Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Preview of "33 Revolutions Per Minute"

-->
The Music Sell-Outs

Snoop-Dogg – played at David Sacks’ “Let Him Eat Cake” Birthday party, which had an 18th Century pre-French Revolution Theme - powdered wigs, tights and all.  Sacks just sold his small software company, “Yammer” for $1.5 billon to Microsoft, and figured he’d order up some ‘edgy’ entertainment.  Fake thug Snoop-Dogg always valued the Do-Re-Mi over anything else.  At least he didn’t wear the powdered wig.  Evidently there were no guillotines about, but perhaps there should have been.

Sir Paul McCartney and Sir Elton John – for being knighted in the first place, and then for playing Queen Elizabeth’s Birthday Bash concert last weekend at Buckingham Palace.  Of course, pop music always had a weakness for the Queen - or was it being a queen, or was it for the pop group Queen?  No?  Are these two musicians democrats with a small d?  No.  Royalist pop tarts?  Yes! “God Save the Queen – the Fascist Regime,” sang another band that we know.  They did not get invited.

Bob Dylan – awarded the ‘Medal of Freedom’ by Barack Obama.  Showed up wearing dark sunglasses, with a smug look on his face.  He’s one of ‘those’ guys – the ones who wear dark glasses inside.  Another aging millionaire more concerned with himself than a fake award obviously given to capture a certain music demographic in an upcoming election.  Come on, the ‘medal of freedom?’  What did he do, jump out of a plane and seize some town in Afghanistan?  Dylan has not written a political song since 1975 when he released the great song, "Hurricane" about the false arrest and imprisonment of Hurricane Carter, a black New Jersey boxer.  Since then?  Nada.

Stay tuned for the review of "33 Revolutions Per Minute - A History of Protest Songs" from musicians that have a spine.

Red Frog
June 20, 2012

Sunday, June 17, 2012

Dracula ... Or Frankenstein?


Hungary Continues On Horthyite Path

If you know the history of Hungary, you know Admiral Miklos Horthy, a rightist authoritarian, led to the fascist Arrow Cross, who handled the deportation of Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz and other camps towards the end of World War II.  Both supported the Germans in that war.  The only thing that ended that romance was the arrival of the Soviet Army.  Now their successors, the Fidesz Party and Jobbik, continue on a similar path in present-day Hungary - all thanks to the restoration of capitalism.  Hungary is presently in the 2nd recession in four years, and no one has any money.  No wonder Orban wants to distract attention from the tremendous performance of his economy.

Proof? 

January 27, 2012 - Guardian

50 miles north of Budapest, in the Hungarian village of Gyöngyöspata, right-wing paramilitary groups linked to the fascist Jobbik Party have started a reign of fear against the Roma of the town, resulting in 4 serious incidents of harm against Gypsies.  The Civil Guard Association for a Better Future, Defence Force and Betyársereg dominated the town for 2 months, allegedly fighting ‘gypsy crime.’  The mayor of town is in Jobbik.  Romani children in town are taught in separate classes, use different toilets, lunch areas and festivities.  The Romani children cannot use computers until years after the other children, or participate in after-school activities.  The governing Fidesz Party has a program of sending the large amount of Roma unemployed (as well as others) to ‘labour camps,’ where they work for peanuts in poor conditions.  These camps remind the Roma of similar camps in war-time Hungary.  There are 400,000 to 800,000 Roma in HungaryCanada has become the destination of choice for Roma seeking asylum from Hungary.  

April 19, 2012 – New York Times

TEK is the acronym for a praetorian guard created by Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban of Fidesz in 2010.  They have almost unlimited powers of surveillance and data collection as an ‘anti-terror’ force, and are outside the command structure of the police, the courts or the security agencies.  They are instead under the Interior Minister, a lackey of Orban's.  Essentially, they are a personal secret police. TEK only have to act under police authority when pursuing criminal activities, like drugs.  The Fidesz Speaker of the House now also has command of a private guard – a “Parlia-Military’ – which is allowed, not just to ‘protect’ the Speaker or the Parliament, but to enter and search homes, etc.  The author asks whether these moves presage a police state in Hungary, loyal to only one Party.

June 13, 2012 – Bloomberg News

In a village 60 miles west of Budapest, Csokako, a statue to Milos Horthy has been erected to celebrate his rule from 1919 to 1944.  Horthy was an ally of Hitler, an anti-Semite and an extreme Nationalist. Other statutes of Horthy are going up in other parts of Hungary.  Books by Jozsef Nyiro are being brought back into the Hungarian school system. Nyiro was close to the fascist Arrow Cross Party.  Fidesz organized a reburial of Nyiro in ethnic Hungary, in what is now Romania.  The Romanian government refused to allow, in their words, 'anti-Semite/ fascist/ anti-Romanian' ashes, into their country, so Nyiro had to be ‘reburied’ without his ashes.  A large part of Fidesz program is for a ‘greater Hungary,’ including a large chunk of Romania.  Fidesz has given these Romanian citizens of Magyar/Hungarian ethnicity voting rights, which shows to what extent they are serious.  This is a voting bloc they hope to control.  By the way, this part of Romania includes the former Transylvanian territories of Count Vlad Dracula - the Impaler, which evidently makes it quite a prize for Orban.  Through these moves, Fidesz hopes to capture votes from the base of Jobbik.  Anti-Semitic incidents are occurring in the rest of the country.  There are still 120,000 Jewish people in Hungary.  A bit less than 500,000 Hungarian Jews perished in the Nazi/Arrow Cross/Fascist holocaust. 

Fascism?

People who use impressionistic methods to say that the U.S. is already ‘fascist' only prove how out-of-touch they are with real fascism. Perhaps they need their teeth knocked out by a Nazi punk.  Take a look at a country that actually has a developing fascist movement and compare. 

First there is the old hippie logic of the phrase 'friendly fascism.' 'Friendly fascism' is an oxymoron, like a 'kind killer.'  It cannot exist.  The U.S. government does not need fascism yet – not in a society in which the government has almost full surveillance powers and is weakening the rule of law in order to criminalize dissent, strikes and any real opposition.  In which the ruling class controls a vast propaganda network of television, newspapers, magazines and radio stations, holds the money card and controls both political parties. In which education is merely training.  In which the ruling class has at their disposal the largest arsenal of military/ police/ security forces in history.  I would call the U.S. an authoritarian plutocracy with a parliamentary veneer, or some variation on that.  For the American ruling class, fascists right now are just loose cannons that they allow to simmer, but not grow to their actual, full, height.  Mussolini’s definition of fascism (corporations and government acting together) was an incomplete description for what it really was – open terror against labor, against the left, against foreigners, against minorities of every kind, by a government and extra-legal paramilitaries acting on behalf of the corporations.  Of course, who takes Mussolini's word for anything?  You'd be surprised...

Fascism is the last resort of a threatened capitalist class.  Evidently the Hungarian capitalists feel they need these measures to solidify their weak position.

Happy Fathers' Day!
Red Frog
June 17, 2012

Sunday, June 10, 2012

Feeling Precarious Today?


“The Precariat – the New, Dangerous Class,” by Guy Standing, 2011

Guy Standing is a former economist with the International Labour Organization (“ILO”) from 1975 to 2006, a mainstream U.N. sponsored labor organization connected to the AFL-CIO and many governments.  So it is with some distrust that I read a book written by a former 31-year professional ‘labourist,’ as even he would call himself.  The ILO, to my knowledge, other than analyzing the working classes of the world, has never had any role in building a real workers movement anywhere.  In fact, it has done its bit at times to degrade labor. 

Standing has discovered what he calls a 'new class' - the 'precariat.'  And Standing is definitely on to something here. Traditional Marxism has some possible categories for this ‘new class’  – the semi-proletariat, the lumpen-proletariat, the self-employed, the reserve army of the unemployed.   The precariat borrows from all 4 of these groups.  One of his problems is that his definition wanders all over the place – at times seeming to include the whole working class and at other times a more clearly defined group made up of workers who’s main status is contingent.  After all, every worker experiences ‘precariousness’ at times, and also shares some of the pressures of the precariat.  Many workers with stable jobs still have no union contract and work ‘at will,’ with almost no protection from layoffs or termination.  Accidents or sicknesses can throw a worker into poverty quickly.  Even union plants close, layoff or cut work time, no matter how long you’ve worked at them. Of course, this is not news. 

Standing’s present status as a tenured professor at Bath in the UK seems to make him somewhat distant from the realities of the actual working class.  Everything seems to be strained through statistics.  In the earlier part of the book, he seems to include in the precariat paralegals (and other para-professionals), social workers, administrative assistants (formerly called secretaries) and even auto workers.  That might surprise the admin who has to copy his papers and make appointments for him at the University of Bath.  None of these groups is by nature precarious.  He also pulls a large factual boner by claiming that U.S. workers need to be in a job for a year to qualify for unemployment benefits.  It is a half-year.

Along with the precariat, Standing has created two odd new classes along with the precariat – the ‘salariat’ and the ‘proficians.’  The former seems to mean lawyers/doctors/professors/engineers/managers and other professional, high level white-collar types and oddly, also evidently the more numerous white-collar working class.  The white-collar working class is otherwise invisible in his schema, but perhaps he has another place to hide it.  Standing is a member of the top end of the salariat, by the way, and has been his whole life.  His understanding of the vast numbers of the non-salaried white collar and service workers is low, given this verbal slight of hand. (The salariat here serves the same muddling purpose as the term ‘middle class,’ I think.)  He seems not to know that many white-collar workers are legally ‘non-exempt,’ meaning they get paid by time worked, not based on a set ‘salary.’  His focus on the ‘salaryman’ of Japan illustrates this method – or ‘the man in the grey flannel suit,’ as it was called in the 50s in the U.S.  In his view, the industrial working class is the only real working class, an odd point of view shared with David Harvey (See “Rebel Cities,” reviewed below.)

The latter group, the ‘proficians,’ are identified by Standing as professional contract technicians.  I.E. self-employed contract ‘experts’ who collect pretty good wages – when working.  Given this group fits in several other categories, but mainly the self –employed, I find it odd that he even creates a group like this.  Nor does Standing’s grasp the enormous growth of peddlers in almost every country – the ‘self-employed’ of the street. 

Standing, however, does highlight the enormous growth, under late world monopoly capitalism, of millions of contingent workers – the long-term unemployed, temporary employees, part-time employees, contract employees, migrants, the elderly retired, the criminalized, the periodically self-employed; welfare recipients and the disabled; exported workers, prison laborers, forced (slave) laborers, political, environmental and economic refugees, and those without papers, even as citizens of their own countries.  For instance, in China hundreds of millions of rural workers cannot legally move to the cities to stay.  He contends that China has seen the largest internal migration from rural to urban in history.  Standing thinks that world capitalism prefers a contingent workforce to a stable workforce, which is patently true.  And which is why conditions of ‘precariousness’ are filtering into every workplace.  World capital has in essence degraded working conditions for millions of especially young workers to such a point that even dull wage stability is a dream.  As Michael Yates cleverly put it in “In and Out of the Working Class,” (reviewed below), not every worker in the world gets dental. 

Standing does not include them, but I would add the vast increase of street peddlers to this precariat list, as they are living unstable lives that depend on their exploitation of themselves, and often are fronts for various businessmen.  Most street peddlers buy their goods or materials from someone else, and are merely street ‘salesmen,’ repairmen or cooks, working on their own or in small groups.  The precariat also merges into the lumpen-proletariat at a certain point - those who have given up on finding a job, and resort to various types of crime.  They live contingent lives, part criminal, part self-employed.  After all, selling drugs is a ‘sales’ job, if you want to look at it from a non-legal point of view.  So is prostitution, selling your sexual labor, and giving some of the money to a pimp or madam.  These jobs are victimless crimes and are only illegal because of a law.  Standing does not mention this group except by inference (‘the criminalized’).  Once having a criminal past, it hangs around the neck of the precariat like an albatross, inhibiting better employment for a lifetime.

Standing also infers repeatedly that youth do not want to be life-long wage slaves – and that there is something liberating in not doing so.  However, being a life-long 'non-wage' slave might be even worse.  Otherwise, why is he writing this book - to celebrate the rejection of the 9 to 5 job?  Which is, of course, why anyone who looks at the present wants to end wage-slavery itself – something Standing does not want to do.  Standing accepts the market economy and at one point, says he wants labour to be ‘fully commodified’ – while cursing every other kind of commodification.  As if that is going to happen under capital without a class struggle that actually overwhelms capital.

Standing uses the term ‘populist’ in an exclusively right-wing sense, never in a left-wing sense, which is standard Democrat Party/New Labour verbalism.   Notice that the sub-head of the book calls the ‘precariat’ dangerous – and not necessarily just to the ruling class.  His usage suggests that a section of what I would call the working class –is no longer historically progressive.  While one half of young precarians might lean to the left (like his graduate students?) he insists that the other half of the precariat can become fascist – defined as people who complain about Wall Street, inequality and job loss (!)  There is certainly evidence of precariousness leading to the right.  For many years the absence or difficulty of holding jobs in the Palestinian West Bank has swelled the ranks of Hamas, and depleted the Marxist organizations.  Hitler himself was an unemployed house painter.  Recently, one of the top leaders of the National Socialist Movement, Jeff Hall, an unemployed plumber, was killed by his abused 10-year-old son in California

Indeed, as a capper, he puts in the standard helpless liberal line in his book:  "To imagine sustained ... resistance" against globalization "is fanciful."  (Shades of Chris Hedges in ‘Death of the Liberal Class,’ reviewed below.)  How convenient.  Resistance is Futile!  Resistance is Futile!  You can just hear the government megaphones echoing this phrase down the streets.

The best parts of this book are really progressive sociology.  Standing has immense sympathy for the precariat, and stands up for them.  He carefully details the precariat’s addiction to the internet; the greater presence of surveillance, which is used to control them; government programs inspired by Libertarianism that blame unemployment on the unemployed;  the use of counseling and ‘therapy’ to qualify for benefits; and the massive amount of unpaid labor that goes into job hunting and benefits retention.  Standing supports international accreditation, and opposes means-tested government aid, which alienates the more stable part of the working class.  Standing, however, opposes ‘workfare’ programs, and then implicitly comes out against national work programs of any kind as well, like the Civilian Conservation Corps, the WPA and the Federal Art Project from the U.S. depression-era.  In his definitions, Standing supports non-alienated ‘work’ over alienated ‘jobs’ or ‘labour’ - echoing Marx.  Though how I might pay for my groceries through writing this blog, I’ll never know, and nor does he.

Standing calls the lack of voting, the ‘thinning of democracy,' which results in alienation of the precariat, and denounces its replacement by the 'commodification of politics.'  Standing understands that the European social-democratic parties and U.S. liberals abandoned any class point of view in their activities, adopting neo-liberal platforms when required to do so by finance capital.  Instead of real awards for his help to the working classes, Obama won an award in 2008 from the Association of National Advertisers as “Marketer of the Year”  for his successful 'change' campaign branding.  As a result of this failure, the harder right is able to capitalize on the dissatisfaction of the precariat.  Here in the U.S. Standing thinks that means the Tea Party, which he, like many impressionistic liberals, calls ‘neo-fascist.’  Of course, are the real supporters of the Tea Party in the precariat?  Standing has no evidence this is so.

So what is the real answer to the rise of a hard right?  An actual mass left.  The precariat might be the most radical part of the proletariat at this precise time, so building a hard left might begin in the precariat and spread from there.  I think that is Standing's most valuable insight.

Standing’s solution is ‘denizens of the world unite.’  'Denizen' is his term for someone who lives somewhere, but it not really fully integrated into society.  If you notice he tries to borrow from Marx.  Many angry ultra-liberals borrow from Marx because they have no real source of their own anymore.  What Standing is about is replacing the proletariat with a precariat, providing an alternative to that 'fuddy-duddy' proletariat.  He calls it a ‘class in the making,’ not yet a ‘class for itself.’  He does not make one suggestion on how to unite the two ‘classes’ – if indeed they are completely separate, which I don’t’ think is true.  Nor does he mention the proletariat except negatively.  I would say the precariat is intimately connected to the proletariat, its lower half, whether white or blue collar, and not some totally separate entity.  I'd even be willing to bet, though I'm not an expert, that some or much of the proletariat in Marx's day was also contingent.  Standing does advocate broader organizations than just unions, as he feels unions will only protect their members.  Standing is in essence a social-democratic idealist intent on tinkering with government policy in order to make the labour market work better for everyone.  The word ‘socialism’ is invisible.  Of course, mass collective action against globalization is also invisible.  'Tinkerers of the Universities unite; you have a world to win' - that might be his final slogan.

And I bought it at May Day Books!
Red Frog
June 10, 2012




Monday, June 4, 2012

Looking Forwards to the Banana Republic


“With Liberty & Justice for Some – How the Law is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful,” by Glenn Greenwald, 2011.

Greenwald writes a column for Salon.com on law, politics and journalism.  He is one of the top bloggers in the U.S.  As a former Constitutional attorney, he frames his argument on the words and intent of the founders of the U.S. and the Constitution itself.  His assertion is that since the pardon of Richard Nixon, the top political and economic classes are now above the law in a real sense.  Given the importance of ‘a nation of laws, not men’ and ‘equal application of the law’ to the essential nature of the U.S., the republic that used to exist no longer does.  Implicit in this argument, of course, is the right of revolution given this state of affairs, though Greenwald does not mention it.

Greenwald pays particular attention to the broad swathe of pundits at the Washington Post, Time Magazine, the New York Times and other establishment presses that consistently uphold the right of the rulers to break laws.  They say if this is done, than we can all concentrate on a ‘future’ time of corrective action, not vindictive ‘looking back.’ Of course, why would anyone obey any law if there is no punishment?  You can see the problem with this argument. It actually encourages lawbreaking. Yet that is the heart of the argument by politicians and their pundits.

Greenwald first takes us through a short history of executive pardons and protections.  The one that started it all - of Nixon by Ford; the pardon of the Iran/Contra crowd like Ollie North by Reagan; the protection of the Iraq-gate perpetrators like Donald Rumsfield by Clinton; the pardon of Cap Weinberger re Iran/Contra by Bush41; and the pardon of Scooter Libby for the outing of Valerie Plame by Bush43.   The wholesale protection by Obama of the Republican authors (and Democratic Party collaborators) of the illegal torture-kidnapping-imprisonment regime, the illegal Iraq War, obvious perjurers like Alberto Gonzalez, evidence destruction, and domestic spying is only the latest phase in this decades-long development.  As Greenwald puts it, ‘To date, Obama has succeeded in blocking and suppressing virtually every investigation into Bush crimes.”   Greenwald contends the political rulers do this to protect themselves in the future – the behavior is self-serving and self-perpetuating. 

Ford’s pardon of Nixon set the stage, by using the phrases, ‘look forward, not back’ – a phrase that every single president has used since to justify elite law-breaking. (as Greenwald put it, try that on a cop next time you get a ticket!)   Libby was indicted, then pardoned, and the right and center went ape-shit just because of the indictment.  Of course, the reason he was even indicted was because he had crossed the CIA.  The lesson there is that the only people the elite have to fear is the other people in the ruling elite - certainly not the laws of the U.S. or the general population.   

It should be noted that the increasing lawlessness of the elite corresponds quite well with developments in the so-called ‘private’ sector.  The merger of government and corporate capital has become closer and closer over the years.  Greenwald’s prime example is the struggle over telecom immunity during the Bush administration.   Only one major telecom stood up to Bush’s request for illegal surveillance and warrantless spying – Qwest.  AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, Bell South, etc. all cooperated.  When the program was revealed to be illegal, and lawsuits against the telecoms began to successfully move through the courts, Dick Cheney and the Democratic Party leadership crafted a ‘telecom immunity’ bill, which, after initially being rejected due to immense pressure from the base, was finally signed into law by Bush, and, in opposition to prior statements, also supported by Obama.  Greenwald looked through the case law and found only one other example of ‘retroactive immunity’ – related to some banks in the 60s.  That is how rare this was. 

Greenwald pays special attention in this matter to a guy named Michael McConnell – the ultimate insider moving between the lobbying firm Booz Allen, the telecoms and the intelligence agencies in the government, advocating privatization of all security and intelligence functions while in both positions.  A mountain of telecom cash found its way to the Democratic Party during this debate, culminating in the obscene spectacle of Democratic Party delegates in Denver in 2008 carrying bags emblazoned with the AT&T logo.  Or, as I read it, “Your Convention, sponsored by Crooked Shit-Bags.” 

The legal immunity of the private sector continued after the 2007-2008 market crash, when not one firm or corporate individual was indicted, let alone gone to jail.  (See review of the book, “Griftopia” below.) Massive illegal practices – by the ratings agencies, the capital markets firms, the insurance and mortgage companies – were topped off by in incredible scandal in which banks fabricated documents in order to foreclose on homeowners, basically stealing their houses illegally.  Small fines were paid, and business went on as usual.  As they say, ‘that is the cost of doing business.”   Oddly enough, Greenwald starts this chapter about a hedge fund manager running over and killing a bicyclist in Vail, Colorado, and only being charged with a misdemeanor. (Amy Senser, you should have lived in Colorado and been a fund manager.)  Greenwald calls the chapter, “Too Big To Jail.”

Greenwald has a long chapter on how Obama has deepened the Bush regime behavior (just as Clinton carried on the legacy of Ronald Reagan in his own way…).  Obama continued to maintain Guantanamo and the military court system, even though most people in it were known to be innocent.  His treatment of U.S. citizen Bradley Manning, following on the heels of Bush's cruel treatment of Jose Padilla, was especially brutal.  Obama has now made a specialty of increased drone attacks, which by any international law are illegal.  And now most radically, he claims the right to kill U.S. citizens without a judicial warrant and without review of his actions.  I.E. the President is now judge, jury and executioner, all in one. Whistle-blowers are now more hounded than under Bush.  The Obama DOJ has gone after Spain, Italy and the U.K. for trying American secret police for violations of the International Convention on Torture, intimidating them into not proceeding.  The Obama State Department under Hillary Clinton endlessly lectures other countries on how they must come to terms with their own historical crimes, exempting America of course - remember, 'look forward, not back!"  Obama has deported more people than Bush ever did.  The Obama DOJ’s attempt to extradite Julian Assange and to prosecute Wikileaks as ‘terrorist’ supporters are more of the same.  And this from a guy who ran on a platform of bringing lawfulness back to the centers of power.


Can I say it?  Obama has no peer among presidential candidates for promising one thing, and doing a 180 once in office.  Except for the Afghan war.  There he carried out his campaign promise. 

Greenwald points out that while the law is in abeyance for the ruling class (or can be changed by Congress conveniently), laws increasingly are applied to the general population, and especially the black and Latino poor.  The flip side of attacking whistle-blowers, claiming executive privilege and exempting private capitalists and their politicians from the law is to bear down on the rest of the population.  The U.S. has the largest prison population of any nation in the world, by percentage and by numbers.  It has the most people locked up for non-violent crimes and for victimless crimes.  The ‘law and order’ mentality first developed by Goldwater, then Nixon, was instituted on a bi-partisan basis by Bill Clinton.  Can we forget his enthusiastic support of the execution of a retarded black man as one of the first acts of his campaign?  The private prison industry lobbies for more prisoners.  And at the heart of the whole mess is the reactionary drug ‘war’- aimed squarely at young black and Latino males.  Given this group might be the most susceptible to revolutionary impulses, it only makes sense that the government concentrates on incarcerating millions of youth under the excuse of drugs.  This, as they said in the 1960s, is institutional racism. 50 years later, nothing has changed.

And if you are leftist then you get treated like you are the lowest of the low.  Recently a supporter of the Committee to Stop FBI Repression in Los Angles was arrested for allegedly throwing a can of pop at a cop almost 40 years ago, and charged with 5 felonies. (He won this one, however, on Tuesday!)  Who can forget the ‘cold case’ mentality that went after Sarah Jane Olson?  Eric Holder, of the Obama DOJ, and their front woman, Elena Kagan, now of the Supreme Court, used the implementation of Bush’s Patriot Act in “Humanitarian Law Project v Holder” (See analysis of Humanitarian Law Project case, below) to go after local anti-war and socialist activists as ‘terrorist supporters.’ And lets not forget the epidemic of entrapment by the FBI - they almost wouldn't have caught anyone without providing the bombs themselves.

What to do?  Well, Greenwald has few solutions.  He’s been a supporter of left-Democrats in the past.  But here, I think, is the key sentence – “Democratic activism is no match for the army of corporate money, lobbyists, national security officials and media servants.  Ordinary Americans, even when united in a coordinated campaign, may be able to delay or disrupt this limitlessly funded onslaught, but they eventually will be steamrolled by it.”  Think back to the mass opposition to the second Iraq war, the stopping of the first bailout, or the stopping of the first attempt to get telecom immunity.  The population won for a short time, then lost.  Even the Vikings stadium debate is an example on a local level.  We need a mass organization that does not go away, that has people in Congress, in the communities and in workplaces, that will not compromise on essential points, and is based on the majority of the population.  The Democratic Party is not it.  Nor are small, temporary, local committees, working on isolated issues.  Short of a major mass movement or a revolution, the situation of unequal application of law is not going to change.

And I bought it at May Day books!
Red Frog
June 4, 2012