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 sustainer. Click the title to buy it directly.
|
Blog of the Week:
Bill Fletcher Jr.'s Series on Marxism and 21st Century Socialism
|
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 |
Sex and the Automobile in the Jazz Age
By Peter Ling in History Today: 'Brothels on wheels' thundered the moralists but Peter Ling argues the advent of mass motoring in the 1920s was only one of the changes in social and group relationships that made easier the pursuit of carnal desire.
|
 A Memoir of the 1960s by Paul KrehbielAutumn Leaf Press, $25.64 | | Shades of Justice Video: Bringing Down a President, Ending a War |
|
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...
|
Voices from the Underground Press of the 1960s, Part 2- Foreword by Susan Brownmiller
- Preface by Ken Wachsberger
$37.50 + $6 shipping
|
|
Discussion Documents for a Militant Movement
By Don Hamerquist
|
|
|
|
An Invitation to CCDSers and Friends...
 A Post-Election Path Forward for the Left
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 defend voter rights, plan for 2014 races now, 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...
|
By Bill Fletcher & Carl Davidson
Progressive America Rising via Alternet.org
Nov 13, 2012 - The 2012 elections may prove to have been a watershed in several different respects. Despite the efforts by the political Right to suppress the Democratic electorate, something very strange happened: voters, angered by the attacks on their rights, turned out in even greater force in favor of Democratic candidates. The deeper phenomenon is that the changing demographics of the USA also became more evident-45% of Obama voters were people of color, and young voters turned out in large numbers in key counties.
Unfortunately for the political Left, these events unfolded with the Left having limited visibility and a limited impact-except indirectly through certain mass organizations-on the outcome.
The setting
On one level it is easy to understand why many Republicans found it difficult to believe that Mitt Romney did not win the election. First, the US remains in the grip of an economic crisis with an official unemployment rate of 7.9%. In some communities, the unemployment is closer to 20%. While the Obama administration had taken certain steps to address the economic crisis, the steps have been insufficient in light of the global nature of the crisis. The steps were also limited by the political orientation of the Obama administration, i.e., corporate liberal, and the general support by many in the administration for neo-liberal economics.
The second factor that made the election a 'nail biter' was the amount of money poured into this contest. Approximately $6 billion was spent in the entire election. In the Presidential race it was more than $2 billion raised and spent, but this does not include independent expenditures. In either case, this was the first post-Citizen United Presidential campaign, meaning that money was flowing into this election like a flood after a dam bursts. Republican so-called Super Political Action Committees (Super PACs) went all out to defeat President Obama.
Third, the Republicans engaged in a process of what came to be known as "voter suppression" activity. Particularly in the aftermath of the 2010 midterm elections, the Republicans created a false crisis of alleged voter fraud as a justification for various draconian steps aimed at allegedly cleansing the election process of illegitimate voters. Despite the fact that the Republicans could not substantiate their claims that voter fraud was a problem on any scale, let alone a significant problem, they were able to build up a clamor for restrictive changes in the process, thereby permitting the introduction of various laws to make it more difficult for voters to cast their ballots. This included photographic voter identification, more difficult processes for voter registration, and the shortening of early voting. Though many of these steps were overturned through the intervention of courts, they were aimed at causing a chilling impact on the voters, specifically, the Democratic electorate.[1]
So, what happened?
Prior to the election, we argued that what was at stake in the 2012 elections was actually the changing demographics of the USA (along with a referendum on the role of government in the economy). What transpired in the elections was very much about demographics.
The percentage of white voters dropped from 74% to 72% between 2008 and 2012. Romney received 59% of the white vote.
Yet something else happened and it took many people by surprise. Despite the intimidation caused by the voter suppression statutes-and the threatened actions by right-wing groups-African Americans, Latinos and Asians turned out in significant numbers, voting overwhelmingly for the Democrats.[2] 93% of African Americans went with Obama, as did 71% of Latinos (which represented an increase over 2008) and, despite the fact that Asians are only 2-3% of the electorate, they went 73% in favor of Obama (which was a jump from 62% in 2008). The youth vote, by the way, increased to 19% of the electorate, over 18% in 2008, and went overwhelmingly for Obama. Labor union members went for Obama at a rate of 65%, and unions themselves played a major role in many key states in terms of voter mobilization. By the strategic mobilization of these voters in a well-organized 'ground game,' Obama won 332 Electoral College votes compared with Romney's 206. Obama's popular vote total was also 2.6% head of Romney.
The Romney/Ryan camp was entirely unprepared for this. While it is the case that the popular vote total was not overwhelming for Obama, there was nothing particularly unusual in US history for such a result. The bottom line is that Obama clearly won both the Electoral College vote and the popular vote and, as such, can claim a mandate for his next steps....(Click title for more)
|
|
By William K. Black
via Beaver County Blue
Third Way, lobbyists for and from Wall Street who are leading the effort to enrich Wall Street by privatizing Social Security, was created by Wall Street to fool some of the people all of the time. I have written previously to expose their fictional claims to be a moderate or liberal Democratic group.
Eric Lautner documented Wall Street's effort to become even wealthier by privatizing Social Security in articles and his recent book (The People's Pension: The Struggle to Defend Social Security Since Reagan (AK Press)).
I showed that Third Way makes itself useful by providing a faux "liberal" or "moderate" "Democratic" quote machine that can be used to discredit Democrats and Democratic policies such as the safety net. I gave examples of how Third Way gave aid and comfort to the effort to defeat Elizabeth Warren and the effort to unravel the safety net. Third Way continues to prove that you can fool some of the people all of the time.
The National Journal ran an article on November 8, 2012 entitled "Left Divided over 'Grand Bargain.'"
"Groups concerned with protecting entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare are finding themselves at odds over whether an overarching fiscal deal during Congress's end-of-year session would help or hurt their cause.The AFL-CIO organized a day of action on Thursday-part of a broader post-election campaign to protect entitlements-with dozens of events scheduled nationwide to urge lawmakers to avoid such a deal.
A 'grand bargain' to prevent the year-end onset of tax hikes and spending cuts 'could cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits, all to give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans,' the labor group argued on its organizing site. But the union campaign is being met with resistance from others on the left.
'We, like you, are ecstatic about the reelection of President Barack Obama and what it means or American growth and prosperity,' wrote Jim Kessler, senior vice president for policy for Third Way, a liberal think tank with a centrist approach, in an open letter to the groups involved with the day of action. 'However, as fellow progressives, we were disappointed to learn that you will be leading an effort against the President to impede a balanced grand bargain.'
In order to protect safety-net programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, the left must embrace reform, Kessler writes."
Let me attempt again to make the basic facts clear. Third Way is not a "liberal think tank." It does not take "a centrist approach." It is not run by "fellow progressives." It is not concerned with "protecting entitlements." It is not even a "think tank." Third Way is a creature of Wall Street. It's version of "protecting" the safety net was made infamous during the Tet offensive in Vietnam when the American officer explained that "it became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it."
Third Way is the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party, which seeks to defeat Democratic candidates like Elizabeth Warren running against Wall Street sycophants like Senator Scott Brown and seeks to unravel the safety net programs that are the crown jewels of the Democratic Party. Wall Street's "natural" party is certainly the Republican Party, but Wall Street has no permanent party or ideology, only permanent interests. Third Way serves its financial interests and the personal interests of its senior executives. Wall Street has always been the enemy of Social Security and its greatest dream is to privatize Social Security. Wall Street's senior executives live in terror of being held accountable under the criminal laws for their crimes. They became wealthy by leading the "control frauds" that drove the financial crisis and the Great Recession. This is why Wall Street made defeating Warren a top priority....(Click title for more)
|
 During Obama's second term, the Left cannot passively await changes from the Democratic Party.
By Bill Fletcher, Jr.
In These Times
Nov. 22, 2012 - In 2008, liberals, progressives and many leftists made a strategic mistake. With the election of Barack Obama, we assumed that we could passively await change. We should have known better, given the experience of eight years of the Clinton administration. Rather than moving quickly to push the new Obama administration in a progressive direction, by the spring of 2009, the Left had ceded initiative on both domestic and foreign policy to the Right. With the 2012 election behind us, progressive forces should act quickly so as not to repeat our costly mistake of the first term. We must:
Prepare to take mass action as we head toward the so-called fiscal cliff. Forces within organized labor, among others, are already preparing to pressure Congress and the White House to reject reactionary cuts. What I am suggesting goes further. We need to begin organizing marches for jobs and housing in early 2013 in every state capital. These demonstrations must demand that people be put to work and that housing be made available for those who need it.
Demand economic and social justice. Though Obama campaigned in 2008 on behalf of workers, once in office he became far too cautious in speaking out for full economic justice, retreating into the realm of the corporate liberal. Too often, labor unions and others let him off the hook. We must make the expansion of workers' right to organize part of the national debate. And we must build a state by state movement to implement constitutional changes that expand workers' rights.
Insist that the administration take concrete steps to address systemic racism and sexism, much of which was evinced during the campaign by what was not said (e.g., a discussion of the state of Black America), as well as what was said (e.g., the misogyny coming from the Right).
Defend our planet. Hurricane Sandy has awakened many people to the increasing dangers of climate change. Though global warming was not discussed during the campaign, progressives must make this an immediate issue, starting with a broad-based education effort that links defense of the environment with the need to change this toxic economic system.
So, how do we do this? It is impossible to avoid the question of political organization. The Democratic Party is incapable of leading the movement for these changes, but it can respond to pressure from below. That sort of pressure will not, in the current situation, come from third party candidates, but it will come from the development of organizations that can field candidates whose politics are akin to those of individuals such as Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) or Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). This means a long-term strategy that does not bet our future on the ability of the Democratic Party to change, but sees the Democratic Party as a field of struggle as we build the electoral wing of a larger progressive movement.
|
By Rev. JOSÉ M. TIRADO
Counterpunch, Nov 22, 2012
There is a spectre haunting Europe.
It is creeping into visibility in Spain, in Albania, Russia, Poland, France, England and perhaps most immediately, in Greece. It thrives on shadows; the darker places within us all, of fear and insecurity, then it glides in, offering an inevitably cruel luminescence. It moves gradually though, confident in the power of its righteous insidiousness. It makes deals: accept our terms, it declares, and together we can rise. We can triumph over the darkness around us and create a new morning. We can push your doubt away and replace it with certainty. We can erase weakness, and make you strong, it says. We can replace anxiety and make you confident again. Join us, it pleads, and we can help you feel strong again, but now you will be joined in a new family and together, we will restore the Good.
 For us, for "our" people.
We have heard this promise before. It's the cheap allure of cultural purity and nationalist pride, of racial ideology, of religious chosen-ness, and when the rains of social or economic uncertainty fall, somehow everyone else, everyone outside that select group, becomes suspect. Or worse.
Take Greece, for example. According to one Human Rights Watch video presentation on Greece, "we are seeing attacks on migrants and asylum seekers with frightening regularity"[1] Their description of Greece is disturbing: "Xenophobic violence has reached alarming proportions with gangs regularly attacking migrants and asylum seekers. The attackers are rarely arrested, and police inaction is the rule. Access to asylum procedures remains difficult, and the recognition rate for refugee status remains one of the lowest in Europe..."[2] Racist violence is surging, women are among the victims now, and allegations of torture in police custody, the casual denial of human rights, threats and intimidation are escalating.
The Athena Institute, which monitors extremist violence from its offices in Hungary, declares that, "Differences among victim types make Greece the most troubled European country with the third highest victim number and the second highest victim/fatality ratio: more than half of the victims of major incidents died in that country until 2010 - even before its present crisis got full-fledged."[3] Things keep getting worse.
Golden Dawn may seem to be only black-shirted, over-enthusiastic nationalists who get edgy too easily, but we would do good to pay attention and not dispense with the lessons of the past, believing we have arrived at a stage in history when we have gotten past those lessons, when good intentions alone will suffice.
Well, they won't suffice. For most people, the word "fascism" is simply an angry epithet to throw at any person or idea one finds morally repugnant or, beyond the pale. It is hurled without irony by those holding bona fide fascist sentiments at the corporate Obama, as it was by milquetoast liberals at the inanities of Bush-era policies whose parallels they refuse to see in his successor. In such an environment, it has become a near-meaningless term, one that is used almost always incorrectly.
But there is history. Fascism is a real word, and it has real meanings. The phenomenon the word describes manifests similarly, no matter where it arises and what particular forms it takes.
It preys on insecurities around diminishing "traditional values" (which always seem to include keeping women from controlling their own bodies) and around masculine fears of displacement by women who assert their rights, or work outside of home....(Click title for more)
|
By Pam Riley
Mondoweiss via Alternet.org
November 20, 2012 - As Israel continues to pound the Gaza Strip, and factions within the beleaguered territory retaliate as best they can, there are many myths and stereotypes dominating mainstream media coverage, and many conversations.
Here are a few of the most common misunderstandings:
Myth: Hamas started the round of fighting that led to Israel's "Operation Pillar of Defense."
Fact: This myth represents a common error in mainstream - and even much progressive - media coverage. The "truth" all depends on when you start the timeline. What is clear is that while both Israel and resistance groups in Gaza bear responsibility for keeping the warfare going, Israel is more often the precipitator.
In an analysis [3] that has received very little attention by Western audiences, Nancy Kanwisher (the Walter A. Rosenblith Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) asks, "As Israel and Palestine suffer a hideous new spasm of terror, misery and mayhem, it is important to ask how this situation came about...How did the (last) ceasefire unravel?"
President Barak Obama and the mainstream media in the United States and Israel place the blame squarely on Hamas. It is true that a barrage of Palestinian rockets have been fired into Israel, and that ending this rocket fire is the stated goal of the current Israeli invasion of Gaza. However, this simplistic summary leaves out crucial facts. Consider this chain of events [4], which followed a "lull" of sorts over the previous couple of weeks: (The details of what took place during these days vary somewhat from one media outlet to another. However, the broad strokes are the same.)
· Nov. 4: Israel killed a mentally ill Palestinian walking near the Israeli-imposed "no-go zone" inside the Gaza Strip -- an event that triggered a rocket from Gaza into southern Israel, which did not cause any deaths or injuries.
· Nov. 8: Four Israeli military tanks and a bulldozer entered Gaza, fatally shooting a 13-year-old boy who had been playing soccer by his family's house.
· Nov. 10: In retaliation, two rockets were fired from Gaza into southern Israel, and an anti-tank missile injured four soldiers, when it hit an Israeli army jeep that had crossed over into the territory. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights reported the killing of five more Palestinians, four of whom were civilians - including two soccer players age 16 and 17 and two young men (18 and 19) who ran to the scene. Forty-nine others were wounded, including 10 children.
· Nov. 11: Amid talks of a truce, six more Palestinians (all but one were civilians) were wounded and another was killed by both air strikes and troops on the ground.
· Nov. 12: With Israeli air strikes continuing, two rockets from Gaza hit Israel.
· Nov. 13: After two mid-afternoon air strikes, news services announced a truce had been agreed-upon.
· Nov. 14: Israel ignored the nascent truce and assassinated Hamas military chief Ahmad al-Jabari. (It is questionable whether Israeli officials ever really wanted a truce. As Phyllis Bennis from the Institute for Policy Studies wrote in The Nation: "Earlier this year, on the third anniversary of the Gaza assault of 2008/9, Israeli Army Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz told Army Radio that Israel will need to attack Gaza again soon, to restore what he called its power of 'deterrence.' He said the assault must be 'swift and painful,' concluding, 'we will act when the conditions are right.' Perhaps this was his chosen moment.")
A fact not known by most Americans, who see Jabari as merely a leader of "terrorists," is that Israeli activist Gershon Baskin confirmed that Jabari was engaged in peace settlement negotiations with Israel. In fact, he was due to send Hamas' version of a draft agreement to Baskin on the Wednesday evening before he was killed. It's worth asking: Did Israel intend to torpedo those efforts?
The rest of the story is tragic history. Jabari's killing triggered Operation Pillar of Defense, and it continues to unfold.
"It is overwhelmingly Israel that kills first after a pause in the conflict," writes Kanwisher, who analyzed the entire timeline of killings between Palestinians and Israelis from September 2000 to October 2008, to determine if there was a historical pattern. "Seventy-nine percent of all conflict pauses (during the study period) were interrupted when Israel killed a Palestinian, while only 8% were interrupted by Palestinian attacks (the remaining 13% were interrupted by both sides on the same day). In addition, we found that this pattern -- in which Israel is more likely than Palestine to kill first after a conflict pause -- becomes more pronounced for longer (ceasefires). Indeed, of the 25 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than a week, Israel unilaterally interrupted 24, or 96%, and it unilaterally interrupted 100% of the 14 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than nine days."
One of the lessons from these data, she writes [3], is, "If Israel wants to reduce rocket fire from Gaza, it should cherish and preserve the peace when it starts to break out, not be the first to kill."...(Click title for more)
|
 By Marc Meyers
Jazzwax
Driving south out of Memphis on I-55 last Wednesday, I popped Jerry-Lee-Lewis-Event on Jerry Lee Lewis' CD, Mean Old Man.
The album is a tour de force of little-known country and rock songs featuring Lewis on piano accompanied by a who's who of guests, including Mick Jagger, Merle Haggard, John Fogerty, Mavis Staples, Ringo Starr and others. As I sped along with the music blasting, I couldn't help but marvel at how cool it was to be listening to the music of the guy I was about to visit. My interview with the rock 'n' roll legend last week appears in today's national edition of the Wall Street Journal and is online here.
When I arrived at Jerry Lee's 45-acre ranch in Nesbit, Miss., I encountered a large gate similar to the one at Elvis Presley's Graceland-except Jerry Lee's has a steel image of a baby-grand piano on it. After the gate slid open, I drove up to the house that Jerry Lee had purchased in 1972. As I climbed out of my rental car, I was met by Phoebe Lewis, Jerry Lee's daughter, manager and album producer [pictured].
After exchanging pleasantries, Phoebe gave me a tour of the upstairs, which included a look at the old Stark upright piano [pictured] that Jerry Lee's parents had bought after hearing him play his aunt's piano at age 8. The piano's keys were a haunted mess-some up, some down, some halfway down and all missing the white ivories thanks to Jerry Lee's young sewing-needle hands hammering away on them. My goodness, there I was staring at one of the instruments that launched rock 'n' roll and touching the notes reverentially. I also met Judith Brown, Phoebe's aunt, who keeps an eye on Jerry Lee and whose smile is as big as a Georgia moon.
To the uninitiated, Jerry Lee Lewis is a crazed piano player from the back woods who emerged in the late 1950s to score a few hits, married his 13-year-old cousin and found his career Images-1 derailed in 1958 when the British media caught wind of his nuptials. True, Jerry Lee is from a rural part of Louisiana. And true, he did marry his 13-year-old second cousin (they were married for 13 years and Phoebe is his daughter from that marriage).
But Jerry Lee is much more than a mere piano pounder. He's one hell of a boogie-woogie pianist, a natural with a photographic memory, which means he knows the melodies and lyrics to hundreds of songs despite not being able to read a lick of music. Self-taught, he had only one formal lesson, a brief encounter that led to a whack by his teacher after he cracked smart about playing scales....(Click title for more)
|
China is planning a building explosion of dense, sustainable suburbs, connected to its megacities by public transit. Can these "prototype cities" alter the course of the country's unsustainable development?
By Greg Lindsay
Fast Company's Co-Exist
Nov 21, 2012 - In 1902, a self-taught urban planner named Ebenezer Howard published his utopian vision for "Garden Cities"--self-contained circular towns radiating from a central city, connected only by train. Neither town nor country, they were a dense, compact fusion of the two: suburbia without sprawl.
 Although Garden Cities never really caught on in the West, the Chicago-based Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture has resurrected the idea with Chinese characteristics: a "prototype city" twice as populous and 20 times as dense, with a tower taller than the Empire State Building at its core. Working with one of China's largest real estate developers, the firm aims to build them by the score. © Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture/
The first is slated for a patch of farmland roughly 10 miles from the core of Chengdu, China's westernmost mega-city. Designed according to the specifications of Beijing Vantone Real Estate Co., the master plan calls for 80,000 residents to live and work within a half-square mile circle in which any point will be at most a 15-minute walk away.
To achieve that level of density--which is comparable to the Chicago Loop--"the average height of the buildings would have to be 18 stories," says Adrian Smith. But to preserve a 480-acre greenbelt around the city, and to mollify officials anxious about developers chewing up so much farmland, the plans call for towers as high as 400 meters (1,312 feet), taller than anything in Chengdu itself. (At least until AS+GG complete their commission for a separate 450-meter tower downtown.)...(Click title for more)
|
|
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 |
|
|
