On 9/23/16, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I hate to say it, but this article makes me feel very sad and very,
very forlorn. It forces me back to the real world. A world where the
powerful not only hold onto their power, but continue to expand it.
Meanwhile a few of us wander about pretending that things are "looking
up". We could insert today's names in place of those of Eugene
Debbs, Joe Hill and others, and their dreams and hopes would be as
current as today's news.
But after all, it's only been 100 years. One fine day the Working
Class will rise up...crap!
But at the same time, I most certainly can't join the Establishment,
and suck up to the Empire.
There are days when I wish I were a believer in a life after death.
Of course I'd go to that Promised Land where Eugene Debbs, Joe Hill,
Martin Luther King and so many great men and women were set about
building a true People's Government. Of course that would not be
Heaven,, since that dimension is already under the absolute rule of a
dictator who assures us that He is never wrong.
Carl Jarvis
On 9/22/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Eugene V. Debs and the Urgent Need for a New Anti-War Movement
Published on
Thursday, September 22, 2016
by
Common Dreams
Eugene V. Debs and the Urgent Need for a New Anti-War Movement
by
Jake Johnson
Eugene Debs delivering a speech in Chicago in 1912. "I can see the dawn
of
the better day for humanity," the famous socialist leader once said. "The
people are awakening. In due time they will and must come to their own."
(Photo: Wikipedia)
Eugene Debs became a socialist in prison.
After being arrested for his leadership role in the Pullman Strike of
1894
-
for which he was deemed "an enemy of the human race" in the New York
Times
-
Debs took to studying intensely the classics of socialist thought, from
the
utopian vision of Edward Bellamy to the analytical works of the
influential
Marxist Karl Kautsky.
But, of course, the critical groundwork for Debs's conversion was already
laid; as he recounted in an essay detailing his ideological
transformation,
the brutality with which striking workers were treated by the forces of
the
state in defense of the capitalist class was "his first practical lesson
in
Socialism" - "in the gleam of every bayonet and the flash of every
rifle,"
he wrote, "the class struggle was revealed."
While still in prison, Debs granted interviews to multiple news outlets,
making his newfound ideas known while skewering the then widespread faith
in
what he termed "the competitive system."
"The competitive system has had its day," he told a correspondent for the
Cincinnati Enquirer. "[I]t has blotted out all the stars of hope; filled
the
world with groans and reduced humanity to slavery. The strong have
devoured
the weak. The highways of the centuries are strewn with the bones of
countless victims."
Almost immediately upon his release, Debs began his rise within the ranks
of
America's radical circles, a rise that coincided with the formation of
the
Industrial Workers of the World and America's Social Democratic Party,
which
shortly thereafter became the Socialist Party.
The fact that Debs would, in the next two decades, launch several failed
yet
still prominent presidential runs deserves less attention - as he himself
emphasized - than his role as America's conscience in the midst of a
class
structure that seemed unshakable. As Debs acknowledged in 1898, "The few
have come in possession of all, and the many have been reduced to the
extremity of living by permission."
Child labor was commonplace through the early years of the twentieth
century; workers toiled in dangerous conditions, to which Upton Sinclair
called attention in his novel The Jungle; and public policy was dictated
by
the interests of capital.
Debs also confronted what he saw as an inevitable outgrowth of the
expansion
of industrial capitalism: Military conflict.
"Wars and rumors of wars are of universal prevalence," Debs wrote in
1900,
pointing to America's brutal occupation of the Philippines. "The
picture,
lurid as a chamber of horrors, becomes complete in its gruesome
ghastliness
when robed ministers of Christ solemnly declare that it is all for the
glory
of God and the advancement of Christian civilization."
The picture would become infinitely more gruesome in the coming years
with
the onset of the First World War.
Debs believed that the United States should stay out of the conflict -
and
so, at least at first, did Woodrow Wilson, who was reelected on a
platform
of peace in 1916. The very same Wilson would, just two years later,
ensure
Debs's imprisonment for the crime of defending that platform, a fact
whose
irony Debs didn't miss.
The beginning of America's involvement in the war coincided with a swift
crackdown on dissenting voices; it became, thanks to the Sedition Act of
1918 (an extension of the Espionage Act of 1917), a crime to speak out
against the war effort, or to speak in any way that smacked of
"disloyalty."
Debs lamented in a speech in Canton, Ohio, "that it is extremely
dangerous
to exercise the constitutional right of free speech in a country fighting
to
make democracy safe in the world."
Two weeks after the Canton remarks, Debs was arrested.
This past Sunday marked the 98th anniversary of what would become Debs's
most famous speech, delivered after he was convicted on ten counts of
sedition - a conviction that carried a ten-year prison sentence.
"I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who
does
absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of
millions
of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of
their
lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence," Debs told the
court.
"This order of things cannot always endure. I have registered my protest
against it. I recognize the feebleness of my effort, but, fortunately, I
am
not alone. There are multiplied thousands of others who, like myself,
have
come to realize that before we may truly enjoy the blessings of civilized
life, we must reorganize society upon a mutual and cooperative basis."
By highlighting the injustices of the capitalist order at home and the
destruction wrought by war abroad, and by making clear the connections
between the two, Debs established a framework of thought that would guide
the radicalism of future decades.
In his protests against the Vietnam War, Martin Luther King Jr. decried a
system that let the poor die in the streets and sent the children of
struggling families to die overseas.
"I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies
in
rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued
to
draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction
tube,"
Dr. King said in 1967. "So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as
an
enemy of the poor and to attack it as such."
But observing the radicalism of Debs and King also forces us to come to
grips with the fact that the tradition they upheld - one of principled
and
persistent opposition to war - has faded rapidly in recent years.
When historian Michael Kazin asked in 2015, "Why is there no antiwar
movement?" the necessity of the question was plain: There is no mass,
mobilized, and militant anti-war movement in the United States, and that
fact should trouble us all.
While the Vietnam War era was characterized by mass discontent and
rebellion, the post-Vietnam War era has been shaped by a sprawling and
increasingly secretive national security apparatus, complete with private
militias and drones that do the dirty work of empire with little to no
oversight and scattered opposition.
"In the last six decades, the American national security state has
succeeded
strikingly at only one thing (other than turning itself into a growth
industry): it freed itself of us and of Congress," summarizes Tom
Engelhardt. "In the years following the Vietnam War, the American people
were effectively demobilized, shorn of that sense of service to country,
while war was privatized and the citizen soldier replaced by an
'all-volunteer' force and a host of paid contractors working for warrior
corporations."
The "sense of service to country" to which Engelhardt refers is not the
blind, reactionary patriotism of the American right; rather, it is the
sense
that one has the duty to combat injustices, particularly those
perpetrated
by one's own supposed representatives.
But as Engelhardt also notes, Americans have increasingly come to view -
with copious supporting evidence - government as an entity entirely
separate
from the will of the public at large. Just as Debs excoriated a system
under
which a "few have come in possession of all," scholars today have
documented
the extent to which economic elites dominate decision-making, pushing
"ordinary" people out of the process altogether.
Americans have, in the years following the financial crisis, organized in
an
effort to combat this reality, one characterized by soaring inequities of
influence, both political and economic. Occupy emerged and changed the
national conversation; Fight for $15 is leading the way for higher wages;
the nation's democratic socialists have used the presidential campaign of
Bernie Sanders to expand their influence.
We have also seen the growth and expansion of crucial movements
responding
to police killings, mass incarceration, the war on drugs, and systemic
racism - most notably Black Lives Matter and the Movement for Black
Lives.
The same cannot be said of anti-war efforts. Though the consolidation of
power among foreign policy officials and the impenetrable walls behind
which
they operate have resulted in devastating invasion after devastating
invasion, the public has not responded with the proportionality necessary
to
cultivate effective resistance.
Resistance during the Obama administration has arguably weakened further,
as
Democratic partisans remain silent in the interest of proper political
etiquette and as the anti-war left remains marginalized, without a voice
in
the mainstream.
This is so even as drones continue to maim and murder civilians, even as
the
war on whistleblowers is sustained, even as military efforts proceed in
Iraq
and Afghanistan and spill over into Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, and
elsewhere.
To say that the efforts of the entrenched foreign policy establishment
have
failed to make the world safer would be an outrageous understatement; the
invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan sparked the rise of ISIS and other
affiliated groups, which are using the chaos initiated by decades of
intervention and occupation to spread terror.
Neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton offer anything resembling an
alternative; indeed, as Matthew Hoh has observed, "both Hillary Clinton
and
Donald Trump are unabashed militarists, seeing no shame or dysfunction in
America's wars overseas, and seemingly promising to escalate current wars
or
begin new ones."
But no matter who is elected in November, our hopes cannot remain
tethered
to presidential politics; the changes that are necessary to take on a
military-industrial complex that has extended its reach beyond what
Eisenhower could have envisioned cannot come from the top-down.
Like all democratic projects of the past, the formation of a far-reaching
and sustainable anti-capitalist, anti-war movement will take years of
mass
organization and mass action. The question of whether the creation of
such
a
movement is practical is less important than whether such a movement is
necessary. If Debs's words are any guide, the answer is clear.
An egalitarian project, as Debs understood, cannot proceed in the midst
of
perpetual war. A government willing to sanction the bombing and
subjugation
of innocents abroad will not hesitate to exploit the most vulnerable at
home.
"I never so clearly comprehended as now the great struggle between the
powers of greed and exploitation on the one hand and upon the other the
rising hosts of industrial freedom and social justice," Debs said in
1918.
"I can see the dawn of the better day for humanity. The people are
awakening. In due time they will and must come to their own."
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike
3.0
License
Jake Johnson
Jake Johnson is an independent writer. Follow him on Twitter:
@wordsofdissent
Skip to main content
//
. DONATE
. SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Thursday, September 22, 2016
. Home
. World
. U.S.
. Canada
. Climate
. War & Peace
. Economy
. Rights
. Solutions
. Defeating Dakota Access
. Election 2016
. Hillary Clinton
. Donald Trump
. Jill Stein
. Bernie Sanders
Eugene V. Debs and the Urgent Need for a New Anti-War Movement
Published on
Thursday, September 22, 2016
by
Common Dreams
Eugene V. Debs and the Urgent Need for a New Anti-War Movement
by
Jake Johnson
. 39 Comments
.
. Eugene Debs delivering a speech in Chicago in 1912. "I can see the
dawn of the better day for humanity," the famous socialist leader once
said.
"The people are awakening. In due time they will and must come to their
own." (Photo: Wikipedia)
. Eugene Debs became a socialist in prison.
. After being arrested for his leadership role in the Pullman Strike
of 1894 - for which he was deemed "an enemy of the human race" in the New
York Times - Debs took to studying intensely the classics of socialist
thought, from the utopian vision of Edward Bellamy to the analytical
works
of the influential Marxist Karl Kautsky.
. But, of course, the critical groundwork for Debs's conversion was
already laid; as he recounted in an essay detailing his ideological
transformation, the brutality with which striking workers were treated by
the forces of the state in defense of the capitalist class was "his first
practical lesson in Socialism" - "in the gleam of every bayonet and the
flash of every rifle," he wrote, "the class struggle was revealed."
. While still in prison, Debs granted interviews to multiple news
outlets, making his newfound ideas known while skewering the then
widespread
faith in what he termed "the competitive system."
"The competitive system has had its day," he told a correspondent for the
Cincinnati Enquirer. "[I]t has blotted out all the stars of hope; filled
the
world with groans and reduced humanity to slavery. The strong have
devoured
the weak. The highways of the centuries are strewn with the bones of
countless victims."
Almost immediately upon his release, Debs began his rise within the ranks
of
America's radical circles, a rise that coincided with the formation of
the
Industrial Workers of the World and America's Social Democratic Party,
which
shortly thereafter became the Socialist Party.
The fact that Debs would, in the next two decades, launch several failed
yet
still prominent presidential runs deserves less attention - as he himself
emphasized - than his role as America's conscience in the midst of a
class
structure that seemed unshakable. As Debs acknowledged in 1898, "The few
have come in possession of all, and the many have been reduced to the
extremity of living by permission."
Child labor was commonplace through the early years of the twentieth
century; workers toiled in dangerous conditions, to which Upton Sinclair
called attention in his novel The Jungle; and public policy was dictated
by
the interests of capital.
Debs also confronted what he saw as an inevitable outgrowth of the
expansion
of industrial capitalism: Military conflict.
"Wars and rumors of wars are of universal prevalence," Debs wrote in
1900,
pointing to America's brutal occupation of the Philippines. "The picture,
lurid as a chamber of horrors, becomes complete in its gruesome
ghastliness
when robed ministers of Christ solemnly declare that it is all for the
glory
of God and the advancement of Christian civilization."
The picture would become infinitely more gruesome in the coming years
with
the onset of the First World War.
Debs believed that the United States should stay out of the conflict -
and
so, at least at first, did Woodrow Wilson, who was reelected on a
platform
of peace in 1916. The very same Wilson would, just two years later,
ensure
Debs's imprisonment for the crime of defending that platform, a fact
whose
irony Debs didn't miss.
The beginning of America's involvement in the war coincided with a swift
crackdown on dissenting voices; it became, thanks to the Sedition Act of
1918 (an extension of the Espionage Act of 1917), a crime to speak out
against the war effort, or to speak in any way that smacked of
"disloyalty."
Debs lamented in a speech in Canton, Ohio, "that it is extremely
dangerous
to exercise the constitutional right of free speech in a country fighting
to
make democracy safe in the world."
Two weeks after the Canton remarks, Debs was arrested.
This past Sunday marked the 98th anniversary of what would become Debs's
most famous speech, delivered after he was convicted on ten counts of
sedition - a conviction that carried a ten-year prison sentence.
"I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who
does
absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of
millions
of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of
their
lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence," Debs told the
court.
"This order of things cannot always endure. I have registered my protest
against it. I recognize the feebleness of my effort, but, fortunately, I
am
not alone. There are multiplied thousands of others who, like myself,
have
come to realize that before we may truly enjoy the blessings of civilized
life, we must reorganize society upon a mutual and cooperative basis."
By highlighting the injustices of the capitalist order at home and the
destruction wrought by war abroad, and by making clear the connections
between the two, Debs established a framework of thought that would guide
the radicalism of future decades.
In his protests against the Vietnam War, Martin Luther King Jr. decried a
system that let the poor die in the streets and sent the children of
struggling families to die overseas.
"I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies
in
rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued
to
draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction
tube,"
Dr. King said in 1967. "So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as
an
enemy of the poor and to attack it as such."
But observing the radicalism of Debs and King also forces us to come to
grips with the fact that the tradition they upheld - one of principled
and
persistent opposition to war - has faded rapidly in recent years.
When historian Michael Kazin asked in 2015, "Why is there no antiwar
movement?" the necessity of the question was plain: There is no mass,
mobilized, and militant anti-war movement in the United States, and that
fact should trouble us all.
While the Vietnam War era was characterized by mass discontent and
rebellion, the post-Vietnam War era has been shaped by a sprawling and
increasingly secretive national security apparatus, complete with private
militias and drones that do the dirty work of empire with little to no
oversight and scattered opposition.
"In the last six decades, the American national security state has
succeeded
strikingly at only one thing (other than turning itself into a growth
industry): it freed itself of us and of Congress," summarizes Tom
Engelhardt. "In the years following the Vietnam War, the American people
were effectively demobilized, shorn of that sense of service to country,
while war was privatized and the citizen soldier replaced by an
'all-volunteer' force and a host of paid contractors working for warrior
corporations."
The "sense of service to country" to which Engelhardt refers is not the
blind, reactionary patriotism of the American right; rather, it is the
sense
that one has the duty to combat injustices, particularly those
perpetrated
by one's own supposed representatives.
But as Engelhardt also notes, Americans have increasingly come to view -
with copious supporting evidence - government as an entity entirely
separate
from the will of the public at large. Just as Debs excoriated a system
under
which a "few have come in possession of all," scholars today have
documented
the extent to which economic elites dominate decision-making, pushing
"ordinary" people out of the process altogether.
Americans have, in the years following the financial crisis, organized in
an
effort to combat this reality, one characterized by soaring inequities of
influence, both political and economic. Occupy emerged and changed the
national conversation; Fight for $15 is leading the way for higher wages;
the nation's democratic socialists have used the presidential campaign of
Bernie Sanders to expand their influence.
We have also seen the growth and expansion of crucial movements
responding
to police killings, mass incarceration, the war on drugs, and systemic
racism - most notably Black Lives Matter and the Movement for Black
Lives.
The same cannot be said of anti-war efforts. Though the consolidation of
power among foreign policy officials and the impenetrable walls behind
which
they operate have resulted in devastating invasion after devastating
invasion, the public has not responded with the proportionality necessary
to
cultivate effective resistance.
Resistance during the Obama administration has arguably weakened further,
as
Democratic partisans remain silent in the interest of proper political
etiquette and as the anti-war left remains marginalized, without a voice
in
the mainstream.
This is so even as drones continue to maim and murder civilians, even as
the
war on whistleblowers is sustained, even as military efforts proceed in
Iraq
and Afghanistan and spill over into Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, and
elsewhere.
To say that the efforts of the entrenched foreign policy establishment
have
failed to make the world safer would be an outrageous understatement; the
invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan sparked the rise of ISIS and other
affiliated groups, which are using the chaos initiated by decades of
intervention and occupation to spread terror.
Neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton offer anything resembling an
alternative; indeed, as Matthew Hoh has observed, "both Hillary Clinton
and
Donald Trump are unabashed militarists, seeing no shame or dysfunction in
America's wars overseas, and seemingly promising to escalate current wars
or
begin new ones."
But no matter who is elected in November, our hopes cannot remain
tethered
to presidential politics; the changes that are necessary to take on a
military-industrial complex that has extended its reach beyond what
Eisenhower could have envisioned cannot come from the top-down.
Like all democratic projects of the past, the formation of a far-reaching
and sustainable anti-capitalist, anti-war movement will take years of
mass
organization and mass action. The question of whether the creation of
such
a
movement is practical is less important than whether such a movement is
necessary. If Debs's words are any guide, the answer is clear.
An egalitarian project, as Debs understood, cannot proceed in the midst
of
perpetual war. A government willing to sanction the bombing and
subjugation
of innocents abroad will not hesitate to exploit the most vulnerable at
home.
"I never so clearly comprehended as now the great struggle between the
powers of greed and exploitation on the one hand and upon the other the
rising hosts of industrial freedom and social justice," Debs said in
1918.
"I can see the dawn of the better day for humanity. The people are
awakening. In due time they will and must come to their own."
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike
3.0
License
/author/jake-johnson
/author/jake-johnson/author/jake-johnson
Jake Johnson is an independent writer. Follow him on Twitter:
@wordsofdissent
