1969 Promo Clip on the Future "Internet" (Posted by X.) by X.

From our brother Sean:

"Here's a similar one, claiming to be from 1969. The sexism certainly seems to be authentic..."

1969 Promo Clip on the coming Internet

***

Wow. What a find! The creepy voiceover and bizarre sexist conception of technology implementation in this presentation gives it even more of a Twilight Zone vibe.

What's so fascinating is that this 1969 film cannot grasp the transformative possibilities of the internet as a many-to-many communications platform, it merely presents it as an automated version of existing one-way commercial services... really an uninspired capitalist outlook with frozen social relations (note how the kids are monitored on camera but not allowed anywhere near the computers!).

1981 TV News Report on the Intertubes (X.) by X.

If you want to grasp the full impact of the technological revolution that is the internet, enjoy this classic clip.

Yes, there was life before the internet. And yes, it now looks like an episode from the Twilight Zone ("What if we lived in a disconnected world where people struggled to get information?").

"Obama and the Left" - what "progressives" are saying... (Brian) by Winston

I still subscribe to The Progressive. It has some good nuggets once in awhile (good toilet reading), and I appreciate its century-old roots...

This month, Ruth Coniff and John Nichols each have an interesting piece on how to "push" Obama "from the left." While they represent largely the advocacy model, it is worth a look, as these are the types of analyses many Obama supporters are using when determining how to engage his administration (in an environment in which these "progressives" are ostensibly "in power" and no longer working with "strategies of the opposition").

A nugget from the Coniff piece:

"We're not so much in protest mode and more in expectations and if-we-build-it-it-will-happen mode," she [Medea Benjamin] says. "Who knows how long we can stay in this mode?"

and from Nichols:

"Obama was nominated and elected in 2008 by progressives, both younger tech-savvy activists who made his candidacy an early favorite of the blogosphere and old-school liberal precinct walkers who saw in his candidacy an extension of the frustrating work of opposing all that was Bush and Cheney. The Senator won the Democratic nomination because he was the only first-tier contender who could say that he had opposed authorizing Bush to take the country to war with Iraq....

These activists formed a base within the campaign and the Democratic Party, centered on but not limited to the Obama team's quasi-open website and blog, www.MyBarackObama.com, which did not always cheerlead for the candidate. In June, when Obama broke with Feingold and other Senate progressives to support Bush's rewrite of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Senator felt enough heat from his own and independent netroots sites that he was compelled to explain himself, making what Obama described as a "firm pledge" that he would revisit the issue as President to shore up privacy protections....

activists cannot wait for Obama to define the playing field. They must assume that he knows what they know. And this requires a radically different approach than the left took to Southern centrist Democratic Presidents such as Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. The way to influence Obama and his Administration is to speak not so much to him as to America. Get out ahead of the new President, and of his spin-drive communications team.... Don't expect Obama or his aides to do the left thing. Indeed, take a lesson from rightwing pressure groups...."

"Franklin Roosevelt's example is useful here. After his election in 1932, FDR met with Sidney Hillman and other labor leaders, many of them active Socialists with whom he had worked over the past decade or more. Hillman and his allies arrived with plans they wanted the new President to implement. Roosevelt told them: 'I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.'

It is reasonable for progressives to assume that Barack Obama agrees with them on many fundamental issues. He has said as much.

It is equally reasonable for progressives to assume that Barack Obama wants to do the right thing. But it is necessary for progressives to understand that, as with Roosevelt, they will have to make Obama do it."

So...how do these ideas compare or contrast with recent discussions (on this blog and elsewhere) using a revolutionary democratic lens to examine the question, "What now?" What can we take, and what can we leave on the table? What are the real life implications, now that Obama is in office, of finding allies among these circles with whom we can build dual power? And what are some of the possible unfortuante exigencies or possible obsatcles?

SOLIDARITY OR BUST (Dave) by Zanturaeon

I wrote this essay a couple of years ago and found it going through some of my old work that's rotting in the musty corners of the Internet. While I don't agree with every single sentence, I still agree with the vast majority of it. I think that the main point of my essay - that it's important to focus on building and maintaining unity within our growing revolutionary movement, and that part of unity means respecting diversity of tactics and strategy - is more relevant than ever to us today as organizers, and it is in this light that I post this essay here.

A look at what's been done, and what we can do differently

In the past century alone, there have been dozens of socialist revolutions, hundreds of socialist (both anarchist and communist) uprisings - many of them on-going - and tens of thousands, if not millions, of confrontations between groups and individuals struggling for a socialist society against the powers that be. We, the movement as a whole, have seen many successes and many more failures, set-backs, and even full reverses of our successes. We have fought the fascists, the police, the military, each other, in the streets. We have hid from them, from each other, from ourselves in secret compartments, under false names, in foreign nations. But the majority, the glorious majority of our work has not been seen in their court rooms, our Party's, or our collectives; but in the gains as well as the losses that we've incited in the greater humanity. The 8-hour work day, universal suffrage, racial integration, and many other concrete advances that were and are to the direct benefit of the huge mass of oppressed people struggling to survive.

And yet today, the vast burgeoning mass of humanity still lives oppressed, mired in social struggles with the state, with the bosses, with the bigots, with the hateful and willfully ignorant. Indeed, many of our own ranks have (perhaps unwittingly) found themselves among these enemies of the oppressed, even as they themselves struggle for justice. The racism, patriarchy, and heterosexism so readily identified in the greater society is also mirrored in our own movements. And so it is with the great mass of humanity in most of the world. Chicago, Caracas, Melbourne, London, Beijing, Pretoria, Rome, Moscow: all of these cities, and all the rest of them, and indeed most of the world still stumbles under the back-breaking weight of hatred, exploitation, ignorance and abuse.

All that is to say this: that, quite obviously, the struggle has not ended. For every victory, there have been ten defeats. For every freed heart and mind, there have been ten that have given up, that have been arrested, that have been murdered. Many of us in our respective movements were filled with unrelenting, reinvigorating joy when we heard the news of this revolution or that uprising - or took part in them ourselves, with our ideas held firm in the grip of our barricades, weapons, monkey wrenches. And yet, after over a century of struggle (in which it seemed at many points, as Fighting For Our Lives puts it, "we could almost taste the new world coming through the tear gas"), we have failed to create a single, lasting revolution that was not crushed or did not degenerate.

Why? With our endless debates, analyses, propaganda, marches, sit-ins, strikes, demands and armed confrontations and so on, why is it that the revolution has not occurred: that point-of-no-return, that first, invincible domino? Why, with our endless barrage of books, speeches, papers, posters, fliers does not everyone now know of socialism, of communism, of anarchism - of a better life without the state or class?

Of course, there are many reasons that have been presented. The capitalists' monopoly on mass media, the recuperation of unions into capitalism - indeed many of our legislative victories can be said to have drained the movements of their vitality. The so oft-discussed Spanish Civil War, the parallel anarchist revolution, these were crushed by Fascism, perhaps by Stalinism, but absolutely in-fighting, by lack of organization, by lack of preparation - not by a lack of understanding, but by a lack of implementation of understanding: a lacking of strategy that accounted for these real threats. For how serious can "scientific socialism" really be if its' own strategies do not account for its' own threats? And this is not to say that our movements haven't done this, that our movements haven't learned from the past - from our comrades' as well as our own mistakes - but that this has not been comprehensive and inclusive.

Take anarchist syndicalism as one example. This is interesting because there is a large emphasis on tactics and thus it implies a greater, over-all strategy. The workers will form unions (or, rather, a union) and this union will become powerful and develop its' efficiency through direct struggle with the capitalists and one day the union will call a general strike and that will be the revolution - that unstoppable, irreversible first step toward socialism, toward communism, toward anarchy. But what about the consumers? What about the petty bourgeoisie? The peasantry? Government workers? The police, even? Syndicalism speaks little or nothing on this issue (though not to its' discredit), and so for this we must turn to anarchist communism, for regional federations of locals of the union. For the exact way in which resources will be distributed, we must turn to parecon. For the exact form of the union locals, we must turn to council communism. For the defense of the revolution against the defenders of capital - hermetically sealed imperialist war machines - we must turn to Spain's militias or Trotsky's Red Army. For the struggle against the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie in the third world we must turn to Che, Makhno, Mao.

And of course many of my readers will disagree with many or all of my assertions here, and this is just as well, but I hope my point is demonstrated: that a coherent strategy, a coherent set of tactics, and a coherent analysis do not exist anywhere in any of our movements. Nor, I suspect, will one ever, as ideas compete and evolve. But the trend has always been to do this, although usually not consciously, but perhaps merely evolutionarily through defense or assault of this or that meme in this or that ideology. Strangely, although dogmatism and the emphasis on respect for different tactics (as with "anarchy without adjectives") appear to be on opposite ends of our movements, they each exist for different though compatible reasons: the former, with the purpose of unity; the latter, with the purpose of recognizing different tactics as effective to different degrees and in different ways. But these are different sides of the same coin: effectiveness. Our differences, after all, are primarily on how to struggle, rarely why: we all have the same or extremely similar goals, we only differ in how we feel we can implement them.

So, though there has been a wide variety of tactics, and much dogmatism and sectarianism, there has been lacking one thing: an over-riding spirit of cooperation. And this does not mean a passive acceptance of those you disagree with, nor cooperation with those you feel dilute or sabotage the movements, but the opposite: a virulent, passionate constructive criticism of those you disagree with, grounded in our common goals; a serious, dedicated criticism and refusal to compromise goals with those who detract from our goals as revolutionaries. This doesn't mean "agreeing to disagree", but making a continued and earnest attempt at empathy and empowerment.

So, for example, you are very heavy in union organizing, wading through lists of actions and planned meetings and jail cell numbers, and some comrades in a nearby area are struggling with something you just can't concern yourself with right now, say saving a piece of ancient forested land from a column of fellerbunchers. What good can come from saying, forget the land, the workers are hungry! What good can come from saying, forget the workers, they cannot eat without the land! Nothing but competition for activists, funds, signatures - whatever your group, your movement suffers from a lack of. But we all know that competition is the bane of society and what has brought us here in the first place. Instead, if you cannot offer a hand, offer a word! Declare solidarity, practice solidarity. This does not mean surrendering one person or group or movement to the will of another, but coordinating them together.

But what exactly do I mean by constructive criticism, and what exactly does cooperation and solidarity entail, if the former does not mean sectarianism and dogma and the latter does not mean co-optation and subjugation? Let me show you just exactly what I mean.

Constructive criticism: serious, informed analysis made with the intent to - as much as is possible - develop and empower others that share your goals but not you specific ideas about tactics.

Solidarity: the concrete attempt to defend, reinforce, and advance the movements of those with goals similar or identical to your own, while continuing on in the specific struggle you are involved in at the time.

These two things, when implemented seriously, are exactly what lead to things like the First International, and their opposites - destructive criticism and sectarianism - are what lead to the above examples' demise. I chose the First International specifically because I feel that this is perhaps the most fantastic and prevalent example in our movements: the disagreement over the usefulness of the state. What could have been a boon to the movement, an embrace of both direct and indirect tactics in a cooperative strategy, became a source of mutual disrespect and hatred. This is absurd. If there are apples near the top of a tree, and a group of people is divided into different ways about how to get the apples, do they ridicule, insult, and sabotage each other, draining energy from their own efforts as well as others and thus doubly reducing the effectiveness of the group as a whole? Or do they each try the way they feel is best, borrow ideas and techniques from each other, and help each other in their pursuits? Obviously the latter is the more rational and effective way to go about getting apples, but the question is obscured when the context is changed from obtaining apples to revolutionary socialism.

For example, I personally see an electoral approach as a very ineffective way to achieve revolutionary socialism. This does not mean that I sabotage the efforts of my comrades, but that I try both to more fully understand their position and better explain and understand my own. While this discussion is ongoing and indefinite, it does not make sense to try to stop the action of one group or another, since no group can possibly know for sure who is the most correct. It only follows then that the action of each group should be encouraged by each other group, but only on the condition that each group listen and seriously try to apply criticisms in a way that will make their approach more effective. So, obviously, a socialist party obviously cannot and will not apply an anarchist criticism that undermines their whole approach by labeling it as useless and counter-productive; but it obviously can and must apply an anarchist criticism that highlights, for example, patriarchy or sexism in the party.

Likewise, the anarchist must support the socialist politicians (if they are honest, of course) in their struggles for socialist legislation; and the socialist politicians must support the anarchists in their struggles for immediate material gain - even as the anarchists break laws, even as the socialists make them! For as movements, as a movement, with the same, shared ultimate goal, we do not do what we do because we believe in laws or their absence, but because we believe in human rights - because we believe in a society where all can be free to live as they wish and share in the bounty that is withheld from us.

So, comrades, will we continue to spite each other, to sabotage all our dreams in the petty struggle over who is more or less right about this or that tactic? Or will we unite (like we so often have, beneath the turbulent surface of history, in pool halls and chat rooms; behind barricades and prison bars) and offer mutual reinforcement of each of our movements, the coordination of our tactics, the defense of our collective integrity and the push to develop a flexible, comprehensive strategy to achieve socialism, communism, anarchy - a free and equal society?

It's solidarity or bust.

See you at the picket, the barricade, the poll, the sit-in, the march...

Marx To Lincoln Revisited on the Occassion of Obama's Inauguration (Keith) by Keith

To celebrate the inauguration of Barack Obama as the first Afro-American President in the United States I thought it would be fun to post the congratulatory message written by Karl Marx and sent by the First International to Abraham Lincoln on the occasion of his second inauguration.

Address of the International Working Men's Association to Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America

Sir:

We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver?

When an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for the first time in the annals of the world, "slavery" on the banner of Armed Revolt, when on the very spots where hardly a century ago the idea of one great Democratic Republic had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued, and the first impulse given to the European revolution of the eighteenth century; when on those very spots counterrevolution, with systematic thoroughness, gloried in rescinding "the ideas entertained at the time of the formation of the old constitution", and maintained slavery to be "a beneficent institution", indeed, the old solution of the great problem of "the relation of capital to labor", and cynically proclaimed property in man "the cornerstone of the new edifice" — then the working classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning, that the slaveholders' rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to the good cause.

While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.
The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.

Signed on behalf of the International Workingmen's Association, the Central Council:
Longmaid, Worley, Whitlock, Fox, Blackmore, Hartwell, Pidgeon, Lucraft, Weston, Dell, Nieass, Shaw, Lake, Buckley, Osbourne, Howell, Carter, Wheeler, Stainsby, Morgan, Grossmith, Dick, Denoual, Jourdain, Morrissot, Leroux, Bordage, Bocquet, Talandier, Dupont, L.Wolff, Aldovrandi, Lama, Solustri, Nusperli, Eccarius, Wolff, Lessner, Pfander, Lochner, Kaub, Bolleter, Rybczinski, Hansen, Schantzenbach, Smales, Cornelius, Petersen, Otto, Bagnagatti, Setacci;
George Odger, President of the Council; P.V. Lubez, Corresponding Secretary for France; Karl Marx, Corresponding Secretary for Germany; G.P. Fontana, Corresponding Secretary for Italy; J.E. Holtorp, Corresponding Secretary for Poland; H.F. Jung, Corresponding Secretary for Switzerland; William R. Cremer, Honorary General Secretary.

Green Economy Organizing (Posted by Keith) by Keith

This essay, featuring Van Jones and "Green Jobs for the Ghetto" was published in this week's New Yorker Magazine. Although he is very caught up in advocacy politics there are some interesting ideas here about vision and organizing.

Greening the Ghetto
by Elizabeth Kolbert
A few months ago, Van Jones, the founder and president of a group called Green for All, went to visit New Bedford, Massachusetts. His first stop of the day was the public library, where someone had assembled an audience of about thirty high-school dropouts. They leaned back in their chairs, hands in the pockets of their oversized sweatshirts. A few appeared to be stoned.

Jones, who is forty, is tall and imposing, with a shaved head and a patchy goatee. He wears rimless glasses and favors dark clothing. On this particular day, he was wearing a black turtleneck, black jeans, black boots, and a charcoal jacket. He was introduced by a community organizer and aspiring rapper, who described him as “a leader with answers,” a “genius from the hood, similar to our own,” and a youthful version of Barack Obama. When it was his turn to speak, Jones rejected the lectern that had been set up for him, saying that it reminded him too much of college.

“I love Barack Obama,” he said. “I’d pay money just to shine the brother’s shoes. But I’ll tell you this. Do you hear me? One man is not going to save us. I don’t care who that man is. He’s not going to save us. And, in fact, if you want to be real about this—can y’all take it? I’m going to be real with y’all. Not only is Barack Obama not going to be able to save you—you are going to have to save Barack Obama.”
Read the rest here.