We need an analysis of those supporting Barack Obama who call themselves liberals, progressives and leftists not more analysis of where the American people stand in relation to these wars...

Alan L. Maki said...


There are only three wars the majority of the American people were ever in favor of winning--- the Civil War, the Spanish Civil War and World War II.



All other U.S. wars have been imperialist wars without the support of the majority of the people.



The American people in their overwhelming majority have been able to discern just from unjust wars. Even if the United States could "win" the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the majority of the American people would not support these imperialist wars.



The real question is not whether or not the American people support these wars but: What can we do to end the wars.



The Rag Blog still continues to cling to supporting Obama... the need to expose Barack Obama as a Wall Street imperialist warmonger is what is needed; not more analysis about how the majority of the American people feel about these dirty imperialist wars.



As long as there are significant numbers of liberals, progressives and leftists clinging to supporting Obama rather than finding a way to make sure he is a one-term president with a liberal-progressive-left coalition pro-peace, anti-imperialist agenda pushing him from office these wars are going to continue.



I would suggest that the Rag Blog analyze its own contribution towards prolonging these dirty wars as it very selectively gives voice without any challenge or debate to the phoney liberals, progressives and leftists who continue backing Obama who are the ones holding back building the kind of massive coalition required to end these dirty wars and occupations.



Oct 23, 2010 3:44:00 PM

Are the wars killing the economy along with jobs and people?

Pat Porter

‎'Obama chose the Wall Street Agenda over solving the problems of the people'...I would like to focus on that remark for a moment. The problems of the people are directly connected to the health of our economy. Would have rathered that the... banks fail? Would you rather have more people unemployed because the banks went belly up...which were the conditions the proceeded the last depression? Your argument is not logical. FDR created jobs through programs like WPA, Conservation Corp. and many others...and that is what we will have to do soon in order for people to get jobs and participate in this economy. What you are proposing may seem honorable to you but in my opinion is foolish at best. All it will do is give the GOP one more chance to screw us even more. There are no progressive candidates prepared to run, unless I am missing something here.

Alan L. Maki

We don't know who might be prepared to run yet.
I have from day one been pushing for WPA and CCC type programs... anyone can go read my blogs.
You miss the point completely, Pat; the point is YOU are not asking or answering the most important... question of all:
How is Obama's and the Democrats' war economy working for YOU?
There isn't any economy under any economic system that can survive a war economy.
This country has been on a war economy since World War II.
The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have cost us more than World War II and have gone on twice as long.
Obama and the Democrats are pushing these wars to continue... for our own livelihoods and a better world we need to push the masters of war and the merchants of death and destruction from public office--- and this includes the foremost warmonger of our times... Barack Obama who has had every opportunity and the full support of the American people to bring an end to these wars that kill jobs just like they kill people.
Pat, do you really expect any thinking person to believe that the main and primary reason for this failing economy is not these wars? Financing these wars has taken money from the pockets of working people and severely restricted the money they have to spend.
If this same amount of money was spent on WPA, CCC and social programs like a public health care system and a national public childcare system these programs solving the problems of working people would create well over twenty-million good-paying jobs and we would have a very robust economy.
Pat, you state:
"FDR created jobs through programs like WPA, Conservation Corp. and many others...and that is what we will have to do soon in order for people to get jobs and participate in this economy."
I agree... but, why don't you explain where the money for these programs is going to come from?
Again, it is Obama and the Democrats spending money on wars instead of spending our taxes how they should be spent... just how you suggest.
Let me tell you a little fact, Pat; It doesn't make one dime's bit of difference if it is Democrats or Republicans voting to spend our money on these wars--- they are the same dirty wars funded by the exact same money.
In a very round about way; you have made my point.
If we can't find the progressive candidates to run... I would suggest we all just bend over; put our heads between our legs; and kiss our butts good-bye.

Too “apathetic” or “lazy” to vote? Or just no choices?

• 

  Timothy Wheeler Think about Medgar Evers, shot to death in his driveway in Mississippi for organizing Black people to vote. It is a right that oceans of blood was spilled to win. Do not forfeit that right out of laziness or apathy. If you are not registered to vote, do it NOW! The deadline is NOW! Karl Rove is depending on you staying home Nov. 2 to give the Republicans majority control of the House and Senate. Vote Nov. 2!

  • • 

      Alan L. Maki

      Perhaps you could post a list of Democrats and others worth voting for based on the positions taken by those running for the U.S. House and U.S. Senate and for Governors?
      Maybe start with those who are opposed to funding the Israeli killing ...machine and work towards issues like those opposed to funding these dirty wars (and occupations) in Iraq and Afghanistan working towards where they stand on government becoming the employer of first choice in ending unemployment and supporting the enforcement of affirmative action (Executive Order #11246).
      Medgar Evers fought for the vote in order that people would be able to participate in electoral struggles to compliment the struggles in the streets to make life better for people of color and all working people.
      There seems to be a "laziness" on the part of some to issue shallow calls for people to vote without taking the time to educate voters where politicians stand on the issues.
      And, when people vote for candidates who work against their own interests because they lack required information about these candidates it doesn't really make any difference if they vote or not. And when voters have no choices at the polls there really is no reason to vote... failing to vote for such a reason is not "apathy" or "laziness."
      I already voted... out of a very long list of candidates for many offices, I voted for only one candidate, Mark Dayton for Governor--- the rest of the candidates for various offices don't care about the problems and concerns of working people so what do I care who wins or loses?
      Believe me, it was not that I was "apathetic" or too "lazy" to vote any of the other races... I intentionally didn't vote, and none of the Republicans that might win could possibly scare me into voting for worthless Democrats.
      In most places across this country when I look at the Democrats running the Republicans aren't scary enough to make me vote Democrat.
      Here in my own Congressional District, Democratic Congressman Colin Petersen, a big Obama booster who won't even put up a yard sign for Mark Dayton for Governor; Peterson boasts that he is more conservative than any Republican. Why would I vote for Peterson?
      Then I look at Barbara Boxer and her shameful support for the
      Israeli killing machine and her support for the managements of the Indian Gaming Industry--- I wouldn't bother wasting my gas or a bus ticket to get to the polls to vote for her as "liberal" as she claims to be.
      In fact, we need to make sure that some of these Democrats are not part of the same political system that caused Medgar Evers to be murdered in his driveway.
      Hasn't anyone compiled the voting records and the positions of all these Democrats you want us to turn out and vote for? In memory of Medgar Evers and all those who gave their lives in the struggle to secure voting rights for everyone, don't we owe it to all these people who sacrificed their lives to at least conduct some education on where the candidates stand on the issues of importance--- like those issues brought forward at the recent October 2 One Nation Working Together march and rally? Remember, what we saw on the signs carried by working people and on their t-shirts is just as important as what was said in the speeches.
      Shouldn't all voters be asked to consider a very important question before they cast their precious votes:
      How is Obama's war economy working for you?
      It just might be that not showing up to vote for many people is their way of answering this question and it is an insult to suggest that people who are offended that candidates are not responding to their needs are "apathetic" and "lazy."
      For instance, had the candidate for Governor that the leader of the Minnesota Communist Party, Erwin Marquit, supported for Minnesota Governor, the candidate--- Margaret Anderson-Kelliher, the candidate of the Summit Hill Club and Democratic Party "Business Caucus" won the Primary Election... I would not have bothered to vote at all... not because I am "lazy" or "apathetic" but I don't need a Democrat shoving a telephone pole up my butt until it hurts any more than a Republican.

Is opposing Barack Obama from liberal/progressive and left positions the same as voting for Republicans?

Pat Porter You might just not bother and just simply vote for republicans because it will create the same result.

 

Alan L. Maki

The "result" is NOT the same as voting Republican when movements for peace, social and economic justice are being built even if Republicans end up winning because powerful movements can do more to influence public policy... this has been demonstrated time and time again... Franklin Roosevelt had a much more reactionary House and Senate to deal with in pushing through the New Deal reforms than does Barack Obama... the difference was the tremendous upsurge of working people demanding change. And, by-the-way, Roosevelt never kicked Frances Perkins or Harry Hopkins "under the bus" as Obama would most certainly do with any of his cabinet members if they were to advocate for social and economic justice as Hopkins and Perkins did--- in fact, when Frances Perkins, FDR's Secretary of Labor, came under attack by Tea Bagger-like rightwing fascist elements who accused her of trying to implement the agenda of the Communist Manifesto with her social programs like Social Security, unemployment compensation and socialized health care she responded, "I would rather see these words on paper put into government policies helping people instead of remaining words on the pages of an old pamphlet." And even the Democrats in Congress joined the Republicans in trying to impeach Frances Perkins... they called her a Bolshevik, they accused her of screwing Communist labor leader Harry Bridges, they accused her of having "affairs with Negros." For her entire period at the helm of the United States Department of Labor (three terms with Roosevelt) Perkins was under constant and unrelenting attack but she stuck to her intent to bring forward a liberal/progressive/left agenda intended to solve the problems of the people... think about this: Social Security solved problems for everyone in this country and look how many hundreds of thousands of jobs were created through the administration of the Social Security system. Public education provides jobs; look at all the government agencies from garbage to water departments providing work for people while solving problems encountered by society.
Barack Obama is focused on private industry as the "solution to unemployment and he is promoting wars that kill jobs just like these wars kill people.
I have no illusions that any politician can work "miracles," however, Obama had tens of millions of people willing and eager to support a progressive agenda that would have of necessity been in opposition to Wall Street's very narrow agenda which has one and only one goal and objective: maximum corporate profits... Obama chose the Wall Street agenda over solving the problems of the people; Obama chose more war instead of peace. No one held a gun to Obama's head forcing him to choose Wall Street over Main Street; Obama made this decision on his own. As such, Obama needs to be pushed from office, not by Republicans and Tea Baggers--- but from the liberals, progressives and the left... and we need to have a candidate of this liberal, progressive,left grouping to challenge Obama in the Democratic primary who is prepared to run as a third party candidate if she/he loses the primary challenge... this is the way to break free from the two-party trap.

No; opposing Obama and the Democrats from liberal, progressive and left positions is not the same as voting Republican even if the Republicans win because the most powerful coalition in this country is the liberal/progressive/left coalition when it is understood that struggles in the streets and at the ballot box must compliment and strengthen one another… and what isn’t won at the ballot box can be won in the streets and victories won in past struggles must be defended at the ballot box and in the streets.

Hey, Small Spender

From: Alan Maki <maki_alan@yahoo.com>
Subject: [Out_Of_The_Frying_Pan] Re: [progressivesforobama] The Spending that Wasn't: Still Another Reason for a Popular Front vs. Finance Capital
To: progressivesforobama@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Out_Of_The_Frying_Pan@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Bloice" <cbloice@comcast.net>, "Carl Davidson" <carld717@aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, October 12, 2010, 12:57 AM

It is not that the "size" of the stimulus spending was inadequate; Krugman shows his true colors on this one... its the fact that all this money was turned over to the private sector.
Those of you in the Progressives for Obama have been afraid to criticize Obama at the time he is making decision every single time.

Anyone can understand that it will take government becoming the employer of first choice in order to get the most "bang for the buck;" more jobs.

You berated alternatives like spending for a national public health care system and a national childcare system because you knew that it would embarrass Obama. Between the two programs some 15,000,000 jobs would be created and still at this late date you refuse to advocate for specific solutions to specific problems.

All of this and more can be paid for by ending these dirty wars and "taxing the hell out of the rich." A federal bank should be created to borrow at substantially lower interest rates so tax-payers reap the profits in interest rates and not Wall Street bankers.

Mark Dayton is calling for "tax the rich" in his campaign for Governor of Minnesota and Virg Bernero running for Governor in Michigan is calling for Michigan to create a state bank like The State Bank of North Dakota.
The Progressives for Obama run away from these concrete suggestions as Barack Obama and the leadership of the Democratic Party is mounting pressure on both Bernero and Dayton--- in fact, their campaigns are being sabotaged by the state and national Democratic Party.

Are you waiting for Paul Krugman to endorse these two ideas? If so, I hope you are holding your breath.

In fact Barack Obama is a HUGE spender; the problem is, not as Krugman claims the spending is too small; the money is not being spent in the correct way with the federal government becoming the employer of first choice investing our tax dollars solving the problems of working people--- solving the problems of working people is what creates jobs. We need to work our way out of this capitalist economic depression not spend our way out... in fact, Barack Obama and Wall Street are afraid to create the kind of massive universal social programs required because they see that once these programs work, they will be defended by the people--- Social Security and public education being perfect examples.

Wall Street apologists and Sooth-sayers are definitely afraid of people realizing that socialism works.

Alan L. Maki
58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763
Phone: 218-386-2432
Check out my blog:
http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/
--- On Mon, 10/11/10, Carl Davidson <carld717@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Carl Davidson <carld717@gmail.com>
Subject: [progressivesforobama] The Spending that Wasn't: Still Another Reason for a Popular Front vs. Finance Capital
To: "progressivesforobama" <progressivesforobama@yahoogroups.com>, "moderator" <moderator@portside.org>, the-rag-blog-group@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, October 11, 2010, 12:36 PM

October 10, 2010

Hey, Small Spender

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Here’s the narrative you hear everywhere: President Obama has presided over a huge expansion of government, but unemployment has remained high. And this proves that government spending can’t create jobs.
Here’s what you need to know: The whole story is a myth. There never was a big expansion of government spending. In fact, that has been the key problem with economic policy in the Obama years: we never had the kind of fiscal expansion that might have created the millions of jobs we need.
Ask yourself: What major new federal programs have started up since Mr. Obama took office? Health care reform, for the most part, hasn’t kicked in yet, so that can’t be it. So are there giant infrastructure projects under way? No. Are there huge new benefits for low-income workers or the poor? No. Where’s all that spending we keep hearing about? It never happened.
To be fair, spending on safety-net programs, mainly unemployment insurance and Medicaid, has risen — because, in case you haven’t noticed, there has been a surge in the number of Americans without jobs and badly in need of help. And there were also substantial outlays to rescue troubled financial institutions, although it appears that the government will get most of its money back. But when people denounce big government, they usually have in mind the creation of big bureaucracies and major new programs. And that just hasn’t taken place.
Consider, in particular, one fact that might surprise you: The total number of government workers in America has been falling, not rising, under Mr. Obama. A small increase in federal employment was swamped by sharp declines at the state and local level — most notably, by layoffs of schoolteachers. Total government payrolls have fallen by more than 350,000 since January 2009.
Now, direct employment isn’t a perfect measure of the government’s size, since the government also employs workers indirectly when it buys goods and services from the private sector. And government purchases of goods and services have gone up. But adjusted for inflation, they rose only 3 percent over the last two years — a pace slower than that of the previous two years, and slower than the economy’s normal rate of growth.
So as I said, the big government expansion everyone talks about never happened. This fact, however, raises two questions. First, we know that Congress enacted a stimulus bill in early 2009; why didn’t that translate into a big rise in government spending? Second, if the expansion never happened, why does everyone think it did?
Part of the answer to the first question is that the stimulus wasn’t actually all that big compared with the size of the economy. Furthermore, it wasn’t mainly focused on increasing government spending. Of the roughly $600 billion cost of the Recovery Act in 2009 and 2010, more than 40 percent came from tax cuts, while another large chunk consisted of aid to state and local governments. Only the remainder involved direct federal spending.
And federal aid to state and local governments wasn’t enough to make up for plunging tax receipts in the face of the economic slump. So states and cities, which can’t run large deficits, were forced into drastic spending cuts, more than offsetting the modest increase at the federal level.
The answer to the second question — why there’s a widespread perception that government spending has surged, when it hasn’t — is that there has been a disinformation campaign from the right, based on the usual combination of fact-free assertions and cooked numbers. And this campaign has been effective in part because the Obama administration hasn’t offered an effective reply.
Actually, the administration has had a messaging problem on economic policy ever since its first months in office, when it went for a stimulus plan that many of us warned from the beginning was inadequate given the size of the economy’s troubles. You can argue that Mr. Obama got all he could — that a larger plan wouldn’t have made it through Congress (which is questionable), and that an inadequate stimulus was much better than none at all (which it was). But that’s not an argument the administration ever made. Instead, it has insisted throughout that its original plan was just right, a position that has become increasingly awkward as the recovery stalls.
And a side consequence of this awkward positioning is that officials can’t easily offer the obvious rebuttal to claims that big spending failed to fix the economy — namely, that thanks to the inadequate scale of the Recovery Act, big spending never happened in the first place.
But if they won’t say it, I will: if job-creating government spending has failed to bring down unemployment in the Obama era, it’s not because it doesn’t work; it’s because it wasn’t tried.

We need to push Obama aside to make way for a real peace candidate in 2012…

Alan L. Maki

I think Reaganomics definitely pushed this country into darkness... however, it was the defeat of George McGovern that set this country on the steep slippery slope to perdition.

Liberals, progressives and the left should now begin looking for a real honest-to-goodness progressive like George McGovern to run in 2012... Obama is a loser and if he doesn't resign he should be either "primaried out" or face a real progressive running independent of the Democrats and Republicans; its time, long over-due, to finally set this country on a progressive course that will benefit, not only our own country, but the entire world.

It was the same Wall Street backed Democrats now backing Barack Obama who betrayed George McGovern and the peace majority of this country by with-holding their support for McGovern who now tell us we need to vote for them out of fear of Republicans when it was these very sell-out Democrats who gave us Richard Nixon... and the rest is history.

Liberals, progressives and the left should drive Barack Obama from office the same way we drove Lyndon Johnson from office for expanding the war in Vietnam.
There is no way liberals, progressives and the left should tolerate being intimidated into voting for candidates who are for these dirty wars and keep supporting the Israeli killing machine.

An unanswered question about health care reform

This letter was sent to Maggie Mahar of The Century Foundation which funds Democratic Party front groups and think tanks:

 

Why aren't we talking about a national public health care program (socialized health care)?

This is the only solution to this health care mess created by the for-profit, market driven health care system.

We already have three of the finest socialized health care models to expand and work from: VA, Indian Health Service and the National Public Health Service. Even as under-funded as these public health services are--- they are the best examples of good health care systems in the world.

If we ended these dirty wars that George Bush and the Republicans started with support from the Democrats which Barack Obama and the Democrats now keep going and expanding all on their own, we could use the money now being used to kill people and killing jobs to create the finest public health care system in the world which, in turn, would create up to ten million new jobs.

Here is a formula we should all be considering:

Peace = Socialized health care + Jobs

I work with people employed in the loud, noisy, smoke-filled casinos of the Indian Gaming Industry for whom real health care reform is a matter of life-and-death... working people employed in environments causing diseases and illness should not have to pay a single penny for health insurance.

People went to the polls to elect a president and congress to end these dirty wars, for real health care reform and for creating jobs paying real living wages... what we are getting is more wars, the "Health Insurance Industry Bailout and Profit Maximization Act of 2010" and trillion dollar "stimulus funding" creating poverty wage jobs without the enforcement of Executive Order #11246 (affirmative action).

I look forward to your response. In the meantime, we are telling people we are fed up with the politics of the Democrats and the Republicans:

No peace; no votes.
No public health care system; no votes.
No living wage jobs with affirmative action enforced; no votes.

This is what they call "accountability" in a "democracy."

We are living in the richest country in the world with a Wall Street imposed government that can't even provide its own citizens with something so basic as a fundamental human right like health care as trillions of dollars are squandered on militarism and wars.

We have a President who moonlights as a health insurance salesman who has a bunch of Congressman working for him as if they are part of Amway's pyramid scheme as the health insurance industry rakes in the dough and organizations like The Century Foundation have schemed to undermine even a simple reform like a single-payer universal health care system based upon the Canadian model.

Ms. Mahar--- you and The Century Foundation along with your "partners" like the Campaign for America's Future are playing us all for fools as if every day of the year is April Fool's Day.

Alan L. Maki
Director of Organizing,
Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council

Role of lack of purchasing power by workers in financial crisis…

George Hewison: Strike by big capital in the US in the billions. Big business blames Obama, but the real reason is the lack of purchasing power by workers. Note the Chamber of Congress even refused to meet the White House liaison to discuss the situation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/14/AR2010071405960.html

www.washingtonpost.com

• My response…

• 

  Alan L. Maki

  I agree with you completely, George. "Lack of purchasing power by workers" is the biggest culprit in this whole financial mess yet it is seldom discussed; although even Robert Reich, Clinton's Labor Secretary, has been mentioning this.
  Obama has been used by big capital for their own purposes; now they are done with him.
  That unused "capital" should be seized by the government and placed in a government created and owned bank like the State Bank of North Dakota... combine these funds with union pension funds, money saved from ending the wars and a nice big tax on the rich and we can create millions of jobs solving the problems of the people including national public health care and child care systems which will put money through wages in the pockets of workers to spend.
  Big capital should be told that we are just borrowing their money until we get the country back up on its feet again and they will receive the same interest that Wall Street bankers have been paying to those with savings accounts... and they should "hope" that things work out better for their assets than how things worked out for all the people who have lost their life savings invested in 401K's and in the homes they have lost.
  We have two very prominent Democratic Party politicians advocating real solutions to this economic mess...
  One is Mark Dayton--- a liberal with some progressive ideas and a very left main objective (although he has some bad ideas to go along with the good)--- here in Minnesota who is advocating "tax the rich" as the main part of his campaign platform as he explains it here:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlipIaVskPc
  And, here is Virg Bernero the Democratic candidate for governor in Michigan on his proposal for a state bank (Bernero has also called for a moratorium on home foreclosures):
  http://www.detnews.com/article/20100930/POLITICS02/9300381/1022/Bernero-lobbies-for-state-bank
  Both Bernero and Dayton push "private industry" as the key to job creation when it is quite obvious private industry has seized on this economic crisis to squeeze more work out of fewer workers thereby making unemployment and its associated poverty even worse.
  Government is going to have to become the employer of first choice creating huge public programs designed around solving the problems of working people and for the common good of society.

An Open Letter to Leah Daughtry

• 

  Alan L. Maki Leah Daughtry, the Campaign Manager for One Nation Working Together wrote to me and asked for my opinion and suggestions... what follows is my response:

  • • 

      Alan L. Maki

      Leah Daughtry, Campaign Manager for One Nation Working Together;
      Since you are asking me my opinion; I will be blunt and to the point.
      You are in a bind.
      Working people aren't going to turn out at the polls to hand over their votes to Obama and the Democrats because they aren't getting anything in return for their votes.
      In recent days Obama, his Administration and the Democratic Party started trying to bully, badger and intimidate people on the left, progressives and liberals--- all those who comprise the majority of the working class. When this intimidation didn't work to silence these critics Obama began a campaign of outright repression that will soon consume just about every single organization who sponsored and endorsed Oct. 2--- everyone is waiting for their subpoenas... not exactly the kind of atmosphere where people under attack and being kicked under the bus are going to be to encouraged to go knocking on doors and making phone calls let alone wasting their gas to drive to the polls.
      Obama is now changing his tune by telling working people not to worry about how everything he and the Democrats have done have hurt working people because the Republicans will be worse.
      Most people who participated in Oct. 2 did so, not to support Obama and the Democrats, but, to send them a message that they expected the change as it was promised.
      You have not helped matters either the way you first helped derail the single-payer universal health care movement; now you turn around and try to silence the anti-war movement by preventing a discussion as to what the major cause of this economic recession or depression is.
      You didn't want any of the speakers on Oct. 2 posing the question:
      How is Obama's war economy working for you?
      Nor did you want the statement made:
      Obama's wars are killing jobs just like these dirty wars kill people.
      Have you considered looking for help to get out the vote from your buddies at Brownstein/Hyatt/Farber/Schreck who helped you control and manipulate preventing the concerns of working people from rising to the top of the agenda at the Democratic Party National Convention?
      No peace; no votes.
      No jobs; no votes.
      No single-payer universal health care; no votes.
      No enforcement of affirmative action; no votes.
      War really is making all of us and our Nation very poor... so poor we cannot solve our many problems and the thing about this is that it is solving the problems of our people and society which is the way to create jobs.
      I really think you are exaggerating the numbers of people who you say turned out for Oct. 2... but, then again, it is an exaggeration to claim that there is a reason for working people to vote for Democrats who are willing to fund and continue these dirty wars as so many people suffer.
      But, no matter how many people were in Washington on Oct. 2 not many of these people, judging by what was on their shirts, signs and in leaflets handed out came to support Obama and the Democrats--- many, if not most, were there to demand an end to these wars and occupation and insist that the money saved would give us a nice start doing good things.
      I find it interesting that you, Richard Trumka and Ben Jealous didn't think of projecting an alternative to Obama's Wall Street agenda by insisting on creating a world-class public health care system which would provide ten-million people with jobs providing the American people with free health care--- instead of paying for wars.
      In closing, let me ask you: Is there a reason that after bringing all these working people to Washington D.C. you didn't take the opportunity to convene a founding convention for a labor-based peoples' party that would take up an alternative agenda? I bet a lot of young mothers and young families would like to participate in a new political party that would push, not only for public health care; but, national public child care centers, too.
      There really is a very good reason why the issue of peace must be at the center of every attempt to improve the lives and livelihoods of working people because otherwise things are just going to keep sliding downhill.
      Are you really interested in getting America back to work or only interested in electing and re-electing a bunch of Dumb Donkeys.
      I notice you didn't seem to want much discussion about the need to cut off funding to the Israeli killing machine, either.
      Thanks for requesting my opinion; I lok forward to your response.
      Yours in struggle and solidarity;
      Alan L. Maki
      Director of Organizing,
      Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council
      58891 County Road 13
      Warroad, Minnesota 56763
      Phone: 218-386-2432
      Check out my blog:
      http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/

Grassroots activists in Winnipeg, Manitoba take on big-business interests; from the Winnipeg Labour Election Committee…

This is a planning meeting to defeat the Katz' majority on Council.

* * * * *
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010
To: Winnipeg Labour Election Committee <wlec@mts.net>
...From: Winnipeg Labour Election Committee <wlec@mts.net>
Subject: Wed, Oct 13: Help defeat the big business - developer majority on City Council [Please forward widely]

From: Winnipeg Labour Election Committee
Re: Defeat the big business - developer majority on City Council

Dear Friends, Sisters and Brothers,

With just under three weeks before election day, Oct. 27, we are writing to everyone who rallied at City Hall and protested the sell-out of our City water department in the last two years. As the group that organized the rallies, we want to thank you for taking an interest in our future as a city and for acting as responsible citizens, unlike the majority of City Council.

A strategic push to defeat the right wing, pro-developer majority at City Council may be all that is needed to shift the balance at City Hall more in favour of the vast majority of people. We hope the following suggestion will meet with your active support.

We are proposing a visible postering campaign to defeat specific members of City Council who voted for the Veolia contract, including Mayor Sam Katz, and about a week before election day to have a picket line at Katz' campaign headquarters (883 Notre Dame).

As before, we are inviting a broad array of community organizations to become involved, especially all those who accepted our invitation to speak at our rallies in the last two years.

We will finalize our plan this week at a meeting where everyone is invited:

Wed, Oct 13, 7:00 pm
Workers Organizing Resource Centre
280 Smith St. (between Portage & Graham)
Please use the buzzer if the door is locked

Draft posters and campaign materials will be available at the meeting - in advance upon request by email. A brief analysis about the proposed two-week campaign is below.

If you have questions, please reach us at wlec@mts.net or 792-3371.

Yours Truly,
Cheryl-Anne Carr and Andre Lavoie
for the WLEC

* * * * * *
Two-week Poster and Picket Line campaign - proposal
Winnipeg Labour Election Committee

The aim of the campaign will be to defeat the right-wing majority at City Hall led by Mayor Sam Katz. Indirectly, the campaign will help candidates who are more easily influenced by people, not money. "A City for people, not big business and developer interests" is the proposed slogan.

Postering
The posters will play three roles:
1. Strengthen the anti-right momentum of Winnipeg voters who are unhappy with four years of favours to developers and big business, like the Veolia deal.

2. Urge people to get out and vote on Oct. 27, an essential need since wealthier voters already come out in high numbers and we need to mobilize the voters who want change at City Hall.

3. Build the supporter-base of the LEC.

Picket Line/ rally
Picketing of Sam Katz' campaign headquarters will be a visible rallying point for everyone who is unhappy with the right-wing majority. The aim will be to build enthusiasm to defeat Katz and his supporters. The picket may end with a brief rally; we may have to walk to a parking lot close by.

We will choose a date and time at the meeting, but these considerations should be kept in mind:
- should be on a weekend or after work hours; day is better than evening
- enough time after the picket to make a final postering push (lots of posters will be available at the rally)
- we need to collect funds at the event to pay for the postering campaign

The plan
Copy posters right after the meeting on Oct. 13.
Call for a large turn-out at the picket.

Phyllis Bennis is wrong…

 

Phyllis Bennis wrote this:

http://www.yesmagazine.org/peace-justice/one-nation-uniting-for-jobs-not-war

 

Here is my response

 

Alan L. Maki

Phyllis Bennis raises a most important point here yet she still fails to clearly see how the issue of unemployment and war are interconnected.

And, why must anyone walk a tight line fearing offending Barack Obama or any of these Dumb Donkeys?

The real shame came when Richard Trumka refused to address how Obama's wars kill jobs just like they kill people. It was Richard Trumka who should have posed the question from the speaker's podium to the American people:

How is Obama's war economy working for you?

Not only was the question of war and jobs not brought forward as they are connected; but, the issue of real health care reform and the very important issue of the need for a national public child care system was not even so much as mentioned.

In fact, Obama's wars and occupations are making us all poor and impoverishing our entire nation because spending our taxes and and wasting our resources on war and militarism is tantamount to dumping our resources into the ocean.

We need to unite the American people behind real calls for change.

Solving the urgent and pressing problems of working people is what creates real, long-lasting employment.

Instead of wasting money and resources on war and military bases all over the world protecting Wall Street's profits; what we need is a national public health care system with neighborhood clinics in every community providing the American people with free health care in the same way we have public schools. This would create around ten-million new, good-paying decent jobs.

Establishing a similar network of public and free child care centers would create many millions of jobs more.

We have a right to expect that the national president of the AFL-CIO advocates such a real progressive agenda for real change by serving notice on Barack Obama that come Election Day there will be no votes for him and these other Dumb Donkeys if they don't move in this direction.

I don't think Phyllis Bennis is right that it is because of workers in the war industries that Richard Trumka is refusing to bring forward these issues. I think this kind of thinking is a slap in the face to working people who would rather be manufacturing the requirements of a nation at peace solving the problems of the people.

I think Phyllis Bennis has taken a very cowardly stance in providing an excuse for this unconscionable behavior of Richard Trumka in first, not even stating his name as being one who did not raise the question of the need to end these dirty wars; but, Bennis then goes on to make this cowardly excuse for Trumka that insults working people when she knows full well that it is not because of workers in the defense industry Richard Trumka didn't broach this issue but because Trumka is wedded to the warmongering Democratic Party which is willing to sacrifice the needs of working people for health care and child care on the alter of Wall Street's quest for greater profits.

It is the "leadership" of the AFL-CIO which presents the problem not workers in the war industries who would be thrilled to have jobs manufacturing what is required to solve the problems of working people rather than implements of war.

William Winpisinger pointed out the fallacy of this well-heeled, upper-middle class mentality which blames workers instead of labor's mis-leadership for remaining tied to the war machine.

Alan L. Maki
Director of Organizing,
Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council

More about the One Nation Working Together rally

Alan L. Maki

I share most of Chris Hedges’ concerns about the One Nation Working Together rally... however, it does have to be pointed out that Hedges and his grouping on the left, refused to participate in trying to change the focus of the rally.

Hedges and this particular left grouping has yet to bring... forward a solid and coherent left agenda that can be placed on the plate of liberals and progressives. We all know that it is the left that bears all responsibility in bringing forward such an agenda--- liberals generally always have the right ideas when understanding what is wrong, but, they are liberals because their thinking does not lead them to action in solving the problems they usually articulate so well using statistics and figures but they have a very difficult time understanding that behind each and every number there is a living, breathing human being suffering to one degree or another.

Hedges appears to be content writing off liberals and even progressives and those on the left working inside of the Democratic Party at a time most of these liberals, progressives and leftists are in fact working outside of the Democratic Party, too.
I think the thing most noteworthy from this One Nation Rally is that when looking at the signs people were carrying, they were signs signifying the fact that Obama and the Democrats are not sincere in their talk of wanting to solve their problems. Hedges hasn't considered this.

The other problem is this that none of the left wants to face up to... in my opinion, almost all blame for the lack of direction and the false direction lies squarely in the lap of the Communist Party USA which has been hijacked by a leadership that has completely withdrawn from the struggles of working people.

It is unheard of in this country, that we have had such huge assemblies of people, during the Obama campaign, and now with this huge rally, and the Communist Party USA has never so much as distributed a leaflet articulating a progressive agenda as an alternative to Wall Street's wars abroad and austerity at home.

 
This is where the real problem lies.

People need to understand that it was a fight and a struggle just to get Harry Belafonte on the list of speakers... In this battle, I did not come across Chris Hedges or any of those who go way out in the opposite direction from the Richard Trumkas. Chris Hedges and many of these people were aware that this battle was being fought out among those supporting this rally--- I know for a fact that they were informed months ago because I sent them all e-mails which each and everyone of them ignored--- while I might add they denied us a voice in any of the publications they control and have influence over just because of their own very selfish anti-communist motivations.

Common sense dictates that the left on its own is nowhere near powerful enough to do anything on its own except become a catalyst for change through advancing a program and agenda that will bring together the three largest ideological groupings in the working class and in the working class movement: liberals being the largest with progressives and leftists... seeing as how the Communist Party USA is beset by severe problems that won't be resolved anytime soon, "the left" is going to have to find a way to work together more cooperatively and with some give and take without exclusions if we are going to make some headway. Getting Harry Belafonte on that speaker's platform was no small feat and accomplishment... it took a lot of people who don't normally even talk to each other to agree who that speaker would be... and it is just this kind of effort on a much larger scale that will be required by those on the left if we are going to move forward.

The left could have had a program and agenda to distribute at this rally had a small grouping not gone off on their own to "seize the initiative" for their own selfish interests under the guise of some kind of "socialist alternative." Their statement was obviously wholly inadequate which could have been corrected had they been willing to work in a friendly and open way with others rather than intentionally excluding so many on the left... the pretended they were the left knowing full well they had excluded most of the left.

We need an explanation why it is that those on the left like Hedges (and I don't mean to single out Hedges, it is just that his essay is being discussed) but, where is the link between war and unemployment and how solving the problems of the people are interconnected?

In fact, much of the left is trapped in the exact same hole that George Lakoff dug for liberals and progressives... you talk about policy directives but you never bring forward specific solutions to well defined problems. Hedges has fallen into this trap--- at least in my opinion. It was the same trap this group of "socialists" fell into.
I would encourage everyone to read the 90 page or so book by George Lakoff, "Don't Think of an Elephant!" if they want to understand the trap he has set. Obama uses this trap brilliantly and masterfully; his trap-tenders are Richard Trumka who is so easily manipulated and controlled by the likes of Leah Daughtry who the Democratic Party put in control of the One Nation Working Together rally which included some "marches."

As far as I am aware... Chris Hedges and others have never sought to inform people and educate people as to how this manipulation and control takes place through people like Leah Daughtry and her connections with Brownstein/Hyatt/Farber/Schreck. Why is this? Most people who participated in this rally were not even aware of the machinations used by these people to manipulate them... by the way, it was the same machinations--- and very same players--- used to subvert the single-payer universal health care movement at the Democratic Party National Convention.

We cannot blame people for being used and manipulated when we don't explain how this is all taking place.

In fact, I find most liberals completely appalled when I explain how they they have been sucked and and used by these people.

 
I have found Alternet and Truthdig to often contain a number of intentional inaccuracies based on anti-communism and even when the truth is pointed out, the corrections are not made. What kind of "left" is an anti-communist left?

Why are the organizers of the One Nation rally sending a message to Glenn Beck?

Alan L. Maki

I don't get it... why is this rally being pawned off by the primary organizers themselves as a response to Glenn Beck, which has prompted the media to hone in on this?

Why isn't this rally being touted by the organizers as a caution to Barack Obama and the Democrats to do what they promised or they aren't getting the votes of liberals, progressives and the left?

Aren't the organizers of this rally the same ones who said, "Vote for
Obama and the Democrats and we will hold their feet to the fire?"

Now, here we are, two years later and these party hacks like Leah Daughtry say they are sending a message to Glenn Beck!

Glenn Beck isn't the president of the United States--- the message needs to go to Barack Obama and the Democrats who apparently didn't listen very well to harry Belafonte's speech.

I was asked: What would you do to end poverty?

Alan L. Maki

Jobs! Of course living wage jobs. The point of having a job is so you don't have to be poor; yet anyone without a job is pretty much guaranteed of being poor.

We need to tax the rich and end these wars so we have money to solve the problems of people and society which will create jobs.

A national public health care system would create around ten million new jobs and a national public child care system would create millions of jobs more--- putting people to work solving our problems creates jobs and ends poverty.

Also, a minimum wage that is a real living wage based on all cost of living factors.

Was the purpose of the One Nation rally to show Glenn Beck we could out-do him or hold Obama’s and the Democrat’s “feet to the fire?”

Alan L. Maki

It's not about convincing Glenn Beck about anything... it is about uniting the American people--- liberals, progressives and the left--- around a common program for real change... Harry Belafonte properly framed the issues better than anyone... now where is the program advocating specific solutions to our problems to match?
A program that explains to the American people how Obama's wars are killing jobs just like they kill people.
Certainly no one is advocating waiting for Barack Obama and the Democrats to deliver change on their own?
By the way--- not many of the speakers held Barack Obama's "feet to the fire." How come?See More

2 hours ago · LikeUnlike

Rhonda Stevens

It is hard to come together when you have to tape record most any conversation you have because the next day, it can be something that it was not. I am making a point about integrity. Obama is doing the best he can. These wars were handed t...o Obama on a blood soaked silver platter. He is dealing with a dishonest republican party that intends to take care of the rich and put a lot of Americans in the street and hungry. Sorry, what you propose offers me nothing. Obama's walked into hell his first day in office because of what was dumped on him. Anyone notice how much money/profit corporations are making? But few are hiring though. strange. Obama 2012See More

2 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 3 peopleLoading...

Janice Woodfork Montgomery HE PROBABLY SAYS MUCH WORST IN PRIVATE

about an hour ago · LikeUnlike

Alan L. Maki

It is, in fact, very hard to "come together" when we have people claiming to be speaking about change trying to silence those with whom they disagree--- as the organizers of One Nation did and a Obama is doing with his raids, subpoenas and ...Grand Jury inquisitions against peace activists.
I would note, no voices such as mine were tolerated as speakers in order to provide those participating in the One Nation rally the opportunity to hear what is missing from the conversation.
My words are written and recorded right here for anyone to read. Perhaps we need to have Democrats running for public office sign a written statement informing us just what kind of specific solutions to our crisis of everyday living they have in mind... in hindsight we sure should have made Barack Obama placed all of this in writing because he has turned out to be the ultimate con-artist and flim-flam man extraordinaire--- more like a corporate health insurance salesman than a president.
First of all, Rhonda, the Democrats were every bit as involved in starting these wars as were the Republicans... the blood is dripping from both their hands.
Second, Obama sought this job and it is obvious he lied about the "change" he led people to believe he was for.
Third, Obama only has to call on the American people to back him up should he want to take on the Wall Street coupon clippers and the warmongering merchants of death and destruction.
You are implying it is all a matter of giving Obama time... well, how about you explaining what you think Obama is going to accomplish and how much time we should give him?
Furthermore, even if we assume tat you are correct, and I am not willing to make this assumption, that Barack Obama comes to this discussion about these wars with clean and unbloodied hands, Bush did not hand Obama the long-term OCCUPATION of Iraq, nor did Bush hand Obama orders to expand the war in Afghanistan... Obama did all of this on his own... after over 100 years both Puerto Rico and the Philippines are still being occupied by the United States after similar imperialist wars.
Obama has been in office for almost two years and the notorious School of the Americas is still receiving funding while our public schools are not being funded; Obama and the Democrats are willing to make funds available to teach murder and torture but unwilling to adequately fund public schools to teach our own kids to read and write.
We listened to speaker after speaker at the One Nation rally intentionally skirt the fact that these wars (no matter who is to blame for starting them) kill our jobs the same way they kill people.
And, what about single-payer universal health care... running for office Obama said the Canadian system works great; what do we get from him? The "Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical Industry Bailout and Profit Maximization Act of 2010.See More

about an hour ago · LikeUnlike

Midge Hough Oh please....you are so out of line with this crap!

about an hour ago · LikeUnlike · 2 peopleLoading...

Alan L. Maki

Out of line with this "crap?" What "crap?"
Out of line because I state my opinion which you would rather not be discussed because it is an embarrassment to Democrats?
Or, out of line because like many people in this country they want accountability from those they vote for?See More

about an hour ago · LikeUnlike

Cheryl Jenkins Jackson ‎@Alan, what are you hoping to accomplish with your remarks? Are you trying to change hearts and minds or do you just need to vent?

about an hour ago · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading...

Alan L. Maki

Cheryl; I don't think there are many hearts and minds to change; people are thoroughly fed up with politicians (Democrats and Republicans) who haven't been held accountable once elected.
Might I ask what your intent is with this question since it seems to me my concerns are very legitimate and very well explained.
Do you not think I have the right to question Obama pushing these dirty wars?See More

51 minutes ago · LikeUnlike

Janice Woodfork Montgomery ‎@ALAN THIS IS A MIDGE HOUGH PAGE WE ARE ABOUT ONE NATION AND UNITY, WHAT ARE YOU ABOUT

43 minutes ago · LikeUnlike · 2 peopleCheryl Jenkins Jackson and Lodis Dinwiddie like this.

Cheryl Jenkins Jackson

Ok Alan, fair enough. Yes you have the right to question, as do we all, but I don't understand the purpose for you doing it on Midge's page. She is not the enemy. If you think the POTUS is, it seems to me you should seek a better venue t...o voice your displeasure.
IMO doing this on someone else's page seems more argumentative than just expressing a concern. It is pointless and is not serving a purpose, making it just as useless as you seem to think the president is.See More

42 minutes ago · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading...

Alan L. Maki

‎@Cheryl; If Midge doesn't want to discuss the problems on her page she just has to say so; but, since she has stuck her two cents in concerning my comments on the One Nation facebook page I don't know why she would object to a discussion h...ere on her own page.
Weren't her comments intended for discussion?
Is someone being hurt by my comments?
@Janice; My comments are about what it is going to take to unite people for change. I don't believe we will see unity for real change unless ending these wars becomes what it is, central to almost everything.
How can a nation, any nation, continue to spend trillions of dollars killing people in other countries and then expect to solve problems of unemployment here at home?
Barack Obama's Wall Street agenda based on war abroad and austerity and poverty at here at home doesn't offer us much in the way of anything to unite around.
What do you think is the basis and foundation for "unity?"See More

29 minutes ago · LikeUnlike

Midge Hough

First of all, the one nation page does not belong to you. You did not even go to the march so you were there to cause trouble. Second of all I told you there that I did not want this to continue and you ignored me and here you are doing the... same thing again. I DON'T LIKE YOUR NEGATIVE self serving style. It's not about you Alan it's a much bigger issue. We have a choice come November and I chose my president over the right wing nut jobs out there. He will do the right thing but as I said earlier things are not black and white and there are many gray areas so you saying we have to stop these dirty wars today is ridiculous. It's a process!See More

23 minutes ago · LikeUnlike

Lodis Dinwiddie

‎@ Cheryl & Midge, most of it you have to ignore and unbefriend them when it becomes unbearable. I think they mostly want to vent and make you as miserable as they all seem to be; they realize they all have a choice in this election, it...'s how the democratic process is structured. If the president had done absolutely everything right, there would still be dissidents out there saying he should have messed something up. My way is to ignore and let them vent or show them the door. Remember, none of them is president and haven't a clue as to what the hell goes on up thereSee More

23 minutes ago · LikeUnlike

Alan L. Maki

Midge, I didn't attend the march in person but I helped see to it that three carloads of people, very poor working people, employed in smoke-filled casinos at poverty wages without any rights under state or federal labor laws who work in the... Indian Gaming Industry were able to attend... this might not be anything but the subject of ridicule for you; but, let me tell you that several hundred people who get poverty wages helped pay the way for 17 people to attend the One Nation Rally.
I am especially offended in your knocking me based on the fact that I didn't attend in person since anyone can check out my blog postings and see that I was thoroughly involved in encouraging many people to attend. That we don't have the resources and you never offered any makes your comment particularly offensive given that one of the main objectives of this rally was supposed to be about defending, protecting and winning better livelihoods for working people who are being mistreated by employers.
Perhaps if you had to work in a smoke-filled casino without any rights under state or federal labor laws you might think twice about what you say and how you say it.
You traveled to Washington by comfortable plane... our members traveled to Washington all cramped up in old cars and had to fix two flat tires.
I find your remarks to be the epitome of snobbery and arrogance very typical of those who want to manipulate and control everything.
As to your remarks, Lodis, I am no "dissident" complaining or whining about some trivial issues as you imply.
Obama and the Democrats have not stopped these dirty wars which was the number one reason why the American people turned out in droves to get rid of the Republicans... the American people didn't want these dirty wars when they were Bush's wars and they don't want them now that they are Obama's wars.
I could go on with a list of what I see as wrong with Obama and the Democrats... let's see how trivial you think this is:
Barack Obama and the Democrats have spent around one-trillion dollars in "stimulus funds" supposedly with one primary purpose being to create jobs. jobs, jobs.
But, the problem is, affirmative action (Executive Order #11246) was not enforced for these jobs. This is the very first Administration since Lyndon Johnson signed Executive Order #11246 where affirmative action has not been enforced.
I wouldn't vote Republican unless Lincoln rose from the grave; but, I sure as heck won't for a bunch of Democrats implementing the Republican agenda and that is just what we have right now.

Third Party Rising

Alan L. Maki

I think several new parties will be coming forward in this country very soon; most likely the Tea Baggers will have a party. Most important though is that we build a party that reflects the kind of coalition it is going to take the American people to win peace, real health care reform, jobs and create a higher standard of living for working people--- especially through universal social programs while defending the good social programs we already have like Social Security and public education.

We need a new party that will take in liberals, progressives and the left.

Something like the Canadians have with the New Democratic Party but built on the foundation of the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party which was destroyed by corporate and governmental repression at a time it was about to go national.

Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO and Ben Jealous of the NAACP missed the opportunity of a lifetime in calling for the formation of such a party in Washington at the One Nation Working Together Demonstration--- judging from the speeches I heard someone with the politics and popularity of Harry Belafonte is going to have to run at the head of such a ticket.

Obama’s backers call me “stupid.”

Charles Wright October 3 at 9:14am Report

I saw your comment on a post. How the hell do you figure that they are Obama's wars? Were you living on Mars when Dubyah started 2 unnecessary, outsourced wars.Get informed before making stupid comments.

 

Alan L. Maki October 3 at 9:37am

If you saw my comment why didn't you post your response here on the facebook wall... I will do it for you; and answer you :)

 

 

Alan L. Maki

Charles Wright--- October 3 at 9:14am

I saw your comment on a post. How the hell do you figure that they are Obama's wars? Were you living on Mars when Dubyah started 2 unnecessary, outsourced wars.Get informed before making stupid comments...

 

Alan L. Maki October 3 at 9:37am
If you saw my comment why didn't you post your response here on the facebook wall... I will do it for you; and answer you :)

@Charles and the other 237 people who, as of this morning, have messaged me with a similar comment...

First, let us be very clear about this: These wars are now Obama's wars. George Bush and the Republicans started these wars with overwhelming support from the Democrats in both the House and Senate and with the full approval of the Democratic Party.

Second, Obama has CHOSEN to OCCUPY Iraq for the long term... I would note that the United States has taken control of the Philippines for over 120 years and continues to have an occupying force in that country still at war with the people who want the United States OUT of their country. For what this occupation of the Philippines alone has cost the U.S. tax-payer, we could have been providing socialized health care for the American this entire time. Now this long-term occupation of Iraq that is Obama's doing, and Obama's alone is going to cost us the ability to fight hunger and malnutrition growing by leaps and bounds along with the poverty brought on by Obama's Wall Street agenda.

Third, it is a lie that Obama cannot end these wars because he inherited these wars from George Bush... I have never heard such a stupid argument in my life. You end the wars, put the troops on the same boats and planes that took them there and bring them home... simple as that; this is what Obama needs to do--- not expand the war in Afghanistan nor occupy Iraq.

Fourth, either Obama is the president of this country or he is not. What takes place on his watch is his, not George Bush's, responsibility.

It is a disgrace to hear Richard Trumka stand up before this entire nation and the whole world and fail to articulate the fact that Obama's wars are killing jobs the same way they kill people.

Richard Trumka had the responsibility to ask the people attending this march and rally and all those around the country and the world watching and listening:

How is Obama's war economy working for you?

Most people would answer:

Not very well.

That so many people would write to me calling me "stupid" (and much worse) for calling these wars "Obama's wars;" I ask them to tell me:

Who is in charge of this country right now?

Here is one heck of a FaceBook discussion…

 

Alan L. Maki A question from, John Hollingsworth, in Canada... Let's discuss this--- Why is it that European working class people fight back hard against the austerity program while here in North America we don't (or at least we don't on that wide scale)? I think that could also be a productive discussion; we need to dispense with ...this notion that Canada is much other than a region within the centre of (declining) Empire

 

 

• 

  Judith Mongrain In Quebec there would be massive protest, but in the rest of the country, some........but not on the scale Quebec and the Europeans can muster...........

 

 

• 

  John Hollingsworth

  Partly it may have to do with timing, i.e. especially in Canada a lot of the austerity measures are still pending. But things in the US are particularly dire. I agree with Judith re. Quebec, there is a different social and political culture... at the base there.
  I think that the nature of the protests also should be explored. European and Latin American protests are a lot heavier and cross a lot more lines than we typically do here. Though I know Alan disagrees, the G20 in Toronto did have a good deal of militancy from the base, but the top leadership's first priority seems to always be to condemn instead of interpret and use militant disruption because they are also more afraid of it than with the more comfortable role of lobbying and sitting at the table with governmental and business leaders as a junior partner.
  But it is also true that so-called violent protest is much less tolerated or accepted by people here than in much of Europe and Latin America. And, it is only in North America that property destruction is routinely understood as "violence". In Canada (especially outside of Quebec), appeals to "peace, order and good government" tend to trump all other concerns.

Jim Bruce Could it be more hope of changing leaders in a parliamentary government without having to wait at least 4 years? (Concerning European working class people.) I would love it if we could force an unscheduled election here on any and all offices.

Laura Clay Chapdelaine I have heard that the high school college-prep curriculum in much of Europe is rooted in the study of philosophy, leading people to question nationalism and religion as dominant forces in their lives. It seems to me that those 2 factors in particular subdue social unrest here in the US.

Jay Gannon i think a good deal of it might have to do with labor history - in North America, state repression of strikes and such was historically much more violent than it was in Europe...

Brian Latour it's because the NDP is so amazing at promoting a radical response to cuts (snicker)

Alan L. Maki

Brian, you may snicker all you want about the NDP. Do you want to snicker about the accomplishments working class politicians like Jacob Penner, Joe Zuken, Bill and Mary Kardash, too?
Working people are going to respond to what Wall Street and Bay Street are doing to them... but, they are not going to respond through anarchy. The resistance is going to be well organized and militant... every bit as militant as what we are seeing in Europe. Working people in North America have a proud history of defending their rights and livelihoods. The signs of this growing organized and united militancy are all over the place... from Windsor to Washington D.C. From New York to Vancouver working people are fighting back.
Everywhere I travel I find working people trying to figure out hw to overcome their problems, getting involved, organizing and struggling.
Anarchist don't understand what it takes to build working class movements because you are living for the next "big demonstration" and awaiting the "one big final general strike."
You anarchists and many on the left just don't get it. You don't understand why European workers are in the lead. Check out who their leaders are from the rank-and-file on up: Communists.

John Hollingsworth Quit being sectarian Alan. Just because you guys got a bug up your ass about anarchism doesn't mean you come off as credible with this kind of bullshit to anyone but your fellow true believers in the party line. How profoundly wrong you are about what anarchists do in everyday life in our workplaces and communities. Quit it with the social democrat in Communist clothing routine. It was tired 40 years ago.

John Hollingsworth p.s. If you want, I'm happy to have a dialogue with you about what kind of organizing work I'm involved in at the moment, write me and ask.

Alan L. Maki

Nothing "sectarian" at all here, John. I'm stating my opinion just like you are... my FaceBook page, as far as I can determine, is one of the very few places on facebook or anyplace else where everyone seems to feel free to express their op...inions without any attempt to stifle or thwart what anyone has to say.
You and Brian have exhibited more animosity towards me and my views than anyone so far. And, as you can see, there are even Republicans and Tea Party people who carry on more civil dialog and debate.
In my opinion--- and I certainly am no psychiatrist--- you and Brian seem to be very insecure in your views.
I state specifics; you come back with vague generalities like "social democrat in Communist clothing routine."
Judging from the amount of correspondence I am receiving about our exchanges people are really appreciating the exchange.
Here is something below you and others might want to comment on... Something from the noted anti-globalization advocate Immanuel Wallerstein who I frequently exchange ideas with... it kind of fits right in to our discussion here... by-the-way, John; you are the very first person to ever suggest that I am a "sectarian," I appreciate all ideas in the working class movement... but, this doesn't mean I have to agree with all of those ideas and it doesn't mean I should not forthrightly state my views... because I can't be badgered and intimidated into dropping my views does not make me a "sectarian:" (See continuation below... this darn FaceBook isn't conducive to allowing these kinds of exchanges...)

• 

  Alan L. Maki

  ‎(Continued from above)
  Professor Wallerstein,
  This is a great piece. However much I agree with you about social democracy, I don't think it will be as dead as you think as a "movement."
  ...
  In fact, I think there were a lot of social democrats in the Soviet Communist Party and in most Communist Parties... it really doesn't make any difference why they are there; they just are.
  Which makes me wonder what you think the future of Communist parties are? I think the future is bright... curious to know what you think?
  Since you have done social democracy you might as well continue right on down the list; after all, the Communist movement is still going strong and a force to contend with and Marxism still remains the major opposition to capitalist thinking and capitalism.
  You might just as well lay your ideas out about how you view the Communist movement because if working people can't rely on social democracy they have to be able to organize themselves into some kind of movement which begs the question: What about the future of Communist parties? Do you think there is something between the social democratic movement and the Communist movement workers need to consider or is there something further left than the Communist movement... anarchism?... or, is there something between the Communist movement and anarchism that we should be looking at in your opinion--- you have stated why you think social democracy as a movement is dead... well, I think we are entitled to hear your view on where the working class movement goes from here.
  You know, the New Democratic Party in Canada across the border from us is still a very mixed bag of left ideas where social democracy is the main current but it hasn't really tried to shove other ideologies away as has been the case in Europe... I would be interested in what kind of future you think the NDP has... again, venture another guess :)
  Alan L. Maki
  Quoting Becky Dunlop :
  Please do not reply to the listserv. To correspond with the author, write immanuel.wallerstein@yale.edu. To correspond with us about your email address on the listserv, write dunlop@binghamton.edu. Thank you.
  Commentary No. 290, October 1, 2010
  "Does Social-Democracy Have a Future?"
  This past month, two important events marked the world of Social-Democratic parties. In Sweden, on September 19, the party lost the election badly. It received 30.9% of the vote, its worst showing since 1914. Since 1932, it has governed the country 80% of the time, and this is the first time since then that a center-right party won reelection. And to compound the bad showing, a far right, anti-immigrant party entered the Swedish parliament for the first time.
  Why is this so dramatic? In 1936, Marquis Childs wrote a famous book, entitled Sweden: The Middle Way. Childs presented Sweden under its Social-Democratic regime as the virtuous middle way between the two extremes represented by the United States and the Soviet Union. Sweden was a country that effectively combined egalitarian redistribution with internal democratic politics. Sweden has been, at least since the 1930s, the world poster child of Social-Democracy, its true success story. And so it seemed to remain until rather recently. It is a poster child no more.
  Meanwhile, in Great Britain on Sept. 25, Ed Miliband came from far behind to win the leadership of the Labour Party. The Labour Party under Tony Blair had engaged in a radical remaking of the party under the label "the new Labour." Blair had argued that the party should also be a middle way - one not between capitalism and communism but between what used to be the social-democratic program of nationalization of the key sectors of the economy and the unbridled dominance of the market. This was quite a different middle way than that of Sweden in the 1930s and afterwards.
  The choice by the Labour Party of Ed Miliband over his older brother David Miliband, a key associate of Tony Blair, was interpreted in Great Britain and elsewhere as a repudiation of Blair and a return to a somewhat more "social-democratic" (more Swedish?) Labour Party. Still, in his first speech to the Labour conference a few days later, Ed Miliband went out of his way to reassert a "centrist" position. He did however lace his statements with allusions to the importance of "fairness" and "solidarity." And he said: "We must shed old thinking and stand up for those who believe there is more to life than the bottom line."
  (Continued below... )

 

 

 

• 

  Alan L. Maki

  ‎(continued from above... third and last part)
  What do these two elections tell us about the future of social-democracy? Social-democracy - as a movement and an ideology - is conventionally (and probably correctly) traced to the "revisionism..." of Eduard Bernstein in late nineteenth-century Germany. Bernstein argued essentially that, once they obtained universal suffrage (by which he meant male suffrage), the "workers" could use elections to win office for their party, the Social-Democratic Party (SPD), and take over the government. Once they won parliamentary power, the SPD could then "enact" socialism. And therefore, he concluded, talk of insurrection as the road to power was unnecessary and indeed foolish.
  What Bernstein was defining as socialism was in many ways unclear but still seemed at the time to include the nationalization of the key sectors of the economy. The history of Social-Democracy as a movement since then has been that of a slow but continuous shift away from a radical politics to a very centrist orientation.
  The parties repudiated their theoretical internationalism in 1914 by lining up to support their governments during the First World War. After the Second World War, the parties aligned themselves with the United States in the Cold War against the Soviet Union. And in 1959, at its Bad Godesburg conference, the German SPD officially repudiated Marxism entirely. It stated that "from a party of the working class, the Social-Democratic Party has become a party of the people."
  What the German SPD and other social-democratic parties came to stand for at that time was the social compromise called the "welfare state." In this objective, in the period of the great expansion of the world-economy during the 1950s and 1960s, it was quite successful. And at that time, it remained a "movement" in the sense that these parties commanded the active support and allegiance of very large numbers of persons in their country.
  When, however, the world-economy entered into its long stagnation beginning in the 1970s, and the world entered the period dominated by neo-liberal "globalization," the social-democratic parties began to go further. They dropped the emphasis on the welfare state to become the advocates merely of a softer version of the primacy of the market. This was what Blair's "new Labour" was all about. The Swedish party resisted this shift longer than others, but it too finally succumbed.
  The consequence of this, however, was that Social-Democracy ceased to be a "movement" that could rally the strong allegiance and support of large numbers of persons. It became an electoral machine that lacked the passion of yesteryear.
  If however social-democracy is no longer a movement, it is still a cultural preference. Voters still want the fading benefits of a welfare state. They regularly protest when they lose still another of these benefits, which is happening with some regularity today.
  Finally a word about the entry of the far right, anti-immigrant party into the Swedish parliament. Social-democrats have never been very strong on the rights of ethnic or other "minorities" - still less on the rights of immigrants. Social-democratic parties have tended to be parties of the ethnic majority in each country, defending their turf against other workers whom they saw as undercutting their wages and employment. Solidarity and internationalism were slogans that were useful when there was no competition in sight. Sweden didn't have to face this issue seriously until recently. And when it did,a segment of social-democratic voters simply moved to the far right.
  Does social-democracy have a future? As cultural preference, yes; as movement, no.
  by Immanuel Wallerstein
  [Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein, distributed by Agence Global. For rights and permissions, including translations and posting to non-commercial sites, and contact: rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.336.286.6606. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically, or e-mail to others, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To contact author, write: immanuel.wallerstein@yale.edu.
  These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of the immediate headlines but of the long term.]
  --
  Becky Dunlop
  Secretary, Fernand Braudel Center
  Binghamton University
  PO Box 6000
  Binghamton NY 13902
  http://fbc.binghamton.edu/
  

•  

• Alan L. Maki
  58891 County Road 13
  Warroad, Minnesota 56763
  Phone: 218-386-2432
  Cell Phone: 651-587-5541
  E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net
  Check out my Blog:
  http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/See More

 

John Hollingsworth Alan, you should really repost that as an article on your FB page and post your comment as such. This discussion is rapidly branching off from its original purpose - as much as I'm interested in all of them, there are more than one going on here right now.

• 

  John Hollingsworth p.s. I think you should respond to Brian's astute, first-hand observations on the Manitoba NDP in that other thread. I think that invoking the names of great democratic socialist leaders from the distant past (Tommy Douglas, etc.) is a really tired No Difference Party tactic to mask their present neoliberal orientation to their activist base and the so-called "left". Focus on the here and now.

 

 

• 

  Alan L. Maki

  ‎@John... I think I responding very completely. If Brian wants more from the New Democratic Party than what they have brought forward then he and his fellow anarchists and anyone he can convince should organize the kind of grassroots movement required to get this out of the NDP. Just as we didn't like the smoke-filled casinos, we did something about it and the NDP responded just as we wanted done--- the Winnipeg casinos are smoke-free... as are most others in Manitoba. Hundreds of workers now have a healthier working environment.
  I am for the stiffest anti-scab legislation.
  I am for free higher education.
  Let me know what I can do to help Manitobans win these important reforms.
  Would you like me to start calling people listed in the Winnipeg telephone book asking if they will become part of a committee to organize for these reforms? When and where should I tell them the first meeting will take place? At the Worker's Resource Center? The Aboriginal Center? Should I call an MLA to see if we can get a room in the Leg?
  Just let me know what it is that you want me to do for you that you can't do for yourself up there in Canada... I suppose I can squeeze in one more border crossing through the woods at night... is there an anarchist available to drive me to Winnipeg :)

 

• 

  John Hollingsworth Well, I'll let Brian or others take that up with you, as I don't live in Manitoba myself. I suspect that he may be already busy with his own organizing work elsewhere at this point.

 

• 

  Alan L. Maki Yes, John, anarchists are always busy with their own wok elsewhere... so, why bring these problems up? Let Bryan bring forward what he is working on that he is having problems with the NDP and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union on. Then we have something to discuss.

 

 

• 

  John Hollingsworth

  Brian, are you busy with your wok? I love stir-fries, particularly those that feature ginger and chili garlic sauce.
  Anyway, before action comes education. And, I think that having a honest/critical perspective on the NDP's record, and an understanding of why their record is that way, is helpful in grounding activity in ways which will be more effective. I don't think that it's simply because the NDP hasn't been effectively lobbied, or that large enough demonstrations haven't been organized, etc.

 

 

• 

  Alan L. Maki well, John, enlighten us.

 

John Hollingsworth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl1r7E3e-ks

John Hollingsworth p.s. I don't even know if Brian's an anarchist. Of course, "anarchist" is a dirty word among old-guard party line communists (and in the capitalist media), so it's basically just more sectarian name-calling. (Which is more entertaining when you do it in a song and video format.)

• 

  John Hollingsworth

  There are lots of reasons why the NDP is the way that it is. One part of it, at a higher level of abstraction, has to do with the historic role of social democratic parties within advanced capitalism, as part of a kind of "historic compromise" of what some call welfare capitalism - a legacy which has been hit by the breakdown of the conditions that made this compromise possible. Another part of it has to do with the culture and structure of party politics, the fetish made of individual leadership (and its role in the concentration and centralization of executive power inside governments and within parties), and the stifling effect of top-down organization in quashing dissent from the "party line". The NDP has a great policy book, but in government has rarely if ever acted on it (and in election campaigns have often disavowed real solutions that you and I would support in favour of what the party pollsters are telling the communications people and strategists who seek to manage both public perception and membership expectations).
  I agree with you that part of the solution to these things is to organize for lower tuition, for social insurance and public utilities, etc. through building broad-based movements that manage to confront the real power-brokers in the economic sphere, for whom all political parties and leaders are but puppets of varying hues. The situation would look a lot different if we build stronger anti-capitalist, party-autonomous unions - and work within existing organizations to change their culture and structure along these lines, a long haul fight - and we could achieve a lot of reforms by seizing control of our own retirement system and pension investments. Things like this, and organizing and building our own power and working in solidarity, instead of trying to get co-opted "representatives" to toe our line by means holding a respectful weekend demonstration at the legislature from time to time before we jump to the next "campaign", that's kind of work I do as an activist and the kind of work that gets my respect and support. Building workers' power on the job and solidarity in the day to day is where most of our real fight as workers is.

 

 

Alan L. Maki Well, John; you are living your own contradiction because anarchism is a dead end alley in accomplishing any of the things you write about doing.

John Hollingsworth That's just more sectarian dogma. Honestly Alan your politics would fit in pretty good with the French Communist Party - circa 1968.

Alan L. Maki John, I meet all kinds of people that work for unions who are restricted in what they have to do to keep their jobs and they are almost always some kind of anarchists or ultra-leftists in their "outside" political activities.

• 

  John Hollingsworth I'm not sure I understand your point is - that a lot of anarchists (or "ultra-leftists" oh alan lol) work for unions?

 

Alan L. Maki

Yes, John... they do--- but, at their union jobs they keep their mouths shut. I see this all the time. So, what happens they don't engage in the activities and education they should be undertaking on the job and they engage in the wrong kinds of activity while off the job.
I have turned down many jobs working for unions after being told, "You got the job... oh, ya, one thing; leave your politics at home." I always say thanks... bye.
Scott Marshal, the head of the Communist Party USA's Labor Commission told me, "Well, you have to do what the boss wants you to say and do." I get a kick out of it when these same people tell me to leave my ideas at home then tell me, "Oh, we hire all kinds of Communists." Ya, sure, the kind willing to leave their ideas at home.
The unions have the problems you describe because, to use Utah Philip's words, something like, "They kicked the reds out of the unions" and he goes on to explain what remains.
Social democrats and Trotskyites have no problem getting hired by most unions... but, the fact that these people "lead" the unions is no excuse for not building rank and file forms within these unions which help workers move in the proper direction in spite of these "leaders." Leo Gerard is a perfect example of what really is wrong with the unions.
Workers have to learn to just ignore these big blowhards getting big paychecks and work around them... the unions in the end belong to the rank-and-file. It would be nice to have some decent people at the top in More U.S. labor unions and to the extent they influence unions in Canada it would help you, too.
Leo Gerard is a professional anti-communist... I have often thought he is nothing but a mole placed in the union by the corporation just like his dad was. But, does Leo Gerard have any influence among workers? Not much... when he leaves they laugh at him. He is part of a bureaucracy that for workers is almost impossible to break until the rank and file becomes more powerful... in the meantime, life--- and the class struggle go on... down in the mines and on the floors of mills and factories or wherever people work.
Members of the USW just take it for granted that their "leaders" are going to come in, give a militant tough sounding speech and turn around and sell them out and whatever they do get is going to be because of what they are willing to put into the struggle which Gerard and his worthless staff created in his image, can't ignore.
Fortunately, most unions have better and more honest leaders than Leo Gerard but most unions are also products of over 60 years of anti-communist attacks and this has definitely taken a toll... the UAW still doesn't want to give leaders like Phil Raymond, Bud Simons, Wyndham Mortimer and in Canada people like Jim Tester and Lyle Dotzert their due for the huge contributions they made to building the UAW and other industrial unions all across the United States and Canada. Probably one of the best labor leaders ever in North America was Ray Stevenson and Leo Gerard would probably have a stroke if he even tried to say his name. Another is Nadia Barkan who worked with Phil Raymond.
So, working people have you anarchist on one end attacking the very people who contributed so much to building our unions and on the other end there are those like Leo Gerard... and in all the ensuing confusion that results people wonder why North American labor hasn't yey responded on a level with the Europeans and in the middle there are honest trade union leaders like the CAW's Ken Lewenza who ends up taking shit from everyone when they ought to be pitching in giving him a helping hand.
Utah Philips told me he didn't see much hope until we "get the reds back in the union." I think this is probably the crux of the whole thing, too.

• 

  John Hollingsworth

  I am not one of those people that you're referring to. I agree that there is this problem among many activists to not see their own workplaces and communities as sites of struggle, and/or not to participate in the first instance in these struggles. And I walk the walk, Alan. I back up people all the time, including within the staff union, against careerism and indifference which is endemic. But I also feel privileged to work with others who may have different political views but who also understand this.
  (In my case, I'm paid to do a rather specific and technical kind of job (I'm a survey and data specialist) but I have never left my politics at the door, as a worker. I'm also lucky that I have 10 years on the job now plus union protection, so I understand that others may not have the same security.)
  I have often defended communists when they're working from similar principles of solidarity. I really don't care how people self-identify; I care about what they do. Some of my tightest comrades are small-c communists (and I even have some long-time friends in the CPC), although they have often been denounced in similar ways to what you're doing here as "anarchists" by so-called revolutionaries and socialists when they've engaged in militant activity.
  I agree with your take on social democrats and Trotskyists and this whole question of "substitutionism" in the union movement, though I have seen more than one CPCer do exactly the same. And, probably a few anarchists, too (though I have to say I've never had the impression that there really are that many of us in these kinds of jobs in any event).
  Utah Phillips was an anarchist. The IWW is not an anarchist union; there are many "reds" in it, though admittedly many of us would identify as anarchists of some form or another. There are also plenty more who just identify as workers.
  One thing that I do know is that the labour elites are even more opposed to the anarchists in their midst and in the movement than they are with those (relatively few) socialists willing to stand up for the principle of working class self-emancipation.
  I think that you really need to get beyond your dogmatic anti-anarchism. The anarchist movement's history is very tightly interwoven with revolutionary workers' movements here in North America, preceding the Russian Revolution and remaining a vital current after the fall of the Iron Curtain.
  Anyway, people don't need these so-called "leaders", but we also need to get beyond the idea of having the "right people" in these positions. Yes, we need to honour the names of those who've built up what is good in the unions. But we need other forms of struggle and entirely different structures. We need to recognize leadership as based on a principle of diffusion, not concentration (which is pretty much organizing 101 anyway). We need to build unions and movements where, like the wobblies say, we are all leaders.

 

 

Alan L. Maki ‎@John; With this I agree with you, "we are all leaders." Every worker a leader--- these should be what we strive to accomplish. I'm glad to see the more specific we get the "redder" you get :)

• 

  Jay Gannon

  i don't identify as an anarchist...people might call me a Marxist or a Trotskyist, but I personally don't like to use those terms much.
  At the very least, when referring to myself with those kinds of words, I think it implies a sort of reli...gion as soon as you attach someone's name to it, although I can understand why others do use them, in order to try to clarify what revolutionary tradition they consider themselves to be standing in, and that's fine with me, just personally choose not to.
  It's by no means limited to the "Marxist" tradition. There are anarchists out there who still call themselves Maknovites, etc.
  I personally prefer the term Marx did - scientific socialism - and my disagreement with anarchism stems mainly from a disagreement over the question of what to do with the state when a revolution actually arrives.
  we're not there yet, we're nowhere near close to there yet - and I'd suggest it's due to lack of effective, widespread organization.
  in the meantime, however, in terms of that day-to-day stuff, to suggest that anarchists aren't on the front lines engaging people in the day-to-day movement activities, often in very effective ways, really *is* sectarian and I can't agree with that at all, Alan.
  There are certain tactics that anarchist movements have adopted that I'm not fond of (the black bloc, for example...and I say this as someone who (a) used to identify as anarchist and (b) has actually participated in it) but they're not inherent to the anarchist argument, they're just a particular tactic.
  They might be a consequence of anarchist analysis (or lack thereof) over certain questions, it's true. But anarchism is by no means monolithic. For every anarchist engaged in this tactic or supportive of it, there are surely plenty of others who don't approve of it.
  and the reality is, when it comes to that day-to-day stuff, I have to agree with John. more often than not i've found that the whole question of what you call yourself actually does matter significantly less than what you actually do.
  There are plenty of tactics that 'reds' have adopted over the years that I'm not particularly fond of either.
  just saying.

 

 

• 

  Alan L. Maki

  My point John and Jay is we need to deal with specifics... I really couldn't care less what the politics of people are that I work with on a day to day basis... I work with all kinds of people from the entire range of political thought but ...(makes no difference to me if someone is a Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, progressive, anarchist or communist or whether they are religious or not; this has nothing to do with our ideological perspective and world outlooks when considering how and in what direction we want to see the working class moving.
  This is the reality check: Workers are not going to abandon the NDP in Canada (my personal opinion is never), I think the NDP is unique in that it will be the vehicle working people choose as their mass political party to establish real socialism in Canada and it will probably require a similar party here in the United States.
  You and John think the NDP is an obstacle to working people moving forward and advancing a progressive agenda.
  You and John think the only way to get real change is through these huge demonstrations and general strikes like what we are seeing sweeping Europe... I see these kinds of actions in the streets as needed but working hand in hand with electoral politics and in spite of what both you and John say to the contrary, I don't see the NDP standing in the way of these struggles... maybe often Johnny come latelies but not the drag on these struggles you two are suggesting.
  Obviously there will be this or that leader often trying to hold things back... but, in general the NDP moves along a path supportive of working people in trying to solve problems, defend their livelihoods and most importantly, the NDP no matter any of its faults, is serving as a very powerful force in Canada preventing big-capital from having its way completely. Do away with the NDP and you will see how quickly the United States military-financial-industrial complex of Wall Street dominates Canada completely.
  I maintain that the NDP is a better defender of working class interests than is the Communist Party of China.
  Canadian workers have pretty good unions when compared to the rest of the world's unions; Canadian workers have a good solid labor-based peple's party with the NDP... the only things more Canadian workers need as it looks to me is some powerful community mass organizations fighting and struggling around solving basic problems while bring forward solutions to the problems of every day living; and a lots of rank-and-file initiatives to get a few creeps like Leo Gerard out of your hair and all of this hinges on having a good strong Communist Party based upon the principles held to by those like Tim Buck, Ray Stevenson and Lyle Dotzert and good solid Marxists like Jim Tester and you are good to go.
  Ever read the Communist Manifesto? Well, there is a reason it was initially called the "Manifesto of the Communist Party." Marx and Engels must have thought that it was important for the working class to have Communist parties... and, yes, Marx and Engels thought it was necessary for workers to have parties just like the NDP and they knew such parties would always be beset with all kinds of problems reflective of all those different ideas within the working class movements. And, yes, Marx and Engels thought the working class needed all kinds of organizational forms organized around solving the problems of working people.
  What it all boils down to is neither of you agree with Marx' and Engels' assessment of any of this... you think one organization is going to do the job... you are floundering looking for any organization to tie yourselves to EXCEPT for the Communist Party of Canada which is a really good party with a really good newspaper as has been pointed out by none other than anarchist Brian. It just needs more members.
  You accuse me of being "sectarian" only because I'm a Communist. Only because I think that the ideas you are espousing lead workers in the wrong direction--- away from strengthening the NDP, away from strengthening the existing unions... and away from the Communist Party and towards organizational forms that have no connections to the NDP, the unions or the Communist Party.
  And, I have left the best for last... when the NDP, the unions and all the mass organizations work together in a huge coalition that includes the Communist Party this is called "the Peoples' Front" or "popular front," the very organizational form you most detest and yet it is these "popular fronts" led by Communist parties now marching through Europe!
  This isn't about me being "sectarian," this is about you not understanding what it takes for working people to win reforms or revolutions.
  Of course, I have evaded talking about what happens when workers finally come to power because I don't want to lay too much on you at one time.