SATIRE & VIDEO:A People's History of American Empire by Howard Zinn

Narrated by Viggo Mortensen
Art by Mike Konopacki
Video editing by Eric Wold

Peter Camejo's clarion call

Source: Socialist Worker.org

More than 400 people gathered at the University of California-Berkeley on November 23 to honor the life of Peter Miguel Camejo, a veteran of half a century of struggle, who passed away September 13.

The memorial service represented the many parts of Peter's life in the movement, from his leading role in the struggles of the 1960s to his years as a member of the Socialist Workers Party to his activities and campaigns in the Green Party, among many others.

Among the speakers were Peter's wife, Morella Camejo; his brother, Tony Camejo; independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader; Matt Gonzalez, Nader's running mate in 2008 and former president of the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors; Barbara Becnel, advocate for executed California death row prisoner Stan Tookie Williams; Richmond, Calif., Mayor Gayle McLaughlin of the Green Party; Donna Warren, Peter's gubernatorial running mate; and many more.

Todd Chretien worked on several of Peter's California election campaigns in the 2000s and ran for U.S. Senate on the Million Votes for Peace slate that Peter headed as a gubernatorial candidate in 2006. Here, we print Todd's remarks.

---

I NORMALLY don't get nervous speaking in front of a crowd, but Peter's memorial means so much to so many people that I'm afraid I am very nervous here today.

I am happy to be here today speaking on behalf of the International Socialist Organization to talk about what Peter meant to us as an organization and to a younger generation of folks that I come from.

We've heard people today talk about Peter's impact on the civil rights movement, on the fight to end the war in Vietnam, in defense of the Cuban and Nicaraguan revolutions. We heard today from people who talked about Peter at the height of his influence--his capacity to influence large numbers of people and to explain theory and history to people who had never before had the opportunity to participate in those debates. But after that period--say, 1976 or thereabouts--we've lived through some pretty rough times.

A previous speaker said that Ronald Reagan was wrong to say that Peter was the most dangerous man in California in 1967. His point was that Reagan was wrong to accuse Peter of being violent. In one way, he's perfectly correct.

However, in the sense that Peter's ideas resonated with millions of people across this country, he was, for the likes of Ronald Reagan, the most dangerous man in California.

Unfortunately, Ronald Reagan won a 20- or 30-year battle. Starting in 1980 or so up until very recently, they've had it all their way. They turned back the revolution in Nicaragua through the bloodletting by the contras. They destroyed affirmative action. They won a war against the unions. They destroyed health care and education in this country. They have really had it all their way. The most horrific example has been the two wars they have conducted against the people of Iraq, in which they have killed millions of people.

And throughout that dark period, for people of my generation, the thing that shines through about Peter is that he never gave up for a moment. He never sold out his ideals, because they were not light-minded ideas, but well-founded principles upon which he built his life and his political activities.

That's what shines through, because there were precious few people who made that journey, and not only survived it--because the repression and all of the heartaches were real--but continued to speak from their hearts and their minds in order to educate a new generation of activists about what this political system will do to you if you don't take up a political struggle against it. For that, we owe Peter Camejo an incalculable debt of gratitude.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PETER WAS right. He would always argue that the truth will win out. Just as George Orwell said, you can call up down, and wrong right, as long as you want, but in the end, the truth will win out.

Just take the case of Santos Reyes, a man put in prison for 25 years to life for cheating on a DMV test. And I ask you, would the people of California, the people of this nation, the people of the world, vote in favor of keeping this man in prison for the rest of his life so that he cannot see his friends and families. Or would they stand with Peter and demand that Santos goes free?

So it's a long struggle, but we believe, like Peter, that truth will win out. People will see through the lies and people will base their political actions on that.

Of course, Peter's passing is a terrible personal loss, and I can't begin to compare how I feel to his family, to those who have known him for decades, for 50 years. My heart goes out to his friends and family.

But I do want to say that if Peter Camejo was the most dangerous man in California in 1967 or 1968--and I don't often agree with Ronald Reagan, but I do in this instance--then I believe that in the next five years, even though we've lost Peter, his ideas will become the most dangerous ideas in this America.

Things are changing in this country. People have put up with a lot for a very long time. Peter was in the advanced guard. He was one of the people sounding the clarion call, ringing the bell: Wake up! Wake up!

And though we don't have him here physically by our side, I believe that millions of people are going to wake up in the years that come, and Peter Camejo's ideas will be part of their struggle. After all, today, even the Wall Street Journal is talking about socialism, which I find very interesting.

I'll end by asking you a few questions, and I hope that you will answer them in the way that you believe Peter Camejo would.

Do the working people of this world deserve a sustainable environment? (audience) YES!

Do the working people of this world deserve peace in Iraq and Afghanistan and Palestine? (audience) YES!

Do the working people of this world deserve powerful trade unions? (audience) YES!

Do the working people of this world deserve free health care? (audience) YES!

Do the working people of this world deserve an education just as good as the one you can get here at UC Berkeley? (audience) YES!

Do the working people of this world deserve the world that Peter wanted for them? (audience) YES!

I think that if we keep those answers in our hearts as we try--however we can, day by day--to fight every day, just like Peter did, to carry that struggle forward, then we haven't lost Peter. He will be there by our side.

I.O.U.S.A. – the 30-Minute Version

I.O.U.S.A. – the 30-Minute Version from IOUSA the Movie on Vimeo.
I.O.U.S.A. – the 30-Minute Version from IOUSA the Movie on Vimeo.

I.O.U.S.A. is a film that examines the rapidly growing US national debt and its consequences for the United States and its population. It comes from a conservative perspective but it reviews the financial context very well. The key question is: who is gonna pay? Them or us?

...And they say socialism can't work!

Native blood: the truth behind the myth of `Thanksgiving Day'

By Mike Ely

It is a deep thing that people still celebrate the survival of the early colonists at Plymouth — by giving thanks to the Christian God who supposedly protected and championed the European invasion. The real meaning of all that, then and now, needs to be continually excavated. The myths and lies that surround the past are constantly draped over the horrors and tortures of our present.

.

Popout

Original audio source

Obama : the Meanings of Victory

[We seldom offer recycled items from other journals here at LeftClick because, if they are somewhere else they can be one or two clicks away. However this transcript of one of Mumia Abu-Jamal's Radio Broadcasts is very succinct and to the point in regard to the significance (or not) of the Obama presidential victory.

It jumped out at me as I've been asked to present a short review of the result at tonight's Socialist Alliance meeting here in Brisbane.

We carry Abu-Jamil's broadcasts here on LeftClick as part of the Free Speech Radio News [Click here] pop up player above.]

The count has been called and Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. has become the 44th President of the United States of America.

But, in truth, history will record him as #1 - the first African-American president.

It is undeniable that this is a singular political achievement, a work of impressive political skill, and (we must admit) a gift of the political gods.

Among friends, in the privacy of a prison visiting room I've often made the following half-joke. Obama wins handsomely, and in his acceptance speech, flush with victory, loaded with 'political capital', he would open by saying, "My fellow Americans -- first and foremost, I want to thank the one person who made my election possible (if not inevitable): George W. Bush!"

I always got a laugh, for like all good jokes the truth makes it happen.

And the truth is, without the blunders of Bush, Obama would've been an also-ran. His fundamental issue, which set him apart from the rest of the Democratic pack, was his early opposition to the Iraq War. That gave him a wind that carried him far and long beyond his competitors, who were, for the most part, half-hearted war supporters -- or worse, people who supported the war only because to not do so, would've harmed their political careers (or so they thought).

That wind carried him to the Oval Office, the grandest prize in U.S. politics.

But what does it mean?

We cannot deny its symbolic value. In millions of Black homes, his picture will be placed on walls, beside Martin, John F. Kennedy, and a pale painting of Jesus. I'd be that quite a few African homes (especially in Kenya) will also boast his smiling visage.

But beyond symbol is substance, and substantively, some scholars have defined Obama as little different from his predecessors. Political scientist Clarence Lusane, writing in a recent issue of The Black Scholar pointed to the money men behind both Obama and the Democratic Party, and noted the following:

The promotion of U.S. hegemony, expansion of markets for U.S. corporations, security-based

multilateral relations, protectionist trade policies, and a focus on terrorism will likely be key

priorities demanded by the major political and financial backers of the Democratic Party.

In other words, in a number of key areas, an Obama administration would echo the policies of both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton." *

Yet, symbols are powerful things. Sometimes, they have a life all their own. They may come to mean something more than first intended.

History has been made.

We shall see exactly what kind of history it will be.

Video:Election night in Harlam

by Dave Riley

The joy speaks for itself... and the hope.

Any Newman referenced this and has a some interesting comments in regard to the celebration drawn from an interview with Sue Webb by Richard Bagley in the Morning Star.

The US Communist Party has long held a supportive stance in regard to the Democrats but in the present enthusiasm what is forgotten are the Democrats who already have a majority in the US Congress.So the key aspect, I think, is why the US ruling class were willing to unleash this massive wave of expectancy in the person of Obama?

Obama wins the US presidency

by Dave Riley

As if you didn't know!

There's a bit of a conundrum involved which warrants a bit of attention straight away.

While the fact that the guy is Afro-American is very significant we are still stuck with the USA as is -- with its imperialism and all the rest.

I was wondering what the fall out is likely to be in Africa -- and while the media have played up the Martin Luther King "I have a dream..." angle -- the key factor is what expectancy, what hopes -- the US population will invest in the administration of this new president.

I say that's a wild card..and in similar way, it has to play out in Africa too.

What ever way you cut it there's a black man in the White House.

In his 1964 novel, Irving Wallace speculated on such a contingency:

As a novel, The Man — written before the 25th Amendment to the national Constitution — begins, the Vice-Presidency is vacant, because of the incumbent's death. Then, while overseas, the President and the Speaker of the House suffer a freak accident; the President is killed, the Speaker of the House dies in surgery. The Presidency then corresponds to Douglass Dilman, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, a black man earlier elected to that office in deference to racial tokenism.

President Douglas Dilman's presidency is marked by white racists, black political activists, and an attempted assassination. Later, he is impeached on false charges for firing the United States Secretary of State.

The contradiction is that Wallace could not imagine that a black man could be elected to the presidency.

That's the key point.

I'm sure there are millions of Afro Americans who'll tell you that racism in the United States is same ole same ole but for the average Red Neck or what have you everyday Whitey -- this election is a bit of a wake up call.

Millions have betrayed that racist trust and have crossed over to invest their hopes in a Nigger.

That doesn't kill off racism in the US or change in itself any aspect of the Afro American condition. Nonetheless, it raises expectations that are sure to empower a new assertiveness.

It may be de rigueur on the Left to reference the 60's Vietnam anti war movement as the beginning of an ascendant protest movement and a new wave of struggle. I don't agree. I think the catalyst began in Alabama and Montgomery-- before the anti war movement kicked in.

I think the beginning of the way the world was remade was in the crucible of the Civil Rights Movement in the context of a rise of national liberation struggles elsewhere in the world.

That's what we all owe Afro Americans. It was their struggle that inspired a generation.

So for Obama to win the presidency --despite the fact that the US ruling class also chose him -- suggests that there are a few risk factors in play -- for them.

While I've got a hole in my bum, Obama isn't going to morph into a Martin Luther King. But that's not the point. The point is that there is a new expectancy that cannot be fulfilled by Washington despite Obama's residency there.

The scale of the interest and excitement that has also been felt here in Australia suggests that hope and political aspirations are not deadened to a degree where people cannot be vitalised. That -- even if we are stuck with Kevin Rudd -- the US has a new favorite son to look to: a figure who can aggregate more hope than what this Labor government was willing to stimulate.

It doesn't matter that Obama won't or doesn't deliver. It does matter that the very promise of it engages people to expect more to happen.

And when it doesn't....well, there you have it: a new ballgame.

• The United States Socialist Worker is maintaining an online election journal and analysis of the November 4 vote.

Ralph Nader endorsed by Peter Camejo

2008 Presidential Candidate, Ralph Nader receives a resounding endorsement by legendary social activist Peter Camejo at the Peace and Freedom Delegate Convention in Sacramento, CA on Aug 2nd, 2008:

More: http://www.votenader.org/

If the video cannot be viewed try to access it here.

Real numbers on military casualties for US wars

Alexander Cockburn offers a considered analysis of the real cost of the US wars:

Here’s how the figures add up, just for Americans. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have thus far produced 300,000 psychological casualties, 320,000 brain injury casualties, plus 35,000 (probably understated) officially reported “normal” casualties. This adds up to 655,000 US casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, an average of just under 101,000 Americans killed or wounded every year since the wars began. If the idea of 101,000 casualties for every extra year in Iraq and Afghanistan gets out and infects the voting public, imagine the effect on the currently torpid national debate over leaving in five years versus fifteen years! -- Source Counterpunch

Winter Soldier Witnesses to War

Hundreds of veterans of war gathered at Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan - Eyewitness Accounts of the Occupations to hear and give testimony about these wars. The hearings - largely ignored by mainstream media - were held from March 13-16, 2008 at the National Labor College, Silver Spring, Maryland.

Videos of testimonies may be viewed at the website of Iraq Veterans Against the War - http://www.ivaw.org - which also has related materials.

Thank you to Holly Near for giving permission to use her song - "I Am Willing" - as the musical background for this video. "I Am Willing" by Holly Near is © 2003 Hereford Music (ASCAP). It was used by permission; all rights reserved. http://www.hollynear.com

I offer my personal thanks to the veterans and others who testified at Winter Soldier. It took courage to give testimony on first hand accounts of these wars. And, I thank IVAW for giving me media credentials to cover this historic event.

I dedicate this video to the victims of war in Iraq and Afghanistan and do so in memory of the over a million who have been killed in these wars.

This video was recorded and edited by Charles Jenks and is © 2008 Charles Jenks; all rights reserved.
http://www.peacejournal.org

Aside from the slaughter, the cost of the Iraq war

A piece in The Nation -- The Wages of Peace shares some shocking facts about the cost of the Iraq war:

• US has spent $522 billion on the Iraq war, with another $70 billion already allocated for 2008.
• For the amount of the 2007 Iraq budget of $128 billion the US could have

• given health insurance for all 45 million Americans who are uninsured.
• Added 30,000 elementary and secondary schoolteachers and built 400 schools.
  
• Provided basic home weatherization for about 1.6 million existing homes, reducing energy consumption in these homes by 30 percent

• The US government spent an estimated $572 billion on the military in 2007. This amounts to about $1,800 for every resident of the country.
  

US Greens in trouble because of the wrong kind of conservatism

via Andy Newman

The conservatism in the American Greens has now provoked another break point with the high profile resignation of former Black Panther Elaine Brown, who had been contending to be the Green Party’s presidential candidate. Elaine Brown is a very high profile figure, with forty years of radical activism behind her, she was national Chairperson of the Black Panther Party between 1974 and 1977, and was editor of the Black Panther’s newspaper.

Her press release is a devastating attack on the right wing clique in charge of the Green party:

As of today, I am no longer a candidate for the Green Party nomination for president of the United States, and I hereby resign from all affiliation with the Green Party. I believe the leadership of the Green Party of the United States has been seized by neo-liberal men who entrench the Party in internecine antagonisms so as to compromise its stated principles and frustrate its electoral and other goals. They have made it impossible to advance any truly progressive ideals or objectives under the umbrella of the Green Party, and, thus, rendered it counterproductive for me to go forward as a Green Party candidate or member.

I believe this small clique that has captured control of the Party has transformed it into a repository for erstwhile, disgruntled Democrats, who would violate the Party’s own vision and sabotage the good will and genuine commitment of the general membership. Indeed, these usurpers foster a reactionary agenda, supporting partisans in and backers of the Bush wars and disavowing the Party’s more progressive tenets in favor of promoting high-profile participation in the politics of the establishment.

This became clear to me almost from the moment I announced my candidacy in February of 2007. I intended using my campaign to bring large numbers of blacks and browns into the Party, particularly from the hood and the barrio—as would come to be reflected in the lists of supporters and delegates I’ve submitted in connection with my candidacy. As I asserted I would use the respect I enjoyed as a former leader of the Black Panther Party to do so, some in the hierarchy seemed utterly fearful of the prospect of a massive influx of blacks and browns into the Green Party. Soon, there was wide circulation of false rumors that I was a one-time “government agent,” which was intended to discredit my history in the Black Panther Party so as to undermine my potential influence.—And, since then, I have had to devote significant time and energy to addressing these lies.—What this effort revealed, though, was how the Green Party, while advocating “diversity,” remains dominated by whites. Indeed, the Party is able to count less blacks, browns and natives in its membership than our national population percentages and certainly less than the Democrats themselves.

In effect, the present Green Party leadership promotes a kinder, gentler capitalism, a moderated racism, an environmentally-sustainable globalism, which I cannot support. They are dedicated to the underside of the Party’s platform, which falls short of repudiating the capitalist state, source of all the social ills the Party would address. They equivocate by promoting “an economic alternative to corporate capitalism and a socialist state,” advocate a “re-formulation” of the IMF, NAFTA, so forth, and advance the institution of “stakeholder capitalism.”

On the other hand, they demonstrate a willingness to override the best of the Party’s platform. My sharp criticism of high-profile Party members’ support for the “three-strikes” crime laws, the sole basis for the inhumane mass incarceration of people in the United States, particularly blacks—the repeal of which the Party’s platform advocates—has been met with outright enmity. And, to divert attention from this and other critical issues, the leadership has employed chicanery in their promulgation of defamatory lies about me—which they finally extended to character assaults on my supporters and critics of their unscrupulousness.

It is my sincere belief that the Green Party as it now exists has no intention of using the ballot to actualize real social progress, and will aggressively repel attempts to do so. To remain in the fray or in the Party, then, would require a betrayal of my lifelong and ongoing commitment to serving the interests of black and other oppressed people by advancing revolutionary change in America.

WAG -- Walkout Against Bush

We have proved it in practice that when we stand up and take action together, at our universities, high schools, TAFEs, workplaces and in the streets, we can make a difference. Resistance wants to join with others to co-ordinate a national day of student and youth day of action in the lead-up to APEC.

September 5th will be a national day of action with students all over the country walking out of their classrooms to protest George Bush arriving in Australia.

No more blood for oil!

Renewables not fossil fuels!

http://www.walkout2stopbush.org.au

Update

• Have Your say on SMH blog:Should school students be allowed to take part in protests at the APEC summit?
• APEC protest "mobs" target Sydney
• Police cancel meeting with APEC protesters

Canadians for socialism

Globe and Mail poll:

Is socialism still a viable political alternative for the major industrial nations?
Yes
(60%) 8045 votes
No
(40%) 5398 votes
Total votes: 13443

Climate and Capitalism #99

Climate and Capitalism is four months old today, and this is post number 99. We're doing well, but you can help us do better.

Climate and Capitalism started as an experiment. The object was to see if there is enough interest, and enough material, to sustain an online journal focusing on capitalism, climate change, and the ecosocialist alternative.

Answer: yes there is, on every count. While its readership doesn't remotely compete with the big-name-blogs, C&C has a streadily growing base of readers. I've received and published articles by Marxists from all over the world. Feedback (apart from the usual nonsense from right-wing trolls) has been positive and encouraging.

But I'd like to feature content from a broader range of sources and to reach a much bigger audience. That's where you can help.

• If you see an article that fits our mission of publishing Marxist perspectives on climate change, please email me, including a link to the source.
  
  
• If you have written such an article, and would like to see it on C&C, email it to me.
  
  
• If you have a website or blog, please post a link to C&C. (Let me know that you've done so and I'll return the favor.)
  
  
• If you see something on C&C that others should know about, send them a link. Or mention it in your blog. Or raise it on any e-lists you participate in.
  
  
• Take advantage of the "Comments" feature to make C&C more interactive. Comments are moderated to screen out spam and reactionaries, but they will usually be approved and posted as soon as possible.

In short, your comments, suggestions, ideas, articles, criticsms, objections and feedback are very welcome -- as are any efforts you can make to let others know about Climate and Capitalism. Thank you for reading ...

Ian Angus
ecosocialism-AT-gmail.com

Camejo and Green Party of California

As one who was deeply involved with the GP of California for several years (my post on the current trainwreck is linked to from a previous discussion here.) I've never been able to satisfactorily explain how and why things got so dysfunctional. No one can.

Part of it, I think, is the non-parliamentary system of government in the US. In most countries, if you get, say, 5% of the vote, you get representatives elected. That doesn't exist in the US, so third parties exist in a mostly impotent netherworld, at least at the national level. This means - and there's no other way to say it - you get a certain number of marginal people involved in third parties, and this just slows things down in terms of organizing.

Factor in the GP penchant, at least in the US, for governing by consensus, and you have a recipe for things not getting done. At the state level of the California GP, if they are voting on a policy matter, and just one person expresses possible disagreement, then it has to pass by 80%. This not only is madness, it also means just a couple of people can completely jam up the works.

Someone once told me he was at a German Greens meeting some fifteen years ago, and a sign on the wall said "consensus is nonsense." They have a point.

Without getting too much into the details of the current conflict, Camejo is, I think, fighting a losing battle to keep the Green Party functioning as well as free from Democratic influence. On the other flank, ISO is making inroads. There may not be much remaining but a husk soon. Wish I could be more optimistic, and while there are vibrant healthy Green Parties in other countries, it's difficult to see how GP-US can revive itself.