The Class Line
All written history, including yesterday's newspaper, is the story of the unfolding class struggle....
**
What's here: Is Legislation Legitimate? Who Destroyed Iraq? Choose Sides on Trade Issues What Does Enron Scandal Actually Mean? Anti-Muslim Bigotry Rages What's Important? Iraqi Puppets Stomp Women Should We Believe the Corporate Newspapers? Whose Economy? Will the Lege Succeed? Hopes for Peace Increase Stand for Unity with Immigrants Jiving and Privatizing
On KNON's Wednesday "Workers' Beat" program, State Representative Lon Burnam lamented the failure of the Texas Legislature to accomplish anything for the state's schools in the last two special sessions, and for that matter the last several regular sessions as well. He predicted that the State Supreme Court will issue some kind of delay of their last order, then the Lege will probably re-convene after the Supreme Court comes up with another decision. He pointed out that the government leadership, specifically the Governor, the Speaker of the House, and the Lieutenant Governor, didn't really want to do anything to help the schools to begin with. What they wanted to do was cut taxes for the wealthiest people.
The truth is that the corporate-backed governments only have one goal for all forms of economic activity: their own profits. Every activity known today as a "social service," would be privatized into another profit center if they get their way. That means schools, trash pick-up, drinking water, and everything else.
The Texas Legislature isn't actually "failing" to help the schools. The federal government isn't "failing" to finance Social Security. You can't "fail" to do something you never intended to do!
Texans are being tested today. Are we really for unity of the working class, or does it only apply to certain workers and not others? It's not an academic question, but rather one that is breathing right down our necks!
In our lifetimes, we have never seen an organized, nationwide right wing with control over the media, majority representation in government, and full backing of major financial sources. But we see it now. Until recently, we had never seen large-scale armed hooligans carrying out reactionary programs in America in our lifetimes, but we are beginning to see it now.
At the Texas AFL-CIO convention August 11-13 in Houston, several speakers said that the so-called "Minutemen" are no longer confining themselves to swaggering around border areas, but are beginning to come into urban areas to ask people for identification papers! They have a major meeting planned in October in Houston. They are apparently already moving into San Antonio. These guys have guns, money, friendly media, and support in the U.S. Congress.
That may not be the worst of the problems. The actual degree to which everyday Americans support persecuting immigrants is not known, but we know that it exists. Many otherwise intelligent workers may give into xenophobia when it comes to undocumented workers from the South.
The only hope of the working class is unity. Conversely, the only hope of the capitalist class is to keep us divided. We need our best thinking to overcome the fears and misconceptions within our own class!
President Bush is speaking to one of his hand-picked audiences today in an attempt to explain why people are being killed in Iraq. The news will report his assertions just as if they were honest.
But Americans are seeing through the scam, and most of them now want their troops out of harm's way. The labor movement helped tremendously by adopting a strong resolution for bringing home the troops "as rapidly as possible." This was, I believe, the first time since 1892 that they have taken an anti-war stand.
The Texas AFL-CIO did not take a stand against the war at their convention in Houston, but many of the speakers did. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee was outstanding, and she drew a lot of applause as she declared herself against the war.
Americans, especially Texans, have been galvanized by the calm voice and
actions of Cindy Sheehan in Crawford. Sheehan will go to Washington for
the mass protest September 24. We should, also.
Starting today and looking backward, any thinking Texan can see milestones of failure in the financing of the state's public schools. The session in progress, our 3rd this year, is supposed to try again tomorrow to get a bare-bones bill passed just to get textbooks for the schools that are opening right away. The Speaker of the House fulfilled his own self-fulfilling prophecy last week when he announced that they might as well go home.
The legislators, who gave themselves a whopping pension increase, cut pensions for school employees earlier. That is just about their main acomplishment.
Most of the state's political observers are excoriating the legislature for its "failure."
The reactionaries who control Texas state government might have put out some nice press releases, but their actual efforts had nothing to do with improving schools for students, parents, or school employees. They intended, instead, to cut property taxes for the rich. The main reason that property taxes are so high is that the state funding has steadily diminished. The only way school districts could go forward was to raise their own property taxes, which they did. Property owners hollered that they need relief, and the big politicians tried to respond with a tax cut. But they didn't even talk seriously about raising the state's share of the funding.
It's true that the students, parents, and school employees will suffer, but do the reactionaries in state government really care? It's been well documented that they were elected by giant corporate contributions, particularly insurance company contributions, not by students, parents, and school employees. If the public schools were completely eliminated, few tears would be shed in their circles.
To answer the question, "Are they really failing?" one would have to begin by trying to define what they are trying to do. Certainly, they're not improving Texas schools. But was that their goal?
Sure, it's our goal. But it isn't theirs!
On July 30, The Washington Post published "Pay Lags Behind Inflation. Overall Economy Keeps Growing, Commerce Dept. Says," by Nell Henderson. The main point was that real wages are continuing to fall. "Real" wages are workers' incomes after inflation is taken into account. If a worker gets a 2% raise, but inflation went up 3%, he or she actually lost buying power.
You have to remember, too, that these statistics are prepared and shoveled out to us after the capitalists and their institutions jack with all the figures and the math. "Inflation," of late, doesn't even include food and gasoline prices!
The article goes on to say that the last recession ended 4 years ago. The period we're in now is termed an "upturn" or even "prosperity." But it isn't prosperity for us. I love this quote in the article from Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute: "The economy's doing fine, except if you figure in working families."
Most of the corporate-owned media is warning of dangers ahead
for their economy, particularly because of the tremendous debt that the
government, businesses, and individuals are carrying. If there is a capitalist
downturn, it will be a lot worse for those of us who even lost out during
their "prosperity" phase. They sneeze; we get pneumonia!
The Dallas Morning News is one of the most important corporate mouthpieces in the American Southwest. Their history has always been anti-worker. On July 27, they ran an editorial welcoming the bad news that the Teamsters and SEIU had decided to split from the AFL-CIO. It would be worthwhile to look at the ways that they try to drive a deeper wedge into our ranks while appearing to be the "good guys."
The editors called their essay, "Rebellion in Labor's Ranks: AFL-CIO split could lead to vital reforms." A rebellion is a brave event, an unnecessary split among working people, whose only hope is unity, is shameful. The editors don't mention any reforms, vital or otherwise, in their piece.
The editors say that unions once organized a bigger part of the workforce than they do now. Unions also enjoyed a higher profile in public and political life. Both things are true, but these editors are inferring that the AFL-CIO leadership is to blame. The unions' percentage of membership declined since 1957 when it peaked at about 35% of the workforce, but it wasn't because union leaders did something wrong. Most of the membership decline came about because the jobs were shut down due to automation and/or outsourcing; both processes that the Dallas paper has enthusiastically supported.
Union spokespersons get very little favorable news coverage, but the editors at one of the most virulently anti-worker newspapers in America ought to understand the exact reasons for that.
The Dallas Morning News editors say, "The fadeout of organized labor from American life is the main reason behind this week's painful schism in the AFL-CIO." What fadeout? We've been under attack! Capitalists never liked unions, but the years since 1980 have been some of the worst for anti-labor attacks by business and government. Further, the editors offer no arguments that the "schism" was caused by this made-up "fadeout" of theirs. Anybody who reads the news knows that the SEIU and the Teamsters were trying to lower their financial commitment to the national federation as far back as March, when they proposed a 50% cut at the Executive Committee meeting. Anybody who reads the news also knows that the two unions were trying to take over the leadership of the AFL-CIO. When they failed in both ambitions, they split! Maybe they have some really nice explanations, but the facts are clear from their actions.
The editors compare one of the dissident union presidents to the pious Martin Luther and Billy Graham! Might as well put haloes around their heads and, I guess, horns and a tail on the AFL-CIO leadership.
Toward the end, the editors state their hopes: "…the inexorable march of globalization means nothing is likely to stop the decline of organized labor."
In general, working people are wise to carefully read the editorials in the Dallas Morning News - then believe the exact opposite!
--Jim Lane
It is almost amusing to be lectured on democracy by the editors of the Dallas Morning News. On July 22, they tried to explain away the contradiction between Bush's "spreading democracy" in Iraq and the fact that the puppet government is creating an Iraqi constitution that will shove women's rights far below what they were under the Hussein government.
In one of the lamest explanations ever attempted, they create a dichotomy between what they call "democracy" and "liberal democracy." The first is rule by the will of the people, they say, and the second is more moral.
Then they go on to say that "liberal democracy" could only be imposed on others, presumably less enlightened than us, by "lethal and overwhelming violence." They equate such violence only with the Hussein government, not the lethal and overwhelming violence used by the invading and occupying forces.
So, the occupying forces could not possibly "impose" women's rights on the Iraqis. Only a heartless so-and-so like Hussein would do such a terrible thing!
They conclude, "The destiny of Iraq is in the hands of the Iraqis now, and if they wish to make the cruel and stupid mistake of shackling half their population, that is their right." Maybe they're just trying to get us ready for an endorsement of Roberts, apparently another women's rights hater, for the Supreme Court.
The editors should get credit only for consistency. Since their newspaper company was begun in 1843 to support genocide against the Native Texans, it has hardly distinguished itself as pro-women nor anti-racist.
--Jim Lane
We'll be at the national convention for the next several days. When we get back, hopefully, we'll be better prepared to understand people's situations and the remedies for our ills. On the personal level, it's pretty hard to figure out that question of all questions, "What do I do next?"
I had breakfast with another veteran activist this morning, and we were trying to decide whether we were accomplishing as much as possible or not. On the one hand, there seems to be a genuine crisis falling down on America and Mother Earth, so it seems that monumental contributions from us are in order. On another hand, most Americans don't seem to have realized, yet, just how serious this crisis is; consequently, they aren't really asking for a lot of help. We're limited in what we can do.
At lunch yesterday, a younger activist was urging me to do a lot more. He, too, feels a great crisis coming and he feels that the sum of his and my efforts is near to nothing by comparison with what's needed. He feels that party membership, the number of people cooperating in party collectives, is the main statistic that matters. Our Texas groups need more numbers. Can't argue with that.
I told both of my friends that we're doing pretty well, when the situation is taken into account. Recent polls show that Americans have figured out that they've been misled on foreign policy, most of them don't want to privatize Social Security, most of them believe people should be entitled to the pensions they worked for, most of them believe that people's rights and democracy are worth fighting for. At the same time, most of them are still in their "comfort zone" and don't believe any of these big battles are close at hand.
I don't think that recruiting new members to the Communist Party is the only thing worth doing. On the other hand, I don't believe that standing up for democratic rights is nearly sufficient. I think a reasonable person wants to see Americans, particularly working-class Americans and allies of the working class, understand the ongoing dilemma of capitalism and begin political action to move to a higher level of social and economic relationships. Taken individually, I think most people are actually moving that way -- getting better informed, moving toward action. Each of them is finding their way from where they are to the next increment. Helping them do that is a good task for any responsible person who cares about others.
Take people from where they are, try to move them forward. One can't really do more than that.
In terms of personal responsibility, one can't really do less.
**
By Paul Hill
I attended a screening of the new independent film The Keeper: The Legend of Omar Khayyám in Houston It is on a special engagement for two weeks. The film was directed by Kayvan Mashayekh, who immigrated to the U.S. from Iran in 1979 with his family when he was 11. Seven years ago, he abandoned his Houston law practice to pursue his dream of directing movies.
Mashayekh encountered tremendous anti-Muslim sentiment following the 911 tragedy and had great difficulty making the movie because of this. In spite of discouragement, he persisted and completed this excellent film. Vanessa Redgrave made a brief appearance in the film and her performance, as usual, was magnificent.
The movie is about a young Iranian-American boy, Kamran, whose older brother is the family "Keeper" of the story of Omar Khayyám. The brother is dying of leukemia in a Houston hospital and relates the legend to the boy. The boy becomes the "Keeper" after his brother's death.
Omar Khayyám was an intellectual in 11th century Persia who studied science, geometry and astronomy. He built an observatory with the backing of a progressive sultan who supported the development of science and knowledge as told in the story. His poetry, compiled in the Rubáiyat, is what he is remembered for now. One of Omar Khayyám's friends, Hassan, was a religious fundamentalist who viewed his scientific activities as heresy. The struggle between the two characters parallels the relationship between religion and science.
The story of a Muslim challenging Islamic fundamentalism caught the attention of some and helped the film to advance to completion. However, it should be pointed out that the themes presented in the movie are just as relevant to the Christian right wing in this country. In the film, the Islamic fundamentalists ruthlessly attack those in the forefront of progress in science and knowledge and collaborate with the invading Christian crusaders from Europe. In the U.S. today we have an administration opposed to stem cell research and other scientific advancements which will serve to relieve the misery of mankind.
I highly recommend this wonderful film which helps to dispel the anti-Muslim
prejudice in this country. It also clearly points out the follies and dangers
of religious fundamentalism and shows how it can be used to aide the forces
of reaction.
By Paul Hill
I recently saw Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room. It is an outstanding documentary of the rise and fall of Enron. Enron is a corporation still based in Houston. It collapsed in 2001. The symbiotic relationship between the Bush family and Enron was noted. The merger of corporations and government, which, Mussolini called the definition of fascism, was easy to see in this excellent film. I liked the question posed at the beginning: "Was this just the work of a few bad men, or was it the dark side of the American dream?"
The main characters were people who made daily headlines in Houston and across the nation throughout the company's operation: Ken Lay, (dubbed "Kenny Boy" by George W. Bush), Jeffrey Skilling, and Andrew Fastow, among others. The film presented them as human beings who were convinced that what they were doing was right. At one point, Jeff Skilling declares "We're the good guys…we're on the side of angels!" It was interesting to see them merge religious ideology with their business conduct and use it to justify egregious wrongs against their employees, the U.S. as a whole, and California in particular.
The executives were portrayed as risk-takers and intensely greedy. At one point, Ken Lay laments that he only had $20 million left after the collapse! The push for profit was the constant preoccupation of the traders and executives alike. Their profit mania led them to use fraudulent accounting that resulted in a meteoric rise of the stock value.
They also manipulated the State of California by creating "rolling black-outs" throughout the state, although plenty of power was available . This created panic and a rise in the value of the electricity they provided, which again served to inflate the stock value. Of course, poor and working people were the ones hardest hit. Many could not pay the price of power.
The scariest part is that the unnatural thinking of the executives in justifying their schemes and the justifying of the Iraq war are very similar. The Downing Street memos make it clear that the Bush and Blair administrations used lies and manipulation to justify a criminal war which only served the interests of the elite.
Although this film is an excellent documentary of the contradictions inherent
in the capitalist system, it fails to present any solutions. It is up to
working people to pick up where the film leaves off. This is a monumental
responsibility. The fate of our planet will be determined by how working
people respond to the negative direction taken by the "smart guys"
at Enron and the rest of the right wing elite.
As kids, we used to play "shirts" versus "skins" in scrub basketball. One clever fellow on the opposing "shirts" team once fooled me completely by pulling his t-shirt up to his chin and calling for the ball. Like a dummy, I saw his naked belly and thought he was a "skin" teammate. I threw him the ball. He dropped his shirt down, caught the ball, and gave me a grin that was more like a leer as he made an easy basket for his team.
My friends and co-workers often have the same problem that I did as a scrawny basketball hopeful: they don't always see which side is which. The Dallas corporate newspaper ran an editorial today (6/13/05) calling for passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Their arguments were almost amusing:
The whole argument over what they mislabel "free trade" is a great way to understand class struggle. The imperialists and their media pals co-opted terms like "free trade" and "globalization," to confuse the world working class. Real free trade and globalization would benefit people. CAFTA and its big brother NAFTA don't.
What they are actually implementing is imperialism. They are working with sellout "leaders" in foreign countries to sign secret pacts giving unprecedented powers to transnational corporations. The sellouts get their bribes, the transnational corporations get the power to do almost anything with the resources, especiallly the human resources, in the countries involved (including the U.S.) and the workers get squat! In fact, we get less than squat. We get more exploitation. Using government powers to benefit transnational corporations is imperialism, and that's what they ought to call it.
People in other countries understand it better than we do in America. They protest and, sometimes, even die to fight imperialism. Nation after nation has had to change or adjust government policies of late. The most recent was Bolivia, where the president had to resign last week over the nation's relationship to transnational oil companies. Guatemalans have been shot down in the streets while protesting CAFTA.
The transnational corporations, without regard for anything human, are leading governments and obsequious "newspersons" in imperialism's great worldwide drive. They are on one side; we're on the other.
**
Sunday's Dallas paper had a tiny little wire service article, almost unnoticeable, about the terrible infrastructure in Iraq. People who go there have a hard time getting drinking water, going to the bathroom, or traveling around. It concludes, innocently, that Iraq had the "best infrastructure in the Middle East" in the 1970s, "prior to Saddam Hussein's ascension to power."
The idea that Saddam Hussein's government destroyed all the good things in Iraq is common in American news reports. But is it true? Does it even make any sense? Why would Hussein, or for that matter, why would the most ruthless of dictators intentionally destroy his own country's infrastructure? Was Hussein some kind of religious fanatic who commits material acts just to suffer deprivation?
Some of my Arab friends tell me that Iraq had excellent educational facilities prior to the first U.S. invasion. They also tell me that working people were heavily unionized. Of course, neither is true now, but was it Hussein who did it?
The connivers known as "Texans for a Republican Majority" lost an important legal action on on May 26, and it was duly reported in the corporate media. However, they failed to report the essence of the news.
The judge ruled that they had failed to report nearly $600,000 in corporate political contributions during the 2002 Texas legislative races. He assessed a tiny fine of $196,000 to be split by the 5 Demoratic candidates who lost targetted races. The judge apparently failed to declare that the money was probably raised illegally and certainly used illegally, because corporate contributions are not supposed to be used to determine elections. But even this qualified defeat for the right-wingers who have subverted Texas elections raises a question that must be answered:
Children, old people, and working Texans in general have suffered greatly since the right-wingers asserted their control over all branches of government. They claimed that they were acting on our behalf, since they were elected to their offices. If they were not elected legally, as the May 26 ruling says, then why does the victimized population of the Lone Star state have to tolerate all of their rulings?
When Tom DeLay set up Texans for a Republican Majority, he had much larger goals than taking over the Texas Legislature. As soon as they got seated in 2003, they decided to re-district the federal congressmen. The 2004 federal elections gave Republicans control of the Texas delegation and, as a direct consequence, a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. Once they had control there, even more mahem was done to the working people of America. In Texas and in Washington, these pro-corporate, anti-worker conspirators continue to reign.
Is any of it legitimate? Do we all have to put up with it? Does anybody?
///
Jim Lane
http://tx.cpusa.org