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 BuckinghamPalace. 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. He's a good musician and song writer, but this?
Stay tuned for the review of "33 Revolutions Per Minute - A History of Protest Songs" from musicians that have a spine. Dylan and Snoop Dogg had one at one time.
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 Hungary. Canada
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.
“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.
“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.
