Sunday, September 25, 2016

Marx & Engels writings on Civil War still provocative 155 years later [feedly]

Marx & Engels writings on Civil War still provocative 155 years later
http://peoplesworld.org/marx-engels-writings-on-civil-war-still-provocative-155-years-later/

With a presidential candidate on the Republican side who is the darling of neo-Confederates, old style KKK-types, and alt-right white nationalists, there's no time like the present to review the United States' troubled history with racism. International Publishers' new and completely updated edition of The Civil War in the United States by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels is an opportunity to do just that.

What makes this collection of writings by these two giants particularly interesting, however, is not just the commentary they offer on the Civil War. As Professor Andrew Zimmerman, who edited this edition, says in his introduction, "Readers will not find a Marxist interpretation" of the war in this book. Instead, what it showcases is Marx and Engels in the process of applying their methodology of historical materialism to an event of world-historic importance as it unfolded.

The book thus carries a relevance beyond the interest it might arouse among Civil War buffs or historians; it represents a milestone in the development of Marxism as a method of social and political analysis.

International first offered this title nearly 80 years ago, edited and introduced at the time by Herbert Morais (under the pseudonym Richard Enmale). In this edition, Zimmerman has expanded the selection of texts to include new writings by the primary authors, but also added relevant material from figures such as Union Army officer Joseph Weydemeyer, a comrade of Marx and Engels, as well as African-American scholar W.E.B. DuBois.

Zimmerman's introduction to the book and his commentary for each individual chapter provide a background that is rich in detail and tailored to a contemporary audience. Marx and Engels' newspaper articles and private correspondence are situated within the historical and political debates of their day, but their place in the ongoing development of Marxist political economy is also chronicled. As Zimmerman points out, Capital Volume 1 would appear just a couple of years after the Civil War, so the selections in this book are examples of Marxism in its own process of development.

A fundamental conclusion that Marx and Engels return to throughout is the undeniable reality that the Civil War was, fundamentally, a social revolution against the institution of slavery. Efforts by some at the time (and subsequently by revisionist historians) to paint the conflict as being fought solely over tariffs or "states' rights" trade disputes are exposed as one-sided and usually self-serving interpretations. The economic nature of the conflict was certainly key, but it was economics in the form of slavery which informed every aspect of not only the Civil War, but of U.S. and global industrial development.

As Marx observes in one excerpt, "Direct slavery is just as much the pivot of bourgeois industry as machinery... Without slavery you have no cotton; without cotton you have no modern industry. It is slavery that gave the colonies their value; it is the colonies that created world trade, and it is world trade that is the precondition of large-scale industry." Slavery, then, was "an economic category of the greatest importance."

The American Civil War, for Marx and Engels, was a class conflict - not just a military one. Following on the insights of DuBois and others, Zimmerman rescues Marx and Engels' arguments from the mechanistic "Marxist" interpretations of the war which have characterized it as simply the victory of a bourgeois revolution and the freeing of capitalism from its slave fetters. In Zimmerman's words, the war was, according to Marx and Engels, "a workers' revolution carried out within a bourgeois republic that was finally undermined by that bourgeois republic." That undermining of course, was the counterrevolution against Reconstruction.

Zimmerman does not shy away from the shortcomings of Marx and Engels in his introductions or his selection of texts, however. He is blunt in his critique of their propensity to underestimate and not properly recognize the central role played by slaves and former slaves in fighting for their own emancipation. Though Marx and Engels are consistently anti-slavery and unreservedly on side with the fight for freedom, black workers and slaves play only secondary roles in most of their discussions of labor's struggle against slavery. The addition of DuBois's 1933 essay, "Karl Marx and the Negro," as an appendix serves as an important remedy.

Marx and Engels' analysis of Abraham Lincoln's halting but steady evolution from reluctant anti-slavery warrior to a new kind of democratic leader destined to "lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world," makes up another important component of the book. It holds lessons for how activists today must strategically evaluate political figures and leaders.

Finally, the lessons Marx and Engels drew from the Civil War are reflected in their writings on the role of racism in England's colonial domination of Ireland and on the class struggle nature of revolution which was displayed in the Paris Commune. The latter "Civil War in France" was described by Marx with the same language that had colored his earlier descriptions of the fight against the Confederacy. The Commune, he said, was yet another example of "the war of the enslaved against their enslavers."

This book stands as an example of how the two masters of critical political economy grappled with the rapid development of capitalism and the upheaval of social revolution in the mid-19th century. The insights of the selected writings on offer are matched by the succinct but illuminating introductory texts by Zimmerman. The volume holds importance for not just students of Marxism or the Civil War, but for political activists and academics broadly.

The Civil War in the United States

 by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

Introduction by Andrew Zimmerman.

219 pp. $14.00, ISBN: 978-07178-0753-6.

Available in paperback from International Publishers.

Editor's Note: International Publishers is hosting a book talk with Andrew Zimmerman to discuss this new edition on Thursday September 22 at 7pm at Brooklyn Commons, 388 Atlantic Ave. in Brooklyn, NY.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Black-white wage gaps expand with rising wage inequality | Economic Policy Institute

http://www.epi.org/publication/black-white-wage-gaps-expand-with-rising-wage-inequality/#epi-toc-20

Trump could be the price we pay for ignoring sexism [feedly]

Trump could be the price we pay for ignoring sexism
http://peoplesworld.org/trump-could-be-the-price-we-pay-for-ignoring-sexism/

Sexism is alive and well in America. It may be the reason Donald Trump is surging in the polls. But few seem to want to admit that. For example, in an interview with NPR, political pundit David Axelrod said the intense media scrutiny Hillary Clinton has received, and which Trump "seems to skip around," is not because she is a woman, but because she has been in politics for so long.

Axelrod, however, is not alone in denying unequal media treatment because of gender. Sexism has become normalized and the media have much to do with its normalization. With a cookie cutter approach to so-called fair and equal treatment, the media are engaged in "he said, she said" coverage.

"He said, she said" journalism

One of the most egregious examples of this phenomenon was the way the media covered (or failed to cover) Clinton's important speech about the fringe white supremacist right wing taking over the Republican Party. The speech was a warning to the nation about the unprecedented danger the Trump campaign poses. Yet it was dismissed "she said/he said"-style when Trump retorted, in his usual Don Rickles one-liner style, "Hillary Clinton is a bigot!" And headlines like, "Clinton, Trump swap insults," equated the two.

Clinton's fact-based, logical argument about having racist and anti-Semitic pathological liars in charge of a major political party, and possibly taking over the presidency, was reduced to rubble by the media's equivalency reporting.

"He said, she said" journalism describes how the media often cover politics, elections and candidates. NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen described the "formula." "There's a public dispute. The dispute makes news. No real attempt is made to assess clashing truth claims in the story... The symmetry of two sides making opposite claims puts the reporter in the middle between polarized extremes." It is like a boxing announcer: "In this corner we have candidate A and in this corner we have candidate B." Whatever happens in the ring is reported within the rules of boxing.

It has become cliché to say that in this election the rules have been tossed out by Trump and his blitzkrieg of lies, hate, racism, Islamophobia, immigrant bashing, misogyny, profiteering and pathological vanity. But what has not been talked much about is how the rules have changed because now there is a woman in the ring.

Sexist assumptions

U.S. News and World Report writer John Stoehr said that the media should stop making "false equivalencies" between Trump and Clinton. Stoehr says the media's obsession "for equivalence where there is virtually none" is "endemic," and criticizes the "tit-for-tat, volley between equals" reporting.

Yet in a "he said, she said" world, where the "she" is actually a "she," sexist assumptions stack up against her. Trump says the most outrageous things and is celebrated for "speaking his mind." Clinton "speaks her mind" using the word "deplorable" and she gets excoriated.

I associate the phrase "he said, she said" with a rape trial, where a man says it wasn't rape and a woman says it was. Getting a rape conviction based on victim and suspect testimony is next to impossible (unless racism is at work). Judges and juries are less likely to believe women than men. Women were considered unreliable, assumed to have "asked for it" or even thought to have enjoyed the assault. This attitude that a woman is less trustworthy than a man goes back for centuries and continues today with consequences that go beyond the criminal justice system.

In his recent article, "When a crackpot runs for president ," New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof makes some noteworthy observations about this state of affairs. Kristof writes, "A CNN/ORC poll this month found that by a margin of 15 percentage points, voters thought Donald Trump was 'more honest and trustworthy' than Hillary Clinton. Let's be frank: This public perception is completely at odds with all evidence."

Pointing to the widely quoted PolitiFact website, Kristof writes that a whopping 53 percent of Trump's statements were rated "false" or "pants on fire" compared to 13 percent of Clinton's.

Kristof's point is important: Despite mounds of evidence to the contrary, Clinton is seen as less trustworthy and honest than Trump. Hillary Clinton may have written her autobiography, but she is not in control of her story. There are larger forces at work shaping how people see her and what they believe about her.

Sexism is a toxic smog that we breathe in every day

I would suggest that, like racism, which scholar and clinical psychologist Beverly Daniel Tatum described as "smog in the air," sexism too is a toxic smog that we breathe in every day, and as Tatum wrote, everyone "needs to take responsibility...for cleaning it up."

The first step to cleaning it up is to know it exists.

On one level, sexism is obvious. "Rape culture," pay inequity, the GOP's "war on women,"sexual harassment at the workplace (thank you Gretchen Carlson and the other women at Fox for the felling of Roger Ailes)domestic violence, attacks on Planned Parenthood and women's health access to abortion and birth control, "mansplaining" are well-known examples of gender inequality.

But when it comes to the first woman nominated by a major political party for the presidency, some find it harder to recognize. Some, particularly on the left, argue her hawkishness in foreign affairs, her neoliberal tendencies and her husband's checkered record as president (NAFTA, Crime bill, etc.) immunize Clinton from sexist attitudes found on the left and among progressives. The bruising battle during the primary between Clinton and democratic socialist Bernie Sanders helped to fuel this illusion.

Even in the People's World, one opinion article dismissed outright sexism as a factor in one of Robert Reich's critiques of Clinton, and even included an embarrassing argument that could be interpreted as an Adam's Rib narrative - that Hillary was created out of Bill's rib - by basically arguing she was her husband's co-president.

For progressives to deny, downplay, omit or even unwittingly perpetuate the sexist lens through which we see Clinton, is to cede the election to Trump.

Sexism, a combination of economic, political, and social structures, keeps women of all classes, races, and ethnicities in an unequal state of being compared to men, and the accompanying ideology and culture that justify such inequality. Sexism, along with patriarchy, misogyny, and gender norms, has been a part of human society since the first division of labor, accumulation of wealth, organized social and political hierarchy. It has its own expressions, and dynamically interacts with class and race-based discrimination.

Sexist assumptions pervade every nook and cranny of society and get reproduced through cultural, economic, political, social, educational and media outlets. There are still many career fields and workplaces that are male-dominated, including sciencepolitics and themediaAccording to one study, women who succeed in male-dominated careers are often viewed negatively.

But even in the recent Atlantic article, "The death of 'he said, she said' journalism ," about The New York Times ending its usual practice of "symmetrical" reporting between Trump and Clinton, misses the fact that for the first time in a U.S. presidential election, the two candidates are indeed, a he and a she. Therefore the coverage that supposedly equates the two sides is more "asymmetrical" because of the unacknowledged sexist bias.

In addition, "he said/she said" journalism in this election has helped to normalize sexism by overlooking it like it is a cost of doing business. The misogyny that surrounded the Republican National Convention and Trump's subsequent suggestions of violence against Clinton are reported as just another outrageous thing said by the candidate instead of being put into a larger anti-woman context. Here I am glad to say People's World did an excellent job in exposing the misogyny.

Ignoring sexism gives cover

Ignoring sexism also gives cover to networks like Fox or NBC and their on-air or off-air culture of harassment of women, and tells the audience, all these lies and hate are OK. There was Matt Lauer's toothless interview of Trump and grilling of Clinton on those "damn emails," Trump hosting Saturday Night Live and Jimmy Fallon's "genial, hair-mussing interview" of Trump, which many took note of after Samantha Bee condemned not just Fallon but NBC execs on her show "Full Frontal."

"Network execs, and a lot of their audience, can ignore how very dangerous Trump is because to them, he isn't," Ms. Bee said. "They're not going to be deported. They're not going to live under a president who thinks of them as a collection of sex toys.

"They're not racist. They just don't mind if other people are, which is just as bad," she said.

But all is not in the media's hands. Clinton and her campaign have agency. Clinton can disrupt the sexist media smog machine by not feeding it. Instead of conducting "he said, she said" politics, Clinton could and should focus solely on issues and vision, on what her presidency will do and mean for millions of people.

Focus on the issues

She has to do this especially during the upcoming debate. She has been talking about education, infrastructure and an end to mass incarceration in her stump speeches, but the substance parts of the speeches don't make the news sound bites.

Her retorts to the latest Trump outrage make the news because of the "he said, she said" formula. But when she ties a retort to issues, as she did when Trump accused her of "playing the woman card" and she responded, "Well, if fighting for women's health care and paid family leave and equal pay is playing the woman card, then deal me in," it helps breaks that dynamic because people are tired of what they see as the barb trading. They want to hear about vision and uplift. That is why after the Democratic National Convention, Clinton's numbers shot up. Because she and the Democrats drew such a stark contrast to the apocalyptic and nasty RNC.

Men should step up

While the candidate has to do the heavy lifting, her male surrogates and supporters should also step up and "play the woman card." President Obama likes to describe gender inequality and specifically how it relates to Clinton with a popular reference, "She was doing everything I was doing, but just like Ginger Rogers, it was backward in heels. And every time I thought I might have had the race won, Hillary just came back stronger."

Full Frontal Executive Producer Jo Miller said in an interview she'd like to hear more men, especially white men, speak up for women and minorities in the name of basic decency.

Otherwise, she said, "It becomes, 'Oh, you see everything through the lens of sexism,' or, 'Not everything has to be about race.'"

The more media executives such as Jo Miller that join this fight, the merrier. That's the kind of "he said, she said" reporting that could clear out the smog.

Photo: Hillary Clinton accepts the Democratic Party's nomination for president at the party's national convention in Philadelphia, July 28. | A. Shaker/VOA/Public Domain

 


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Labor Veteran Dolores Huerta on What’s at Stake in the 2016 Elections [feedly]

Labor Veteran Dolores Huerta on What's at Stake in the 2016 Elections
https://talkingunion.wordpress.com/2016/09/22/labor-veteran-dolores-huerta-on-whats-at-stake-in-the-2016-elections/

Ally Boguhn, Rewire

Since the founding along with Cesar Chaves and others of the United Farm Workers (UFW) union, through her current work in supporting union democracy, civic engagement and empowerment of women and youth in disadvantaged communities, Huerta's influence has been profound. The creation of the UFW changed the nature of labor organizing in the Southwest and contributed significantly to the growth of Latino politics in the U.S. .

Republican nominee Donald Trump launched his campaign for president in June 2015 with a speech notoriously claiming [1] Mexican immigrants to the United States "are bringing drugs, and bringing crime, and their rapists."
Since then, both Trump's campaign [2] and the Republican Party at large have continued to rely upon anti-immigrant [3] and anti-Latino rhetoric to drum up support. Take for example, this year's Republican National Convention in Cleveland, where Sheriff Joe Arpaio—whose department came under fire [4] earlier this year for racially profiling Latinos—was invited to take the stage to push [5] Trump's proposed 2,000-mile border wall. Arpaio told the Arizona Republic that Trump's campaign had worked with the sheriff to finalize his speech.
This June, just a day shy of the anniversary of Trump's entrance into the presidential race, People for the American Way and CASA in Action hosted an event highlighting what they deemed to be the presumptive Republican nominee's "Year of Hate."
Among the advocates speaking at the event was legendary civil rights leader Dolores Huerta, who worked alongside [6] César Chávez in the farm workers' movement. Speaking by phone the next day with Rewire, Huerta—who has endorsed [7] Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton—detailed the importance of Latinos getting involved in the 2016 election, and what she sees as being at stake for the community.
The Trump campaign is "promoting a culture of violence," Huerta told Rewire, adding that it "is not just limited to the rallies," which have sometimes ended in violent incidents [8], "but when he is attacking Mexicans, and gays, and women, and making fun of disabled people."

Huerta didn't just see this kind of rhetoric as harmful to Latinos. When asked about its effect on the country at large, she suggested it affected not only those who already held racist beliefs, but also people living in the communities of color those people may then target. "For those people who are already racist, it sort of reinforces their racism," she said. "I think people have their own frustrations in their lives and they take it out on immigrants, they take it out on women. And I think that it really endangers so many people of color."

The inflammatory rhetoric toward people of color by presidential candidates has led [9] to "an alarming level of fear and anxiety among children of color and inflaming racial and ethnic tensions in the classroom," according to an April report [10] by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The organization's analysis of the impact of the 2016 presidential election on classrooms across the country found "an increase in bullying, harassment and intimidation of students whose races, religions or nationalities have been the verbal targets of candidates on the campaign trail." Though the SPLC did not name Trump in its questions, its survey of about 2,000 K-12 educators elicited up more than 1,000 comments about the Republican nominee, compared to less than 200 comments mentioning other presidential candidates still in the race at that time.
But the 2016 election presents an opportunity for those affected by that violent rhetoric to make their voices heard, said Huerta. "The Latino vote is going to be the decisive vote in terms of who is going to be elected the president of the United States," she continued, later noting that "we've actually seen a resurgence right now of Latinos registering to vote and Latinos becoming citizens."

Read the entire piece on ReWire. https://rewire.news/article/2016/08/16/latino-votes-suppress-dolores-huerta/

See Huerta's Speech to the Democratic National Committee.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

The Working People Weekly List [feedly]

The Working People Weekly List
http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Other-News/The-Working-People-Weekly-List29

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Tax Reform For Working Families Could Improve West Virginia’s Chronic Poverty Rate [feedly]

Tax Reform For Working Families Could Improve West Virginia's Chronic Poverty Rate
http://www.wvpolicy.org/tax-reform-for-working-families-could-improve-west-virginias-chronic-poverty-rate/

Too many West Virginians struggled to make ends meet in 2015, and the number of West Virginians living in poverty remained unchanged. One solution? A Working Families Tax Credit that would help people who work for low wages keep more of what they earn.

How could a West Virginia Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) help your community by boosting the economy and helping workers stay on the job? Find out here.

This week's Clarksburg Exponent-Telegram further explains how West Virginia can improve its ranking, currently the 7th highest rate of poverty in the nation.

Lawmakers Urged to Raise Revenues

This week the Charleston Gazette urged legislators to raise revenues to help fill next year's projected budget gap. Suggestions included raising the tobacco tax further, and increasing the tax on soft drinks and alcohol, among other ideas.

If not, we could face more cuts like these:

Comment Period Ending Soon – Have You Signed Yet?

Click here to add your voice to the tens of thousands of people from across the country who are calling for a strong payday lending rule from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. While payday lending is illegal in West Virginia, a weak payday lending rule could erode our protections.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

California labor commissioner fines illegal garment businesses [feedly]



California labor commissioner fines illegal garment businesses
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-garment-wage-theft-20160923-snap-story.html


Eighteen garment companies received fines of more than $682,000 for violating labor laws, state regulators announced. The businesses, all based in Los Angeles, were inspected this month by the California labor commissioner's office. 

The inspections revealed that the companies did not have workers'...


 -- via my feedly newsfeed