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.”

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

On January 9, 2014 the bourgeois liberal Princeton faculty economist Paul Krugman, who completed the best US education money can buy at MIT and Yale, wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times entitled “The War over Poverty.” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/opinion/krugman-the-war-over-poverty.html?_r=0out  In the piece, Prof. Krugman discusses the fallacious received view in this country and throughout the other capitalist controlled countries that the plight of the poor is due to some vague fault of the poor. Admirably, Prof. Krugman argues against this insane attempt to blame the poor.

He goes on to argue that low income people in the US “are much healthier and better nourished than they were in the 1960s” and ties this to the success of anti-poverty programs initiated 50 years ago. He concludes “the problem of poverty has become part of the broader problem of rising income inequality, of an economy in which all the fruits of growth seem to go to a small elite, leaving everyone else behind.”

The article elucidates the differences between liberals and conservatives on the issue of poverty. He characterizes conservatives as “callous and mean-spirited.” He sums up the conservative position as “government is always the problem, never the solution; they treat every beneficiary of a safety net program as if he or she were ‘a Cadillac driving welfare queen.’ And why not? After all, for decades their position was a political winner, because middle-class Americans saw ‘welfare’ is something that Those People got but they didn’t.”

He characterizes the liberals’ position as “Meanwhile, progressives are on offense. They have decided that inequality is a winning political issue. They see war-on-poverty programs like food stamps, Medicaid, and the earned income tax credit as success stories, initiatives that have helped Americans in need-and should be expanded. And if these programs enroll a growing number of Americans, rather than being narrowly targeted on the poor, so what?”

He draws the conclusion “So guess what: On its 50th birthday, the war on poverty no longer looks like a failure. It looks, instead, like a template for a rising, increasingly confident progressive movement.”

Although some of Prof. Krugman’s arguments are not completely without merit, he still remains a well-paid cheerleader for bourgeois liberal “safety net” programs. We must concede that such programs as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid have benefited a great number of people across all economic classes. Even people among the wealthiest classes have benefited from “safety net” programs because they shamelessly shuffle their poorer loved ones off to these programs so they don’t have to pay for their subsistence. The same people hypocritically argue that “safety net” programs should be eliminated. Some doctors even argue that Medicaid and/or Medicare should be eliminated while they bill their patients’ Medicaid and/or Medicare.

What Prof. Krugman and his bourgeois liberal readers fail to recognize is that the US government functions to protect the interests of the capitalists with little or no regard to the interests of the people of this country. He makes a swift tangential reference to the “class war” but fails to recognize that the class war is raging in this country. Even Warren Buffett has warned us that the capitalists are winning the class war with little opposition from the people.

He also fails to recognize that interest among the people in alternative socioeconomic systems such as socialism or communism has grown remarkably recently. Since he does not recognize this reality, he cannot make the connection that income inequality leads to such tendencies.

Although the struggle between liberals and conservatives is real, Prof. Krugman does not seem to recognize that as long as the US government functions to protect the interests of the wealthy, reforms such as the “safety net” programs mentioned above will be under constant attack. And they can be eliminated by the government at any time if it is deemed to be in the interest of the capitalists.

Prof. Krugman also fails to recognize and factor in the fact that the most important interest of the capitalists is to constantly expand profits. Prof. Krugman has also failed to recognize that the necessity for capitalists to constantly expand their profits has led to an era of unending imperialist wars of occupation across the globe. Prof. Krugman fails to recognize that these wars have been conducted for the benefit of the capitalists so that they can continue to expand their profits. He also fails to recognize that the taxpayers have spent far more of their hard-earned money on the wars than the capitalists have made in expanded profits. It should be noted that throughout history capitalist governments have repeatedly spent taxpayer money to protect capitalist profits overseas and the money they spend to protect the profits exceeds the profits themselves.

In short, the Bush and Obama administrations have spent an extraordinary amount of money on killing working people in foreign countries to protect the profits of the capitalists in those countries. Unfortunately, the working man in the US foots the bill. It should be noted that the money expended is nothing compared to the loss of human life as well as permanent physical and mental injuries among the combatants and people in the foreign countries where the imperialist wars are conducted. Of course, the surviving, injured combatants return to the US and their working families must care for them using the pathetic “safety net” programs available. Prof. Krugman fails to note this point as well.

So, a combination of multiple imperialist wars being fought for the benefit of the wealthy at the expense of the poor working people as well as the wholesale exportation of jobs and industry to foreign countries in pursuit of the lowest wages possible have resulted in sustained high unemployment in the US. Meanwhile, the stock market rises and profits continue to expand because capitalists benefit when wages fall. However, there is an end to this process and it is called a crisis of overproduction commonly referred to as an economic depression.

What Prof. Krugman and other bourgeois liberal pundits fail to discuss is that the responsibility for the downward spiral of the economy rests with the capitalist system itself. As long as the system functions to benefit the capitalists, working people will continue to suffer and their suffering will expand proportionally with the expansion of profits.

Another thing that conservatives and liberals are oblivious to is that “safety net” programs tend to perpetuate inequalities between rich and poor. “Safety net” programs are carefully designed to provide a subsistence level for certain segments of the population such as elderly, disabled and to a lesser extent, unemployed pregnant mothers. They allow certain impoverished individuals to survive and such programs are funded by extracting a minimum amount of money from the public wealth created by working people. This enables the wealthy to continue extracting a maximum amount from the public wealth created by working people. In other words, if the public wealth was conceptualized as a pie, “safety net” programs would be a mere sliver. On the other hand, the piece of the pie reserved for the wealthy would be gigantic. The “safety net” programs also serve to reduce the general misery of the public just enough to prevent them from engaging in revolutionary activities. The capitalists must walk a fine line to provide just enough misery relief to prevent revolution and at the same time must limit the misery relief in order to expand their profits. This serves as the basis for the struggle between liberals and conservatives.

Herein lies the difference between bourgeois liberals and Marxist-Leninists. Social democratic bourgeois liberals fight for reforms that they justify on the basis of charity and maintain it is the right thing to do. They characterize their detractors as “callous and mean-spirited.” Marxist-Leninists agree that reforms that benefit working people and the poor are for the good. However, we recognize that such reforms are not sufficient and can easily be overturned and/or manipulated by the capitalists when socioeconomic conditions permit. Marxist-Leninists maintain that only by advancing from capitalism to socialism can humanity build a system which benefits all working people. In a socialist system, workers would achieve political dominance and would form a government that would function to protect the interests of workers.

Perhaps such ideas were not taught to Prof. Krugman and his classmates at MIT and Yale. Such ideas would probably not be received very well at Princeton either.

PHill1917@comcast.net

Michael Parenti speaks at the University of Colorado, Boulder: “US Interventionism, the 3rd world, and the USSR” on April 15, 1986. http://youtu.be/xP8CzlFhc14

Outstanding scholar and teacher, Michael Parenti, delivers an electrifying lecture on the world situation in 1986 during the Reagan era (some might say regime). There are surprising parallels with the situation in the world today. Listen to his prophetic words which will help you understand why we are in the state we are in currently.

Let us know what you think.
PHill1917@comcast.net

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

You’ve got to marvel at the industry of Cold Warriors and their offspring constantly reminding us of the state security measures– real or imagined– suffered by the inhabitants of the former Eastern European socialist countries. Books, movies, television and anecdotes have deeply embedded in the minds of people in the US the notion that life in Eastern Europe was under oppressive monitoring with spies lurking everywhere. Countless reports of visits to socialist countries told of the suspicions or hunches or impressions of being followed, watched, or overheard. I was always disappointed, in my admittedly infrequent visits to Eastern Europe or Cuba, that I never shared these experiences. I was either incredibly myopic or deemed not nearly as worthy of attention as were others.

Outside of the minority of US citizens who systematically question every “truth” endorsed and proclaimed by official circles, most people feel secure in believing that “we” don’t do what “they” do or did. In fact, the certitude of our superiority in respecting privacy, speech, and beliefs serves as a pillar of the mythology of the land of the free.

Of course many of us on the left know better. We know first hand that the US security services operate without restraint or oversight. We know that every significant anti-war movement, every committee in solidarity with the victims of US imperialism, every party to the left of the Democrats, and even every renegade celebrity earns the attention of the US secret police agencies. We know that the tens of thousands of operatives employed and the huge budgets granted are not there for occasional or aberrant spying, but for systematic surveillance and monitoring of anyone perceived as challenging the ruling class consensus. We know that, whenever the need is felt, laws are passed that violate or stretch the intent of the Constitution. And extra-legal means– easily concealed from the public– are also common.

But you don’t have to be among that select group to know what security services do. You don’t have to be an anti-war activist to know that FBI files do not magically appear, but are created through surveillance and informants. The sordid history of the FBI, especially during the Hoover era, is available for all to see. Congressional committees have exposed enough of the chicanery, illegal activity, and violence of the security agencies to give everyone but the willfully blind an idea of just how fragile our privacy and personal integrity are under this self-styled democracy.

Yet liberals– occupying a political category brazenly drawing its name from “liberty”– have woefully fallen short in confronting the rise and expansion of the intrusive, Orwellian surveillance state, a process that only accelerated since the Second World War. The fears of the Cold War provided a handy excuse for government intrusion into the lives of hundreds of thousands of US citizens, driving such august institutions as the American Civil Liberties Union into backsliding and equivocation.

We saw it again in the uprisings of the 1960s, when even more presumably innocent citizens became the object of surveillance by a myriad of federal, state, and municipal spy agencies. Once again, the response was loud and clamorous on the part of the liberal establishment, but to little effect. Only Nixon’s outrageous near-coup and the persistence of a few members of the normally somnolent media saved us from even further devolving toward a repressive, intrusive state in the early 1970s.

A further step towards a police state arrived with the so-called “War on Terror.” Few in the liberal establishment defied the hysterical surrender of the rights to privacy, speech, or association that ensued. In fact, most joined conservatives in a race to empower the security agencies with money, manpower, and legislation.

Oddly, those who find it so easy to identify snooping in foreign lands are conveniently blind to that malignancy in their own neighborhoods.

And now comes the Snowden affair.

The Nation magazine pens a headline, “A Modern Day Stasi State,” really a gratuitous slap at the former German Democratic Republic, to characterize the Snowden revelations of massive and comprehensive surveillance by the NSA. The truth is that nothing that the GDR security services could have possibly envisioned parallels the collection of every electronic communication by every US citizen. Perhaps the liberals at The Nation draw some perverse satisfaction from the false belief that other countries have gone to the same lengths to monitor their unsuspecting and innocent citizens.

And in an editorial commentary (“Snoop Scoops”) by Hendrik Hertzberg, The New Yorker magazine attempts to simultaneously maintain three pathetically weak excuses for the Administration’s secretive spying programs: first, the Snowden revelations expose nothing new– we already knew about the NSA programs; second, the NSA collects the content, but doesn’t examine it; and third, there is nothing illegal about the NSA surveillance.

The best that can be said for the Hertzberg apology is that maybe his boss, the old Cold Warrior David Remnick, forced him to write this nonsense. The fact that one could follow threads and leaks to learn of NSA programs hardly excuses the absence of the topic in most mainstream media and popular discussion. Hertzberg glaringly fails to point to any effort on the part of his magazine to discuss the NSA surveillance. Moreover, if everyone knew about the programs, how do we account for the hysterical response of the Administration, its cronies (Senator Feinstein called Snowden a “traitor”), and apologists? How do we account for the criminal charges against Edward Snowden? For revealing something everybody knew?

Clearly this is a sleazy sidestepping of the profound dangers raised by the government’s license to snoop.

Only the terminally gullible would believe that the content of collected data lies untouched in NSA electronic files. With nearly one and a half million government employees and contractors enjoying top secret clearance, surely a few would be tempted to check the e-mails or phone calls of their neighbors, ex-lovers, or rivals. Hertzberg takes literally the assurances of the same people who have been trying desperately to keep NSA activity from public scrutiny.

I suppose one could equally say that “nothing illegal” occurred in Nazi Germany, given that laws were passed enacting or enabling nearly all of the carnage inflicted by the fascist regime. In truth, the vast powers granted by the Patriot Act and the secret kangaroo courts legitimizing NSA acts guarantee that legality washes over anything and everything that government agencies do or could do, as they equally would sanction the SS or Gestapo in the Third Reich.

Indeed, our moment is not so remote from those moments preceding the consolidation of fascist rule in Italy or Germany. Like those times, liberals and social democrats are temporizing, excusing, and denying the assault on privacy, personal security, association, and dissent.

The true history of those times– not the convenient history that blames the staunchest opponents of fascism, the Communists– points to the treason and capitulation of bourgeois politicians who sought to compromise, outsmart, or neutralize the tide of fascism. Similarly, our liberal politicians populating the Democratic Party (with a few notable, courageous exceptions) rush to establish their security bona fides by endorsing the expansion of the police state. They show the same misplaced confidence in their ability to restrain or control the uncontrollable.

Amplifying the hesitation of liberals is the embarrassing role of the Obama Administration in the construction of the NSA police state. After giving their undivided, unqualified support to the candidacy of hope, change, and the restoration of liberal values, the liberal establishment finds itself in the uncomfortable position of defending the trappings of a police state or, conversely, righteously attacking their designated standard bearer. This dilemma has driven liberals to such outrageous statements as Hertzberg’s: “The critics [of the NSA] have been hard put to point to any tangible harm that has been done to any particular citizen,” a statement worthy of a self-satisfied burgher in Munich in 1934.

Particularly bruised by the Snowden revelations are those pseudo-radicals who have unceasingly called for a love fest with the Democratic Party as a response to the “fascist danger.” How does one enlist those who we now know have crafted and implemented fascist-like policies as partners in stopping fascism? Surely embracing them as anti-fascist allies borders on insanity.

Perhaps it is only fitting that those seduced by the pied piper of hope and change have arrived at this juncture. However, we have lost far too much ground to this political silliness. There is too much at stake. We deserve better.

Zoltan Zigedy
zoltanzigedy@gmail.com

By James Thompson

Although the background to the tragic events in Arizona of 1/8/11 is still unfolding, some facts appear fairly clear.

Congresswoman Giffords is fighting for her life in an Arizona hospital after a shooting incident in Tucson. While attempting to meet with her constituents in a very public forum outside a grocery store, a 22 year old man approached her with a semi-automatic pistol and critically wounded her as well as killing Federal Judge John Roll, a 9 year old child and killing and wounding many others.

Giffords, a Democrat, was also the first Jewish person to be elected to public office in Arizona. Her office was vandalized immediately after she voted for the landmark health care legislation sponsored by President Obama and viciously opposed by right wingers across the country. Sarah Palin had put Gifford’s district on the “crosshairs” on her website as well as 20 other Democrats, but pulled this posting down after the Congresswoman was critically wounded. Judge John Roll, a Republican, was killed by the assailant’s bullets and he had drawn the ire of the Republican right wing for some of his progressive rulings.

The American people are not as stupid as the right wing seems to think. For years now the mainstream
TV airwaves have been filled with the images of red faced, ranting, right wing commentators calling for all manner of violence and assault on anyone and any organization that does not agree with them. Indeed, some have advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. Government if they do not get their way. These hate filled messages have now taken a very fatal toll.

Is it that important that working people should not have access to health care that these people should be wounded and/or killed? Are the interests of the wealthy more important than the lives of public figures and little children? Should racism and hatred continue to permeate our culture?

It is important to analyze this important historical event and recognize the obvious racism, to include anti-semitism. Racism, including anti-semitism is a horrible “pollutant” to our country and our socio-economic system as former CPUSA chairman, Gus Hall, used to say. The vile ravings of these well paid commentators are the fuel to the fire of ugly violence.

It is time to put a stop to this horrible scourge.

We can do it if the people unite and demand legislation which would outlaw advocating violence as well as public displays of hatred based on race, political views, gender, immigration status or sexual orientation. Advocating white supremacy as well as anti-semitism and male chauvinism should be a crime punishable by law. Use of racial slurs should also be punishable by law.

If Nazi Germany had been bound by such laws, perhaps the Holocaust would never have happened. If such laws had been in effect in this country perhaps we would never have seen the lynchings, persecution of the jews and discrimination against women, homosexuals and various ethnic groups to include arabs and Asians. Perhaps this horrible tragedy would never have happened had there been legislation outlawing racism and violence.

Violence and racism have no place in a democracy. Although Free Speech is important in a democracy, Free Speech should not include Hate Speech.

PHill1917@comcast.net

How democrats and progressives squandered a great opportunity

By James Thompson

As election results roll in and the Republican party notches up a great victory for reaction, many people will probably ask, “How did this happen here?” How could an electorate fired up for progressive change just two years ago fall flat on its face? What did the Democratic Party do to lose the overwhelming support it received in the last election cycle?

Many will say that it is because fantastic amounts of money were unleashed to support the hysterical theatrics of the ultra-right as embodied in the Tea Party movement. This is, of course, correct. The recent “Citizens United” decision of the U.S. Supreme court will change the way elections are held until this anti-working class ruling is overturned. The ruling makes it possible for corporations to pour vast amounts of money into the campaigns of candidates who support their interests and the source of these contributions do not have to be disclosed to the public. Corporations can easily outspend working class individuals and organizations with ease. We saw this in this election with hateful right wing ads attacking anything that dared stand in the way of the interests of the ultra wealthy. Without a doubt, the mainstream media coverage of the elections focused on the nuttiest of the right-wing fringe. Certainly, money is always a problem where democracy is concerned.

However, there were some other factors that made it easier for the right wing to do their dirty work. Since Obama took office, the working class has been extremely polarized. Racism has raised its ugly head fueled by money from the ultra-right. Progressives for the most part have failed to meet the challenge of fighting racism in the last two years. Anti-communism has been unleashed once again through the voice of hysterical pundits and this has served to confuse the working people of this country. Anyone who falls to the left of Karl Rove on the political spectrum has been branded a “socialist” and many people fall for this since they don’t have a clue about what socialism really means. Socialists have failed to meet this challenge and have made little effort to clarify what socialism actually means.

Class-collaborationism has also returned. Some progressive organizations and political parties have failed to sharply criticize the Democratic party and its politicians on their policies which favor the wealthy class. Indeed, some have insisted on marching in lockstep with Obama and some of the reactionary Democrats in the name of unity of the working class. When the Obama administration and former President Clinton worked against the labor backed candidate in Arkansas, you didn’t hear a peep from the left. When Rahm Emanuel declared “F— the UAW!”, the left was no where to be seen or heard. These anti-labor stances were confusing to organized labor and working people in general.

In Texas, which is one of the most reactionary states in the nation, the elections can only be characterized as being chaotic and confusing. A friend of mine, an African American woman, told me that she was faced with an awful dilemma. She lives in Tom Delay’s old district where Anglo male Republican Ted Olson faced an African American Democrat female Kesha Rogers. Rogers advocates the impeachment of President Obama. My friend was forced to vote for the Republican candidate because he was more moderate than the Democrat. In my district, a right wing Republican only faced a minor challenge by a Libertarian candidate. No Democrat opposed him. In Dallas, Eddie Bernice Johnson, a progressive Democrat, is fighting for her seat. She is opposed by a right wing Republican African American male Baptist minister who is calling for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government if the Republicans don’t win control of Congress. All of these shenanigans are very confusing to voters being bombarded by attack ads every night on TV.

A friend of mine recently reminded me that when there is no tension between opposing forces, there can be no progress. Frederick Douglass said, “Without a struggle, there can be no progress.” This is what is missing today in the class struggle. Working class unity is needed to overcome the powerful influence of the corporations, but this does not mean following the Democratic party program to the letter. Progressives should support Democrats who fight for the interests of the working class and should support policies which favor working class interests. However, we should oppose with all our might any politician and/or policy which favors the interests of the wealthy. If we do this, we can answer the question “Which side are you on?” with a great deal of pride.

PHill1917@comcast.net