| lbo.htm
http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/current/1464.html Cockburn: Israel and "Anti-Semitism"
---------- 1480.html Why the US supports Israel ---------- The Incomplete,
True, Authentic and Wonderful History of MAY DAY by Peter Linebaugh (from
shlash.autonomedia.org) -------- SFBG: Why women are leading the battle
against censorship. (from the infoshop.org) --------- Felix Stalder on
LLessig at openflows.org ----------- According to the Wall Street Journal,
the ELF has caused more than $43 million in damage in 600 acts of violence
since 1996.4 ------------ To my mind, the most valuable point in
here is: "Can we not ask that those concerned about the supposed silence
of the left regarding anti-Semitism demonstrate their own good faith by
denouncing Israel's behavior towards Palestinians?" * * * May 16, 2002
American Journal Israel and "Anti-Semitism" by Alexander Cockburn Right
in the wake of House Majority leader Dick Armey's explicit call for two
million Palestinians to be booted out of the West Bank and East Jerusalem
and Gaza as well, came yet one more of those earnest articles accusing
a vague entity called "the left" of anti-Semitism. This one was in Salon,
by a man called Dennis Fox, identified as an associate professor of legal
studies and psychology at the University of Illinois. Leaving nothing to
chance, Salon titled Fox's contribution, "The shame of the pro-Palestinian
left: Ignorance and anti-Semitism are undercutting the moral legitimacy
of Israel's critics." Over the past 20 years I've learned there's a quick
way of figuring just how badly Israel is behaving. There's a brisk uptick
in the number of articles here accusing "the left" of anti-Semitism. These
articles adopt varying strategies. Particularly intricate, though I think
well-intentioned, was a recent column by Naomi Klein who wrote that "It
is precisely because anti-Semitism is used by the likes of Sharon that
the fight against it must be reclaimed." Is Klein saying the anti-globalization
movement has forgotten how to be anti-anti-Semitic? I don't think it has.
Are all denunciations of the government of Israel to be prefaced by strident
assertions of pro-Semitism? If this is the case, can we not ask that those
concerned about the supposed silence of the left regarding anti-Semitism
demonstrate their own good faith by denouncing Israel's behavior towards
Palestinians? Klein did, but most don't. In a recent piece in the New York
Times Frank Rich managed to write an entire column puportedly about Jewish
overreaction here to news reporting from Israel without even a fleeting
reference to the fact that there might be some factual basis for reports
presenting Israel and its leaders in a bad light, even though he found
time for plenty of abuse for the "inexcusable" Arafat. Isn't Sharon "inexcusable"
in Rich's book? So the left gets the rotten eggs and those tossing the
eggs mostly don't feel it necessary to concede that Israel is a racist
state whose obvious and provable intent is to continue to steal Palestinian
land, oppress Palestinians, herd them into smaller and smaller enclaves
and in all likelihood ultimately drive them into the sea or Lebanon or
Jordan or Dearborn or the space in Dallas/Fort Worth airport between the
third and fourth runways (the bold Armey plan). Here's how Fox begins his
article for Salon: '"Let's move back," my wife insisted when she saw the
nearby banner: "Israel Is a Terrorist State!" We were at the April 20 Boston
march opposing Israel's incursion into the West Bank. So drop back we did,
dragging our friends with us to wait for an empty space we could put between
us and the anti-Israel sign.' Inference by Fox: the banner is grotesque,
presumptively anti-Semitic. But there are plenty of sound arguments that
from the Palestinian point of view Israel is indeed a terrorist state,
and anyway, even if it wasn't, the description would not per se be evidence
of anti-Semitism. Only if the banner read "All Jews are terrorists", would
Fox have a point. Of course the rhetorical trick is to conflate "Israel"
or "the State of Israel" with "Jews" and argue that they are synonymous.
Ergo, to criticize Israel is to be anti-Semitic. Leave aside the fact that
many of Israel's most articulate critics are Jews, honorably committed
to the cause of justice for all in the Middle East. Many Jews just don't
like hearing bad things said about Israel, same way they don't like reading
articles about the Jewish lobby here. Mention the lobby and someone like
Fox will rush into print denouncing those who "toy with the old anti-Semitic
canard that the Jews control the press." These days you can't even say
that New York Times is owned by a Jewish family without risking charges
that you stand in Goebbels' shoes. I even got accused of anti-Semitism
the other day for mentioning that the Jews founded Hollywood, which they
most certainly did, as recounted in a funny and informative book published
in 1988, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood by Neal
Gabler. So cowed are commentators (which is of course the prime motive
of those charges of anti-Semitism) that even after the US Congress recently
voted full-throated endorsement of Sharon and Israel, with only two senators
and 21 US reps (I exclude the chickenshit 28 who voted "present") voting
against, you could scarcely find a mainstream paper prepared to analyze
this astounding demonstration of the power of AIPAC and other Jewish organizations,
plus the Christian Right and the military industrial complex which profits
enormously from military aid to Israel since Congress put through a law
concerning US overall aid to Israel, to the effect that 75 per cent of
such supplies must be bought from US firms like Raytheon and Lockheed-Martin,
lobbying for Israel. The encouraging fact is that despite the efforts of
the Southern Povery Law Center to drum up funds by hollering that the Nazis
are about to march down Main Street, there's remarkably little anti-Semitism
in the US, and almost none that I've ever been able to detect on the American
left, which is of course amply stocked with non-self-hating Jews. It's
comical to find the left's assailants trudging all the way back to Leroi
Jones and the 60s to dig up the necessary anti-Semitic jibes. The less
encouraging fact is that there's not nearly enough criticism of Israel's
ghastly conduct towards Palestinians, which in its present phase is testing
the waters for reaction here to a major ethnic cleansing of Palestinians,
just as Armey called for. So why don't people like Fox write about Armey's
appalling remarks, (which the White House declared he hadn't made,) instead
of trying to change the subject with nonsense about anti-Semitism? It's
not anti-Semitic to denounce ethnic cleansing, a strategy which according
to recent polls, around half all Israeli Jews now heartily endorse. In
this instance the left really has nothing to apologize for, but those who
accuse of it of anti-Semitism certainly do. They're apologists for policies
put into practice by racists, ethnic cleansers and in Sharon's case, an
unquestioned war criminal who should be in the dock for his conduct. --------------------
These days you can't even say that New York Times is owned by a Jewish
>family without risking charges that you stand in Goebbels' shoes. ------------
And what's the point of making this point in the first place? How does
the NYT's coverage of Israel differ from that of media outlets not owned
by Jews (e.g., the New York Post, owned by the grandson of a Presbyterian
minister)? And how does their editorial stance differ from that of the
Bush administration? Doug ---------------- I think Doug's point (lots of
'points' here -- would avoiding it be Fowler's elegant variation?) -- anyhow,
to start over. I think Doug's point is crucial. There is NOTHING to be
gained by even marginally noting that the ownership of this or that is
Jewish. And there is an awful lot to be lost. And his comparison to the
Presbyterian owner of the Post is apt. There are very few instances where
it is even minimally intelligent to add irrelevant or marginal information
about the persons whose positions one is attacking. The NYT is a dreadful
-- even criminal -- institution. Would it be one bit better if a presbyterian
or an amerindian owned it and followed the same policy. In political discourse
it is reasonable for the reader to assume that information transmitted
is relevant and material. Going out of one's way to speak of "Jewish supporters
of Israel" instead of merely "supporters of Israel" does suggest that the
fact is relevant. How could it be relevant? The obvious (and vicious) answer
is that u.s. policy toward israel is a jewish plot. It is worthwhile to
note that a given critic of Israel is Jewish, because it is necessary to
break through the lie that anti-zionism is anti-semitic. Hauling "The Jews"
or "Jewish ownership of the Times" in really gives support to Israel. It
is objectively anti-palestinian. And we have had several threads on this
list (and the point has been discussed on other lists too) that conspiracy
theories are in effect apologies for imperialism. Carrol ----- I must disagree:
the jewishness of an institution could matter in some instances and not
in others. It seems to me that it is not corret to say that it is relevant
or not relevant without further argumentation. One reason it is relevant
is that it is difficult to otherwise explain why the NYT lacks sensitivity
to the plight of the Palestinians...a patently true observation. It may
be simple economics -- circulation would be worse witha pro-Palestinian
editorial page. As for the Post, one can look to its conservative politics
as the reason for its position. The same does not hold true for the NYT,
so one must turn to another explanation for the NYT's tone deafness on
the issue. So, I see it neither as absurd nor irrelevant to point out the
jewishness of the NYT. LIkewise, I do not see the fact that the NYT has
Jewish blood, as it were, as meaningful without more. That "more" is the
burden of the person making the point public. Certainly, we are right to
point out that the NYT and most papers do not have racial diversity. By
making that point you are saying either (1) they are racist or (2) they
therefore lack sensitivity to issues meaningful to other races. In fact,
that is the entire argument in favor of affirmative action: who you are
affects what you say, do, and bring to the table. eric Carrol Cox |
and milk workers thus helped
to retain the holyday right into the industrial revolution. The ruling
class used the day for its own purposes. Thus, when Parliament was forced
to abolish slavery in the British dominions, it did so on May Day 1807.
In 1820 the Cato Street conspirators plotted to destroy the British cabinet
while it was having dinner. Irish, Jamaican, and Cockney were hanged for
the attempt on May Day 1820. A conspirator wrote his wife saying "justice
and liberty have taken their flight... to other distant shores." He meant
America, where Boston Brahmin, Robber Baron, and Southern Plantocrat divided
and ruled an arching rainbow of people. Two bands of that rainbow came
from English and Irish islands. One was Green. Robert Owen, union leader,
socialist, and founder of utopian communities in America, announced the
beginning of the millennium after May Day 1833. The other was Red. On May
Day 1830, a founder of the Knights of Labor, the United Mine Workers of
America, and the Wobblies was born in Ireland, Mary Harris Jones, a.k.a.,
"Mother Jones." She was a Maia of the American working class. May Day continued
to be commemorated in America, one way or another, despite the victory
of the Puritans at Merry Mount. On May Day 1779 the revolutionaries of
Boston confiscated the estates of "enemies of Liberty." On May Day 1808
"twenty different dancing groups of the wretched Africans" in New Orleans
danced to the tunes of their own drums until sunset when the slave patrols
showed themselves with their cutlasses. "The principal dancers or leaders
are dressed in a variety of wild and savage fashions, always ornamented
with a number of tails of the small wild beasts," observed a strolling
white man. THE RED: HAYMARKET CENTENNIAL The history of the modern May
Day originates in the center of the North American plains, at Haymarket,
in Chicago - "the city on the make" - in May 1886. The Red side of that
story is more well-known than the Green, because it was bloody. But there
was also a Green side to the tale, though the green was not so much that
of pretty grass garlands, as it was of greenbacks, for in Chicago, it was
said, the dollar is king. Of course the prairies are green in May. Virgin
soil, dark, brown, crumbling, shot with fine black sand, it was the produce
of thousands of years of humus and organic decomposition. For many centuries
this earth was husbanded by the native Americans of the plains. As Black
Elk said theirs is "the story of all life that is holy and is good to tell,
and of us two-leggeds sharing in it with the four- leggeds and the wings
of the air and all green things; for these are children of one mother and
their father is one Spirit." From such a green perspective, the white men
appeared as pharaohs, and indeed, as Abe Lincoln put it, these prairies
were the "Egypt of the West". The land was mechanized. Relative surplus
value could only be obtained by reducing the price of food. The proteins
and vitamins of this fertile earth spread through the whole world. Chicago
was the jugular vein. Cyrus McCormick wielded the surgeon's knife. His
mechanical reapers harvested the grasses and grains. McCormick produced
1,500 reapers in 1849; by 1884 he was producing 80,000. Not that McCormick
actually made reapers, members of the Molders Union Local 23 did that,
and on May Day 1867 they went on strike, starting the Eight Hour Movement.
A staggering transformation was wrought. It was: "Farewell" to the hammer
and sickle. "Goodby" to the cradle scythe. "So long" to Emerson's man with
the hoe. These now became the artifacts of nostalgia and romance. It became
"Hello" to the hobo. "Move on" to the harvest stiffs. "Line up" the proletarians.
Such were the new commands of civilization. Thousands of immigrants, many
from Germany, poured into Chicago after the Civil War. Class war was advanced,
technically and logistically. In 1855 the Chicago police used Gatling guns
against the workers who protested the closing of the beer gardens. In the
Bread Riot of 1872 the police clubbed hungry people in a tunnel under the
river. In the 1877 railway strike, Federal troops fought workers at "The
Battle of the Viaduct." These troops were recently seasoned from fighting
the Sioux who had killed Custer. Henceforth, the defeated Sioux could only
"Go to a mountain top and cry for a vision." The Pinkerton Detective Agency
put visions into practice by teaching the city police how to spy and to
form fighting columns for deployment in city streets. A hundred years ago
during the street car strike, the police issued a shoot-to-kill order.
McCormick cut wages 15%. His profit rate was 71%. In May 1886 four molders
whom McCormick locked-out was shot dead by the police. Thus, did this 'grim
reaper' maintain his profits. Nationally, May First 1886 was important
because a couple of years earlier the Federation of Organized Trade and
Labor Unions of the United States and Canada, "RESOLVED... that eight hours
shall constitute a legal day's labor, from and after May 1, 1886. On 4
May 1886 several thousand people gathered near Haymarket Square to hear
what August Spies, a newspaperman, had to say about the shootings at the
McCormick works. Albert Parsons, a typographer and labor leader spoke net.
Later, at his trial, he said, "What is Socialism or Anarchism? Briefly
stated it is the right of the toilers to the free and equal use of the
tools of production and the right of the producers to their product." He
was followed by "Good-Natured Sam" Fielden who as a child had worked in
the textile factories of Lancashire, England. He was a Methodist preacher
and labor organizer. He got done speaking at 10:30 PM. At that time 176
policemen charged the crowd that had dwindled to about 200. An unknown
hand threw a stick of dynamite, the first time that Alfred Nobel's invention
was used in class battle. All hell broke lose, many were killed, and the
rest is history. "Make the raids first and look up the law afterwards,"
was the Sheriff's dictum. It was followed religiously across the country.
Newspaper screamed for blood, homes were ransacked, and suspects were subjected
to the "third degree." Eight men were railroaded in Chicago at a farcical
trial. Four men hanged on "Black Friday," 11 November 1887. "There will
come a time when our silence will be more powerful than the voices you
strangle today," said Spies before he choked. MAY DAY SINCE 1886 Lucy Parsons,
widowed by Chicago's "just-us," was born in Teas. She was partly Afro-American,
partly native American, and partly Hispanic. She set out to tell the world
the true story "of one whose only crime was that he lived in advance of
his time." She went to England and encouraged English workers to make May
Day an international holiday for shortening the hours of work. Her friend,
William Morris, wrote a poem called "May Day." WORKERS They are few, we
are many: and yet, O our Mother, Many years were wordless and nought was
our deed, But now the word flitteth from brother to brother: We have furrowed
the acres and scattered the seed. EARTH Win on then unyielding, through
fair and foul weather, And pass not a day that your deed shall avail. And
in hope every spring-tide come gather together That unto the Earth ye may
tell all your tale. Her work was not in vain. May Day, or "The Day of the
Chicago Martyrs" as it is still called in Meico "belongs to the working
class and is dedicated to the revolution," as Eugene Debs put it in his
May Day editorial of 1907. The A. F. of L. declared it a holiday. Sam Gompers
sent an emissary to Europe to have it proclaimed an international labor
day. Both the Knights of Labor and the Second International officially
adopted the day. Bismarck, on the other hand, outlawed May Day. President
Grover Cleveland announced that the first Monday in September would be
Labor Day in America, as he tried to divide the international working class.
Huge numbers were out of work, and they began marching. Under the generalship
of Jacob Coey they descended on Washington D. C. on May Day 1894, the first
big march on Washington. Two years later across the world Lenin wrote an
important May Day pamphlet for the Russian factory workers in 1896. The
Russian Revolution of 1905 began on May Day. With the success of the 1917
Bolshevik Revolution the Red side of May Day became scarlet, crimson, for
ten million people were slaughtered in World War I. The end of the war
brought work stoppings, general strikes, and insurrections all over the
world, from Mexico to Kenya, from China to France. In Boston on May Day
1919 the young telephone workers threatened to strike, and 20,000 workers
in Lawrence went on strike again for the 8-hour day. There were fierce
clashes between working people and police in Cleveland as well as in other
cities on May Day of that year. A lot of socialists, anarchists, bolsheviks,
wobblies and other "I-Won't- Workers," ended up in jail as a result. This
didn't get them down. At "Wire City," as they called the federal pen at
Fort Leavenworth, there was a grand parade and no work on May Day 1919.
Pictures of Lenin and Lincoln were tied to the end of broom sticks and
held afloat. There speeches and songs. The Liberator supplies us with an
account of the day, but it does not tell us who won the Wobbly-Socialist
horseshoe throwing contest. Nor does it tell us what happened to the soldier
caught waving a red ribbon from the guards' barracks. Meanwhile, one mile
underground in the copper mines of Bisbee where there are no national boundaries,
Spanish-speaking Americans were singing "The International" on May Day.
In the 1920s and 1930s the day was celebrated by union organizers, the
unemployed, and determined workers. In New York City the big May Day celebration
was held in Union Square. In the 1930s Lucy Parsons marched in Chicago
at May Day with her young friend, Studs Terkel. May Day 1946 the Arabs
began a general strike in Palestine, and the Jews of the Displaced Persons
Camps in Landsberg, Germany, went on hunger strike. On May Day 1947 auto
workers in Paris downed tools, an insurrection in Paraguay broke out, the
Mafia killed six May Day marchers in Sicily, and the Boston Parks Commissioner
said that this was the first year in living memory when neither Communist
nor Socialist had applied for a permit to rally on the Common. 1968 was
a good year for May Day. Allen Ginsberg was made the "Lord of Misrule"
in Prague before the Russians got there. In London hundreds of students
lobbied Parliament against a bill to stop Third World immigration into
England. In Mississippi police could not prevent 350 Black students from
supporting their jailed friends. At Columbia University thousands of students
petitioned against armed police on campus. In Detroit with the help of
the Dodge Revolutionary Union Movement, the first wildcat strike in fifteen
years took place at the Hamtramck Assembly plant (Dodge Main), against
speed-up. In Cambridge, Mass., Black leaders advocated police reforms while
in New York the Mayor signed a bill providing the police with the most
sweeping "emergency" powers known in American history. The climax to the
'68 Mai was reached in France where there was a gigantic General Strike
under strange slogans such as Parlez a vos voisins! L'Imagination prend
le pouvoir! Dessous les paves c'est la plage! On May Day in 1971 President
Nixon couldn't sleep. He order 10,000 paratroopers and marines to Washington
D.C. because he was afraid that some people calling themselves the May
Day Tribe might succeed in their goal of blocking access to the Department
of Justice. In the Philippines four students were shot to death protesting
the dictatorship. In Boston Mayor White argued against the right of municipal
workers, including the police, to withdraw their services, or stop working.
In May 1980 we may see Green themes in Mozambique where the workers lamented
the absence of beer, or in Germany where three hundred women witches rampaged
through Hamburg. Red themes may be seen in the 30,000 Brazilian auto workers
who struck, or in the 5.8 million Japanese who struck against inflation.
On May Day 1980 the Green and Red themes were combined when a former Buick
auto-maker from Detroit, one "Mr. Toad," sat at a picnic table and penned
the following lines, The eight hour day is not enough; We are thinking
of more and better stuff. So here is our prayer and here is our plan, We
want what we want and we'll take what we can. Down with wars both small
and large, Except for the ones where we're in charge: Those are the wars
of class against class, Where we get a chance to kick some ass.. For air
to breathe and water to drink, And no more poison from the kitchen sink.
For land that's green and life that's saved And less and less of the earth
that's paved. No more women who are less than free, Or men who cannot learn
to see Their power steals their humanity And makes us all less than we
can be. For teachers who learn and students who teach And schools that
are kept beyond the reach Of provosts and deans and chancellors and such
And Xerox and Kodak and Shell, Royal Dutch. An end to shops that are dark
and dingy, An end to Bosses whether good or stingy, An end to work that
produces junk, An end to junk that produces work, And an end to all in
charge - the jerks. For all who dance and sing, loud cheers, To the prophets
of doom we send some jeers, To our friends and lovers we give free beers,
And to all who are here, a day without fears. So, on this first of May
we all should say That we will either make it or break it. Or, to put this
thought another way, Let's take it easy, but let's take it. LAW DAY/U.S.A.
Yet, May Day was always a troubling day in America; some wished to forget
it. In 1939 Pennsylvania declared it "Americanism Day." In 1947 Congress
declared it to be "Loyalty Day." Yet, these attempts to hide the meaning
of the day have never succeeded. As the Wobblies say, "We Never Forget."
Like in 1958, at the urging of Charles Rhyne, proclaimed May First "Law
Day/U.S.A." As a result the politicians had another opportunity for bombast
about the Cold War and to tout their own virtues. Senator Javits, for instance,
took a deep historical breath in May 1960 by saying American ideas were
the highest "ever espoused since the dawn of civilization. Governor Rockefeller
of New York got right to his point by saying that the traditional May Day
"bordered on treason." As an activity for the day Senator Wiley recommended
that people read Statute Books. In preaching on "Obedience to Authority"
on May Day 1960, the Chaplain of the Senate believed it was the first time
in the 20th century that the subject had been addressed. He reminded people
of the words carved on the courthouse in Worcester, Massachusetts: "Obedience
to Law is Liberty." He said God is "all law" and suggested we sing the
hymn, "Make Me a Captive, Lord, and Then I shall be Free." He complained
that TV shows made fun of cops and husbands. He said God had become too
maternal. Beneath the hypocrisy of such talk (at the time the Senate was
rejecting the jurisdiction of the World Court), there were indications
of the revolt in the kitchens. In addition to the trumpeting Cold War overtones,
frightened patriarchal undertones were essential to the Law Day music.
Indeed, it attempted to drown out both the Red and the Green. Those who
have to face the law and order music on a daily basis, the lawyers and
the orderers, also have to make their own deals. Among the lawyers there
are conservatives and liberals; they are generally ideologues. On Law Day
1964 the President of the Connecticut Bar wrote against civil rights demonstrators,
"corrupt" labor unions, "juvenile delinquency," and Liz Taylor! William
O. Douglas, on the other hand on Law Day 1962 warned against mimicking
British imperialism and favored independence movements and the Peace Corps
by saying "We need Michigan-in- Nigeria, California-in-the-Congo, Columbia-in-Iran"
which has come true, at least judging by what's written on sweat shirts
around the world. Neither the conservative nor the liberal, however, said
it should be a holiday for the lawyers, nor did they advocate the 8- hour
day for the workers of the legal apparatus. In Boston only the New England
School of Law, the Law and Justice Program at UMass., and the College of
Public and Community Service celebrate the Green and the Red. Among the
orderers (the police) Law Day isn't much of a holiday either. Yet, police,
men and women, all over the United States owe a lot to May Day and the
Boston police. It is true that more than 1,000 Boston men of blue lost
their jobs owing to Calvin Coolidge's suppression of the Boston police
strike of 1919. They had been busy earlier in the summer during May Day.
At the same time there were lasting gains: a small pay increase ($300 a
year), shorter hours (73-90 a week had been the norm), and most important,
free uniforms! AN ENDING Where is the Red and Green today? Is it in Mao's
Red Book? or in Col. Khadafy's Green Book? Some perhaps. Leigh Hunt, the
English essayist of the 19th century, wrote that May Day is "the union
of the two best things in the world, the love of nature, and the love of
each other." Certainly, such green union is possible, because we all can
imagine it, and we know that what is real now was once only imagined. Just
as certainly, that union can be realized only by red struggle, because
there is no gain without pain, as the aerobiticians say, or no dreams without
responsibility, no birth without labor, no green without red. The children
used to celebrate May Day. I think schools stopped encouraging them sometime
around when "Law Day" was created, but I'm not sure. A correspondent from
East Arlington, Mass., writes that in the late 1940s, "On any given Saturday
in May, anywhere from 10-30 children would dress up in crepe paper costumes
(hats, shirts, &c.); we would pick baskets of flowers and parade up
and down several streets (until the flowers ran out!) The whole time we
would be chanting, 'May Party, May Party, rah, rah, rah!'. A leader would
be chosen, but I don't remember how. (Probably by throwing fingers out).
Then, we would parade up to Spy Pond at the edge of the Center off Lake
Street and have a picnic lunch." This correspondent now teaches kindergarten.
"In recent years," she continues, "I have always decorated a May Pole for
my kindergarten class (they do the decorations actually), and we would
dance around it. It would always attract attention from the older children."
RESEARCH The best way to learn more is to participate in May Day activities
and to talk to your neighbours. Using your library's newspaper collection,
talking to school teachers, and getting people to talk about their childhood,
their strikes, and their working conditions are good ways too. For those
who wish to read more, here are a few suggestions. William Adelman, HAYMARKET
REVISITED (Illinois Labor History Society, 1976); Charles Francis Adams,
THREE EPISODES IN MASSACHUSETTS HISTORY (1894); William Bradford, HISTORY
OF PLYMOUTH PLANTATION 1620-1647; Jeremy Brecher, Strike! (1972); R. Chambers,
THE BOOK OF DAYS: A MISCELLANY OF POPULAR ANTIQUITIES (1864); Henry David,
THE HISTORY OF THE HAYMARKET AFFAIR (1936); J.G. Frazer, THE GOLDEN BOUGH:
A STUDY OF COMPARATIVE RELIGION (1890); James R. Green and Hugh Donahue,
BOSTON'S WORKERS: A LABOR HISTORY (The Public Library, 1979); Jane Hatch,
THE AMERICAN BOOK OF DAYS (1976); William Hone, THE EVERY-DAY BOOK (1824);
Thomas Morton, THE NEW ENGLISH CANAAN (1637); Edward Thompson, THE MAKING
OF THE ENGLISH WORKING CLASS (1963); Aleander Trachtenberg, THE HISTORY
OF MAY DAY (1947); Midnight Notes, THE WORK/ENERGY CRISIS AND THE APOCALYPSE
(1981). " The Incomplete, True, Authentic and Wonderful < | Login/Create
an Account | Top | 3 comments | Search Discussion Click this button to
post a comment to this story The options below will change how the comments
display Threshold: The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by
whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. Haymarket
without anarchists? (Score:0) by Anonymous Comrade on Thursday May 02,
@10:59AM (#635) I'm amazed that anyone could write a history of May Day
and *not* mention that the Martyrs were anarchists. Well, not that amazed
as I've seen Leninist papers like _Socialist Worker_ in the UK fail to
mention this fact (they get labelled as "union militants" and such like).
but I expected better here... Iain [ Reply to This | Parent ] Redwashing?
(Score:0) by Anonymous Comrade on Thursday May 02, @04:50PM (#636) Iain
has a good point. There have been too many accounts of May Day that have
tiptoed around the important fact that the Haymarket martyrs were anarchists.
Any accounting of the history of May Day is going to be incomplete if it
leaves out the anarchist part of the story. When was this article written?
Chuck0 [ Reply to This | Parent ] Re:Redwashing? (Score:2) by hydrarchist
on Thursday May 02, @06:29PM (#637) User #15 Info | Last Journal: Wednesday
May 08, @05:28AM The article was originally composed in 1986 and published
by Midnight Notes, whom I think could be faiurly described as libertarian
communists. And it is avowedly incomplete. And yes, it did occur to me
that it would be nice if it were the green the red and the black, but on
the other hand the author is certainly not a hack for the SWP(!) and is
far from ill-disposed towards anarchists. If it was still the case the
commie sects exerted a stranglehold over the political climate then I would
feel it more important to stress the anarcho side of the tale, but given
the current circumstances I don't think we need to plaster 'anarchist'
all over everything but rather think of social radicality as a whole, which
is a story of workers lives rather than parties. Of course there are specifically
anarchist accounts which emphasise the background to the Haymarket Martyrs
and clarify their politics such as the pamphlet /poster by theWorkers Solidarity
Movement [blackened.net]. But I posted the Linebaugh piece as much for
its beauty and sensibility as for its documentary aspect. Forgive me! Peter
Linebaugh is a radical historian in the E.P. Thompson mould, writing history
from below. He has published two excellent books (The London Hanged &
The Many Headed Hydra) disinterring the lost circuits of insurrection and
agitation between The Carribean, the US and Euope, which I'd highly recommend.
Anyway, to you all, Happy Fucking May Day, Black, Red and Green ! -----------------------------------
Obscene feminists Why women are leading the battle against censorship.
By Annalee Newitz DIAN HANSON IS sorting through dozens of porn magazines.
In one pile are Jaybird nudist publications from the late 1960s, featuring
what she calls "crotch liberation" fantasies of happy, unshaven hippie
kids. Filed in a different category are the British magazines, which "are
so tidy and sensible – they have names like Practical Photography." Hanson,
a career pornographer who has run popular adult magazines like Leg Show
and Juggs, is working on several pictorial histories of men's magazines
for art publisher Taschen. She's been on the editorial staff of various
porn mags since 1976, and although she's joined the art world now, she
says proudly, "I still consider myself a pornographer." Although Hanson
estimates that close to 10 percent of adult magazines are run by women,
public perception lags behind the facts. Most people assume women avoid
pornography. Playboy's CEO may be Christie Hefner, and the wildly popular
adult Web site Danni's Hard Drive may be woman-owned, but the conventional
wisdom is that naked pictures exist only in man's domain. Women are supposed
to be deeply disturbed by porn – that's why companies marketing "adulteryware"
on the Internet aim their e-mail ads at women, who will supposedly want
to catch their male companions in the "naughty" act of downloading a little
tits and ass. There's a reason for this. In the 1980s and '90s, antiporn
feminist crusaders Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon sparked intense
debate among feminists and progressives by forming a coalition with the
religious right to stamp out pornography, based on the idea that it violated
women's civil rights. They never managed to push through a piece of federal
legislation called the Pornography Victims Compensation Act that would
have denied porn First Amendment protection as free speech. Although Dworkin-MacKinnon
ordinances in more than a dozen states were struck down – largely owing
to feminists who organized against them – they nevertheless left a mark
on U.S. pop culture, as well as the municipal laws of several cities, including
Indianapolis. These days women, and feminists especially, are still being
treated as if pornography should threaten and disgust them. Yet the truth
is, women are generally in the vanguard when it comes to fighting sexual
censorship. The civil rights lawyers, activists, sex workers, media pundits,
and professors who fight for your right to have dirty pictures are by and
large female. Many call themselves feminists. Read more Link: http://www.sfbg.com/36/
32/news_womenvscensorship.html < Center of Counterinformation and Anarchyst
Material | US Oil Company Reaps the Fruits of Afghan War > An Individualist
Feminist writes on Wednesday May 15 2002 @ 11:24AM PDT: [ reply | parent
] A Woman's Right to Pornography
://www.blancmanget/tmh/tmhframe.html a fan writes on Wednesday May 15 2002 @ 05:24PM PDT: [ reply | parent ] Re Dwokin, check out her home page, particularly her "lie detector" section at: http://www.nostatusquo.com/ ACLU/dworkin/LieDetect.html also note that her book "Woman Hating" is dedicated to Emma Goldman! Glank writes on Thursday May 16 2002 @ 06:43PM PDT: [ reply | parent ] The next poll should be about porn. Somehow. ----------------------------- Business Week as an interesting interview with Lawrence Lessig (though not terribly new if you have read is latest book). Below is a excerpt. Q: What's the result of a controlled network? A: The cost of innovation goes up significantly. Before, you just had to worry about complying with basic network protocol. Now you have to worry about making your program run on the full range of proprietary systems and devices connected to the network. Before, the network would serve whoever and whatever people wanted it to. Soon, you will need the permission of network owners. Think about other platforms in our lives, like the highway system. Imagine if General Motors could build the highway system such that GM trucks ran better on it than Ford trucks. Or think about the electrical grid. Imagine if a Sony TV worked better on it than a Panasonic TV. The highway and electricity grids are all neutral platforms -- a common standard that everyone builds on top of. That's an extraordinarily important feature for networks to have. -------------------- http://news.openflows.org/article.pl?sid= 02/01/10/1937229&mode=nested Originally published in Telepolis Innovation makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old regime, and only lukewarm support is forthcoming from those who would prosper under the new. Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) In The Future of Ideas Lawrence Lessig, a professor at the Stanford Law School, conveys a bleak message: We are destroying the conditions of freedom and creativity on the Internet. Right at the moment when the Internet has begun to show its full potential for increasing growth and innovation globally, a counterrevolution is threatening, if not already succeeding, to undermine this potential. There are two reasons for this: one is timeless, already understood by Machiavelli: radical change threatens those who profit from the status quo but offers only uncertain prospects to others. The second reason, and the main focus of the book, is this: A sensible premise - markets and private ownership can be efficient ways to allocate resources and promote growth - has hardened into an orthodoxy that postulates that all resources are always managed best when divided among private owners. This view is propagated by a lethally effective cohort of organized interests, politicians subservient to campaign contributors, and ignorant judges. Together, they are in the process of turning the open and dynamic world of the Internet into something that might well end-up resembling the controlled and static world of Television where corporate decision makers control what the public can see or do. Lessig makes a passionate argument that we need to preserve the Internet as an open, creative environment. Even though the orthodoxy has difficulty seeing it, this openness is socially beneficial and fully consistent with the our legal and political traditions. In the first part of the book Lessig analyzes the conditions for openness online and the creativity that they engender. He then describes how these characteristics are being destroyed and, finally, proposes alternative approaches to regulation to preserve the openness of Internet. The Internet has allowed creativity to burgeon because many of its resources have been free. As Lessig writes, "free resources have been crucial to innovation and creativity; without them, creativity is crippled" (p.14). But what does "free" mean? Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation, famously reminded us to think of "free speech, not free beer."[ ] This approach has led to a great deal of confusion, particularly outside the US, where free speech is less of a beacon. Lessig's definition is more pragmatic, and more useful: "a resource is 'free' if (1) one can use it without permission of anyone else; or (2) the permission one needs is granted neutrally" (p.12). Our roads, for example, are free in Lessig's sense. This is the case even if a toll charge is levied because the charge is imposed neutrally. Everyone pays the same price independent of the purpose of driving on the road. A road would no longer be free if, say, Coke had sponsored its construction and therefore could prohibit Pepsi trucks from using it. Free resources are a "commons". A commons is defined not by ownership but by access rights. A road can be privately or publicly owned, as long as everyone has the same access rights, it's part of the commons. The crucial distinction here is between control and openness. A commons is a resource open to everyone within a community, whereas private property is controlled exclusively by the owner. In this context it doesn't matter if the owner is a private entity, the state, or a co-op. The openness of the Internet was not the result of its somehow inherent nature, as many of the early pundits thought, but a consequence of specific design decisions. Perhaps the most important technical decision was to follow the "end-to-end" (e2e) principle [ ]. The e2e principle says that the network itself is kept simple and "stupid" while the "intelligence" is pushed towards the edges, i.e. the individual machines plugged into the network and the applications running on them. The Internet, in its original conception, was simple in the sense that it handled all packets equally, without regard to content or ownership. The early engineers took this approach deliberately because they had the humility to understand that they could not foresee the future uses of network. In order not to artificially limit future innovation, they designed the network to treat all applications equally. This e2e principle, and the fact that the protocols were released into the public domain, created a "commons of the wires." Anyone could run an application on the Internet without being discriminated against. The network worked the same for everyone: it simply forwarded all packets without further ado. This is changing rapidly. "Intelligence" is relocated back into the network and the edges are dumbed down. The "Internet appliance" reduces the machine plugged into the network to the status of an enhanced TV set. ISPs, particularly cable companies, have an increasing arsenal of technologies at their disposal to differentiate among packets, and, say, slow down access to certain sites and restrict what users can and cannot to do on the network. Regulation plays an important role in this change. As long as much of the Internet's infrastructure was provided by telecom companies, regulation, at least in the US, mandated that these companies would not control the traffic on their wires and, furthermore, that the wires had to open to third party businesses. This created an enormously competitive ISP market by regulating the network to be neutral, "free" under Lessig's definition. As Internet access shifts to broadband, cable companies are becoming the dominant ISPs. Cable companies, however, are subject to a different regulatory regime, one that allows them to tightly control the traffic that runs over their wires. Network equipment manufacturers such as Cisco and Nortel are only too willing to develop new "intelligent" routers that can discriminate packages based on content and ownership. In the developed world, this is used to control the user experience and to structurally disadvantage competitors and certain types of services. In China [ ] and other countries, however, the same technology can monitor Internet traffic for political reasons and secure the "great firewall". The effect in both contexts is the same. Power, i.e. the ability to control the uses of the network, moves from the users to the owners, from the many to the few. Lessig's argues against this centralization of control because it stifles innovation that is likely to be beneficial to the public. Referring to the "Inventor's Dilemma" [ ], Lessig argues that large firms innovate differently than small firms and or non-commercial entities. Large firms are best at expanding, improving and controlling large existing markets, but are structurally handicapped to develop radically new ones. New markets tend to arise at the margins, while large companies concentrate on the center, i.e. the place where their large clients operate. Furthermore, because new markets cannot be analyzed, it is nearly impossible to invest in them rationally. The availability of venture capital mitigates this problem, but only to a limited extent. Finally, companies that control an existing market have no interest in innovations that threaten to make their markets obsolete. The music industry is a case in point. It was very successful at managing the transition from analog vinyl to digital CDs because this innovation did not change the relationships among the market participants. CDs are what is called a "sustaining technology" because they sustain the "value chain" of the existing market. Napster's peer-to-peer distribution, on the other hand, is a "disruptive technology" because it potentially disrupts the established market by creating new relationships among its participants and possibly removing some of them altogether. With billions in investment tied to the old value chain, record companies have very little to gain, but much to lose, from such innovation. Should that give established institutions the right to effectively veto disruptive technologies? No, Lessig argues, because this would be a great loss to the dynamism of society. He points out that almost all of the groundbreaking applications of the Internet - email, the web, instant messaging, peer-to-peer transfers, to name but a few - were created by inventors far from the centers of industry. For all of these inventions, the openness of the Internet was crucial to enable them to grow and expand to their full potential which often not even their inventors knew. Without a commons, the Internet might have joined the fate of industry-controlled projects such as video-on-demand or videotext. The effect of the dismantling of the e2e principle is exacerbated the expansion of the copyright and patent law, the other main areas covered in by Lessig. Together, these developments drive the enclosure of the Internet, granting the owners of the wires, patents, and copyrights ever more control over the future development of the Internet. This reduces the chances of radical innovations from the margins ever reaching mainstream. If only innovation that suits the interests of a small group of powerful owners is allowed onto the network, a tremendous potential for socially beneficial change is lost, without us ever knowing such potential existed. This does not serve the interest of the public, neither in China or here, but only those of the old guard. Lessig is a realist and a pragmatist. He does not argue for a "new economy" utopia where everything should be free, nor is he "against" the market. Lessig is very clear that his conception of the commons applies primarily to resources that are "nonrivalrous" which means that my use does not affect your use of the resource. To these resources, the "tragedy of the commons" [ ] does not apply. Immaterial products cannot be depleted. All that is necessary is to assure that such resources are produced. What Lessig is arguing for is a balance between the rights of the owners to derive profit from their resources and the rights of the public to use these resources as raw material for further creation. Copyright and patent law were conceived with this balance in mind. Now they are being expanded in favour of control and ownership to such a degree that they no longer serve the only goal that legitimizes their existence: the promotion innovation and creativity. Lessig makes several concrete proposals on how to adapt the law to help restore this balance. These range from reducing the duration of patents and copyrights to their original length to the granting of compulsory licenses which allow owners to derive a profit from their property but not to control it against the public interest. Lessig's concerns are not really not legal but social. He develops two scenarios, one in which the tools of innovation are controlled by a few established interests, or one in which these tool are made accessible to everyone. He advocates the latter because only the latter is consistent with core values of a true, enlightened democracy: social welfare through the empowerment of individuals. Lessig's argument, though, exhibits a strange internal contradiction. One the one hand, it is a call to arms, a passionate warning about the loss of freedom and creativity, on the other hand, he declares the battle already lost. This contradiction, it seems, stems from the fact that he grounds what is essentially a (global) social argument in primarily (American) legal evidence. This leads to a distortion. For Lessig, the story of open file sharing ended with the defeat of Napster in a Californian court. However, despite the demise of Napster as a company, the phenomenon of file sharing is still very significant. It is far from clear that the changes in the legal landscape will effectively determine user behaviour. One could make the argument that enforcing some aspects of the law might be so difficult, or come at such an expense to other rights or interests, that in practice it will be impossible to do so. If the DMCA limits security research in the US, but European provisions are not as strict, then pressure could amount on the US to revise its legislation on the grounds that it harms the industry's competitiveness. A similar situation led to the easing of US export restrictions on strong cryptography. Perhaps Lessig overestimates the ability of US law to determine social reality globally. He is certainly right to argue that it has become a powerful weapon of established interests trying to fend off the challenge of the new. Lessig, Lawrence: (2001) The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World. Random House, New York. ISBN 0-375-50578-4 For those who do not read entire books, there is a shorter article available: Lessig, Lawrence (2001). The Internet Under Siege. Foreign Policy (November-December) ------------------- nationalcenter.org (via opinionet.com via libertythink.com): Target of Animal Rights Activists Becomes a Target for Explosives DATE: May 10, 2002 BACKGROUND: On May 3, 2002, an explosion damaged a truck at Sims Poultry Inc., a poultry plant outside of Bloomington, Indiana. Witnesses saw what appeared to be homemade incendiary devices being pulled out from under the truck, according to the Herald Times of Bloomington, Indiana. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is currently investigating what they call a deliberate attack. The poultry company, which distributes chicken wholesale to businesses and Indiana University student groups, had been the target of animal rights groups in the past.1 Some extreme animal rights organizations have committed many acts of terrorism over the years and caused millions of dollars of damage. Luckily, these attacks have not yet resulted in loss of human life. TEN SECOND RESPONSE: Americans should denounce the violent tactics used by some animal rights groups. It is only a matter of time until these cowardly acts hurt or kill someone. THIRTY SECOND RESPONSE: Acts of violence in the name of religion are strongly condemned in our society and acts of violence in the name of animal rights should be as well. The Earth Liberation Front (ELF) is an animal rights organization, which the FBI has labeled as "the largest and most active U.S.-based terrorist group."2 However, few arrests have been made for these crimes.3 DISCUSSION: According to the Wall Street Journal, the ELF has caused more than $43 million in damage in 600 acts of violence since 1996.4 The U.S. Congress is taking steps toward increasing penalties for these acts of terrorism. Representative George Nethercutt (R-WA) introduced a bill that would provide a minimum five years prison sentence for eco-terrorist arson attacks, and it would allow prosecutors to seek the death penalty should anyone die in such attacks. U.S. Representative and Western Caucus Chairman Richard Pombo (R-CA) put it well, saying, "The cause that a terrorist takes up, whether it is an environmental jihad or a religious one, does not change the buildings they blow up or the people's lives they destroy."5 by Chris Burger, Program Coordinator John P. McGovern, MD Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs The National Center for Public Policy Research Contact the author at: 202-371-1400 or CBurger@nationalcenter.org The National Center for Public Policy Research 777 N. Capitol St. NE Suite 803 Washington, D.C. 20002 Footnotes: 1 Bethany Swaby, "Truck firebombed at poultry company," The Herald-Times, May 4, 2002, downloaded from http://www.hoosiertimes.com/ stories/2002/05/04/ news.020504_HT_A1_PM029481.sto on May 6, 2002. 2 Stefan Friedman, "The PETA-ELF connection," New York Post, March 7, 2002, downloaded on March 7, 2002. 3 Scott Sunde and Paul Shukovsky, "Elusive radicals escalate attacks in nature's name," The Seattle Post Intelligencer, June 18, 2001, downloaded from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/ local/27871_ecoterror18.shtml on February 25, 2002. 4 Collin Levey, "Terrorist buds," The Wall Street Journal, February 14, 2002, downloaded from http://www.opinionjournal.com/ columnists/clevey/?id=100001681 on February 20, 2002. 5 United States House of Representatives Western Caucus, "Western Caucus Leaders Condemn Eco-Terrorism, Call for Crackdown on Purveyors of Criminal Environmental Activity," Press Release, February 12, 2002. |