From the AntiFa Trenches, c. 1938 (contd)

IWW Poster c. 1934

The San Francisco Waterfront Strike of 1934 was really what put the fear into the Overclass. From then on, the gloves came off. Our Betters figured they had little more to lose than what they'd already lost in the Depression, so why not take their fears and frustrations out on Labor?

From "The Peril of Fascism," Magil and Stevens, 1938; International Publishers.

A ... reign of terror prevailed ... in the coal and iron mines of the Birmingham (AL) region. In the spring of 1934, five strikers were shot and killed and many wounded in a strike of iron ore miners against the Unite States Steel and the Republic Steel companies. Assisted by the Birmingham police, a terrorist band called the White Legion was organized with the avowed purpose of "driving Communism out of Alabama." By Communism, the White Legion meant not only workers' political organizations but even A. F. of L. unions.

In Florida, fascist gangs organized by employers kidnapped, tarred, feathered and beat trade union organizers and in many cases murdered them and buried their bodies in swamps or abandoned mines. Describing the reign of terror conducted by Florida citrus and tobacco interests against trade unionists, the veteran newspaper columnist Junius Wood wrote:

Flogging, tar and feathering, and even death are not unusual as a means of disposing of persons who are disturbing to certain interests or what is vaguely called "social order." They are not carried out under any law in the Florida statutes, but by persons who believe such methods are for their own public good, and their political influence is so great that court trials, or even arrests, rarely follow.

... Supplementing this terrorist campaign, reactionaries launched a drive for legislation to outlaw militant working class parties, to restrict the rights of trad unions and to limit free speech, press and assemblage. ...Significantly, most of the bills [in Congress] were introduced by politicians from Southern states where an embryonic form of fascism was already in the saddle.
...

In four states --Arkansas, Delaware, Indiana and Tennessee -- the reactionaries succeeded in pushing through laws excluding from the ballot political parties advocating "sedition," "treason," or th "forcible overthrow of the government." These laws are so worded that, in the hands of zealous reactionary officials,  they can be effectively used against any people's party which questions the beneficence of duPont-Hearst rule.
...

Even more sinister than this drive for repressive legislation was the secret underground campaign of the large corporations to strengthen their private armies and place them on a firmer military basis.

Sometimes, as we have indicated, these armed forces were organized as "vigilantes," or armed "patriotic" and "law and order" groups, recruited from business circles, professional jingoes and riff-raff from the underworld. Such groups began to appear in nearly every center where large corporations or plantation owners felt themselves menaced by strikes or trade union organization campaigns. In some cases, these groups had only a temporary existence and disappeared after termination of an industrial crisis. In other cases, they were orgaized on a more permanent basis. In Cleveland, Cincinnati, Hollywood and other centers, local posts of the American Legion or local officials began organizing and drilling armed contingents. The government encouraged this process by giving the American Legion 75,000 allegedly "obsolete" army rifles.

More frequently, however, these employers' armies took the form of company police or of trained bodies of professional gangsters, spies and strike breakers supplied by national detective agencies. Both the company police and the detective agencies are comparatively old American institutions, born in the formative years of monopoly capitalism; but during the anti-labor drive of 1934-36, they assumed vaster proportions than ever before, vesting new powers in the hands of the industrial titans and constituting a grave menace to the remaining liberties of the American workers.

Within the army there was a steady growth of fascist sentiment among high officers who clamored for a stronger military machine, not only to support the foreign policy of the United States, but to quell more effectively what they euphemistically called "domestic disturbances." At the end of 1933, in his annual report to the President, Army Chief of Staff General MacArthur (who led the troops in Hoover's famous victory over the bonus marchers at Anacostia) lengthily discussed the state of general social unrest in the country and concluded:

In the obvious state of unrest now prevailing throughout the world, evidences of which are plainly visible even in our own country, an efficient and dependable military establishment constantly responsive to the will of the government, constitutes a rock of stability and one of the nation's most priceless possessions.

Assistant Secretary of War Harry Woodring was even more explicit than the hero of Anacostia. In an article in Bernarr MacFadden's Liberty, Woodring. with all the zeal of an amateur soldier wrote:

Let me speak frankly! If this country should be threatened with foreign war, economic chaos or social revolution, the army has the training, the experience, the organization and the men to support the government and direct the country in the national interests... Our army happens to be the only branch of the government which is already organized and available not only to defend our territory, but also to cope with the social and economic problems in an emergency.

A "basic field manual" distributed to the army contained detailed tactical instructions for use against "mobs" and "crowds." The most effective methods for shooting, gassing, and bombing unarmed workers were discussed with fine scientific precision. "Blank cartridges should never be used against a mob, nor should a volley be fired over the heads of a mob even if there is little danger of hurting persons in the rear..." "Airplanes may be used for the purpose of keeping rioters off roofs by means of machine gun fire and, in conjunction with other arms, by dropping tear gas and high explosives..." "Hand grenades, especially those filled with chemicals, will be quite an essential part of the equipment." These and other bits of military wisdom were carefully set down for tje guidance of strike-breaking troops. Following the classic pattern of Italian fascism, the manual also instructed commanders in "disturbed areas" to establish contact with the American Legion and "other local organizations of law and order."

The fascist leanings of the army hierarchy responsible for these instructions is reflected in the following definition of democracy contained in the army's Training Manual No. 2000-25, distributed from 1928 to 1932 to youths taking military instruction:

Democracy: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meetings or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic -- negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based on deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse without restraint or regard for consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

Finally, the most ominous symptom of the growing fascist tendencies among the rulers of America was the appearance of a large crop of fascist and semi-fascist organizations, some openly controlled and directed by big business, others indirectly controlled, and still others, starting out as "independent" middle class movements of protest, but diverted  by unscrupulous and corrupt leaders into fascist channels.

...

The largest and most influential of the new host of reactionary organizations were either openly controlled or directed by prominent financiers and industrialists, or disguised so thinly that they were soon exposed. Among the organizations of this type were the American Liberty League, the Farmers Independence Council, the Sentinels of the Republic and the Southern Committee to Uphold the Constitution. This whole network of organizations, controlled by the most reactionary financial groups, uniformly operated under the slogans of "liberty" and "democracy, attempting to utilize America's strong democratic traditions to rally popular support for their anti-democratic program.

History, said Marx, repeats itself first as tragedy and then as farce. So with the Liberty League and its host of affiliates. The spectacle of the duPonts and the Hearsts, clothed in the cloaks and cocked hats of the revolutionaries of 1776, was political farce so broad that only those blinded by hatred for democracy and progress could miss it; so broad that it defeated the purposes of its authors. The Liberty League and its affiliates -- in spite of their vast financial resources -- failed to win popular support because they were openly controlled by the most hated men in America, by men whose ruthless exploitation and suppression of the people, in the daily course of their affairs, belied their professed belief in liberty and democracy.

So we see, everything old is new again, and if we think about it, we realize that the rightists and fascists are repeating themselves (as farce if you like) under the rigid tutelege of the oligarchs and plutocrats -- many of whom are the descendants of the same class sponsoring fascists in the 1930's. (The name Bush comes to mind, but we won't go there for now.)

What is different is that the "left" so called no longer exists as a political and/or proto-revolutionary force. All politics in this country these days is more or less rightist and much is clearly on a fascist pathway. "The Peril of Fascism" is a frankly Communist polemic from the era when Communists and Socialists and Leftists actually had a political structure and their agitation and demonstrations could and did have a political influence. Nowadays no such thing can occur. The opposition to the fascist tendendices in this country today is almost entirely confined under the Occupy rubric. While there are some elements of Marxist thought and economic analysis within the Occupy framework, from a political standpoint, Occupy is revolutionary but not "leftist." Nor is it "rightist." It consciously stands outside those categories and presses for something better than either.

At the moment, Our Rulers do not feel particularly threatened by the Occupy Movement cum Revolution, largely because it doesn't seem to be "doing anything" overtly to cause more than minor disrution of the looting and pillaging underway.

But we can see in Magil and Stevens' reports that there are more than a few seriously disabling and disrupting tactics the Overclass can easily bring to bear if need be to preserve their power and position.

We haven't seen anything yet...

And What of the Class Struggle?

I was getting caught up on Occupy Caravan events last night on the archived livestreams, pondering some of the history of Occupy and the DIY media collective that has arisen therefrom -- perhaps the most pronounced legacy of Occupy to date -- and as I was watching Nate's video from Okemah, OK (Woody Guthrie's birthplace), I saw the Caravan vehicles for the first time: a BMW, two new Toyota minivans, and a new Chevy Suburban. There was a bus as well, but it broke down in Flagstaff. The transmission went out. Oh. I can imagine. Apparently they were running it without transmission fluid (do tell), and so by the time it got up the hill in Flagstaff (it's a long and steep climb, folks; I've done it many times) the bus couldn't go any farther. They were trying to raise money to fix it.

I got to thinking about class issues vis a vis Occupy, teh Revolution, and Everything. The emblems of the Occupy Caravan, after all -- that is, its vehicles -- couldn't be more starkly upper middle class. These are not the cars of the Struggling Masses. But then, how many Occupiers are Proletarian? Perhaps close to zero.

Not zero, no. But close.

Back when I was quite active in the local Occupy, there was much union involvement and support, but it seemed to rather quickly devolve into animosity. I got into some truly bizarre situations with union members -- as I recall, SEIU members were some of the strangest -- when they actively set out to oppose Occupy's continued presence and sought to prevent the city from relenting on arrests and prosecutions of Occupy participants who disobeyed authority. Support evaporated. In fact, it turned into something of a joke. The problem mostly seemed to be communications, but there was something else underlying it; union and Occupy organization is simply not that poor.

At the very outset, Socialists came to the meetings and pretty much denounced the whole thing because it wasn't organized "right," and it couldn't possibly get anywhere, as has long been known and proved by anyone familiar with Revolutionary theory. Of course when it did get somewhere, the Socialists continued to crab.

Meanwhile, many of those who were -- and continue to be -- involved with Occupy are of a higher social status (or like to think of themselves as of a higher social status) than the Working Class. They are educated, after all, and they work as professionals. They live comfortably, send their kids to private school, etc. They are not struggling financially (or so they think) and are generous with their contributions.

On the other hand, Occupy has long had a social service contingent housing, feeding, and clothing the indigent, the homeless, and the ne'er do wells of society. A goodly number of Occupy's activist are from that social stratum, and to the surprise of some observers, they've proved themselves very capable.

But they're not really working class, either.

To see the Caravan accommodated so luxuriously on the road is somewhat disconcerting, but then I ask why they shouldn't have decent transportation for such a long trip -- from Los Angeles on one route, San Francisco on the other, to Philadelphia. Should they be driving Dust Bowl jalopies? Where would they even get them?

My understanding is that the vehicles -- except for the BMW -- are rented in any case. Which explains why they're new and relatively luxurious.

As for the bus, I know nothing except that it is still apparently broken down in Flagstaff. But again, on a long cross-country trip, one would need a decent vehicle.

The trouble is that these somewhat deluxe vehicles driving across county in celebration of the 100th anniversary of Woody Guthrie's birth seems oxymoronic on the one hand, and it could well be a turn off to working people the Caravan encounters. Maybe Dust Bowl jalopies would be too difficult to wrangle and would probably be called melodramatic as well. But there are all kinds of potentially more appropriate vehicles, such as cars from the 1950's and 1960's. One would think. Or maybe they should have a horse and wagon. (I'm not really criticizing the choices made by the caravaners. What I'm considering is the optics of those choices and how those optics may relate to the Class Struggle.)

It seems that more people are innately understanding the class nature of the struggle given the way so many millions of Americans have been forced into poverty during this Endless Recession and the relentlessness of the extractions demanded of everybody else by the tiny class of Masters Who Rule Us.

But the effort seems to be focused on finding something other than "class struggle" to define what's going on.

Whatever that is has yet to be discovered.

Crackpot Economic Theories

[The lecture heard in the video is complete gibberish and crackpottery.]

We are ruled by crackpots, and their crackpot economic theories are devastating to ordinary people's well being and standard of living.

Since the beginning of this Endless Recession, the Crackpot Economists (and their powerful sponsors) -- aka The Chicago School and their friends -- have been been running around trying to use the crisis as an opportunity to undo what's left of the New Deal and impose their neo-Hooverist/neo-liberal economics on all of us as quickly and as thoroughly as possible. They cry about literally everything, and the solution they propose for everything is to cut taxes on the rich, remove regulations, and sell off the public treasure at fire-sale prices.

This will supposedly make life better for the masses. That it does just the opposite is said to be nothing but a perception problem. "Change" and all that. Nobody really likes "change" and they'll use every means they can to fight it. But "change" there must and will be. It is inevitable. You and I have no choice but to submit.

Think of the Industrial Revolution. It was a tough transition for many, but who among us would want to go back to the way things were before the magnificent technological and social transformations that took place (and are still taking place) thanks to the Industrial Revolution? No one. Right?

So there you are. The economic and social transformations going on now are of the same order. People must get used to what's in store, but once they do, they will thank the Powers That Be for having been so generous to them.

Really.

Even though all of our rulers subscribe to this nonsense, for if they don't they will be replaced pronto, it's time for the People to go beyond challenging it politely. The rigors that are being imposed on the "lesser people" to pay for the continuing economic errors of their betters have long since reached the point where struggles are severe for more and more millions all the time. The economic situation of the many is not getting better. It's getting worse.

Statistics, however, have been routinely massaged and manipulated to hide what is really going on. For example, it's only recently been noticed -- statistically -- that Americans' incomes have been falling. Why might that be? Simple: the highest incomes have not been falling; they've been increasing. Ordinary Americans' incomes have been falling. But when you factor the two together, overall income has been "stable" or even from time to time "increasing" -- when for most workers, no such thing is the case. It's just the opposite. And for many workers, incomes haven't fallen a little bit -- like the 5% or 6% that is only now being reported. They have fallen a full 50% and more for many.

Unemployment is much higher than reported (essentially the real unemployment figure is about double the rate reported) because the official figures only include those who fit very strict criteria and ignore most others.

Unemployment insurance is often seen as something keeping millions out of poverty -- but it always represents at least a 50% reduction in income. And at any given time half or more of the unemployed don't qualify for any benefits at all.

And all the time, while incomes are falling and wealth is disappearing from the middle and working classes at an alarming rate, prices for basic goods and services are increasing at an even faster rate. Prices for food and fuel, clothing, utilities and rent are going up quickly, while the ability of Americans to pay increased costs for these essentials is declining. Consequently household debt is increasing as more and more people try to get by as best they can by accumulating more debt. Supposedly, the savings rate is much higher now than it was during the latest round of our Bubble Economy, but those who can save are fewer in number, and their situation is generally much better than those who can't save.

As a practical matter, declining living standards are being imposed, slowly but rigorously on the majority, yet cruelly and swiftly on many Americans nevertheless.

Strangely, the Highest of the Mighty are doing very well for themselves, better in many cases than they ever have. They are showered with money -- which they then hoard -- by the government and the Federal Reserve. They are given every possible tax break and debt relief imaginable. They are curried and favored to a fare thee well by policy-makers, and their demands are acted on with alacrity while the situation of the masses continues to decline, the Chicago Boys continue to say there is nothing that can be done about it, and masses will just have to suck it up.

The policies being proposed and enacted in state houses and the federal government are ensuring that this situation continues indefinitely. Which is of course exactly the program the Chicago Boys have been advocating for decades.

The People, in other words, have no voice whatever in what's going on. And it's not just here. It's around the world.

Never in history have so few been able to steal so much from so many and call it God's Will.

Any conscious observer has got to be sickened by it.

The economic solution is straightforward and simple:

Provide paid work to everyone who wants to work and can work; most employment will be in the public or non profit sector, much of it will involve public works, neglected public infrastructure, and community service.

Provide immediate and substantial household debt relief. (I have recommended $80-100,000 per household) In lieu of debt relief, for those households with minimal debt, provide a substantial sum of money (or subsidy) specifically for the purchase of fuel efficient vehicles, energy efficient appliances, alternative energy equipment, and energy saving retrofitting of residences.

Impose a transaction tax on stock and similar trades and impose a heavy speculation tax to discourage speculators and make stock transactions pay some of their social costs.

Impose a substantial estate tax.

Lift the cap on the Social Security payroll tax.

Reduce the retirement age to 60 and then to 55.

Increase Social Security benefits substantially.

Provide Medicare-like health insurance benefits to everyone.

End the drug war, and reduce the prison population. Forbid private prisons.

Reform public education to control over-administration and provide sufficient funding for public education.

Strictly control the derivatives market.

Nationalize the banks.

End foreclosures now.

End Imperial Wars of Aggression now.
--------------------------------------------
The policies that have been adopted by Our Rulers approximate the opposite course of action with predictable results.

Now, someone is getting rich off the persistence of the Endless Recession, make no mistake.

And the People are being impoverished, by policy from the top.

At some point, they will revolt.

But in the meantime, a lower level of consumption does not necessarily equate to a lower standard of living. We do have to become accustomed to making do with less, but at the same time, that doesn't mean that the people must be forced into poverty so that the rich may continue to enjoy levels of luxury unheardof a generation ago.

We are transitioning from a consumption-driven economy to something else, something like a subsistence economy but with extraordinary levels of technology. It doesn't have to be a bad thing.

But the current regime that essentially hands everything over to those on the top of the heap today cannot be sustained into the future. At least I would like to think that Americans won't stand for it.

The debt limit deal and the social counterrevolution in America

The debt limit deal and the social counterrevolution in America

This is a very clear and concise analysis of the Debt Crisis Crisis Deal from the [Trotskyite-] Socialist perspective. It doesn't really differ much from the obvious.

That is a key here: Average Americans are quite capable of sussing out the import of the Deal and horrible impact it will have on them. The Socialists merely clarify the matter.

The Money Quote:

Bush and Obama bankrupted the federal government in order to bail out Wall Street, and now the ruling class and its political servants in both parties are carrying out a social counterrevolution to make the working class pay the cost. Since the eruption of the financial crisis in September 2008, the ruling elite has exploited the breakdown of its system to permanently restructure class relations and impoverish the working class.

That's it in a nutshell.

The question is who really cares enough to do anything about it.

I don't see the Trotskyites doing more than organizing yet another conference.

Sigh.

Yet talk of "Revolution" is all over the Web.

Fascinating.

Huh, Interesting

Just did a search on 2008 Presidential campaign donations in my two zip codes.

In my California zip code, there were 298 donors who gave a total of $212,332 to Democratic candidates (in the primaries and general election) and $14,002 to Republican candidates. So far as I can tell, these are all individual donations.

In my New Mexico zip code, there were 23 donors who gave a total of $25,275 to Democrats and $723 to Republican candidates.

Huh. I never would have guessed.

My zip code in California is pretty solid, established, upper middle class, populated by lots of professional-types, including a lot of lawyers, perfessers, doctors, upper level government managers, and -- yes -- lobbyists.

In New Mexico, on the other hand, the area is rural, dominated by ranching, with small to very small towns, and pretty significant levels of unemployment and/or financial struggle.

Yet both donate overwhelmingly to Democratic candidates.

The votes in the counties (which don't correspond to zip codes, but are interesting in their own right) went something like this: in my California county, Barack Obama 58%, McCain 40%; in my New Mexico county, McCain 54%, Obama 44%.

Since I maintain the candidates we're allowed to choose from are merely different shades of the same Corporate color, the outcome is not necessarily all that important -- except on the margins, and the margins are growing in importance as the economy continues to collapse on the working and middle classes.

And the question still remains, why are the masses so passive?

Progressive! Yes, we are Progressive -- Populists!

I haven't dealt with this topic for a while, but Digby has a thought provoking post up about the need for Democrats to reclaim their Progressive Populist roots and have done with over-intellectualizing everything.

Hm. Interesting.

Of course the problem is that terms like "progressive" and "populist" have no real meaning any more. On the internet, anyone opposed to Bush and Cheney is by default a "Progressive". And the "Progressive Agenda" consists primarily of getting rid of Bush and Cheney -- eventually.

"Populists," on the other hand, are seen primarily as dangers to the realm and privilege and therefore are to be ignored or dismissed. Or they are to be used and manipulated for pecuniary and political gain. Don't think the interenet isn't about status and privilege? Ha!

I'd like to think that "Progressive Populism" is possible, but it honestly hasn't been -- at least in urban areas -- since the beginning of Progressivism a century ago as a Republican elite response/reaction to the Democratic (and largely rural) Populism that threatened to turn the United States into a paradise for the rural proletariat. Can't have that. Progressivism is "elitist" by definition. Populism is anti-elitist on the surface, but has long been devoted to authoritarianism.

See the problem?

As I've said before, Internet Progressivism (as opposed to academic Progressivism) is essentially a mask for slightly leftish Libertarianism. This became fairly if not completely clear during the recent police actions in St. Paul, and to a lesser extent Denver, that were designed primarily to suppress free speech and assembly rights and to assert overwhelming government/private security force against a handful of obstreperous skinny youth, citizens, journalists, and lawyers during the national conventions of the major political parties.

Police forces were arrayed overbearingly against "anarchist/terrorists" -- which means everyone who does not instantly obey commands barked from Authority. The excuse for the police action was a spate of very minor vandalism in St. Paul. Over 800 were arrested, thousands were tear-gassed, shot with rubber bullets, harassed with explosives, beaten, bludgeoned, pepper-sprayed, and maced. Prior to the start of the convention in St. Paul, authorities acting on questionable warrants and paid informants conducted numerous raids on housing units and assembly sites where these "anarchist/terrorists" were plotting and planning their supposedly "criminal" protests. These raids continued through the convention.

Some "Progressive" A-List internet sites covered these issues and actions extensively. FDL and Glenn Greenwald's Salon venue particularly. It's fairly unusual for the main lefty blogosphere to take more than passing interest in the passe activity of "protest demonstrations," so it was somewhat surprising that there was so much interest in the actions of police and protestors in St. Paul last week. Especially when the protestors were such icky-dirty no account hippies.

But then it became clear: for the bloggers, this was really an issue of constitutional rights, primarily the rights of journalists and lawyers -- many of whom were arrested or harassed during the week -- and secondarily the rights of mere citizens. The focus on "rights" as opposed to the issues being addressed by the protests (which were hardly mentioned at all) is a tip off that a libertarian interest was being followed. There's nothing wrong with that, but that's not "Progressive."

And yet, on the internet, it is. For on the internet, the conflation of leftish libertarianism and Progressivism is universal and almost complete. And they are not even remotely the same thing.

Now we're seeing an attempted conflation of Progressivism (aka leftish Libertarianism) and Populism. And that could get really ugly. As is pointed out in Digby's post linked above Populism has been hijacked by the wingnuts, and we ("Progressives") need to start getting it back from them.

Uhhh... now hold on there, sport.

Corporatists and Imperialists have highjacked Populism, not wingnuts. Populism has always been infested with wingnuttery and religious lunacy. Read up on it. Or, if you're old enough, remember. Populism was a dynamo for the Democratic Party a long time ago, but Populism was never quite what some academics and bloggers seem to think it was, a White Working Class movement. No, it was primarily a White Rural movement; the urban white working classes (at least from the mid 19th century to the Depression in the 20th) were revolutionaries, socialists, communists, anarchists, and what have you, but they were not Populists. Populism is now and has always been fiscally imprudent but culturally conservative, even reactionary. Thus, when corporatists and imperialists divorced themselves from the Progressives who had been their chief policy operatives and implementers until the Reagan Era, it was all but axiomatic they would shift to a Populist (reactionary and now largely Republican due to the Southern Strategy) "base" to carry on their quest for Ultimate Power.

The Urban Working Class is still largely Democratic, though their numbers and powers are waning. The successor to the Populists, the Suburban White lower middle class (rural America having been essentially depopulated since the heyday of Populism), has become a rich field for Republican exploitation. That's the field Democrats want to "get back."

To do it, Democratic strategists are always willing to throw away any and (almost) all long time Democratic constituencies in order to appeal to the lumpenproles of the white lower middle class suburbanites who have been conditioned for decades -- by their churches if not by their working and living environments -- to favor the Republican "small government, rule of law, self-reliance, God loving" party.

The problem is that Democratic strategists believe the only way to get back the white lower middle class suburbanites is to pretend to be Republicans.

It isn't working.

Next post, I'll try to suggest some alternatives.