Written and edited by Norm Scott:
EDUCATE! ORGANIZE!! MOBILIZE!!!
Three pillars of The Resistance – providing information on current ed issues, organizing activities around fighting for public education in NYC and beyond and exposing the motives behind the education deformers. We link up with bands of resisters. Nothing will change unless WE ALL GET INVOLVED IN THE STRUGGLE!
In a significant show of strength and unity, 98% of UTLA members voting said yes to authorize a strike, should one become necessary. During the week-long vote at school-sites, 81% of members cast ballots. Because of this historic turnout, a small number of ballots are still being counted tonight.
I won't put up Diane's entire post so go read her commentary:
Jacobin, Vivek Chibber --- The long-term result of being isolated from workers is that these organizations become a haven for a kind of lifestyle politics
for morally committed students and professionals. They provide members
with a means to feel like they’re involved in change, but the
involvement is highly individualistic and confined largely to acts of
symbolic solidarity. Since real organizing is typically off the table,
energy tends to be directed inward, toward the culture and
characteristics of the group itself. Anyone who comes to the United
States from countries with more radical political traditions can’t help
but be struck by how shrill, moralistic, but ultimately apolitical
debates are within the Left here. They tend to be about language,
individual identity, body language, consumption habits, and the like.
This is a natural consequence of a “left” that’s in fact small groups of
people in middle-class settings who have no organic way of getting
trained in class politics. It has been this way for so long that even
the idea of being based in the working class is seen as either quaint or
unnecessary
I found this piece by Chibber fascinating as I continue my readings re: the left with this interesting piece.
..... it’s hard to imagine a way for the Left to organize itself as a real force without
some variant of the structure the early socialists hit upon — a mass
cadre-based party with a centralized leadership and internal coherence.
Now, maybe that will turn out to not be true. Maybe we will come up with
organizational forms that are more open, more diffuse, yet which also
manage to get things done. However, given our experience, we don’t
really have a basis to reject our most accomplished model....
Chibber is a Leninist who believes the Lenin concept is the only one that has worked in the past - I have been reading up on Lenin and the basis of cadre parties and I'm sure there are people who do not agree on the left.
Now you may ask what this has to do with the UFT and teacher unions. I believe it has a lot to do with it. Any opposition in the UFT - if there is even on left -- will include people from the left who believe in the concept of a cadre-based party. How these people behave and relate to the overwhelming majority of people in the union they are hoping to organize who do not believe in this concept is related to the ability to organize. Do they see themselves as superior in knowledge and in today's parlance a word Lenin never used -- "awokeness" --- in so many ways would help determine the success.
Let's say, theoretically, there was such a group of people in the UFT who were fundamentally interested in organizing only those who believed in the cadre party concept but then had to translate that belief into effective action and organizing efforts at the school and union-wide level. That they would keep the key organizing force pure and free of dissent and struggle. That they would decide internally what they think is best for the union and organizing efforts and then take those ideas to the rank and file without giving the rank and file access to this decision making process. Could they succeed?
Chibber makes some fascinating points in his critique of the socialist left:
The socialist left is only
tenuously connected to working-class communities, if at all. By and
large, it is structurally separated from workers, and operates mostly as
small groups in middle-class settings — campuses, nonprofits, study
groups, and so on. This has several important consequences. First of
all, unlike the traditional labor left, it cannot actually organize and lead
working-class struggles, because it is physically separated from that
class. The overwhelming bulk of its political engagement is supportive
and reactive — showing up for a spell at a picket line, spreading the
word, trying to drum up sympathy. But this means that it is entirely
dependent on other people’s organizing, since it is not in a position to initiate struggle itself.
Second, its confinement to these environments means that for it to
maintain its socialist commitments, it has to socialize its members into
sympathizing with another class’s interests and another class’s
oppression.
Now I've seen aspects of these points up close and personal within the UFT. More from Chibber that seems so right on given what some of us have observed about attitudes in so-called social justice caucuses:
This is very different from traditional left parties, which
were in working-class settings, were able to recruit from within that
class, and hence trained their members to fight around their own
material interests. Struggle was a necessity for these earlier groups,
because they were fighting for their members’ own livelihoods and their
own well-being.
Today’s groups have to largely imagine what those interests
are, since they can’t learn about them through direct engagement. They
mostly do so by reading about past events and then trying to find
parallels to the current scene. But this makes it hard to develop
strategy. It is almost impossible to be innovative, since most members
are not directly experiencing changes in the workplace, nor are they in a
position to try new initiatives. This naturally leads to a kind of
dogmatism, since the only thing they really know is what worked in the
past.
Yes, yes, yes - struggle, struggle, struggle -- never stop struggling - the essence a good pal and life-long leftist who has studied Marxism extensively tells me -- that is the dialectic most leftists don't want to engage in. They are not interested in struggle over ideas since they start with knowing what they know and feel icky when people want to contend. They enter the room knowing and don't want to hear contradictions to what they know they know.
For the few of you who have been hanging in with me as I wade through this stuff, check out some of his ideas:
NYS Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins lays out a great case against capitalism and for socialism with a good explanation of the differences between hard-core socialists and Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and other social democrats who the hard left tosses into the same bin as liberals, a dirty word on the hard left, which brands the FDR New Deal as reformist liberalism. Their explanation is that under the current political system, even hard-won gains in the New Deal can be undermined, as we've seen happening even under neo-liberal Dems like Clinton. On the other hand, the socialist paradise as an alternative does not look like it's around the corner. Is a return to New Deal politics a more realistic option?
A funny thing happened on the way to the 2018 election. Socialism broke out!
Or at least a number of Democratic candidates have declared themselves to be socialists.
On June 26, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez beat the Democratic machine incumbent, Joe Crowley, in a Queens-Bronx Democratic primary for Congress. She won with the support of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and embraced the socialist label. Within days, the Working Families Party-endorsed Democrats for Governor and Lt. Governor, Cynthia Nixon and Jumaane Williams, were saying we, too, are socialists now. Lots of people and mainstream media were asking, what is this democratic socialism?
As someone who came up in the McCarthy and Cold War eras — when the word socialism stopped rather than started conversations — it is a welcome sight to see socialism coming back into mainstream public discourse.
The significant support for Bernie Sanders’ presidential run in 2016 as a democratic socialist got the conversation started. The ranks of socialist groups have swelled in Sanders’ wake, with DSA, in particular, growing from about 5,000 to approximately 47,000 members since Sanders launched his campaign in 2015. DSA elected 15 of its members to local offices nationwide in 2017, eight Democrats and seven independents. In 2018 to date, seven women supported by DSA have won Democratic primaries for Congress and state legislatures in Omaha, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and New York City.
However, something is notably missing in these candidates’ descriptions of socialism. They are leaving out the distinguishing tenet of the traditional socialist program — the definition of socialism you will find in the dictionary — a democratic economic system based on social ownership of the major means of production.
It is a good thing that Sanders and other progressives have put socialism back into mainstream political discourse, but what these new socialist Democrats really advocate is New Deal liberalism. They promote redistributive social programs that partially mitigate the inequalities the capitalist economy generates.
For socialists, social ownership is the basis for economic democracy in both the public and private sectors. Government-owned corporations can be autocratic. They are often set up as “lemon socialism” to cover unprofitable markets or subsidize private profits for privately-owned corporations with below-cost inputs. A cooperative in the private sector is a form of social ownership. Sanders’ “democratic socialism” is indistinguishable from traditional American liberalism. Like liberals, he conflates social ownership with state ownership. Like conservatives, he conflates liberal social programs with socialism.
Liberals contend that their fiscal, monetary and regulatory policies will support better than conservative policies the economic growth and profits that can then be taxed to support social programs. Socialists demand much more. They want to end the dictatorship capitalists exercise over economic resources, workers and work itself. They want to enjoy the full fruits of their labor instead of having owners take a share of the value every worker creates every day at work. With lots of workers and few owners, this wage labor system generates capitalisms’ extreme inequality. Socialists want equitable distribution in the first place, at the point of production, not merely partial redistribution after the fact through social programs.
In an age of environmental crisis and an unfolding climate catastrophe, socialists want to uproot capitalism’s competitive structure because it is driving the blind, relentless growth that is poisoning the environment and depleting natural resources. Socialists want a system of economic democracy and planning to meet the basic economic needs of all on an ecologically sustainable basis.
Socialists also criticize the naive politics of liberalism. Capitalism generates concentrated wealth, which translates into concentrated political power. Liberal social programs are not secure as long as capitalists have the economic and political power. The rollback of New Deal programs in the United States and welfare state programs in Western Europe demonstrate this political reality.
Capitalists buying politicians through campaign contributions is the obvious way they exercise power over the political process. But even if we get full public campaign financing enacted, capitalists’ control over economic resources gives them the power to repeal liberal programs. Capital can strike, too. It can temporarily tank the economy, blame the liberals and force them out of office.
The new socialist Democrats and traditional socialists who want to democratize the economy through social ownership are united behind immediate demands for social programs like single-payer health care and a job guarantee. But these programs are not secure, if they are even achievable in the first place, so long as capitalism prevails and concentrates economic and political power in the hands of the capitalist elite.
What the approach of entering the Democratic Party has meant historically is socialists have ended up doing the grunt work in campaigns to elect liberals, who, in the absence of an independent left political competitor, have moved steadily to the right since the early 1970s. Now, with candidates and politicians who are liberals calling themselves socialists, the very idea of socialism as a new social system could get lost even more.
If socialism is to advance as a radical alternative to capitalism, socialists will need their own distinct party, program, and identity outside and opposed to the two-capitalist-party system.
At the beginning of this year, the state committee of the Green Party of New York decided we would campaign as ecological socialists. In previous campaigns, we have put forward socialistic reforms to address problems like the climate crisis, stagnant wages, the bipartisan test-punish-and-privatize school agenda and skyrocketing rent and medical expenses. Now we are campaigning explicitly as socialists, in part, because socialism has become a conversation starter, thanks to the electoral successes of Sanders, Ocasio and others.
We are promoting public enterprise in several areas:
A public energy system in order to effectively plan the transition to 100 percent clean energy.
Public broadband to universalize access, improve affordability and customer service and ensure net neutrality and privacy.
A public bank to lower the costs of credit for public infrastructure, private businesses and consumers and to target investments to meet public needs.
We call for the public bank to have a division devoted to planning, financing and technically assisting the development of worker cooperatives, as the financial institutions at the center of the successful Mondragon cooperatives in Spain have done.
We also call for a state-owned Social Wealth Fund that over time will progressively transform private wealth into public wealth, in which every New Yorker would own an equal share. This Social Wealth Fund would buy into the securities of private corporations and share the returns across the population as citizens dividends and lower taxes on the earned income of wages.
Our slogan is “Demand more!”
Yet we should not overestimate how far openness to a discussion of socialism has spread. It is still largely confined to the progressive base that found its broadest expression in the 13.2 million votes Sanders received in 2016. Its strongest expression is among millennials, over half of whom view socialism favorably. Even if most of these people view New Deal liberalism as socialism, having a debate on socialism is half the battle. I don’t think capitalism’s defenders can win that debate.
Wonderful honesty by our governor -- first time I've heard this said other than by critics of the UFT leadership. And despite looking pretty bad at times Nixon did a good job in defending the right to strike with this point -- if the unions don't have public support the strike will fail.
In this light I also want to point to another voice that is for the right to strike: Libertarian Mike Antonucci, who is critical of teacher unions. His answer is not 2 for 1 penalties but to not have make-up days. His assumption being that not getting paid will cause people to cave. Interesting given labor history. I wonder how long people would accept having kids out of school? But then again, how long would the public support a teacher strike if it lasts a long time.
School Scope: Shsat Testocracy, More on Socialism, Trump complaints on press
By Norm Scott
There were so many issues to cover this week and I took so long deciding on what to write about I ran out of time. I wanted to continue the series examining the center-left and some of the misunderstandings, especially since after a half century of the sharks circling to bite off your head at the mention of the word it has been safe to go back into the water and talk about socialism. Before I point you to a few articles in the NY Times, let me say that those who equate liberalism and socialism because they are viewed as “left” are absolutely wrong in their assumptions. As they are in equating social democracy and socialists who are Marxists and Leninists and Trotskyists. I don’t have the space here so if interested check out a wiki near you.
The NYT August 26th Sunday Review had this front page item: “The New Socialists: The argument against capitalism isn’t that it makes us poor. It’s that it makes us unfree.” What an interesting twist, arguing that socialism offers more freedom than capitalism. This is about the workers not the bosses, who have a lot of freedom. In our vaunted democracy, exactly how much freedom to employees have? The only protections for workers are unions and they are being pushed into extinction. One of the interesting ideas on the table is to put worker reps on corporate boards – that corporations don’t owe allegiance only to shareholders and the executives at the top. Check it out at: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/24/opinion/sunday/what-socialism-looks-like-in-2018.html.
Shsat is not a dirty word, though the NY Times shat on it
So, what is the Shsat? It is the test used for generations to get into the elite schools here in NYC.
De Blasio has been trying to kill the test as the sole means of admission to these schools. There are a lot of nuances to this story, including the Asian community, which gains a lion share of the positions despite being a relatively low percentage of the population, has strongly objected. Black and Hispanic children have gotten less and less seats as the Asian community has expanded. I would expect the NYT to support the tests but they have been taking a closer look. Read: James B. Stewart’s Should These Tests Get a Failing Grade?
We have mail
Dr. Harold Paez sent a letter to The WAVE on its editorial regarding the Trump criticism of the press and objected strongly. I have always objected to the way the mainstream press covers many issues, especially education which is something I know about. So, yes, there are legitimate reasons to be critical of the press. But Paez’ cries over how poorly Trump is treated made me laugh out loud. And we all could use a good laugh, so thank you doc and keep ‘em coming.
Norm never cries over how Trump is treated at ednotesonline.com
Published Friday August 24, 2018 - www.rockawave.com
School Scope: The NY
Times Tackles Socialism – Oy!
By Norm Scott
When I read articles or talk to people not attuned to “the
left” or “progressivism” I find those who are not on the right are being lumped
into the same category of leftist – I even see the NY Times as being branded as
“left.” The major media has been mocked as being anti-left by the hard core
left since I first came in contact with active leftists in the early 70s. A guy
who had become my good friend, after only knowing him for a few months, told me
he was a communist and his parents were too – he was what is known as a red
diaper baby. I was astounded – I was a classic liberal at the time. Since
Stalin, liberals have generally been opposed to communism and socialism because
nations who called themselves such had histories of denials of individual
rights and suppression of critics. Liberals are savaged by many on the left.
The NY Times has had a recent spate of columns and articles
on the Bernie Sanders brand of socialism, known as social democracy. Paul
Krugman, far from being a radical leftist, had disparaged Bernie Sanders
throughout the 2016 election and beyond. His August 17, 2018 column (Something
Not Rotten in Denmark https://tinyurl.com/y9q8n4do)
was a reversal of sorts where he examined the state of Denmark, a paragon of
social democracy, which had been lumped in on FOX News to Venezuela. Calling
that fake news would be a kindness. Krugman gave Denmark a very favorable
report. Here’s a small portion:
American politics has
been dominated by a crusade against big government; Denmark has embraced an
expansive government role, with public spending more than half of G.D.P. American politicians
fear talk about redistribution of income from the rich to the less well-off;
Denmark engages in such redistribution on a scale unimaginable here. American
policy has been increasingly hostile to organized labor, and unions have
virtually disappeared from the private sector; two-thirds of Danish workers are
unionized.
Apparently the election of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has
galvanized attention for social democrats. I guess Bernie was looked as an old
lefty grouch, but when a pretty 28-year old says she is a socialist, the media
goes nuts. Chris Cuomo was no less aggressive than his brother in questioning
her on CNN and her intelligent response on the costs of health care shut him
up. See the video: https://tinyurl.com/y8w5ejk9.
Social Democrats are viewed by segments of the radical left
as being to the right because they support liberal democracy and multi-party
systems and elements of capitalism. Last week I touched on some of the
differences between Marxists, Leninists and others with the SDs and I’ve been
reading historical works going back to the last half of the 19th
century and up to the 1917 Russian Revolution on the differences.
Understanding historical context on almost every issue on
the table today is crucial to gaining a deeper understanding. When history and
context are ignored or swept under the rug, we are dealing with versions of
tainted news. We may disagree on interpretation, but let’s at least have all
the facts- as long as we can agree when
a fact is in fact a fact, which in today’s world of “truth not being truth” may
be a hard case to prove.
Read Norm’s version of The Truth at ednotesonline.com
Liberals
have lost their minds over Trump and, unable to deal honestly or
realistically with the politics he represents, are happy to valorize
and get in bed with the professional liars in the intelligence
agencies... Michael Fiorillo
It’s
weird to live in a society in which launching an illegal $2 trillion
war based on lies that kills 100s of thousands of people is seen as
totally fine & not even an impediment to a high-profile pundit
career, but possibly paying $100K hush money to a porn star is
impeachable.... David Sirota on Twitter
My wife and I had just seen the Yiddish language version of Fidler... yesterday afternoon at the Jewish Memorial Museum. Lots of food for thought on immigrants, pogroms, authoritarian rule, etc. And later at dinner we talked about the excitement at the possible impeachment of Trump or end to his rule. We both said "Pence, hell no!" He would be more likely to win in 2020 than Trump would. Our best bet is to prop Trump up for as long as we can so we can bring back the Democratic crooks.
Does Trump make Bush and people like John Brennan and drone king and deporter in chief Obama look good? Hell no. Was Hillary and Bill crooks? Hell yes. Underlying some of Trump's lies and attacks are kernels of truth.
Michael Fiorillo posted the Sirota tweet and comments:
Grifters and war criminals of the McResistance... They may bring down Trump, but Trumpismo will remain, and emerge more dangerous in the future, with someone more competent and disciplined...
Liberals have lost their minds over Trump and, unable to deal honestly or realistically with the politics he represents, are happy to valorize and get in bed with the professional liars in the intelligence agencies...
Past
contract negotiations have been about wages and benefits, but the union
under Lewis and Sharkey also has emphasized broader issues. Their caucus, called CORE, believes the teachers union should lead in the battle against the privatization of public education.... WBEZ News, Chicago
I am going to be doing a batch of blogs on the various social justice teacher groups around the nation, not as a fan boy as so many on the left seem to be, but with an eye towards analysis. The three biggest cities - NYC, Chicago and LA all have versions of social justice groups, with the latter in control of the union while MORE in NYC has made little progress and in fact I would say it has gone backwards since its founding in 2012 as an outcome of the victory of CORE in Chicago in 2010. I found this comment interesting:
Lewis
and her leadership team became a force by taking on broader social
justice issues affecting students, schools, and their members. Since
their election in 2010, they have fought for strong, equitable public
schools, peaceful neighborhoods, and affordable housing. The CTU’s
current leadership says these battles are still of the utmost
importance, but they also plan to focus squarely on bread and butter
union issues.
One of the charges in Chicago has been that the leadership was too focused on SJ and not enough on bread and butter, leading to the formation of a caucus called Members First, which will challenge CORE in the upcoming elections. We have had the same discussion in MORE here in NYC which caused so much rancor, it led to people leaving or being pushed out. (More on the MORE divides in upcoming posts.)
I will post updates on Chicago and LA teacher unions. They are of particular interest in that the leaderships of both are social justice oriented. The CTU has been run by the CORE caucus since the 2010 election, an event that inspired teacher groups around the nation to organize local caucuses. MORE in NYC is one such example. With Karen Lewis, a black woman, about to retire, VP Jesse Sharkey, a white male, is expected to take over. In the world of identity politics so dominant on the left/SJ world, this can get sticky. Thus there is some battling going on over who will be the VP and identity politics is playing a role from what I hear. The 2012 strike by the CTU was a sort of shot heard around the world in education activist circles.
In LA, I'm not clear whether there is one controlling caucus or a coalition of progressives. But Alex Caputo-Pearl, also a white male, is a strong and progressive leader and will almost definitely lead them into a strike -- as I write this Diane Ravitch just reported the strike vote was in:
Diane Ravitch's blog:
Los Angeles: Teachers Authorize Strike
-
This just in: ** MEDIA ADVISORY ** FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
First up today is a story about the CTU from WBEZ News with what seems like a fairly honest assessment of where things are with the CTU where there will be an election taking place this spring at the same time there will be one here in NYC. Note this:
Emphasizing
wages and benefits, as well as firing up members around contract
negotiations, could be a strategic move for a union coming under
pressure from all sides.
Internal and external struggles
At
the moment, there’s an internal struggle in the union about how and
when to replace Lewis. Also, Lewis and Sharkey’s leadership team, which
faced so little opposition three years ago they didn’t hold an election,
looks like it will face a challenge this spring when their term
expires.
The story delves into the finances of the CTU - from one of the CORE founders George Schmidt, who has been on the outs with the CORE and CTU leaders over his reporting, we have heard some questions over expenditures but I don't have the full story at this point.
Could Soviet-style communism be reconciled with the dignity and freedom of the individual? In 1968, the question was put to the test when the leader of Czechoslovakia’s Communist Party, Alexander Dubcek, initiated a project of liberalization that he said would offer “socialism with a human face.” What followed was a rebirth of political and cultural freedom long denied by party leaders loyal to Moscow. The free press flourished, artists and writers spoke their minds, and Mr. Dubcek stunned Moscow by proclaiming that he wanted to create “a free, modern and profoundly humane society.” A season when hope and optimism were in bloom, it became known as the Prague Spring. But nearly as soon as the movement came to life, it was crushed under the treads of Soviet T-54 tanks. ---50 Years After Prague Spring, Lessons on Freedom (and a Broken Spirit)
Here's another interesting take on socialism in the NY Times that fits my recent theme of: Can socialism with a liberal face actually work? Given the realities of the times, there is no way the Soviets could have allowed it -- we saw 20 years later how quickly the virus spread and tore down the iron curtain in no time.
The article speculates about the liberalization in Czechoslovakia in the spring and summer of 1968 - before the Soviet tanks came. Could Dubcek have ushered in a different version of socialism? Hard to say as long as there was a one party system - the Communist Party. I don't remember if there was even talk of open elections --- I doubt it -- but would have to do more research.
I was a history major and was still going for my masters at Brooklyn College in history at that time and had done some serious work in studying eastern Europe Soviet domination as an undergrad in 1966 under in my a senior thesis under the guidance of Bela Kiraly, Hungarian revolution fighter against the Soviets in 1956 who was my teacher.
I wrote about an encounter with Kiraly on our visit to Hungry in October 2006 (A Memorable Evening with General Bela Kiraly)
- a coincidence in that we were there a few days before the 50th celebration. He was in his mid-90s and died a few years later.
I certainly remember the hope for the Czech Spring in a year of so many major events. Remember the Democratic convention in Chicago and the election of Nixon a few months later?
......the Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia killed the dreams of the reformers, broke the spirit of a nation and ushered in an era of oppression whose effects are still felt today. Moscow succeeded in restoring the supremacy of the state, but the ultimate cost of victory was high. Perhaps more than any other event during the Cold War, the invasion laid bare for the world to see the totalitarian nature of the Soviet regime.
As the article in the Times points out, hope for some half way
liberalization in the Soviet block was dashed. I don't hold that things
were totally better when the entire communist block fell -- that free
reigning capitalism is better than a liberal and moderated socialist
system. And I think current events are proving that unfettered
capitalism is ultimately destructive --- actually just think of our former beloved chancellor Joel Klein's comments about his creative destruction of our school system. How has free-market capitalism as applied to education worked out?
Afterburn:
My mom was born in Belarus and came here in 1920 as a 15 year old and my dad's father was from Odessa - and my mom's older and only brother went off to join the Bolsheviks (and they never heard any more from him), so I do have some roots in Eastern Europe.
Memo From the RTC: A Visit With Renee Taylor and View from Bridge Set Goes Up
By Norm Scott
Last Sunday, twenty members of the Rockaway Theatre Company family trekked to the theater district to see Renee Taylor’s one woman show, “My Life on a Diet” at the Theatre at St. Clement’s on West 46th St. The connection of the RTC to the 85 year old Renee Taylor, the actor and writer, was cemented when the RTC put on “Lovers and Other Strangers,” last May, the play she wrote with her late husband Joseph Bologna and she attended a performance. Co-director Peggy Page promised Renee she would get a crew of RTCers to come to her show and most of the cast from the RTC production, who had been so delighted when they saw her at their performance, attended. Peggy organized the entire day, even creating Renee Taylor fan club buttons we all wore.
I remembered Renee from when I was a kid staying up late and watching the Jack Paar show in the early 60s when she was a frequent, hilarious and often whacky guest. She was (is) a naturally funny person, not just a comedian, and I used to make sure to watch when she was on. But frankly, from that time until I met her at the RTC, I didn’t pay much attention to her, even when she played Fran Dresser’s mom on “The Nanny.” So I never expected to spend such a delightful hour and a half listening to her tell stories about her life and the amazing cast of characters she befriended (including Marilyn Monroe) over her almost 7 decades in show business. I can truly say this was one of the best experiences I’ve had and I urge readers to get tickets before Renee leaves town.
Peggy Page, John Gileece, Taylor, Susan Jasper
After the show, Taylor came back on stage to meet with the RTC crew and take photos and sign programs and gave us a generous portion of her time. Peggy invited her to join us for dinner just down the block. She said she would try to make it but after doing a performance, most of us figured she would beg off. Thus we headed off to Becco’s on 46th street not expecting to see her again, especially after we were put upstairs – a long flight of stairs. But low and behold, a half hour later she showed up (why didn’t you sit downstairs?) and delighted the people at her table. For all of us it was a memorable day and thanks Peggy for helping to make it possible.
Monday, the next day, I joined Tony Homsey’s RTC construction crew in working on the set for the upcoming Arthur Miller’s “View From the Bridge”, directed by Frank Caiati, which opens Sept. 21
and runs for three weekends. The previous Friday we commenced construction on the elaborate set which required us to build an entire state on top of our regular stage, but tilted, which complex ramps going this way and that. Oy! But by 3 PM on Friday, the basics of the set were up. Another Homsey-led miracle.
Get your tickets at: www.rockawaytheatrecompany.org
I'm continuing my series of posts in The WAVE trying to sort out "the left" for myself - and maybe others who are as confused as I am. I have begun reading more deeply from current and historical sources to gain more clarity. And I am talking to people on the left. Some of my closest friends lie within the "socialist" spectrum. How can we not have doubts about the problems with capitalism when we see what is going on in this country and others as power and money accumulates in fewer hands? On the other hand, the prediction that as capitalism fails -- or succeeds too well until one person or syndicate owns everything -- it will be followed by a form of socialism which will be a better system for most - seems to be a fantasy especially as we've seen how easy it is for massive numbers of people to be manipulated through propaganda. There are too many examples to name going back to the dawn of civilization where we can see how a small number of people always seem to gain power under any system. I bet they had many similar problems in the caves.
School Scope: Socialism and Confusion
By Norm Scott
Published in The WAVE, Friday, August 17, 2018
www.rockawave.com
The UFT was founded by social democrats who were members of a party called Social Democrats USA (SDUSA). Albert Shanker and most of the early UFT leadership were members. They were virulent anti-communists who came out of the Trotskyite wing of socialism, which had been the main enemy of Stalinism. In the early 70s’ the almost 100 year old Socialist Party of America split into right and left factions and the UFT was a key player in the right wing faction.
There are so many brands of socialism, when I finish counting on both hands, I have to take my shoes off. When discussing politics with a right winger at a recent dinner, in the midst of disparaging the very idea of socialism, he said the idea of socialism and democracy were contradictory, so how can people call themselves Democratic Socialists? Even among Democrats and people who view themselves as “progressive”, there seems to be confusion about socialism. If you don’t follow the left, you wouldn’t be aware of the differences between Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists, and too many more to name here.
Does being a socialist mean you favor Soviet communism, a system that lasted for 75 years and has been viewed as a failure? Consider the past 25 years of post-communist Russia under Putin. A bit more democracy, though basically a one party system under Putin’s control and if you speak too loud you get bumped off. A very nice deal for kleptocrat billionaires who were handed most of the entire state owned industry on the cheap. But most people in Russia would still vote for Putin over the old system - at this point. (Def. of kleptocracy - a form of corrupt government that allows the ruling class to accumulate great wealth and power while neglecting the mass of citizens – sound familiar?)
How about China? Not much democracy but with more than a touch of capitalism, though the state can dictate a lot. China was a massively devastated nation in 1949 when Mao’s revolution began. On the timeline of less than 70 years of history, the outcomes have been impressive, though with great human costs. There were liberalization, but the current leader has been wringing signs of democracy out of the system. Most people in China seem content with a deal that allows them to do well economically. But if that changes, watch out.
Moving on to democratic socialism - a multi-party system, more economic leeway, including various levels of capitalism, though highly regulated to avoid exploitation of the workers – and the consumer. There are often very high tax rates but people do get a lot more for their money, i.e. most of the Scandinavian nations which provide very generous social services. European nations have versions of social democratic parties, but outside Scandinavia they have been struggling of late.
Bernie Sanders identifies himself as a social democrat. Since Trump’s win, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has grown tenfold. DSA is a big tent socialist organization, founded in 1982 as a remnant of the old socialist party of Norman Thomas and founder Eugene Debs, who got 6% of the presidential vote in 2012. They are not a political party and do not run candidates under their party banner on separate lines like the Green Party, but back think-alike candidates running in Democratic Party primaries and in the general election. DSA received a lot of main stream press publicity after socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won her recent primary. Our mayor has jumped on the socialist bandwagon, as has Cuomo primary opponent Cynthia Nixon. In last week’s primary a DSA endorsed Michigan Muslim woman won a primary, which may give DSA endorsees at least two seats in Congress plus other seats in local races.
The very idea has right wingers in a frenzy, a frenzy which even infects many Democrats who despise Bernie Sanders and blame him for Trump’s win. The so-called coming blue wave of victories by Democrats in the 2018 mid-term elections may just include a small wavelet of social democrats.
Norm promotes his own version of kleptocracy at ednotesonline.com
Greens will sometimes justify these runs as movement-building tools, but they never seem to actually build a movement....
The new generation of left-wing activists, by contrast [to the Green Party], is good at
self-multiplication. The Democratic Socialists of America [DSA] alone has done
more to build left political power since the 2016 election than the
Green Party did in the 18 years after Nader helped elect George W. Bush.
In truth, there’s nothing surprising about left-wing candidates losing their primaries. The happy surprise is how many are winning. Unsexy as it sounds, the real story of progressive politics right now is the steady accumulation of victories — some small, some major — thanks to a welcome and unaccustomed outbreak of left-wing pragmatism.
Her point about the Democratic Socialists of America in contrast to the Green Party, which has built little and wasted resources on national campaigns that could have been used to build grassroots is one I agree with. And I voted Green in a bunch of elections.
I see constant reminders on social media of the DSA's incredible level of activity on so many fronts - the venture into Democratic Party politics is only a sliver.
Goldberg brings some perspective to the move to the left within the Democratic Party and also from critics of the Dem Party on the left of the party that have worked for change outside the Party. Since Trump won many have come to the conclusion that changing the Dem Party is the only pragmatic way to effect change from below at the grass roots.
The left has been ineffective at working at the grass roots - my feeling is that many leftists are theorists and unable to talk to people outside their bubbles - nor do they really want to despite the essence of socialism is organizing the working class. Most leftists have eschewed the American political system as hopelessly corrupt and a waste of time. But given the alternatives, over the past year we have seen people begin to change their minds -- and I may be one of them.
Not unexpected, given Goldberg's politics and political connections to the progressive wing of the Dems, is her take-down of the Green Party, which has been competing with the Dems and all too often being the reason Republicans have won. See the recent race in Ohio where a Trump endorsee won by a sliver due to the Green Party vote of .05 per cent.
While Greens refute charges that they put George Bush and Trump in power (they say most of their voters would not have voted for Dems anyway), the Greens have faced vilification from center and from segments of the left that had also been critical of the Dems but have decided to get more involved to force them to the left. Contrast the Greens who compete with the Dem party and the Democratic Socialists, most of whom are critical of the Dem Party but are using the election structures to push it left and are embedding themselves in the roots.
Inside the DSA there is some criticism from segments of the Marxist-Leninist left that this venture is hopeless -- that what is needed is an independent third party.
The Pragmatic Left Is Winning
For once, Democrats are not in disarray.
