No problem, Miriam. I am not going to work on the Obama letter until
Saturday, so send any thoughts, and or changes and additions.
On 9/23/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We need to add Chelsea manning's name to Carl's letter. This article
reminds
me that for some reason, I never thought to do so. I added 2 straight men's
names.
Miriam
Truthdig
Justice for Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/justice_for_chelsea_manning_and_edward_s
nowden_20160922/
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to MoreShare to Email
Posted on Sep 22, 2016
By Scott Tucker
Posters supporting Chelsea Manning are displayed during the San Francisco
Pride parade in this image from June 2014. (Flickr /
torbackhopper(https://www.flickr.com/photos/gazeronly/14513283026) /
CC-BY-ND(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/) )
Editor's note: This story was first published on Popular
Resistance(https://www.popularresistance.org/justice-for-chelsea-manning-and
-edward-snowden/) .
The contradictions of capitalist culture and barbarism are sometimes so
acute that they break through even into corporate big media. We can be
grateful for such moments, and so I draw your attention to a principled
statement by Richard
Beck(http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-beck-snowden-manning-pardons
-20160916-snap-story.html) , urging pardon for Chelsea Manning. And let's
give some credit to the editors of the Los Angeles Times for publishing
Beck's piece, especially in this film industry town, given the release of
Oliver Stone's film on Edward Snowden.
A radical defense of the human and political rights of Manning and Snowden
should not be limited only to the known views and statements of such
whistleblowers. Was Snowden more indebted to "free market" libertarianism
in
his past than would make many of his supporters comfortable? Certainly the
Ayn Randist "objectivists" have been busy online claiming him as a hero in
a
true-life version of "Atlas Shrugged." However, we also know that Snowden
and Manning pay attention to reality and rapidly evolve. In any case, a
class-conscious and civil libertarian defense of whistleblowers can be made
without subscribing to their world views.
As Beck reminds us, Manning is paying a much tougher price in prison and
getting much less celebrity support than Snowden. And let's face it, some
"progressives" remain reactionary in regard to the people and issues they
dismiss as "identity politics." Beck is correct in noting that Snowden may
well be more popular than Manning "because he is male and straight."
Manning
does have allies, of course, including the ACLU, yet her story has faded
from public consciousness even as Snowden gains a starlit public profile.
The specific and deeply entrenched anti-queer bigotry of the old left
(including much of the old "New Left") is also one factor in the greater
solidarity shown to an exile in Russia, as opposed to a prisoner in the
United States.
The reactionary left does exist and should be analyzed as such. The head of
the Communist Party recently wrote an article for his party paper urging a
"critical" vote for Hillary Clinton. No surprise. This is the devolutionary
inertia of fraudulent "scientific socialism," complete with the deadbeat
style of Democratic Party talking points. As for the Democratic Socialists
of America, that group was founded to occupy the space of "the left wing of
the possible" within the Democratic Party. Some of their members were not
paying attention when Bernie Sanders began his campaign with a promise to
endorse the eventual party nominee. That's why some of them are disoriented
enough to follow Sanders right back into the "left wing" of corporate rule.
Though Manning's situation in prison is indeed urgent, we can expect the
corporate state and career politicians to respond to such cases with
miserly
pardons and small portions of charity. In the last days of his presidency,
Obama has been pardoning some deserving people, and he could easily include
both Manning and Snowden (among other honorable whistleblowers like John
Kiriakou) with the stroke of a pen. But this president only finds his
"courage" on a dwindling timeline, and is stingy as a banker in spending
political capital.
Why would this Nobel Peace Prize winner pardon citizens who have already
paid a heavy price in exile and prison for their own sacrifices on behalf
of
peace and democracy? To ask the question is to answer it. Under Obama's
"progressive" administration, we have witnessed a vast expansion of state
surveillance and of bombing by drones. Of course, we should still support
any public campaign urging holders of high offices to show more courage.
But
let's also be honest. We are talking about the kind of courage that could
end careers in the capitalist parties. A fraction of the ruling class does
become class conscious, and sometimes will take just such risks. The
exceptions prove the rule.
The drive toward war and empire is bipartisan and corporate. Obama's
campaign promise of hope and change amounted to no more than Sanders'
promise of political revolution within a counterrevolutionary party.
Sanders
has duly endorsed Hillary Clinton, whose glass ceiling careerism has
prepared her splendidly to be our next Bombardier in Chief.
Any historical criticism of existing power must become practical criticism
in class conscious social movements against the capitalist state. The
objective retreats of the Democratic Party have emboldened the far right,
to
such a degree that "ordinary" corporatism is now mobilizing explicit
neo-fascists. The real fight against corporatism has already begun in
earnest among social movements, and only these social movements can create
political independence even on election days.
Not one cent and not one vote for the parties of war and empire. Is that an
endorsement of electoral abstention or partisan fatalism? On the contrary.
First, however, we must face some brutal facts. We can have their "two
party
system" in this country, or we can have democracy, but we cannot have both.
We, the people, can create a democratic republic. Not overnight and very
likely not in my lifetime, but I am already on the sunset slope of the
hill.
Naturally, the torch of revolutionary change passes to the young, though
there are marvelous moments of solidarity across generations. We can take
back the ground of democracy in workplaces, in neighborhoods, and of course
even in prison cells. Coordinated campaigns of civil disobedience,
including
electoral rebellion on election days, can grow in practical strength if we
are duly class conscious and accountable to each other.
A public struggle for peace and democracy should be nonviolent so far as
that is possible through our own efforts. And for both ethical and
strategic
reasons. The unintended consequences of violence can defeat our own goals,
and advance capitalist barbarism. The balance of power is in our favor in
the sense that we are many and they are few, but entirely in favor of the
state if we consider firepower. Guns are always a gift to the state, even
if
we are stupid enough to think we could fight on that terrain. In that case,
the state would invite us to jump into open graves. Though we can respect
the braver pacifists, some of whom have religious commitments, a class
conscious commitment to peaceful struggle is a secular project. In a
thoroughly secular spirit, we must also never forget that the ruling class
also gets a vote for peace or war on the terrain of class struggles.
For those readers who wonder what the programmatic public policies may be,
I
encourage you to consider the Green New Deal of the Green Party of the
United States. The Green Party is a party of peace, economic democracy and
ecological sanity. I have not been shy in the past in my own criticism of
certain Green Party policies and slogans, including the motto inherited
from
some European Greens: "Neither left nor right, but forward." In fact, the
Green Party here has mostly dropped that phrase, orienting itself more
firmly toward social democracy in program and practice.
In foreign policy, the Green Party has also grown bolder in challenging the
bipartisan status quo in relation to Israel, Palestine, and the Middle
East.
Again, both world events and pressure from social movements drove those
changes within the Green Party. As a candidate for president, Jill Stein
has
been paying the expected price in slander, disinformation, and bipartisan
exclusion from public debates. Because she, too, is a whistleblower against
war and the corporate state.
As a democratic socialist, I'm familiar with sectarians on the left who do
not find a thoroughly class conscious and socialist orientation among
Greens. That is both true and sheer idealism, in the worst sense-namely, a
flight from reality. To win basic social democracy would be a radical
reform
in the United States, and gains the ground we need for real workplace
democracy and for federated councils of workers and neighbors.
Would we need an explicitly socialist party to represent such social
movements? Yes, in my view. That prospect (still over the horizon) should
not prevent us from breaking a present path toward reforms. The choice is
not between reforms and revolution, but between accepting the command
economy of the capitalist state or becoming class conscious rebels for
peace
and democracy.
As for the labor unions, there are signs in the more class-conscious unions
that workers are sick and tired of the status quo. The most bureaucratic
unions have become arms of management, but any class conscious worker
understands that the true value of labor must be extracted from the
capitalist state. Not only by defensive labor strikes, but also by seizing
public ownership of public goods and services in renewed class struggles.
If any one of us fears that kind of exposure to capitalist power, we will
all have our good reasons. The answer to ruling class power is not the old
romance of individual heroism and martyrdom, but the practical fight for
common ground and common goals. If, for example, you are willing to
consider
an action of civil disobedience, begin with a small circle of people who
have earned your trust. An affinity group of five or six people is already
a
healthy cell of the body politic, and a republic in miniature.
Finally, are Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden explicitly and publicly in
favor of democratic socialism? I only raise that question to underscore the
ethical and democratic dimension of any revolution worthy of the name.
Manning and Snowden, among others, took serious personal and political
risks
to expose the brutality of semi-secret drone bombing campaigns, and of
unrestricted state power to spy on citizens. For these reasons alone, no
matter what their other views and commitments may be, they deserve public
honor. A true political revolution in this country would guarantee
Manning's
release from prison, and Snowden's return from exile. "Freedom," as Rosa
Luxemburg wrote, "is always freedom for those who think differently."
Writings on the Wall
Dire Effects and Warnings of Climate Change Are Going Unheeded
Portraying the Mexican-American Experience in Six Hours
Justice for Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
C 2016 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
Signup for Truthdig's newsletter
