What is the Significance of the Mass Demonstrations in Israel?

 

By Steve Halpern

Recently we have seen mass demonstrations in Israel protesting Benjamin Netanyahu’s efforts to strip the Israeli judicial authorities of much of their power. The protesters argue that these measures would end Israel’s so-called “democracy” that the protesters think they have. Clearly these protesters are not advocating for Palestinians in the Occupied Territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to have the right to vote. No, they don’t want that kind of democracy. So, what is the significance of these demonstrations? 

The so-called “democracy” of the United States of America

I was one of the millions of students in this country who was taught that the United States was the greatest democracy the world has ever known. This idea is known as “American exceptionalism.” However, when we look at the history of this country, we see another reality.

Many of the so-called “founding fathers” of this country were enslavers who routinely tortured and brutalized Black people for monetary gain. Then, there were the genocidal wars against the first nations who lived here. These wars weren’t just about stealing land. The government was tenacious in their attempt to eliminate the diverse Native American cultures.

After the revolution of the thirteen colonies, the new government also went to war against veterans of the Revolution to defeat Shay’s Rebellion. Veterans who were starving demonstrated for relief. The government responded with military force.

There was a positive side to this revolution. In feudalism royal families ruled with the consent of religious clerics. With the Revolution the church was separated from the state, and for the first time there was the idea that people had individual rights and governments had power because of elections. 

However, with the new government only property owners who were men could vote. In this system the President was elected by the electoral college. The Supreme Court was appointed. The Senate was initially elected by state legislatures. The Congress was the only branch of government that was voted in because of municipal elections. However, in order to be elected to office congressmen relied on large contributions from the affluent.

The basis for the statement that this country is a “democracy” rests on the idea that people have the right to vote. However, history tells the story of how the government was and continues to be persistent in their efforts to deny people the right to vote. 

Black people, who had been enslaved, allegedly won the right to vote after the Civil War with the 15th Amendment to the Constitution. However, when the federal government effectively gave political power to the Ku Klux Klan in 1877, most Black people lost their right to vote. 

Women didn’t win the right to vote until 1920. Black people needed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to gain the right to vote again. Native Americans have continually had problems with their right to vote. Prisoners never had the right to vote. 

The pioneers of capitalism understood that allowing the majority of the population to vote would get in the way of the capitalist drive for profits. Most people believe that human needs are more important than profits for billionaires. This is why the so-called news media gives a tremendous amount of publicity to democratic and republican politicians, while ignoring the third-party candidates. 

Historically change in this country came with the mass movements advocating for the rights of labor, women, Black people, gays, and in the mobilizations against wars.

What is happening in Israel?

Just as the ruling powers denied Black people the right to vote for decades, the Israeli power brokers have denied Palestinians in the Occupied Territories the right to vote. In both the United States and Israel, those ruling powers refuse to acknowledge that the source of the problems affecting the working class is the capitalist drive for profits.

So, if the United States and Israel have never been genuine democracies, what are the recent demonstrations in Israel about? To answer this question, we need to look at a bit of history.

The United States

There was a time in the United States when Black people didn’t have citizenship rights. Then a young Black woman named Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of a bus. About ten years after Rosa Parks’ protest, the President of the United States signed the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts that abolished Jim Crow segregation.

During those years, President Johnson looked at the mass civil rights movement and began to understand that the only way to maintain stability in this country would be to abolish Jim Crow segregation. We might consider that Johnson lived in Texas, a state where Jim Crow was the law. However, the changing times convinced him to become critical of George Wallace and others who wanted to preserve the Jim Crow system.

Algeria

Algeria was once a nation ruled by France. There might have been about one million French people who lived in Algeria during those years. The Algerian people experienced a similar kind of routine vicious discrimination as Black people experienced in this country.

The Algerian liberation movement gained popular support and the French President Charles de Gaulle advocated for reforms in the French colony. The French Algerian settlers violently resisted de Gaulle’s proposed reforms. Eventually de Gaulle negotiated for a complete French withdrawal from Algeria.

South Africa

 The former apartheid system of South Africa denied Black people basic citizenship rights. A liberation movement erupted led by Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress. As a result, differences developed between the government officials Pik Botha and Frederik de Klerk. Botha wanted to maintain apartheid. De Klerk became convinced that the apartheid government needed to negotiate with Nelson Mandela. Those negotiations and the mass movement of South Africans led to the election of President Nelson Mandela.

Conclusion

So, we see in these three examples that the movements for genuine liberation convinced the ruling powers that basic change needed to happen. If those changes didn’t happen the mass movements would create an unstable environment for capitalist investment.

Clearly in these three examples fundamental change did not happen. However, significant change did happen. Black people in this country and South Africa gained rights they never had before. In Algeria French rule of that country ended. 

We might also consider that over 100,000 Palestinians live in the United States. Clearly there are profound problems in this country. However, Palestinians citizens have the right to travel to any part of this country. They have the right to live or own a business in any part of this country. Palestinians who live in the Occupied Territories of Israel do not have these rights. Yet the United States government gives Israel billions of dollars every year.

We might also consider that a top priority of the Israeli government is to build homes and an infrastructure for Israelis who live in the occupied West Bank. Affluent Israelis who could not afford a large home in Israel, now live in spacious homes in the occupied West Bank. Yet the vicious repression against Palestinians is routine. 

We might also consider the Zionist argument that Jewish people need a homeland because of the anti-Semitism in the world. Clearly Black people in the United States have a long history of horrendous discrimination. Marcus Garvey led a mass movement arguing that Black people would not be liberated in this country and needed to establish a homeland in Africa. The parents of Malcolm X were supporters of Marcus Garvey. However, Malcolm argued that Black people need to develop control of their communities here, and that they need to defend themselves "By any means necessary."

My opinion is that Jewish people need to learn this same lesson. The international battle against anti-Semitism is a cause working people need to support. However, Israeli Prime Ministers never support demonstrations protesting anti-Semitism. Instead they advocate for Jews to move to Israel and join the so-called Israeli Defense Force that routinely brutalizes Palestinians.

So, when we look at the demonstrations in Israel today, we are looking at the same kind of divisions we saw in the United States, Algeria, and South Africa. While most of these demonstrators are not advocating for liberation for Palestinians, they show how Israeli society is beginning to break apart. The only way out of this crisis will be to give Palestinians inside and outside of Israel the same rights that Palestinians have in this country. 

Two Films About Immigrants—Past Lives & Windows on the World

 

Past Lives: written and directed by Celine Song

Cast: Greta Lee, Teo Yoo, John Magaro

Windows on the World: Directed by Michael D. Olmos

Screenplay by: Robert Mailer Anderson, Zack Anderson

Starring: Ryan Guzman, Edward James Olmos

Reviewed by Steve Halpern

I’ve viewed several films made by Koreans. For me, many of those films are compelling in ways we don’t see in films made in this country. The film Past Lives might be one of the best that portrays the Korean reality. 

The story begins with two children, Nora and Hae Sung, in Korea who are best friends. The girl’s father is a writer, and the family moves to Canada. The reason is to experience a different culture in the world.

When young Nora arrives in Canada, she is completely isolated. She has no friends and doesn’t even know the language. In her new home, she cries every day. 

Years later, Nora is an adult who works as a writer in English. On the internet, she connects with Hae Sung who continued to live in Korea. Right away, the sparks fly, and the two former childhood friends become children again. But there is a glitch.

Nora needs to pursue her writing career in the United States. Hae Sung is preparing to be an engineer and is going to China to learn Mandarin. China has become a manufacturing center in the world. Several Korean multinational corporations have manufacturing facilities in China. 

Because Nora and Hae Sung have conflicting career plans, they find it to be impossible to pursue a relationship. Nora asks that they stop communicating for a while. They are both depressed as they confront this reality.

Years later, Nora marries a writer who was raised in the United States. Her marriage entitled Nora to a Green Card in this country. Then, Hae Sung decides to visit her for one week in New York City. 

During that week, Nora and Hae Sung reestablish the bond they had as children. Nora is reminded of the culture she once had in Korea. However, she has changed from the Korean girl she once was. Now she is someone who has a Korean background, but in many ways has become integrated into the culture of the United States. 

At this point in their lives, it would have become impractical for Nora to return to Korea or for Hae Sung to move to the United States. While Nora has a clear attraction for Hae Sung, but she also loves her husband. 

For me, this story is compelling in many ways. Most immigrants come to the United States and Canada so they might get a better income. This might help their families escape grinding poverty. Nora’s family didn’t choose to move to Canada for economic reasons. However, in many ways Nora’s life changed as she adopted to Canada and then the United States. 

While Hae Sung became a competent engineer, there would have been numerous roadblocks preventing him from moving to the United States.

Windows on the World

In the film Windows on the World, we see different problems that face immigrants in this country. In this film the father of a Mexican family, Balthazar, goes to the United States to find work where he could make significantly more money. In this country, employers hire millions of immigrants to do some of the most arduous jobs. 

Balthazar worked at several jobs. One of those jobs was at the restaurant at the former World Trade Center known as Windows on the World. We see his family viewing the television news of the World Trade Center being destroyed on September 11, 2001. 

Balthazar’s son Fernando volunteers to go to New York City to discover if his father is alive. In New York, Fernando sees the opulent wealth of Manhattan in an art gallery. That evening he slept on cardboard in an alley. Eventually Fernando gets a job with immigrants from Africa washing windows. 

In his search for his father, he meets Lia and they fall in love. After finding his father, Fernando has to make a choice. Should he return to Mexico with his family, or should he continue his relationship with Lia and his friendships with the window-washers from Africa. Fernando understands that if he remains in this country, the government could deport him at any time.

How are these two films related?

Both these films are about immigrants who live in the United States. In both films we see how the culture of the countries immigrants come from is in many ways different from what they experience here. This country changes the lives of immigrants in many ways. We also see how their lives in this country enriches the culture here. 

Ever since the beginning of the capitalist system, we have lived in a globalized world. Today there are about 17 banks that control over $41 trillion in assets. The approximately 200 board members of those banks make decisions as to how all that money will be invested. Those board members continually decide to invest huge amounts of money all over the world.

Korean owned corporations manufacture cars, home appliances, and cell phones. Much of the work required to produce those commodities is done in China. Yet about 70% of the world’s population lives on ten dollars per day or less. The 200 board members who control trillions of dollars in assets invest in businesses where workers might be paid ten dollars per day or less.

While millions of immigrant workers do some of the worst jobs, Presidents Obama, Trump, and Biden have deported millions of immigrants. Most of those deportations are to countries like Mexico where most of the population is of Native American decent. In other words, the United States government makes it a routine policy to deport people whose ancestors lived here thousands of years before the Europeans arrived. 

The film Past Lives isn’t a story about economic hardship. However, this is a story of how we live in a world where the corporate drive for profits takes priority over the free flow of interplay between the cultures of the world. People of every ethnic background enjoy Korean and Mexican food. Yet corporations invest hundreds of millions of dollars every year in advertisements for MacDonald’s, Burger King, Coca Cola, and Pepsi.  

Instead of investing in deporting millions of immigrants, we need to celebrate the fact that the United States might be one of the most diverse nations in the world. While the government works to promote millions of deportations, we need to understand that most people are a part of the working class of the world. When we develop that consciousness, then we can begin to make this a planet where human needs of people all over the world, and not corporate profits are the priority.

North Star—A Memoir

 

By Peter Camejo

2010 Morella Camejo, Haymarket Books

Reviewed by Steve Halpern

I first listened to Peter Camejo speak in 1972 at a conference of the Young Socialist Alliance in Houston, Texas. At that time, I didn’t know much about politics, but felt there were profound inequalities in this country that appeared to be ingrained in the system. Camejo’s ridicule of the system made me laugh and think about the politics of the world. I had never listened to anyone talk like that. That speech became the foundation for the political orientation I have today.

I also read Camejo’s book Racism, Revolution, Reaction—1861-1877. This book, along with W.E.B. Dubois book on Black Reconstruction are, for me, the two most important books on the period of history after the Civil War. In my opinion, it is impossible to begin to understand the history of this country without understanding the facts of what happened in those years. 

Over the years, Camejo’s politics drifted away from mine. Recently, I read his book North Star—A Memoir that was written shortly before his death in 2008. While I have disagreements with some of his conclusions, I found this book to be well worth reading. 

Camejo’s early life.

Peter Camejo’s family is from Venezuela. His mother’s family moved to Queens New York because their critical views of the Venezuelan government made life in their homeland impossible. When the family returned to Venezuela his grandmother got lucky and won $20,000 on a horse race. His father didn’t start out with much money but made a fortune developing tourist resorts in Venezuela. 

When Peter was about eight, his parents divorced and he lived with his mother and two brothers in Great Neck, Long Island. He was a mischievous child who no doubt tested his mother’s patience. This continued when Peter decided to become active in revolutionary politics rather than settle down with a family.

Peter had a perfect score of 800 on his SAT mathematics test. This enabled him to be accepted in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as a mathematics major. There he met Barry Shephard and Gus Horowitz. Camejo, Shephard, and Horowitz would eventually join the Socialist Workers Party.

In his early years Camejo lived in Corral Gables, Florida. This was at a time of institutionalized Jim Crow segregation. Camejo gave up his seat on a bus to a pregnant Black woman. This action enraged the bus driver. His family recognized the profound injustice of this system. After joining the Socialist Workers Party, Camejo walked the 56 miles on Martin Luther King’s march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama.

Camejo also went to several meetings where Malcolm X spoke. He was impressed with how Malcolm instilled pride in Black people by introducing them to their heroic history that the so-called educational system ignored. At that time the Socialist Workers Party was one of the few organizations that supported the politics of Malcolm X. After his assassination SWP member George Breitman edited Malcolm’s speeches in the book By Any Means Necessary.

The Cuban Revolution coincided with Camejo’s radicalization. He visited Cuba shortly after the revolution and was inspired by what he saw. 

Then he moved to Berkley, California and became a leader of the student movement protesting the war against Vietnam.

The student anti-war movement at UC Berkeley

As the war against Vietnam escalated, a polarization developed in this country. As in all wars, the government went on an all-out drive to support the war. The Administration of UC Berkeley and Governor Ronald Reagan supported the war. 

Then, as the war and the Vietnamese resistance escalated, students across the country began to question what the war was about. Why were so many U.S. soldiers dying in a war that brought unimaginable horror to the people of Vietnam? 

Peter Camejo was drafted to the military, but refused to take the Oath pledging allegiance to the United States government. The government responded by giving him a 4-F deferment. 

Then Camejo became a student leader at UC Berkeley. Initially the police arrested him but refused to charge him with anything. Several lawyers volunteered to defend him because this was a gross infringement on his rights. The case was dismissed.

Then he was one of several students arrested for using a university owned microphone. That case went to court.

Camejo was one of the central leaders of anti-war demonstrations in Berkeley in 1968. In that year a revolutionary movement erupted in France. Rebellions erupted in cities across the United States protesting the murder of Martin Luther King.

In Berkeley, thousands of students demanded to have an anti-war protest on Telegraph Avenue. The Mayor and City Council objected. The Governor mobilized the National Guard and declared a curfew. However, the protesters refused to be silenced and they had their demonstration. So, while the U.S. government ordered soldiers to murder millions of people in Vietnam, they also flagrantly violated the Constitution and worked to prohibit anti-war demonstrations.

Those events influenced Camejo. He experienced how masses of people could be mobilized to make profound change.

Camejo started this book with the story of his avoiding arrest in Columbia in 1979. He was on his way to meet with Hugo Blanco the peasant leader who spent time in a Peruvian jail. Blanco was receiving a lot of support for his actions, and apparently the authorities wanted to block Camejo from joining with Blanco’s supporters.

In order to escape this arrest Camejo had support from Columbian airport workers as well as union leaders. His family had connections with an influential relative who was meeting with the then Secretary of State Cyrus Vance. Vance made a phone call and the order to arrest Camejo in Columbia was rescinded. This is just one example of the repressive forces in Latin America and the profound influence of the United States government.

When Camejo ran for President representing the Socialist Workers Party in 1976 he received considerable media coverage in Venezuela. The Venezuelan people had fewer objections to the idea of socialism as in the United States. There was a bit of pride that someone who’s family lives in the country was running for President of the United States.

Camejo also made numerous contacts with the Chicano community during his campaign. They were also proud of the fact that a Latino was running for President and was receiving support for his campaign. The fact that Camejo was an ardent supporter of immigrant rights also made him popular in the Latino community.       

Camejo started a new life

After the Vietnamese people decisively defeated the armed forces of the United States, there was a relative lull in activity. Camejo developed differences with the leadership of the Socialist Workers Party and was no longer a member.

For a time, he worked in the garment district in New York City. He then worked for a time in the Post Office. Then he was hired by Merrill Lynch and became a stockbroker. 

During these years he gravitated to the Green Party. He eventually became the Vice-Presidential candidate to Ralph Nader, who was their Presidential candidate. 

Camejo, throughout his life was an opponent to both the Democratic and Republican Parties. He shared that opposition with Malcolm X and the Socialist Workers Party.

While some members of the Green Party wanted to support the democrats, Camejo was opposed to that perspective. However, the Green Party was not about arguing for a socialist transformation of the country. In my opinion, only a complete change in the political economic system can begin to eradicate the problems of poverty, discrimination, as well as the destruction of the environment. So, on the issue of the Green Party, Camejo and I disagree.

The North Star

While I disagree with Camejo on his support of the Green Party, I agree with his argument about the need for the socialist movement to recognize the revolutionary movements of the past. The name of an organization he worked with was The North Star. The North Star was also the name of the 19th century abolitionist newspaper edited by Frederick Douglass. 

There is a tremendous revolutionary heritage that young people have today. The United States was born as a result of a revolution against British colonialism. The emerging government established rights that people didn’t have before. However, that same government repressed the Shay’s rebellion of veterans of the Revolution. The new government also supported the unimaginably horrendous system of chattel slavery and Native American genocide.  

However, as the new government advanced its repressive policies new movements erupted that continue to challenge those policies. First there was the Native American resistance that continues to this day. Then there was the abolitionist movement that culminated in the Civil War that ultimately abolished the system of chattel slave labor. 

Then, the labor movement and the movements that advanced the rights of women, Black people, Latinos, and gays. Outstanding people came forward to lead all those movements. I agree with Peter Camejo’s argument that recognizing the history of all these movements can only strengthen those who are working to make this a world where human needs take priority over Profits. 

In all, while I disagree with some of Peter Camejo’s ideas in his later life, I found his memoir well worth reading and is a useful contribution to the struggles today.

October—The Story of The Russian Revolution

 

By China Miéville

Published by Verso 2017

Reviewed by Steve Halpern

One of the problems in studying the Russian Revolution is coming to grips with the reality workers and farmers faced in Czarist Russia in 1917. Clearly, beginning to understand any period of history is challenging because the environment of the past is completely different from our experience. 

However, there has been so much misinformation about the Russian Revolution, getting the basic facts about what happened can be difficult. In order to begin to see the reality of the past, I believe the reader needs to understand that there are fundamental problems in the world today. 

Leon Trotsky was a leader of the Russian Revolution, and he wrote a three-volume history of what happened. Since Trotsky was both a leader and a participant in the revolution, his analysis is invaluable. Trotsky didn’t just report on the facts He gave a perspective demonstrating why the masses of workers had an iron will to do whatever was necessary to bring about profound change.  

In China Miéville’s history of the Revolution, he uncovered information that has been gathered over the years. These facts introduce us to a bit more of the background to the events of what happened. While I believe that Trotsky’s history of the Revolution is essential reading, Miéville’s history gives important information allowing the reader to get a more rounded feel for why the Revolution erupted.

So, in order to begin to see why this history is important, we need to look at the environment the workers and farmers of Czarist Russia faced in 1917.

The background to the Russian Revolution

Czarist Russia had the largest land mass of any nation in the world at that time. That entire empire consisted of many nations with different languages. The many nations that weren’t Russian endured the most brutal repression. This entire region was ruled by a feudal monarch known as the Czar. 

The Czar had absolute power that included the right to establish or abolish the Russian parliament known as the Duma. Recently there have been mass demonstrations protesting murders by the police of George Floyd and others. In Czarist Russia, the police had absolute power. This meant they had the power to murder, rape, or assault at will. In fact, the Czar supported the group known as the Black Hundreds who carried out pogroms where they murdered thousands of Jews. 

The vast majority of people who lived in Czarist Russia were peasants. This majority worked for the owners of estates in slave-like conditions. The owners of those estates had the right to beat peasants with the Russian stick known as the knout. They also had the right to murder peasants in a system where they had absolute authority. However, in 1917 this highly repressive environment began to change. 

The Czar also supported the secret police known as the Okhrana. Okhrana agents routinely attended political meetings. These agents arranged for the arrest of many political activists for merely attending political meetings and saying things critical to the Czar.  

Starting in 1914, Russia went to war against Germany. Because the allied powers had massive investments in Russia, the Czar supported the war against Germany in WWI. About two-million soldiers died fighting for the Czar in the war. Millions of soldiers experienced the filth of rat-infested fox holes as well as poisonous gas used by the German military. Those soldiers lacked sufficient supplies of food, clothing, and ammunition.

Because Russia was a relatively underdeveloped nation, this massive war effort caused extreme shortages to the population and there was widespread famine. Infants died because there was no food for their mothers, so the mothers had no breast milk. Because of the millions of soldiers who died in the war, thousands of orphans roamed the streets. While all this was happening, Czar Nicholas demanded that the soldiers continue fighting in a war that they could not win. 

Faced with this reality, in February of 1917 Russian workers went on strike in most of the factories in the capital Petrograd. Other Russian cities also experienced strike waves. This strike wasn’t just about ideological disagreements with the Czar or demands for wage increases. The workers who went on strike demanded fundamental change and they wanted this immediately. 

The first obstacle of these workers were the mounted soldiers known as the Cossacks. In 1905, the Cossacks murdered thousands of people for merely participating in a demonstration in Petrograd. However, in 1917 most Cossacks were tired of the war and didn’t see striking workers as their enemy. At first, most Cossacks refused to attack the demonstrators. Then they opened fire and murdered police officers who were attacking the strikers.

Once the strikers understood that they were victorious in the initial skirmishes, they arrested the Czar and took control of all the city services. The workers organized themselves in councils or Soviets that had been active for many years.

In the initial stages of the Revolution, there was support for giving power to the parliament or Duma. The attitude was that the Duma had been elected and the individuals who held office would support the demands of the people. However, the workers also maintained the Soviets who controlled most of the military, transportation, as well as manufacturing. The Soviets won the support from the peasantry that represented the vast majority of the nation. 

Alexander Kerensky and the Provisional Government

One of the strong parts of parts of Miéville’s book was his description of the evolution of Alexander Kerensky who was the President of both the Duma and the Soviets. Kerensky was an eloquent speaker. The problem was that his political perspective was the exact opposite of what the workers and farmers were demanding. 

Kerensky promoted a perspective that continued to support capitalist property relations. Initially the government abolished the police who became brutal enemies of the majority of the population. There were also minimum reforms.

However, Kerensky refused to take the extreme measures of giving food to the people, distributing land to the peasants, and ending the war. In fact, he advocated for a new Russian military offensive that proved to be a disaster. 

So, as the crisis in Russia continued, Kerensky made an alliance with General Lavr Kornilov. Kornilov’s idea was to mobilize the more conservative wing of the armed forces to invade Petrograd, defeat the revolutionary forces, and declare martial law. Kerensky began to understand that if this happened, Kornilov would eventually arrest and execute him. So, he alerted the city to the invasion.

At that time the Bolshevik Party headed by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin was gaining support within the industrial districts and the military. Their demands were Peace, Bread, and Land. So, at this time the Bolsheviks were primarily responsible for defeating Kornilov’s invasion.

When Kornilov’s troops travelled by rail to Petrograd, the rail workers destroyed the tracks and left the soldiers stranded. Then the Bolsheviks organized to talk to the soldiers. They spoke about how the revolution was demanding an end to the war, land for the peasants, as well as bread for the people. Using this approach Kornilov’s invasion was defeated without firing a shot and Kornilov was placed under house arrest.

Lenin returns to Russia

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin spent years outside Russia working to organize the Bolsheviks to oppose the repressive policies of his homeland. When the February Revolution erupted Lenin was living in Switzerland. He and other revolutionaries managed to organize to return to Petrograd.

At that time the Bolsheviks were in support of the Provisional Government. Lenin began to understand that the Provisional Government would not make any of the profound changes the people were demanding. So, he called for “All Power to the Soviets” and “Peace, Bread, and Land.”

 Since these were new demands, Lenin felt that the most effective way to advance was to patiently explain what the issues were, and how the Provisional Government was adamantly opposed to the demands of the people.

As Kerensky and the government ministers organized to continue the war, they put out an arrest warrant for Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and other leading Bolsheviks. In the United States, Eugene Debs was one of the socialists who served time in prison for opposing U.S. participation in the First World War. Trotsky served a short time in prison, while Lenin went into hiding. While the government worked to isolate the Bolsheviks, their perspective was gaining support. 

There was an uprising in July of the workers, but Lenin felt that the workers and peasants were not prepared to take power. General Kornilov attempted to take advantage of the relative lull in activity by preparing for his invasion of Petrograd. 

When Lenin saw how the Bolsheviks were the primary organization that organized workers to defend the city, he began to call for a revolution to take power from the Provisional Government. 

At that time most of the Bolsheviks were working to establish a compromise with the government. The government finally agreed to the concept of peace, bread, and land, but the people didn’t trust the members of government to carry out these reforms. 

So, Lenin took a chance and put on a disguise so he would not be arrested. He joined with the Bolsheviks and argued for the seizure of power. Once the Bolsheviks organized, there was little resistance to ousting the government. The masses in the cities became enraged at the decisions by the government ministers who refused to grant the demands of the people. 

Why a Revolution?

Today many pro-capitalist authors argue that the October Revolution was undemocratic. They say that since the Provisional Government ministers were elected, the October Revolution was an undemocratic coup organized by the Bolsheviks. In my opinion, that argument ignores the facts of much of human history.

We might consider that revolutionary movements usually have few resources. The ruling powers have the police, the army, the news media, the government, and the courts. Revolutionary movements, in essence, have the idea that things must change. Masses of people support that idea, and this is the basis for all revolutions. 

Clearly, I support the right to vote. That right came about with the end of feudalism and the beginnings of capitalism. However, voting only reinforces the political economic system that people are living with. 

Thomas Jefferson identified why a revolution was necessary to establish the United States in the Declaration of Independence. He argued that people will endure injustices for long periods of time. But when there is a “long train of abuses” that results in “despotism” the people not only have a right, but a “duty” to throw off the old power and establish new guards for their “security.”

Leon Trotsky made a similar observation in his three volume History of the Russian Revolution. Trotsky argued that the Russian Revolution didn’t happen only because there was a crisis in Russia in 1917. He argued that the hostility of the Russian masses to the ruling powers in Czarist Russia had been building for many years. The events of 1917 reached a point of despotism that became intolerable for most Russian workers, farmers, and soldiers.

Any study of the Russian Revolution needs to come to grips with the fact that Joseph Stalin organized a betrayal of the goals of the revolution. He also created a campaign leading to the execution of most of the leaders of the Revolution. Today Vladimir Putin is openly hostile to the political orientation of Lenin. His criminal invasion of Ukraine is clear evidence of that.

China Miéville gives an analogy that summarizes his thinking on the Revolution. He argued that Lenin’s political perspective was the only rational way for the nation to move out of the crisis of 1917. Yet, he also argues how that road inevitably led to the betrayal by Stalin. He argues that today we need to study the Russian Revolution because it is relevant to all movements that demand profound change.

Well, I take a different approach. For me, the Russian Revolution teaches us how the working class has the potential to take power. 

We might ask another question. Would the Russian Revolution have been possible without the contributions of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels? Clearly Lenin based his theoretical orientation on his writings of Marx and Engels. Any rational reading of the Russian Revolution has to conclude that Lenin played a pivotal role in the Bolsheviks coming to power.

So, for me the example of the Russian Revolution continues to be with us. It demonstrated that it is indeed possible for a revolutionary workers government to come to power and maintain that power. Today we see how, in spite of all its difficulties, the Cuban revolutionary government continues that legacy. 

Yusef Salaam—The Journey From Prison to a Seat in Government

By Steve Halpern

The other day I read a story in the Inquirer about Yusef Salaam. Salaam was one of the Central Park Five. In 1989, when he was fifteen years old, the New York City Police and District Attorney’s office worked diligently to frame him and four of his friends on charges of rape. After serving seven years in prison, the city of New York agreed to pay the Central Park Five $41 million in compensation. 

Former President Donald Trump paid about $80,000 for adds titled “Bring Back the Death Penalty” arguing that the Central Park Five should have been executed. Even after a court found the Central Park Five to be innocent, Trump continued to argue that they were guilty.

Today Yusef Salaam is slated to become a City Council member representing the borough of Harlem in New York City. This is what he had to say about his life.

“To have a voice from a person who’s been pushed into the margins of life—someone who has actually been one of those who has been counted out—is finally having a seat at the table.”

In this country it is rare to see someone who has served time in prison turn around to become a member of government. However, when we look at the world, masses of people view prison sentences as a badge of honor that makes a person worthy of a position in government. There is a long list of people who fall into that category.

One of the most famous was Nelson Mandela who served 27 years in prison and broke rocks in a limestone quarry. Then he was released from prison to become the President of South Africa.

There was Hugo Blanco who served several years in prison for organizing peasants in Peru so they might have better lives. Blanco became a government minister and might have become President of Peru.

There was José Mujica who spent several years in prison in Uruguay before being elected to the Presidency of that nation.

There was Luiz Ignácio Lula da Silva known as “Lula”, and Dilma Rousseff, known as Dilma, who both served time in Brazilian prisons. They were both elected to become Presidents of Brazil.

There was Fidel Castro and Raul Castro who both served time in prison and became Presidents of Cuba.   

What does this history tell us? Many people in the world view the regimes they live under as highly repressive. So, when people run for office who want to change the system, a prison sentence isn’t something to be ashamed of, but a badge of honor.