CCDS Online Discussion:
War Danger in the Middle East
Monday Evening, May 14
Our Socialist Education Project presentation and discussion hosted by the Peace and Solidarity Committee
May 14th, 9pm Eastern, 8pm Central, 7pm Mountain, 6pm Pacific time
Email Janet Tucker, jlynjenks@gmail.com
for login instructions
|
Visit Our New 'Online University of the Left' and Be Amazed!
Check out the various departments, study guides and archives
|
Dialogue & Initiative 2012 The new annual edition of our journal of discussion and analysis is now out. More than 130 pages, it includes 13 articles related to the Occupy! movement, as well as seven others vital to study in this election year. Cost is $10 plus shipping. Or get one by becoming a new member or sustainer. Click the title to buy it directly.
|
Blog of the Week: Chicago Mayor Yanking NATO Protest Permits from Nurses and Tom Morello as 'security threats'
|
Lost Writings of SDS..
Revolutionary Youth the the New Working Class: The Praxis Papers, the Port Authority Statement, the RYM Documents and other Lost Writings of SDS
Edited by Carl Davidson 
Changemaker, 273pp, $22.50
For the full contents, click the link and view 'Preview' under the cover graphic.
|
|
By Randy Shannon, CCDS
"Everyone has the right to work, to free of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment."
- United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, December 10, 1948
I. Introduction
The "Great Recession" that began in 2007 has caused the greatest percent of job losses since the Great Depression of 1929. This crisis is the end of an era of unrestrained 'neo-liberal' capitalism that became public policy during the Reagan administration. The crisis marks a new level of instability with the growth of a global financial elite that targeted US workers and our trade unions after World War II.
|
|
Order Our
Full Employment Booklets
 |
...In a new and updated 2nd Edition
Capitalism may well collapse under its own excesses, but what would one propose to replace it? Margaret Thatcher's mantra was TINA...There Is No Alternative. David Schweickart's vision of "Economic Democracy" proposes a serious alternative. Even more fundamentally, it opens the door to thinking about alternatives. His may or may not turn out to be the definitive "successor system," but he is a leader in breaking out of the box. |
|
Quick Links...
CCDS Discussion |
Shades of Justice
An antiwar political history
by Paul KrehbielAutumn Leaf Press
$25.64 |
Carl Davidson's Latest Book:
New Paths to Socialism
Essays on Mondragon, Marx, Gramsci and the Green and Solidarity Economies |
Solidarity Economy:What It's All About
Edited by Jenna Allard, Carl Davidson and Julie Matthaei
Buy it here...
|
|
|
|
An Invitation to CCDSers and Friends...
 New May Day Surge Challenges Austerity!
We're the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism...Do you have friends who should see this? Pass it on...Do you have a blog of your own? Others you love to read every day? Well, this is a place where you can share access to them with the rest of your comrades. Just pick your greatest hits for the week and send them to us at carld717@gmail.com!
Most of all, it's urgent that you oppose austerity, make solidarity with the Occupy! movement and end the wars! We're doing more than ever, and have big plans. So pay your dues, make a donation and become a sustainer. Do it Now! Check the link at the bottom...
|
May Day 2012: More Than 30, 000 March in NYC
Love in a Hopeless Place?
By Laura Flanders
The Nation
May 1, 2012 - Banish from your head those sepia newspaper photos of massed men in matching hats. Forget, for a moment, the bellow of the grand oratorical leader.
May Day in New York City was not like 1912. Instead, picture if you can a swarm of flying pickets darting from the New York Times building to Disney to Wells Fargo Bank. Imagine the benches of Madison Square Park spilling over with teachers and students human-microphoning free college classes in the open air. At Union Square, people from the South Bronx-based Green Worker Cooperatives played a group board game, "Co-opoly," on a blanket. Cheerful hoodie-wearers whizzed past on bikes.
"I've no idea what's going on," said Carmen, a unionized postal worker on her afternoon delivery rounds, "I'm working." Detective Schultz of the Bronx Warrant Squad was working too: "My assignment was to follow that brass band...but I'm part of the 99 percent."
Welcome to May Day in New York 2012. Chaotic, creative, inchoate, diffuse. Was it a glimpse of what post-industrial solidarity just might look like in the century ahead? Or another display of what remains, when organized worker power has been wiped out?
What's next, or what's left? It was both.
New York certainly wasn't Madrid or Athens or Jakarta. In those and other cities, union leaders and their allies turned out hundreds of thousands of people on Tuesday to oppose austerity, demand decent wages and send a message to their politicians. In those cities, and in eighty other countries, May 1 is officially marked as International Workers Day. Not here. So it's no small thing that this May 1 in Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle, Chicago, New York and scores of other places, tens of thousands of Americans picketed businesses, blocked intersections, held teach-ins, sang and took to the streets.
Still, the crowd was pretty sparse soon after noon in Union Square. Cathy Lebowitz joined two women who-together-were holding up a tabletop display about solidarity economics. Lebowitz, a writer and an editor for an influential arts magazine, could do with some help. She hasn't seen a pay raise in four years, yet her workload has quadrupled since 2008. The same was true for her entire office, she said. "Everyone feels at the limits of what they can do. We're too tired to start a union. But here at least we can connect," she said.
A new proletariat demands new organizing tactics, said Professor David Harvey. Harvey's been teaching Karl Marx's Capital for over forty years at the City University of New York. "Lenin talked about revolutions as festivals of the people," he gestured at the crowd-behold a festival!
It was certainly closer to a festival than what some had called for, namely a general strike. With no base in a physical workplace, no organizing history or even many relationships with workers of the traditional sort, Occupy's a long way from shutting down or seizing a plant. On the other hand, the labor movement's not equipped to do that, either. After half a century of capital backlash, union membership stands at roughly 8 percent of the private workforce and collective bargaining in the public sector is under attack. "The labor movement doesn't have the power it had in the 1930s, so we need another kind of power, not instead of it, but alongside of it," said Harvey. Put another way, inventive, creative community coalitions are what remains in the wreckage of globalization, mechanization and the assault on labor rights. (Click title for more)
|
|
'We Need To Make A Ruckus'
Democracy Now! Interviews
Robert Reich on Fighting Wall St
 | | "Make A Ruckus" Robert Reich Hails Occupy For Exposing Concentration of Wealth and Power |
Guest: Robert Reich, professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley, and former secretary of labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the 10 most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written 13 books, including Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future. His latest is an e-book, Beyond Outrage: What Has Gone Wrong with Our Economy and Our Democracy, and How to Fix Them.
AMY GOODMAN: And so, if President Obama were not re-elected, and it was a Republican in office, it was President Romney, do you think it would be any more extreme?
ROBERT REICH: Oh, yes.
AMY GOODMAN: In what way?
ROBERT REICH: Are you kidding? Well, I mean, look at-
AMY GOODMAN: Because the people on the outside, who you say got demobilized when President Obama was elected, and perhaps when President Clinton was elected, would be far more mobilized, because they would not expect to have a friend in the White House.
ROBERT REICH: Well, but the cost of a Romney White House, in terms of everything we believe. I mean, he has embraced Paul Ryan's budget. He says it's a marvelous budget, which means that we not only get a larger military and we not only get huge cuts in domestic discretionary, including education and Medicare, Medicaid, every safety net, every public investment, but we also at the same time get huge tax cuts for the very rich. We put the economy and our society on a track back to pre-New Deal. And think of the Supreme Court openings that are going to occur. I mean, I-you know, the most elderly judges-justices who are there have been appointed-were appointed by Democrats.
Now, I think the cost of a Romney administration is so huge, even if it would generate more public outrage, that I would say, let's all get behind Obama for a second term; let's make sure, to the extent possible, we have a Democratic Congress; but let's understand that that's just the beginning of our task. We've got to make them move in a progressive direction. It's just like 1936, when Franklin D. Roosevelt was running for re-election and somebody said to him, "Mr. President, if you're re-elected, I want you to do this and this and this and this." And he said, "Ma'am, I want to do all these things, but if I am re-elected, you must make me do them." You see, democracy-you know this. I mean, this is what Democracy Now! is all about. Democracy is a practice. It's a living form of ongoing citizen engagement. And we cannot allow ourselves to be lulled into either complacency or cynicism. Cynicism is the worst form of cop out, because-
AMY GOODMAN: You were on the inside as secretary of labor. What did you feel was the most effective way for people on the outside to have an effect? As you said, you walked through the streets on the day that welfare reform is going to be signed, and you look and you see that no one is around. What makes the difference? And talk of today, about Occupy, as well.
ROBERT REICH: Well, yeah, I think, number one, it is very important for people to visibly demonstrate. Now, it's hard to break through in the media, but visible demonstrations with a lot of people do help. They shift the media's attention. The Occupy movements put inequality on the front page. The Occupy movement succeeded in changing the tenor and the shape of debate in this country about what was happening and allowed the President of the United States to say that the defining issue of the campaign is fairness, who gets what. The Occupy campaign-without the Occupy campaign, none of that would happen. Number two-
AMY GOODMAN: Were you surprised by it?
ROBERT REICH: I was surprised that in a relatively short time-you know, I've been around for a while-civil rights, Vietnam, anti-Vietnam, so on. I was surprised that in a matter of months the Occupy movement could claim so much attention and so effectively shape the debate around the concentration of wealth and power in this country. And that, to me, is an indication of how much can be accomplished.
But that's not all. I mean, we have to go on. We've got to also get involved in electoral politics. In relatively safe Democratic districts, it's important to put up progressives, so that the center of gravity doesn't keep on moving to the right in this country. It's important to get behind a plank of specific ideas, like resurrecting Glass-Steagall, like breaking up the big banks, like making sure that taxes are increased on the very wealthy and the earned income tax credit, which is basically a wage subsidy for the working poor, be expanded, and so on. Get behind six or seven major ideas that we all think are critically important to the future and push them, and push them dramatically. Get big money out of politics. You know, I'm the chairman, the national chairman, of Common Cause, an old organization. It's been doing this work for years. But if we don't get big money out of politics, everything else we want to do is hopeless. And that is a fundamental, fundamental, basic goal, reversing Citizens United. All of these things can be done. (Click title for more)
|
Greece on the Edge of Revolt:
RNN Interview with Costa Lapavitsas
PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Washington.
"Greek politics is in turmoil," say headlines of newspapers across Europe. And why? Because the Greek people in the recent election rejected, more or less, the parties that had signed on to the bailout and austerity measures. No party is big enough to actually take power, so it's not clear what happens next.
Now joining us to talk about the significance of the Greek elections is Costas Lapavitsas. He's a professor in economics at the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London. He's a member of Research on Money and Finance. He's a regular columnist for The Guardian And he has a new book coming out, called Eurozone in Crisis. Thanks for joining us, Costas.
COSTAS LAPAVITSAS, PROF. ECONOMICS, UNIV. OF LONDON: Thank you for the invitation. It's a pleasure to be with you.
JAY: So, quickly, what happened in the elections? And then tell us where are we now.
LAPAVITSAS: Two things happened in the elections, both of which are very, very important. First, the Greek people, who were asked for their opinion about what's been happening to them for the last two years, they've expressed their democratic right to decide what's going to happen to their country. That's the first thing that happened.
The second thing is, when they expressed their views, they rejected all political parties that either supported or tolerated the bailout agreements and the austerity imposed on the country as a result of that. They rejected this without question, without doubt. This is the true significance of the election. Any party that was prepared to criticize and to oppose what has been happening to the country in the last two years and to say that the deal imposed on the country as a result of Europeans and IMF pressure was bad, any candidate who did that benefited, gained substantially.
JAY: Right. Now, the surprise, apparently, according to the press, anyway, was the left coalition, which did much better, I think, got 16, 17 percent of the vote.
LAPAVITSAS: Yeah, that's right. Basically what happened in Greece was that the middle fell out of the political spectrum. Greek people moved away from parties that positioned themselves in the middle of the political spectrum because these parties were seen as supporting the bailout agreement, and they moved to the left and to the right. As they moved to the left and to the right, they gave more of their support to the left. The elections are good for progressive politics in this regard.
JAY: So what happens next? The two main parties-what is it? New Democracy and PASOK. Neither of them-both of them supported the European bailout conditions. Neither of them have enough seats, even together, to form a government. If I understand it correctly, the Left Party is saying they won't join a coalition with the pro-bailout forces. So what happens?
LAPAVITSAS: What happens is most likely instability. Greece is unlikely to have a government, even formally, for the reasons that you point out, and also because the anti-bailout parties do not have enough votes to form a government among themselves, not least because they contain a fascist party, which has a substantial MP-parliamentary representation at the moment. So it's most unlikely that Greece will be able to form, formally, a government.
Even if it did that, however, even if a government was somehow concocted out of what exists at the moment, this government would be very, very weak, and it would be impossible for it to effect all the measures that the bailout agreement requires it to. And above all, it would be impossible for it to bring in the cuts that the government's supposed to take in June. This is what the bailout predicted. And I just do not see how any Greek government can do that right now. (Click title for more)
|
Controversy Among Nepal's Maoists as Prachanda Merges Peoples Army with National Army
Photo: MATTER OF PRIDE: Nepalese caretaker Prime Minister Madav Kumar Nepal (left) and Unified Communist Party of Nepal Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal (right) exchanging documents at the Shaktikhor cantonment site at Chitwan on January 22, 2011. Nepal's Maoists formally relinquished control of the People's Liberation Army.
The Hindu: A Journey That Began
in Delhi Reaches its Conclusion
Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal 'Prachanda' is the central figure in the country's political process. In a wide-ranging interview to Prashant Jha at his residence on Friday afternoon, he talked about the peace process, the constitution and relations with India. Excerpts:
Till a few years ago, you were the supreme commander of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) at war with the national army. Now, you have handed over control of the PLA to the army it fought against. How has this journey been?
It is not about handing the PLA to the army it fought against. The war was against the Royal Nepalese Army; now integration is happening with the Nepal Army (NA). That was a royalist army; this is a republican army. That is a qualitative difference. We are a political party that through the Constituent Assembly (CA) elections, through the democratic process, emerged as the biggest party. As a party now leading the government, the way we view the NA and the PLA has changed. The NA is also a national army, and the PLA which is going for integration is also going to get a chance to be a part of the national army. This is a matter of pride, and a happy moment. As the chairman of the party which led the process, I feel I got an opportunity to fulfil my responsibility. The journey that began in Delhi with the 12-point agreement has now arrived at a conclusion.
There is criticism that you made the decision not out of commitment, but compulsion, since there was discontent within the PLA.
To say that I acted out of compulsion is completely baseless. For the past one year, out of my own initiative, I have taken the peace process forward. I was protected by PLA security personnel and weapons. I sent them to the cantonments, and came under state security. When the Baburam Bhattarai-led government was formed, we took a decision to start regrouping combatants. Now I felt I had to take a bold decision and conclude the process. If I was under compulsion, I could have said the Nepali Congress (NC) and the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist) did not agree to integration, that they tried to stir up trouble in the cantonments, and that we should get ready for a movement.
But wasn't there trouble in the cantonments?
There was some trouble in two cantonments. But I saw it as provocation by those who wanted to derail the peace process. Yes, there was some dissatisfaction among combatants regarding their future. But primarily, it was penetration by the reactionary and royalist elements who thought that if they could derail the peace process, then there would be no constitution and then they could re-establish themselves. They were aided in this by rightwing elements within parties, those who do not want change, want anarchy, and a small elite class. That is why I concluded that delaying peace process now would derail the 12-point agreement.
Your own party colleagues say this is 'surrender.' How do you respond?
Those from the Mohan Vaidya 'Kiran' faction within the party have accused us and even burnt my effigy. I don't see it as surrender at all. A rebel army is integrating into the NA; this is a matter of pride.
A little while ago, Kiranji had come home. He said, "you have given up everything." I said, "I haven't left anything, this is transformation." I have learnt from negative experiences of communist history, and we came to the peace process and competitive politics as a matter of commitment - not out of tactics. I told him taking your path would lead us towards the situation of either Myanmar's Karen rebels, or communists in Malay, or more recently like those in Peru. There is a difference in our understanding of the world, balance of power, the level of economic development, and the international communist movement. I said my outlook is more realistic, scientific, pragmatic, while yours is classical.
Others criticise you for not having done this earlier and wasting the country's invaluable time.
Sometimes, when you pick and eat a fruit which is not ripe, then it is bad for health. If you take a decision without completing a certain phase of struggle, it can be negative. As leader of the party, and of the peace process, if I had not come through this path, I could not have taken this decision. Launching a decisive attack, at a time when the situation is not ripe, can be counterproductive. This also has to do with Prachanda's working style - for instance, I took more than a year-and-a-half when we decided to enter the peace process and accept competitive politics even while the war was on. There is a need to create basis for any decision, that's my working style.
|
Afghanistan: Our Longest War and Biggest Fantasy
By Harry Targ
Beaver County Peace Links
On May Day, 2012 President Obama made a secret trip to Afghanistan and spoke to the nation and the troops on the ground about past, present, and future policy. What the speech revealed was a replication of a ten-year fantasy narrative about why we went to war on Afghanistan, what our goals were, and what the future holds in the region for the United States and, most importantly, the Afghan people.
The President announced he was signing an agreement between the two countries which will define "a new kind of relationship" in which Afghans will assume primary responsibility for their security and "we build an equal partnership between two sovereign states." The future of this relationship will be bright as "the war ends, and a new chapter begins."
The announcement sounded eerily like the policy of "Vietnamization" which President Nixon put in place in 1969; handing over ground action to the South Vietnamese government while the United States escalated the bombing of targets in North and South Vietnam and invaded neighboring Cambodia. The South Vietnamese government and military were incapable of assuming "primary responsibility" and in the end were overthrown by powerful forces in the countryside.
The President explained that President Bush correctly launched a war on Afghanistan in October, 2001 because the country allowed terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden an al Qaeda "safe-haven" for terrorist planning and attacks, ultimately leading to the tragedy of 9/11. While Bin Laden escaped to Pakistan, the U.S. continued fighting the Taliban who have "waged a brutal insurgency." (Click title for more)
|
'Bully': Review of New Film
By Chris Bumbray
JoBlo.com
PLOT: A documentary on the effect of childhood bullying, focusing on the experiences of several students in Georgia, Oklahoma, Iowa, Mississippi, and Texas, and the grief stricken families of two bullied boys who committed suicide.
REVIEW: BULLY is a film that's been very controversial over the last few months, but not in the way that it should be. The intrigue these days seems to be over the MPAA's harebrained, and shockingly misguided attempt to slap an R-rating on a documentary that was specifically designed to be shown in high-schools, in order to educate students on the very epidemic that many are either victims of, or perpetrating on a day-to-day basis.
![Bully Trailer Official 2012 [1080 HD]](https://thumbnail.constantcontact.com/remoting/v1/vthumb/YOUTUBE/ac5757dc70864acfbd7a925921b4eb26) | | Bully Trailer Official 2012 [1080 HD] |
In an effort to give a truthful, "no holds barred" look at the day-to-day ugliness that is bullying, director Lee Hirsch, and producer Harvey Weinstein, made the controversial decision to present the student taunts in an uncensored fashion, meaning that we get a couple of "f-words" and many ugly slurs and put-downs. This is simply the reality of bullying, but the MPAA wants it watered down, and as such- is unlikely to get the school support it was designed to rally if it's slapped with an R-rating. All this despite a precedent being set by the MPAA a few years ago with GUNNER PALACE, that allowed that film- despite about 42 uses of the word "fuck" get a PG-13, as it was a film about the troops. I guess the troops are OK, but kids aren't... But onto the film itself...
Bullying is a problem that refuses to go away, and it's an epidemic that's touched many lives, including my own. In high school, I was regularly bullied, and to this day- those memories sting, and many of the bullying scenes presented here took me back to the days I've tried to forget. As such, BULLY is powerful film. The stories presented by Hirsch, himself the victim of bullying, are devastating. The plight of one boy in particular, Alex- really broke my heart. A premature birth, Alex looks and acts awkward, but has a good heart. He's bullied with such regularity, that we see later in the film that's he considers it just a normal part of his life- with his own sense of self-worth being practically nil.
The other stories are just as affecting, with them running the gamut from a recently outed teen Lesbian being forced to contend with the daily taunts of her conservative Christian classmates (and even more devastatingly, her bigoted teachers) to an imprisoned teenaged girl, who was locked up after bringing a gun to school and threatening her bullies. None of the stories here have a definitive happy ending, and one gets the sense that no matter what happens, these kids will continue to struggle.
However, BULLY is not the definitive look at bullying that I thought it would be. My chief criticism is that Hirsch's perspective is too narrow. He focuses on the heartland, when it's a problem that's so rampant- a much wider sample could, and should have been taken. Also- in an effort to be non-offensive, maybe not enough fingers are pointed, with many of the teachers demonstrating a shockingly blassé attitude to what's happening under their noses. Part of me feels like Hirsch should have been harder on them, although I suppose their just a small cog in a big machine.
Another big problem is that absolutely no time is spent with the bullies themselves. To understand the problem, you need to understand the cause- and we'll never be able to treat the problem without confronting the bullies themselves. I'll never forget an experience I had a few years ago. I used to work as a tech producer on a syndicated Canadian talk show, and one day the host did a piece on bullying. We invited people to call in with their stories, and sure enough an ex-bully did. He told us about how a kid he bullied in high school committed suicide, and how ever since then he's been plagued by nightmares and guilt over his actions, which led to a downward spiral of drug addiction and self-hate. To me, those types of stories need to be included, as it's only through showing both sides of the coin that we'll really be able to confront the issue. If a real dialogue could be opened up between the bullies and their victims, then maybe we can find some common ground.
All that aside, while I had some issues with BULLY, and I wish it had taken a broader approach, I can't deny that it's a powerful film, and one that certainly should be shown in schools, rating or no rating. Like WAITING FOR SUPERMAN, it paints with broad strokes, but if that's what it takes to get the word out- so be it.
|
Review: Restructuring Capitalism in Our Time
Fred Block, a professor of sociology at the University of California, Davis, reviews William K. Tabb's view of the 2008 financial crisis.
May 3, 2012 * By Fred Block * No Comments and 4 Reactions
The Restructuring of Capitalism in Our Time
 "The Restructuring of
Capitalism in Our Time"
by William K. Tabb,
Columbia University Press, 2012, $35
This book wasn't yet published when the Occupy Wall Street protests got under way, but The Restructuring of Capitalism in Our Time provides a solid foundation for that movement's critique of the financiers who brought the global economy to the edge of collapse. William Tabb, professor emeritus of economics, political science, and sociology at the City University of New York, challenges those who claim that the 2008 meltdown was some kind of weird accident that could not have been anticipated. He sees the crisis as a logical consequence of policy shifts dating back to the early 1980s that prioritized the growth and profits of the nation's financial industry.
Tabb's book is intended to make the crisis understandable to readers without a strong background in economics. It isn't an easy read like the latest Michael Lewis best seller, but those who persevere will be rewarded. Tabb draws heavily on the arguments of Hyman Minsky, a heterodox U.S. economist whose major works appeared in the 1970s and '80s. Presciently, Minsky predicted that financial institutions would accumulate riskier and less stable portfolios with each economic expansion. He argued that strong government regulation - setting strict limits on both the quantity and quality of assets the banks acquired - was the only force that could offset this dynamic, and warned of disaster if the regulators were too timid.
Instead, American political leaders, starting with Ronald Reagan, chose to rebuild the U.S. economy around Wall Street's financial engines. In the process, the financial-services industry acquired extraordinary political influence, which it retains today. It is thus unsurprising that the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial-reform legislation is, in Tabb's informed opinion, not strong enough to protect us from another Wall Street-created tsunami.
Tabb notes that in earlier centuries, England and the Netherlands followed a trajectory alarmingly similar to our own: just as their periods of global dominance were waning, these nations shifted their economic emphasis from prioritizing production to making money through financial and commercial means. Tabb persuasively argues that, unless the 99 percent can muster the political will to impose fundamental changes on the financial system, the United States will likely suffer a similarly precipitous economic and political decline.
Reviewed by Fred Block, professor of sociology, University of California, Davis
|
|
Become a CCDS member today!
 The
time is long past for 'Lone Rangers'. Being a socialist by your self is
no fun and doesn't help much. Join CCDS today--$36 regular, $48
household and $18 youth.
Better yet, beome a sustainer at $20 per month,
and we'll send you a copy of Jack O'Dell's new book, 'Climbing Jacobs
Ladder,' drawing on the lessons of the movement in the South in the
1950s and 1960s.
Solidarity, Carl Davidson, CCDS |
|
|
