that capitalism by its very nature entails recurring crises in accumulation. They assume too that for solutions capitalists look to overseas extension of their operations, even to war making. Thus slave owner longings for exploitative possibilities in the Caribbean and in Central America fueled military adventurism. “River of Dark Dreams” serves in this regard to have documented the beginnings of a U.S. turn toward a global fix for close-to-home economic incongruities.

Dmitry Puchkov delivers a hilarious and brilliant summary of the situation in the Ukraine. His analysis drips with sarcasm and is full of valuable insights. He speaks in Russian but you can turn on English (or German) subtitles by pressing the cc button on the bottom right hand side of the screen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfzMnP3ilcI

by James Thompson

There has been much discussion of the crisis in the Ukraine in the press across the world. The recent coup d’état in the Ukraine has been characterized by the U.S. Press in general and Secretary of State John Kerry in particular as being an orderly, democratic process being conducted by the “freedom loving” people of the Ukraine. Russia Today has played images of Kerry speaking alternated with videos of the destructive coup d’état in the Ukraine and which many people were hurt or killed and there was much destruction of property. These clips may be called Russian propaganda by the Western media, but they clearly illustrate and instruct us on the gross hypocrisy of US propaganda.

Stench of fascism detected in the US.

As it turns out, the mendacity of this outrageous propaganda is starting to stink. The stink we are all smelling is the stench of fascism.

The BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957  and other news sources http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37599.htm  have exposed the lies and prevarications of US government officials and their sordid support of the open fascists who now control the government of Ukraine. Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State, openly announced that the US has invested $5 billion to support the fascists. This is, of course, an outrageous expenditure of precious taxpayer money that is not in the interest of the working people of the United States of America.

What is Fascism?

Before this article goes any further, “fascism” should be clearly defined since it is often used and poorly understood. George Dimitrov in his book “Against Fascism and War” clearly defined fascism on page 2: “Fascism in power was correctly described by the 13th Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International as the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital.” He continues on page 7 “But whatever the masks that fascism adopts, whatever the forms in which it presents itself, whatever the ways by which it comes to power–
Fascism is a most ferocious attack by capital on the mass of the working people;
Fascism is unbridled chauvinism and predatory war;
Fascism is rabid reaction and counterrevolution;
Fascism is the most vicious enemy of the working class and of all working people.”

Dimitrov should know. He was a Bulgarian in Germany who was accused by the Nazis of firebombing the Reichstag. He defended himself in a Nazi trial and won.

What is the USA doing?

Supporting fascists is what the US government, the best cheerleaders for capitalism that money can buy, is doing. The US government has and is supporting, encouraging, defending and funding fascists in the Ukraine.

Marxists generally believe that fascism is a political tool of capitalism that is used during times of economic crises especially when there is a threat from the left. The world capitalist system has been in a state of acute crisis since 2008. The crisis has been extreme in the Ukraine and many have noted that the country is near economic collapse.

Ushering in and cavorting with the fascists is none other than Communist fighting Sen. John McCain. He has been photographed in meetings with the fascists, but even president Obama has met with the fascist leader of the Ukraine who is also the head of the Ukrainian Fatherland Party.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world is holding its nose in disgust.

What is the history of the US support of fascism?

Here is one article that details a list of 35 countries where the USA has supported fascists and other degenerates to further the interests of the wealthy, capitalist class: http://www.stopwar.org.uk/news/ukraine-is-latest-of-35-countries-where-the-united-states-has-supported-fascists-drug-lords-and-terrorists#.UyZOPRROVFI

How has NATO been involved in the spread of capitalism?

It must be remembered that NATO was founded in 1949 and its first Secretary-General, Lord Ismay, stated that the organization’s goal was “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” NATO’s foundation initiated a long series of imperialist wars during the Cold War and has continued since the end of the Soviet Union. NATO has intervened in Bosnia, Herzegovina and Kosovo from 1992 until 1999. Those interventions started as the Soviet Union ended and resulted in the destruction of the Yugoslavian socialist state which was a former ally of the USSR. NATO intervened in Afghanistan in 2001 and this still continues. This intervention which was preceded by the US support of the Mujahideen and Osama bin Laden who succeeded in bringing down the socialist government of Afghanistan, which was an ally of the USSR. NATO has been involved in the Iraq war and Iraq has been a traditional ally of Russia. NATO intervened in Libya and provoked a coup d’état against Moammar Gadhafi which ultimately resulted in his death. Gadhafi had supported socialism in Libya and revolutionary movements around the world. Libya was at one time an ally of the USSR.

Starting on March 12, 1999 membership in NATO has been granted to many former socialist countries, former allies of the Soviet Union and former republics of the Soviet Union to include the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania and Croatia.

What is the relationship of the Russian Federation with the Ukrainian crisis?

Lenin taught us that the definition of a revolution is the passing of state power from one class to another. The Russian counterrevolution of 1991 resulted in the passing of state power from the working class to the capitalist class. The current Russian government is clearly a capitalist controlled government. Before the coup d’état in the Ukraine, the democratically elected government headed by Victor Yanukovich was clearly a capitalist government. So, by this definition, the crisis in the Ukraine is not a revolution or counterrevolution. State power has remained in the hands of the capitalists. The fascists who head the current Ukrainian government are still cheerleaders for capitalism. They are merely the more extreme sectors of the population in the Ukraine and represent a tiny minority of the Ukrainian people. Apparently, they are espousing anti-Semitic, anti-communist and anti-Russian laws which would give members of certain groups a different set of rights from “real Ukrainians.” We all know that the German Nazis started this line of thinking and it ended in vicious wars of occupation and large segments of the German population being relegated to concentration camps and mass executions.

One can easily see that both the Russian capitalists and Russian working class in both Russia and the Ukraine have been backed into a corner of sorts by the Western capitalists. The Western capitalists are using their fascist puppets in the Ukraine to terrorize Russians.

It is important to consider the history of the relationship between Russia, the Ukraine and Germany. Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union on June 21, 1941. German soldiers first entered the Ukraine during the invasion. Ultimately, they were defeated by the Soviets and were driven back to Berlin in defeat. This happened after millions of people were slaughtered. The goal of the German invasion was to exterminate Communists and seize the natural resources of the USSR and the neighboring region.

It should be remembered that the Ukraine has for a long time been considered “the bread basket of Russia.” Russian oil and gas is piped through the Ukraine to the EU. It is easy to see the importance of close economic ties between Russia and the Ukraine for their respective peoples. It is also easy to see why Russians would be sensitive to the presence of Western fascists on their borders.

Just after World War II, in 1954, Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian and leader of the Soviet Union, gave the Crimea to Ukraine. It had formerly been part of Russia. Recent research has discovered that Khrushchev propagated much of the anti-Communist lies about the Soviet Union which have become standard propaganda for US capitalists.

Why fascists must be stopped.

The people of the world know the history of global destruction and ruin brought to their doorsteps by fascists in the past. We remember the hateful ideology which led to genocide. We are hearing the same ideology espoused again and it is being openly supported by the government leaders of the United States.

Prior to World War II, if the Western nations and the Soviet Union had joined together and quashed the fascists in Germany and Italy, the world would be much more advanced today. Instead of vast resources being spent and destroyed in a vicious war, resources could have been spent on science, technology, healthcare and education and the world would be in a far better place than it is today. Millions of lives could have been saved. Families would not have been torn apart. Vast numbers of people would not have been tortured. Perhaps two cities in Japan would not have been incinerated by atomic blasts and a city in Germany would not have been reduced to ashes by firebombing. Many cities in the Soviet Union would not have been held in siege for years.

This is why working people across the globe must unite and fight the fascists both at home and abroad. There can be no excuse for people of conscience to support the use of fascism to oppress working people. The destruction that fascism brings affects people of all races, classes, sexes, political persuasion, etc. The fascists in Germany had horribly destructive weapons to use against the people of the countries that they invaded. However, what they had were mere slingshots compared to the nuclear weapons that are available today. As one famous antiwar song from the 60s proclaimed as sung by Pete Seeger “we can all be cremated equally.”

PHill1917@comcast.net

– from Zoltan Zigedy is available at:
http://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/

To paraphrase de Maistre, every political party has the leadership it deserves. It is confidence in the wisdom of this maxim that keeps me from commenting extensively on the continuing effort to retreat from Marxism-Leninism on the part of Chairman Sam Webb and the rest of the Communist Party USA top leadership. As the membership continues to shrink– discounting internet “friends” and “likes”– one can only marvel at the dogged loyalty of most of the remaining membership, a loyalty perhaps leftover from times when the Party was under attack from all sides. But the Party is under attack from no one today, especially since the Party’s entire body of work coincides with working selflessly for Democratic Party election victories while slavishly following (off-electoral season) the leadership of the AFL-CIO.

Apparently changes are afoot in the CPUSA as it approaches its June National Convention. There will be leadership change. Unfortunately, it does not promise to be accompanied by a shift in ideological perspective. Nonetheless, some will entertain an unfounded “hope” in a new direction, a hope that will immobilize dissent.

There is also talk of dropping references to “Communism,” the final barrier, if the Webbites are to be believed, to the CPUSA becoming a party with mass support.

For an honest, critical discussion of the latest musings of Sam Webb, go here: http://houstoncommunistparty.com/the-poverty-of-ideology/

Apart from its continual decline, the CPUSA counts as a small voice, but an authoritative voice, to the US left on matters pertaining to the World Communist Movement. Recently, Sue Webb, who represented the CPUSA at the International meeting of Communist and Workers Parties held in Lisbon in November of last year, gave a report of that meeting, highlighting the CPUSA’s and other parties’ assessments and views on the current situation and the way forward.

Much of Sue Webb’s commentary is a thinly-veiled attack upon the Greek Communist Party (KKE) under the guise of supporting diversity and independence in the world movement. At the same time, she exploits differences between Parties to justify the CPUSA’s exodus from Marxism-Leninism. To read more, please go to: http://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/

by James Thompson

As the CPUSA proceeds towards its 30th annual convention in Chicago, a number of “preconvention discussion documents” are appearing on the CPUSA website. It certainly appears that the CPUSA fully intends to continue down its self-destructive, reactionary and bourgeois boot licking path. Sam Webb has posted an essay titled “Toward a Modern & Mature 21st Century Communist Party.” http://www.cpusa.org/convention-discussion-toward-a-modern-mature-21st-century-communist-party// Although an essay is generally thought to be the personal opinion of the individual writer, since it is written by the chairperson of the party, we can assume that this will be the roadmap for the immediate future of the CPUSA.

The essay is filled with contradictions which Webb himself identifies. It is almost as if someone has tried to write an ideological bombshell which will eventually implode based on its internal contradictions and inconsistencies.

Let us examine some of these contradictions and view them through Marxist-Leninist lens.

Marx and Engels on alliances with the petty-bourgeois

It would seem appropriate to start with a quote from Karl Marx and Frederick Engels “Address of the Central Authority to the League (March, 1850)” (MECW, IP, volume 10, page 280) since Webb characterizes the CPUSA as “Marxist.” Marx and Engels wrote “The relation of the revolutionary workers’ party to the petty bourgeois democrats is this: it marches together with them against the faction which it aims at overthrowing, it opposes them in everything by which they seek to consolidate their position in their own interests.” On page 283 they continue “In a word, from the first moment of victory, mistrust must be directed no longer against the defeated reactionary party, but against the workers’ previous allies, against the party that wishes to exploit the common victory for itself alone.” On page 284 they spell it out “Even where there is no prospect whatever of their being elected, the workers must put up their own candidates in order to preserve their independence, to count their forces and to lay before the public their revolutionary attitude and party standpoint. In this connection they must not allow themselves to be bribed by such arguments of the democrats as, for example, that by so doing they are splitting the democratic party and giving the reactionaries the possibility of victory. The ultimate purpose of all such phrases is to dupe the proletariat. The advance which the proletarian party is bound to make by such independent action is infinitely more important than the disadvantage that might be incurred by the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body. On page 287, Marx and Engels concluded “But they themselves must do the utmost for their final victory by making it clear to themselves what their class interests are, by taking up their position as an independent party as soon as possible and by not allowing themselves to be misled for a single moment by the hypocritical phrases of the democratic petty bourgeois into refraining from the independent organization of the party of the proletariat.”

Let’s see how Sam Webb’s proposals stack up against the words of Marx and Engels.

More “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” or “Back to the future”

Chairperson Webb wrote on the first page of his document “For the past 25 years, our strategic objective has been the building of a labor-led people’s coalition against Republican right wing domination of our nation’s political structures. Its aim isn’t to bring us to a gate on which is inscribed ‘Doorway to Socialism.'” He continues “But again, our current strategy-which envisions the broader movement in a tactical, but necessary alliance with the Democratic Party against right wing extremist candidates and initiatives-is only one stage in a longer-term process whose goal is to radically reconfigure class relations as well deepen and extend the democracy (probably understood as the right to a job, living wage, healthcare and housing, right to organize into unions, quality integrated education, reproductive rights, comprehensive immigration reform, affirmative action and an end to all forms of discrimination, green environmental policies, etc.). He follows the statements up with “While we favor a socialist solution, a far more likely political possibility in the near and medium term is a series of measures that radically roll back corporate power, privilege, and profits and overhaul the priorities of government, but still within the framework of capitalism.”

Instead of a modern Communist Manifesto which someone should be writing, the CPUSA chairperson has once again authored a paper which should be titled the Capitulation Manifesto or Class Collaboration Manifesto. He openly and unabashedly advocates an “alliance with the Democratic Party.” He would have us believe that such an alliance will lead to a reconfiguration of class relations and a deepening and extension of democracy. He also openly advocates for a continuation of capitalism. Lenin’s teachings, which he would like to drop, tell us that all reforms can be rolled back by the ruling class when it is politically expedient. This has certainly become clear in recent years.

Marxist Leninists view democracy as a form of the state. They view the state as the means by which one class, i.e. the ruling class, oppresses another class. In our current situation, this would translate to the capitalist class oppression of the working class. For a thorough discussion of Marxist-Leninist views of democracy, go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoQN4mKBJtc  . Webb obfuscates the meaning of democracy by defining it as a string of reforms as indicated above. He makes no mention of the fact that in this country we have bourgeois democracy, in other words democracy for the wealthy, by the wealthy and of the wealthy.

Since Webb advocates “an alliance with the Democratic Party,” we should examine this and understand it more clearly. Amazingly, Webb clarifies by stating “the top circles of the Democratic Party are anchored to the outlook, needs, and policies of major sections of the capitalist class, thereby making it an unreliable and inconsistent ally… My point is to underscore the importance of expanding the network of progressives and liberals at every level of government, and further building the independent parents and formations in and outside the Democratic Party-while at the same time, stressing the urgent (and hardly mundane) task of building a broad coalition against right-wing extremism, in which the President and the Democrats play a necessary role.

As for the formation of an independent People’s party at the national level, we should keep it in the conversation even if it isn’t yet on the horizon…”

Webb also says “Ours is a party that places a high priority on independent political action. Now I am not suggesting that we do an about-face with respect to the Democratic Party. At this stage of struggle that would be a stupid mistake-strategic and tactical. The Democratic Party is an essential player in any conceivably realistic strategy for defeating the Republican Party and right-wing extremism… Although the Democratic Party comprises diverse people and interests, it has a class gravity and anchorage about which we shouldn’t lose sight.

The main seats at its table are occupied by political players and powerbrokers who by disposition, loyalty and worldview are committed, and then, to creating favorable conditions for the accumulation of capital (profits) and for the smoothest reproduction of capitalism on a national and global level.

Neoliberalism, globalization, and financialization-all of which deepened inequality, severely aggravated economic instability and crisis, undid many of the reforms of the previous century, and disempowered people-are simply creatures of the Republican right.

Now, the election of Reagan and the ascendancy of the right did play a big role in the process, and the Republican right is a leading edge of the current ruling class offensive. But the Democrats were not bystanders either. While they resisted the more extreme measures of their right-wing counterparts, they also embraced some of the main assumptions and practices of neoliberalism, financialization, and globalization.

The Carter administration was the first out of the gate, but it was the Clinton administration and the Democratic Leadership Council that really greased the skids for the rise of finance and speculation, globalization, and the reduction of government’s responsibility to the people.

And even today, the president and his advisers and leading Democrats in the Senate and House are far from free of such thinking and practices.

And as for foreign-policy, the differences between the two parties are more tactical than strategic. While such differences can be of enormous consequences to the preservation of a peaceful world and thus shouldn’t be dismissed by progressive and left people and organizations, it is also a fact that both parties are committed to US global dominance and the growth of the national security state.”

Untangling the Webb

So, let’s see if we can untangle this Webb of ideas. He admits right away that the strategic objective of the CPUSA is not to seek Socialism at this stage in the struggle. He indicates that the strategic objective of the party is to combat the demons of the right wing. The fatal contradiction in this thinking becomes apparent when Webb himself asserts that right wing elements are very visible and influential within the Democratic Party. Although Webb’s obfuscation makes clarity a stranger to the party, it appears that he is telling us that in order to further the interests of the working class, we workers must ally with our class enemies. What would have been the outcome of World War II if Stalin had commanded members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to ally themselves with the fascist elements in the Soviet Union? What would have been the outcome of the struggle against the Vietnam War if the Communist Party leadership had advocated uncritical support and alliance with the imperialist administration of Lyndon Baines Johnson, who was a progressive Democrat, because he was a progressive Democrat? President Johnson helped move the civil rights struggle forward, but at the same time his policies resulted in the unnecessary deaths of many people of the working class in the United States and Vietnam.

Webb himself notes that there is little difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party in terms of foreign-policy.

This hypocrisy and contradictory thinking cannot in any sense be characterized as Marxist, Marxist-Leninist, communist, or socialist and it certainly does not promote the interests of the working class.

Webb has a history of surrender before the battle even starts. In an interview with Glenn Beck several years ago he announced that “socialism is off the table.” Even though a large percentage of the US population favor socialism over capitalism according to recent polls, Webb has not budged from this negativistic position. What would have been the outcome of the 1917 Russian Revolution if Lenin had said “socialism is off the table?”

Fighting the right wing is a necessary and ever present part of the struggle for socialism. The history of socialist countries instructs us that the struggle against the right wing continues after socialism has been achieved. Webb also states that the CPUSA places a priority on independent political action. One Democratic Party candidate for president asked the question some years ago “Where’s the beef?” We must apply this question to the CPUSA in the current situation. It would be one thing if the CPUSA was attempting to confront the right wing ideologically, politically, or any other way. However, rather than criticizing the right wing, Webb and other party writers concentrate on criticizing left thinkers such as Chris Hedges. Instead of mounting a program to train party cadre in political struggle, and running communist candidates for public office, members are told to merely “vote Democratic!” Their slogan appears to be “All power to the Democrats!”

Webb has mired the Communist Party in this idea of an unholy alliance with the Democrats and has repeatedly expelled party members who speak out against this twisted path. I should know since I was expelled for this reason in August, 2012 on the same day that I received a diagnosis of oral cancer. Commanding party members to support the Democrats is tantamount to the Pope telling Catholics to convert to Judaism. This is a slick way to destroy the identity and mission of an organization, i.e. simply ally the organization with an organization with which members do not identify. Once the self-destructive edict is issued, the next step is to excommunicate any member who refuses to follow the edict. This is the modus operandi of the CPUSA currently.

What would an alliance with the Democrats mean?

Realistically speaking, if an alliance could be forged with the Democrats, what would this mean? For example, a few years ago in Germany the leading Social Democratic Party was unable to form a majority coalition in the legislature. The Communist Party offered to join a coalition with the Social Democratic Party in order to achieve a majority coalition. The Social Democratic Party refused to form a coalition with the Communist Party even though this would have meant that they would have stayed in power. Such a coalition would have prevented Angela Merkel of the right wing Christian Democratic Union from taking power.

In the United States, such an alliance between the Communist Party and the Democratic Party might be characterized as an annoying tick attaching itself to a donkey. The donkey would be periodically irritated by the presence of the tick which would appropriately be attached to the donkey’s tail. The donkey would swish the tail in an effort to rid itself of the tick. Eventually, if the tick was irritating enough, the donkey might go to extraordinary lengths to get rid of the parasite.

If the CPUSA was able to form an alliance with the Democrats, it would be a parasitic relationship and it is clear that the CPUSA would be the parasite. It is clear that the Democratic Party does not need any more parasites. Indeed, it has plenty of leeches from the capitalists which weigh it down and make it difficult for it to operate effectively. If there was a recognizable and visible alliance between the Democratic Party and the Communist Party, this would become a very effective weapon that the neofascists could use against the Democratic Party. A party member once told me that the Communist Party “does not want to be the issue.” If the CPUSA formed an alliance with the Democrats, it is quite likely that the CPUSA would be the issue in the struggle against the ultra-right. This strategy is not only anti-Communist, and divorced from Marxism Leninism but it is also divorced from reality.

What do workers need?

Progressive workers in the United States need a Communist Party which serves them by acting as a guiding light in the struggle for workers to gain state power. Workers need a Communist Party which fearlessly and unflinchingly fights for the interests of working people. Workers need a Communist Party which critically analyzes its own work and the policies of Social Democrats as well as the right wing reactionaries. Indeed, as in the past, workers need a Communist Party which leads a movement to oppose the antiworker policies of whatever bourgeois political party is in power, Republican or Democrat. Certainly, the right wing, which is merely the guard dog for the ultra-wealthy class, is not shy about applying pressure for the interests of the wealthy. It would be beneficial if the Communist Party was not shy about applying pressure for the interests of the workers.

But here Webb departs from Marxism Leninism again. In his paper he admits that the CPUSA has jettisoned the idea of a vanguard party of the working class. In addition to disavowing the leading role of the party, he notes that “a few decades ago we scrapped the hammer and sickle, mothballed the red flag, and dropped phrases like ‘dictatorship of the proletariat.’ We worked hard to get rid of leftist jargon, and change the names of our collective bodies and leaders’ titles.” He goes on to state “In recent years, many party leaders, myself included, have dropped the term ‘Marxism Leninism’ and simply use ‘Marxism.'” There have been reports from around the country that Webb has strongly advocated at various meetings dropping the word “communist” from the CPUSA. Apparently, he has met with some resistance among party members who realize that if the current leadership sheds the skin of the party, there will be nothing left and nothing left to do but dissolve the party.

Rather than celebrate the glorious history of the party in leading the struggle for socialism and against fascism/nazism, Webb says “It is a party that utilizes slogans, symbols and terminology that resonate with a broad audience. And it should shed those that no longer fit today’s circumstances or are freighted with negative connotations, and not only because of the mass media, but also because of the practices of the communist movement in the last century.” Here he dismisses not only the achievements and contributions of various socialist states ruled by Communist parties such as the Soviet Union, Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos and many others, but also dismisses the achievements and contributions of communist parties in non-socialist countries such as the United States, Canada, Greece, Mexico, India, South Africa, Venezuela, Brazil, England, France and Germany and many others. If there ever was an anti-Communist statement, this would be it.

Summary

In summary, this preconvention discussion document which is the roadmap for the future of the party since it is written by the party’s highest leader is full of contradictions and self-destructive actions. It jettisons almost all of the central ideas of Marxism Leninism and damns the history of the party. It argues that workers should ally themselves with their class enemy in order to struggle against the class enemy. He promises “a pie-in-the-sky when you die” to party members as well as the working class if they subscribe to his prescription for disaster.

Instead of this idealistic claptrap, the working class has earned through struggle a party which will lead it and prepare it for its historic mission which is the winning of state power for working people. Workers need education and training in political struggle so that they can fight for their interests without being confused by anti-worker parasitic parties. Workers are becoming increasingly aware that their interests are not advanced by financial bailouts of multinational corporations, expanding wars which serve to protect and increase profits, rollbacks of the social network, interference in the affairs of sovereign nations, and an ever-increasing military industrial complex and national security state. Workers know which parties have implemented these policies and are growing increasingly hostile to those leaders responsible. An alliance with those leaders would be poison to any organization which claims to be a worker’s party.

Hopefully, the CPUSA will come to its senses and resist the contradictory and irrational proposed program at its upcoming convention. The future of this country and the world depends on the development of a realistic workers party program. Without socialism, the world will continue to see ever-increasing economic and social crises which will lead to catastrophe. The slogan of the CPUSA convention should be “Forward to a Socialist USA!”

PHill1917@comcast.net

By James Thompson

As we anxiously await our annual peptalk by the president which is usually referred to as the “State of the Union” speech, many commentators and pundits are already producing vast quantities of hot air in an effort to excite the audience. However, in spite of their best efforts, many in the audience are frantically searching for something interesting to watch and give them hope or at least entertain them on TV tonight.

Inequality is a problem

On January 25, 2014, our learned professor of economics, Paul Krugman, wrote a Keynesian analysis of our current economic situation “Obama should focus on rising inequality.” It is his peptalk in preparation for the supreme peptalk. He starts with a quote from Keynes from 1936:

“The outstanding faults of the economic society in which we live are its failure to provide for full employment and its arbitrary and inequitable distribution of wealth and incomes.”

Prof. Krugman instructs us that “If, as has been widely reported, Pres. Barack Obama devotes much of his state of the union address to inequality, everyone should be cheering him on.”

He predicts instead that the “usual suspects on the right will, as always when questions of income distribution comes up, shriek ‘Class warfare!'” He also predicts that more sober voices will argue that jobs should take center stage in the grand follies of the state of the union address.

Prof. Krugman goes on to argue that inequality “help set the stage for our economic crisis, and that the highly unequal distribution of income since the crisis has perpetuated the slump, especially by making it hard for families in debt to work their way out.” He notes that high unemployment has destroyed workers’ bargaining power and has become a source of rising inequality and stagnating incomes “even for those lucky enough to have jobs.”

Prof. Krugman fails to explain these and other mysteries to the huddled masses clutching their newspapers or iPads reading his often repeated lines. He fails to explain that high unemployment is detrimental to the condition of the working class for many reasons. When unemployment is high, this means that the working class has fewer jobs and that the distribution of these jobs will be uneven. As a result, workers have overall less purchasing power. When workers purchase fewer goods and services, many companies choose to downsize or close in order to preserve capital which results in more loss of jobs. There is a spiral effect to this economic cyclical activity which eventually leads to another crisis. The crisis comes about when the amount of goods available for purchase substantially exceeds the amount of goods purchased. Economic crises are crises of overproduction as clearly demonstrated by Karl Marx in his scientific study of capitalism “Capital.”

Why is there inequality?

Back to the issue of “inequality”, no one is posing the crucial question which should be President Obama’s major challenge tonight “Why is there inequality?”

Marx also proved in his work on capitalism that the aim of capitalists is to produce continuing increasing profits. Profits are based on the amount of wealth extracted by the capitalist from the wealth produced by the worker. In other words, when a worker works, he/she is paid a wage by the capitalist which is usually less than the wealth she/he produces. The capitalist steals the difference between the amount of wealth produced and the amount paid out in wages and this is the basis of profits. In order for profits to increase, wages must fall. This is the basis of the inequality between the capitalist and the worker.

In 1936, another economist not well known to people in the US wrote about another aspect of inequality under capitalism. On page 213 of his book “Political Economy,” A. Leontiev wrote in a section entitled “The law of uneven development under imperialism”:

“In the capitalist system individual enterprises, individual branches of industry and individual countries develop unevenly and spasmodically. It is evident that with the anarchy of production prevailing under capitalism and the frenzied struggle among the capitalists for profits, it cannot be otherwise.
This unevenness of development is manifested with particular acuteness in the epoch of imperialism, and becomes a decisive force, a decisive law.”

This uneven economic development also contributes to inequality.

Leontiev’s work is based on the work of Lenin, particularly “Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism.”

While Keynes identified inequality as a problem, Leontiev, Lenin and Marx understood the reason for it.

So, we can expect an upbeat view of inequality from the president. We will be likely to hear of economic reforms to address the problem which have been trotted out repeatedly over the history of capitalism. Anything threatening in the slightest way the position of the wealthy will be hysterically attacked by their right wing lapdogs. The left-wing lapdogs will defend the meaningless reforms tossed out by the president and will attempt to spin the reforms as a breakthrough. Even if the reforms were meaningful, it must be remembered that any reforms can and will be taken back by the ruling class when it is convenient for them.

However, such reforms are like spraying perfume on a pile of manure in an effort to make it smell better. The reality is that instead of improving the smell of the manure, it will actually make it smell worse. So it goes with most reforms with the exceptions of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as well as the Veterans Administration.

How can inequality be fixed?

What will fix the problem of inequality is another question for the president to answer tonight. One answer would be to throw out the pile of manure, i.e. capitalism itself. Unfortunately, there is a lot of manure to clean out and advancing the economic system towards socialism will take time. In the meantime, meaningful reforms could be proposed and fought for through the legislative process. Some examples of meaningful reforms might include: 1. Universal health care. This would be a true job creator and at the same time reduce corporate waste. It would be highly beneficial to workers and this has been recognized by many elements among organized labor which have endorsed it. 2. Legal services for all. If all people had equal access to quality legal representation, mass incarceration would be reduced. This would also be a job creator. 3. Free higher education for all. The exorbitant costs of higher education for students these days contributes to inequality. 4. Reduce the military budget by 75% and transfer the savings to programs that benefit people such as 1, 2, and 3 above. 5. Public funding for the arts, culture and sports should be dramatically increased. This would also be a job creator. 6. Inheritance should be made illegal except in the case of permanently disabled dependents. Estates of deceased persons should become the property of all the people. 7. Tax incomes above $500,000 a year at a 90% level. 8. Tax the profits of private corporations at a 75% level. Severely penalize any individual or corporation caught transferring funds overseas to avoid US taxes. 9. Severely penalize any individual or corporation caught moving industries overseas in order to chase low wages. 10. Fund meaningful unions and severely penalize any individual or corporation caught attempting to bust any union. 11. Enact and enforce the Employee Free Choice Act. 12. Enact and enforce legislation to criminalize and severely penalize discrimination in any form, e.g. racism, sexism, ageism, classism, etc. 13. Close all overseas military bases to include Guantánamo. 14. Raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour. 15. Long-term care for all. Provide quality assisted living and nursing home care to all people. 16. Comprehensive and equitable immigrants’ rights to include a quick, easily accessible application process for full citizenship. 17. Decriminalize petty drug use and provide comprehensive drug rehabilitation services for all.

These programs would help reduce the problem of inequality but until the manure is thrown out, inequality will continue to be a problem.

PHill1917@comcast.net