Reflections on sixty-nine revolutions around the sun

 

A few days ago, I celebrated my sixty-ninth birthday. Because of the advances in the internet and the kind thoughts of my friends, I received over 100 birthday greetings. This year I thought of writing down some extended remarks to all those who sent  greetings, as well as for many who don’t know me. 

This past year I managed to complete my reading of the first volume of Capital by Karl Marx. Although Marx wrote this book about 150 years ago, most of his arguments continue to be relevant today. One of those arguments is that because of the capitalist system, we continually face abstractions, as well as the objective reality. 

    Abstractions and the objective reality

There is a new book about the most affluent 9.9 percent of the population. This group consists of about thirty-four million people. In order to be among the 9.9 percent, one needs to have at least $1.2 million in assets. 

I believe we can speculate that there are many in this group who actually believe in the abstraction that we live in a “democracy” where there is “liberty and justice for all.” 

We might also look at the abstract and objective character of that thing we call “money.” Clearly, we can use money to purchase many of the things we need and want. However, money is also an abstraction because it is only a means of exchange. We wouldn’t wear clothes made of money or ride in a car made of money. 

Ultimately money only has value because it can be used to purchase commodities that have real value. Here we see the objective reality. Each and every commodity that has ever been produced was the product of the labor of the working class of the world. Capitalists, who like to throw their money around, rarely, if ever, directly contribute to producing all those commodities.

My opinion is that in the year 2021, increasing numbers of people have seen the abstractions we see all the time stripped away. We are seeing larger numbers of people being thrown into poverty, while four individuals own hundreds of billions of dollars in assets. Clearly there is nothing abstract about that reality.

In June of the year 2020, I was one of 100,000 people who came to the Philadelphia Art Museum to protest murders by the police officers all over the country. I would say that about 90% of those who demonstrated were under the age of thirty. Thinking about that turnout and having attended many meetings with young people, made me think of how the world is changing.

Young people in the year 2021

What does it mean to be a young person today? In the past young people routinely moved out of their parent’s homes when they were eighteen. Today about half of the population under thirty years of age lives with their parents. Many young people have a choice between a dead-end job, and an astronomical debt that would be a requirement for a college education.

The government has responded to this reality by increasing the number of people who live in the dungeons of this country from about 300,000 to about 2,000,000. The government also deported millions of people solely because they were born in another part of the world. A truly vicious aspect of those deportations was the fact that thousands of immigrant parents were deported and separated from their children who were born in this country.

Seeing this reality, many young people understand that they will not have the opportunities their parents had. Perhaps this might be why so many young people are taking to the streets and protesting against injustice. Perhaps this might explain why so many workers are going on strike demanding that we be treated has human beings, and not merely as things to be used to generate corporate profits.      

So, as the abstractions continue to be stripped away, we can begin to see the essence of the problems we face. Most of us were born into a world where we need to go out and find an employer who is willing to purchase our labor. Those employers will give us money we can use to purchase a bundle of life-sustaining commodities.

In exchange for that money, employers demand that we do as we are told, or to operate within the parameters they establish. In other words, for us to have the things we need and want, employers require workers to dedicate our entire lives to creating an enormous amount of wealth for them. I believe this is the essence of Karl Marx’s argument in his book Capital.

The vicious arrogance of Donald Trump and the capitalist system 

When we think about this reality, we might understand why the title of a biography of former President Donald Trump was “Rage.” The definition of the word rage is violent or uncontrollable anger. Perhaps what made many people enraged about Donald Trump was his arrogance. 

My dictionary definition of the word arrogance is: “an insulting way of thinking or behaving that comes from believing that you are better, smarter, or more important than other people.” So, the question is: Why were so many people enraged by the arrogance of Donald Trump?

Workers are routinely confronted with the arrogance of employers. While employers argue that we are all members of the same “team,” the reality is a bit different. When employers require us to do more work, their profits increase, while the value of our labor effectively goes down.

So, if we routinely see arrogance in our lives, why are so many people enraged by Donald Trump? My opinion is that people, and especially young people, were justifiably enraged by Trump’s arrogance because he was President. Trump’s pathetic and racist arguments were a clear message that people need to accept the status quo that he represents. 

I don’t believe there were many people who actually expected that President Joe Biden’s policies would be significantly better than the policies of Donald Trump. However, many young people celebrated in the streets after Trump was defeated in the election. These people were tired of listening to a lunatic preaching to them about how they need to accept the status quo he helped to create. 

What would a truly representative government look like?

So, thinking about the objective reality and not the abstractions, we might consider what a genuinely representative government might look like. We can begin to answer this question by asking: What might be some reasonable expectations from that kind of government?

First, we might expect that if a government were truly representative of the population, their first priority would be to eliminate poverty in the world. Right away, many would respond to this with the argument that eliminating poverty would make things worse for the so-called “middle class.”  

Here again, I believe we need to strip away the abstractions from the objective reality. During literally every minute we are on the job, and for every commodity we purchase, we contribute to services we do not need or want. These include corporate profits, insurance, advertising, corporate law, and let’s not forget the thousands of atomic bombs capable of eliminating the human race.

If we didn’t need to contribute to all of those fundamentally useless services, there could be tremendous resources used to greatly improve the standard of living for the working class all over the world. If working people had real power to determine how the environment we live in is organized, I believe most people would be inspired by that atmosphere.

So, now we can ask another question. How is all of this relevant to our reality today?

As more and more people see the abstractions stripped away, we begin to see how humanity can work to begin to transform the world and rebuild it on new foundations. Why sit back and allow capitalists to throw millions into poverty, while they are swimming in hundreds of billions of dollars? 

While our immediate future is uncertain, today increasing numbers of people are becoming open to the idea that workers all over the world need to be treated with the human dignity we all deserve.

Thanks again for all those who wished me a happy birthday. Wishing you and all those you care about the best in the coming year. 

How and why the government created the so-called “labor shortage”

 

By Steve Halpern

Anyone who drives through the commercial areas of this country will see numerous “Help Wanted” signs. Many restaurants closed and others operate short staffed. So, it may come as a surprise to learn that the United States government has effectively told millions of workers not to work at those jobs.

Reading that sentence might cause many people to ask a few questions. Doesn’t the government normally support the interests of businesses? So, if that is the case, preventing workers from working would cause corporations to lose a lot of money. Why would the government do something that doesn’t appear to make any sense at all?

I can begin this story by looking at the reality of immigration in the United States.

Immigration

There is one issue where the Democratic and Republican Parties are in full agreement. That is their willingness to deport millions of people who were born in other nations and came here so they might have a better life.

Clearly no one has the power to choose what nation we are born in. So, when someone is deported from this country, the reasoning for that deportation is only about punishing people for an issue they had no control over. 

Then, we can say that thousands of immigrants who come to this country have children who were born here. When the government deports the parents, the children oftentimes are placed in foster care, never to see their natural parents again. 

We might think about the reality of those immigrants. First, we can say that about 80% of the world’s workforce receives about $10 per day or less in wages. About half of the world’s workforce receives about $2 per day or less in wages. Understanding these facts, we can see why workers from many countries would be eager to come here and work for wages that might be $10 per hour or more.

We can also say that during the 1960s the United States actively recruited immigrants to come here because of a labor shortage. European nations also had initiatives to attract immigrants. 

Then, starting in the 1970s many manufacturing corporations moved to nations where there were much lower prevailing wages. Presidents of the United States began to implement policies aimed at deporting millions of immigrants. The government invested billions of dollars to restrict immigration and to deport immigrants living here. Let’s not forget all of money spent to build a wall, making it more difficult to immigrate to this country. 

We also might consider that the twelve million immigrants living here provide essential services. Those jobs include farm workers, meat packing workers, restaurant workers, health care workers, as well as workers in research and development. Apparently, the government in this country prefers these workers to live in their country of birth and receive $10 per day, rather than live here and receive a living wage.

Two million people who live in prison

Beginning with the presidential administration of Bill Clinton, the prison population in this country has skyrocketed from about 300,000 to about 2,000,000. There are about six million people who are in prison, parole, or probation. Many former prisoners are prohibited from working jobs because of their prison record. 

We might consider that for each prisoner, the government pays about $60,000 for their maintenance in the dungeons of this country. We might also consider that many prisoners work at jobs while they are incarcerated. The wages of those jobs average at about 63 cents per hour. 

Another interesting fact is that about half of the prison population consists of people convicted of drug related offenses. Yet the nation of Portugal legalized drugs that are illegal here and the drug problem diminished as a result. 

So here again we see again how the government has instituted policies that prevent able bodied workers from working at the same time as there is a labor shortage.

Conclusion

One conclusion we can draw from this reality is that the politicians in the United States are plum stupid. Why would they support policies that prevent workers from working while there is a labor shortage?

Then, we might argue that there are evil geniuses behind these policies. Clearly those people who have power would rather that workers receive salaries of $2 per day rather than $10 per hour. This is what happens when workers are deported or sent to prison.

However, I do not agree with those arguments. In my opinion, we are beginning to see the economy of the United States fall apart. Large and small corporations are going out of business. Corporations as well as the government have no concrete strategy to get us out of this morass. All they can say is “Get your vaccination.” Well, that advice will do nothing to feed the 42 million people in this country who don’t have enough food to eat.

The solution to this problem, as well as the solution to most problems workers face lies in building a political movement aimed at overturning the capitalist system. A government that represented the genuine interests of workers would make human needs and not profits the fundamental priority. That kind of government would give meaningful aid to nations where working people live on the knife edge of survival. That kind of government would work to ensure that everyone’s needs were provided for throughout our lives. Confronting the pandemic, that kind of government would do what is necessary to battle this disease, without any concern for corporate profits.

Many will argue that this kind of strategy is totally unrealistic. However, the political and economic crisis we experience today is not the result of failure. No, the fact that 42 million people in this country do not have enough food to eat is the result of over two centuries of capitalist policies that have been viewed as a success. Given this history, the only logical answer to our problems is to put in place a new government that will confiscate the largest corporations and make the human needs of everyone an absolute right. 

The capitalist system needs to have an international economy that doubles every twenty-five years. We will discover how that kind of growth will ultimately be impossible. So, working to advance the interests of the international working class is the top priority for the entire human race. When more and more people realize that this is our only chance for a meaningful future, then, the seemingly impossible can become a reality. 

The Ballot or the Streets or Both – From Marx and Engels to Lenin and the October Revolution

 

By August Nimtz

2019 Haymarket Books

Reviewed by Steve Halpern

For quite a while millions of people from all over the world have asked the question: How can we begin to resolve the enormous problems we all face? 

Every year, the press implores us to vote for political candidates who routinely fail to make any meaningful change in our lives. We have seen the massive demonstrations against police brutality all over the world, as well as the massive demonstrations in the Arabic world known as the Arab Spring. Yet while there have been a few changes, we continue to confront enormous challenges. In the United States there are about 42 million people who don’t have enough food to eat, while there are three people who personally own $300 billion in assets. 

In his book, The Ballot or the Streets or Both, August Nimtz gives us a history of how three revolutionaries worked against seemingly impossible odds to create a movement that continues to be relevant today. Those three revolutionaries are Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, and Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

Marx and Engels

When many people think of the names Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, they think of two authors who wrote a comprehensive critical analysis of the capitalist system. Many are also aware that Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto. This pamphlet is a brief summary of how and why workers throughout the world have an interest in overthrowing the capitalist system and rebuilding the world on “new foundations.”

The Communist Manifesto was written in the year 1848. This was the year that revolutions were erupting in Europe. By the year 1850 Marx and Engels wrote about the lessons of those years to the Communist League. That speech by Marx and Engels written in 1850 is included in an appendix to this book.

We might consider that in the year 1850 much of Europe was ruled by feudal monarchs. So, Marx and Engels formed alliances with liberals who favored capitalist relations and an end to feudalism. However, they also argued that once capitalist relations became the norm, then it was absolutely necessary for working class parties to maintain complete independence from those supported capitalism.

By the time of the Civil War in the United States, Marx understood that the war to abolish slavery would be one of the most important events of his life. He postponed his writing of his three volumes of Capital so he could focus his attention on propagandizing in support of the Union army within Briton where he was living at that time. 

Marx supported the war against the slave owners to end the horrors of slavery. He also felt that the interests of the working class would be compromised as long as chattel slavery continued. However, Marx argued that the working class could only achieve full liberation with a proletarian revolution.

Marx believed that while capitalism is an advance over feudalism, capitalism came into the world oozing from every pore with blood and dirt. Today we see the legacy of that birth when we go to work and follow the commands of employers, so they can maximize profits on their investments. So, while media pundits argue that we live in a democracy, in our day to day lives we see how this country is run by a tiny minority that has absolute control over the productive forces.

So, in their 1850 speech to the Communist League, Marx and Engels argued that the liberation of the working class would not come about because of decisions made by a capitalist parliament, or congress. Because the capitalist government will only support a minority of the population, the only way to establish genuine democracy is to arm the working class. 

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

During the past fifty years, I’ve attended many demonstrations in support of workers rights with respect to numerous issues. In one of those demonstrations, we were teargassed by the police, but no one lost their lives in those demonstrations. I should also mention that in the demonstrations against the war in Vietnam several people were murdered by the national guard and police agencies.

In the year 1905 there were demonstrations in the then Russian capital of Saint Petersburg demanding basic reforms. Mounted Cossacks attacked one of those demonstrations and murdered hundreds of the participants. This was an example of how Tzarist Russia was a place where absolute power by a feudal monarch was the norm.

However, the Tzar knew that when masses of people mobilized, they indeed had the potential to remove monarchs from power. Several feudal monarchs had been executed. So, as a result of the 1904 and 1905 rebellions, the Tzar allowed for an elected parliamentary congress known as the Duma.      

Today we are all faced with a barrage of information about the elections. Clearly the right to vote was established with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The government enacted this law because of the pressure of the civil rights movement. However, we can also say that while capitalist politicians implore us to vote for them, no significant changes happen because one or another candidate is elected to office. 

For those reasons, there were many revolutionaries who opposed participating in the elections to the Duma. Lenin argued against this point of view and eventually won support from his comrades. 

Clearly those who supported the Bolsheviks in the Duma were a small minority. However, by participating in the Duma large sections of the entire population began to appreciate the political orientation of the Bolsheviks. 

That orientation demanded land for the majority of the Russian population who were peasants. When Russia entered the First World War, the Bolsheviks argued for no support for that war. The Bolsheviks also argued that the workers counsels known as the Soviets were better representatives of the workers and peasants’ interests than the Duma. 

In advancing this perspective, Lenin learned something interesting. In those years, a fascist organization known as the Black Hundreds had their representatives in the Duma. The Black Hundreds carried out raids in the Jewish communities where they would murder hundreds or thousands. These raids were similar to the raids by the Ku Klux Klan in the Black communities in this country.

What Lenin discovered is that many people who agreed with the Bolsheviks with abandoned their working class orientation because they feared political victories by the Black Hundreds. Lenin argued that ultimately the only way to defeat the Black Hundreds would be by mobilizing the working class in an armed struggle to defend their rights. 

Because Russia at that time was a monarchy, the Tzar had the power to dissolve the Duma and he did this several times. However, the Bolsheviks continued to advance a perspective aimed at establishing a worker’s government.

By the year 1917, a revolution forced the Tzar out of power. A provisional government took power. August Nimtz makes a convincing argument that Lenin’s electoral strategy was one of the necessary factors that prepared the Bolsheviks to take power.

Another important initiative was the fact that the Bolsheviks formed Soviets within the military. At that time, the Russian armed forces lacked necessary supplies and had no hope in defeating Germany. In all, millions of Russian soldiers would die in World War I. Under those conditions many soldiers were attracted to the Bolshevik demand to end the war. That demand was included in the slogan Peace, Bread, and Land.

So, by October of 1917, the masses of Russia’s population began to see that the only way out of the morass they experienced was to either support the Bolsheviks, or not to resist their coming to power. Because of this support as well as the support of large sections of the military, the October 1917 Russian Revolution had very few casualties.

Upon the Bolshevik victory, the demands of peace, bread, and land became the top priority of the government. A peace treaty was negotiated with Germany. Peasants received titles to land they worked. The government took extraordinary measures to ensure that everyone had access to food. So, while Russia experienced many hardships, including a Civil War supported by 14 nations, the Bolsheviks gained the popularity of the people.

However, the new Soviet Union was impoverished and isolated in the world. This led to the rise of Joseph Stalin who organized to betray the Russian Revolution. Literally all the leading members of the Bolsheviks were murdered because of the Stalinist purges.    

Conclusion

Today, there are many people in this country who favor increased government regulations with respect to the ownership of guns. Clearly many people lost their lives because of murders that take place in this country.

However, there is another issue that the press rarely reports on. That is the fact that there are about forty-two million people in this country who don’t have enough food to eat. Yet, there are also three individuals who own $300 billion in assets. 

Clearly there are many differences between the reality in this country today and the reality the Russian people faced in the year 1917. However, in both cases a tiny minority controlled and continues to control the politics and economics of Russia before the revolution, and the United States today.  

Today we also see the profound instability of capitalism. In the years 2008 and 2020 millions of workers lost their jobs and homes. Anyone who sees this history, as well as the profound instability we all face today, will anticipate more profound crisis. 

This means that increasing numbers of people will begin to organize to put in place a government that makes rational and necessary changes. As August Nimtz argued, this will require replacing all departments of the government, as well as the banks and corporations, as well as the news media. It will require the educational system to teach students that human needs are more important than the drive to maximize corporate profits.

As Malcolm X argued, this struggle will be waged by “any means necessary.”