Monday, July 04, 2005

A NEW AMERICAN REVOLUTION


HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY
WORKING PEOPLE OF AMERICA

"It has been my fate to be a worker all my life."--Jo Labadie

"government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." Thomas Paine

Independence day,was a day forgotten by the early 19th Century American master craftsmen, landowners, rich farmers, and religious revivalists. It was revived and celebrated by the 'mechanics and artisans' of the American Republic. The origin of July 4th celebrations in the United States were the celebrations of apprentices and journeymen in revolt against the social conservatives of the the day, their masters. It was their day to demand the fruits of the revolution their right to the fruits of their labour. (Sean Wilentz, Chants Democratic; New York City & the Rise of the American Working Class 1788-1850, OUP 1984)

It was this struggle of labouring men and women in America that led to the Free Labour movment which eventually confronted the Democratic Tyrants of Tamminy Hall in New York with a new political party called the Republican Party. It was this party under Abraham Lincoln that called for the freedom of the labouring man, and freeing of the slaves so that they could enjoy the fruits of their labour as mechanics, artisans and farmers. (Montgomery, The Fall of the House of Labour)

Freedom was no slogan for a new toothpaste, or another coffee shop. Freedom was not something to be exported at the end of the bayonet. Freedom was for the individual to enjoy his or her right to the fruits of their labour. For it was well known that labour produced all value.

The radical American individualist was an anarchist. Influenced by Prodhoun, Stirner and the First International Working Mens organisation, anarchists like the Haymarket martyrs were joined by the individualist anarchists like Benjamin Tucker and Joseph Labadie, who understood the labour theory of value was essential for demanding individual freedom.

The anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats. They believe that “the best government is that which governs least,” and that which governs least is no government at all. Benjamin Tucker

They shared no cant with the capitalist, the monopolist as they called them, for these robber barons stole the labour of others, leaving them in poverty while living in mansions fit for kings. They were athiests, abolitionists, feminists, and socialists. Their socialism was not that of Europe, not State Socialism, but that of the 'free association of producers'.

Not to abolish wages, but to make every man dependent upon wages and secure to every man his whole wages is the aim of Anarchistic Socialism. What Anarchistic Socialism aims to abolish is usury. It does not want to deprive labor of its reward; it wants to deprive capital of its reward. It does not hold that labor should not be sold; it holds that capital should not be hired at usury. Benjamin Tucker

They were individualist socialists. They were a 'unique', as Stirner refered to the egoist, socialist movement in a new nation. A nation that was built not on monarchies or old families, nor status or wealth but built by labour. Their individualist anarchism enthralled and influenced the emigre anarchist Emma Goldman, and horrorfied statist socialists and craft unions. They were the extreme left of the labour movement .

IF I WERE to give a summary of the tendency of our times, I would say, Quantity. The multitude, the mass spirit, dominates everywhere, destroying quality. Our entire life--production, politics, and education--rests on quantity, on numbers. The worker who once took pride in the thoroughness and quality of his work, has been replaced by brainless, incompetent automatons, who turn out enormous quantities of things, valueless to themselves, and generally injurious to the rest of mankind. Thus quantity, instead of adding to life's comforts and peace, has merely increased man's burden.

The oft repeated slogan of our time is, among all politicians, the Socialists included, that ours is an era of individualism, of the minority. Only those who do not probe beneath the surface might be led to entertain this view. Have not the few accumulated the wealth of the world? Are they not the masters, the absolute kings of the situation? Their success, however, is due not to individualism, but to the inertia, the cravenness, the utter submission of the mass. The latter wants but to be dominated, to be led, to be coerced. As to individualism, at no time in human history did it have less chance of expression, less opportunity to assert itself in a normal, healthy manner. Emma Goldman, Minorities Versus Majorities

American Anarchist Socialism was the result of the direct experiences of working men and women as they suffered abject poverty while wealth flowed around them. It was the poltical and economic trajectory of a nation of labourers and farmers an Artisnal nation. And it was the artisan that celebrated 'their ' independence as being one and the same as their 'nation'.

But all that changed through the Civil War and after as America became an industrial capitalist nation of robber barons. Great monopolies were created, the first military industrial complex, one that gave power to the two political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. No longer were either the voice of the 'workingman', whom they gave sufferage to in order to win their votes. Thus was born the rebellion of workers to create a 'third party' as well as various socialist parties and social organizations like unions and the farmers Grange movement.

There were from the beginning two different strands within Socialism: one was the Right-wing, authoritarian strand, from Saint-Simon down, which glorified statism, hierarchy, and collectivism and which was thus a projection of Conservatism trying to accept and dominate the new industrial civilization. The other was the Left-wing, relatively libertarian strand, exemplified in their different ways by Marx and Bakunin, revolutionary and far more interested in achieving the libertarian goals of liberalism and socialism: but especially the smashing of the State apparatus to achieve the "withering away of the State" and the "end of the exploitation of man by man." Interestingly enough, the very Marxian phrase, the "replacement of the government of men by the administration of things," can be traced, by a circuitous route, from the great French radical laissez-faire liberals of the early nineteenth century, Charles Comte (no relation to Auguste Comte) and Charles Dunoyer. And so, too, may the concept of the "class struggle"; except that for Dunoyer and Comte the inherently antithetical classes were not businessmen vs. workers, but the producers in society (including free businessmen, workers, peasants, etc.) versus the exploiting classes constituting, and privileged by, the State apparatus. Having replaced radical liberalism as the party of the "Left," Socialism, by the turn of the twentieth century, fell prey to this inner contradiction. Most Socialists (Fabians, Lassalleans, even Marxists) turned sharply rightward, completely abandoned the old libertarian goals and ideals of revolution and the withering away of the State, and became cozy Conservatives permanently reconciled to the State, the status quo, and the whole apparatus of neo-mercantilism, State monopoly capitalism, imperialism and war that was rapidly being established and riveted on European society at the turn of the twentieth century. For Conservatism, too, had re-formed and regrouped to try to cope with a modern industrial system, and had become a refurbished mercantilism, a regime of statism marked by State monopoly privilege, in direct and indirect forms, to favored capitalists and to quasi-feudal landlords. The affinity between Right Socialism and the new Conservatism became very close, the former advocating similar policies but with a demagogic populist veneer: thus, the other side of the coin of imperialism was "social imperialism," which Joseph Schumpeter trenchantly defined as "an imperialism in which the entrepreneurs and other elements woo the workers by means of social welfare concessions which appear to depend on the success of export monopolism...” Murray Rothbard

While there was plenty there was plenty of want as well, as thousands of new immigrants flooded America seeking their economic freedom from serfdom in Europe. What they found was an America that would use and abuse them for their labour by allowing capital its unfettered freedom. Such freedom of capital is often mistakenly called, even today, individualism. But it is not. As homegrown Socialists like Jack London would discover.

Man being man and a great deal short of the angels, the quarrel over the division of the joint product is irreconcilable. For the last twenty years in the United States, there has been an average of over a thousand strikes per year; and year by year these strikes increase in magnitude, and the front of the labor army grows more imposing. And it is a class struggle, pure and simple. Labor as a class is fighting with capital as a class.

Workingmen will continue to demand more pay, and employers will continue to oppose them. This is the key-note to LAISSEZ FAIRE,-- everybody for himself and devil take the hindmost. It is upon this that the rampant individualist bases his individualism. It is the let-alone policy, the struggle for existence, which strengthens the strong, destroys the weak, and makes a finer and more capable breed of men. But the individual has passed away and the group has come, for better or worse, and the struggle has become, not a struggle between individuals, but a struggle between groups. So the query rises: Has the individualist never speculated upon the labor group becoming strong enough to destroy the capitalist group, and take to itself and run for itself the machinery of industry? And, further, has the individualist never speculated upon this being still a triumphant expression of individualism,--of group individualism,--if the confusion of terms may be permitted?

Jack London, The Class Struggle
Speech first given before a Ruskin Club banquet in the Hotel Metropole on Friday, October 9, 1903.

The artisan sensibility rejected the mass production that was becoming America it rebeled against the moderinization and dehumanization of the machinery of capitalism that denied individuality. And thus anarchism as expressed by American individualist socialists would find a comrade in William Morris and his Socialist Artisan Craft movement in England.

But the Great War came, amidst increasing working class strikes and rebellions, and thus Uncle Sam was born. The nativist patriotic representation of the new industrial military complex. And July 4th became a day not of celebration of freedom and labour but of the monopoly of power, economic and political, of the new American ruling class. A class that declared war on working people. And has continued that war at home and around the world for the last 100 years.

Anarchists were outlawed , arrested, deported, cleaned out by the State (regardless of the party in power) with the help of the American Federation of Labour, the churches, and of course all the other patriots. Laws were passed outlawing Anarchism and criminal syndicalism, the right of workers to form militant unions to overthrow capitalism. Those laws still exist on the books today.

Which is a great seque into this Independence Day in a nation that is both isolationist and imperialist, patriotic to a fault, where both the Democrats and Republicans and their right and left supporters, continue to battle to maintain their monopoly on power.

Where Free Trade is a euphimism like Freedom. Meaning exactly its opposite in practice. Where liberty is a brand of insurance. Where neo-conservatives are defined as libertarians, and liberals are Republican lite. Today the criminal syndicalism act and the anti-anarchist act are replaced with the equally vile Patriot act. Where War is Peace, and Freedom Wage Slavery.

The fearmongering, the palatable terror of shallow patriotism has once again come around full circle. The President says 'yer fer us or against us', and he means those who hold the monopoly on power. Be it Wall Street, the Pentagon, the churches or the government.

All that is old is new again. There is good reason to harken back to the Vietnam war. Unlike the Korean War which was the hot cover for a Cold War that had begun ten years earlier, Vietnam was a catalyst for social change in America. A new left and a new right, a libertarian movement emerged in America in the sixties in opposition to the War. And today that movement is once again active opposing the current war in Iraq.

The neo-con artists who claim the title libertarian, are nothing of the sort, their ilk is merely the Republican party of Nixon and Goldwater. And once again the old boys from the late sixties are in power, in the media, in the universities, in the corporations and in the government. Even Kerry who was a Seventies radical, disavowed his anti-war activism during his campaign for President. His saluting to the nation hoping to become Commander in Chief wa for naught. Why vote for Republican lite when you can have the real thing.

But the sixties didn't die when everyone started becoming hip capitalists. There was an essential movement towards a revival of anarchistic socialism as Tucker called it. A movement of the real Libertarian Left and Right.

And it has been revived, again. The timing could not be better. The new right is the old right, the new left is the old left. An anti-statist, anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist libertarian movement was begun in the early sixties, and it is essential to see it continue today.

And it has begun, with the Anti-War movement. One that seperates the real libertarians from the neo-con artists of the Republican party, the Libertarian Party and the Conservative Party in Canada. The Imperialist warmongers in the United States are facing opposition from Libertarians left and right. Which has not happened since the Viet Nam war, when the Libertarian Right broke from the Young Republicans for Freedom as the Libertarian Left was purged by the Maoists in the SDS.

The only voices of dissent are heard, today, on the Left – or, at least, are raised by those who in no sense consider themselves conservatives. While a great number of yesterday's left-wing anti-imperialists defected to the War Party during the Clinton years, a new campus movement aimed at Israel's depredations against the Palestinians in the West Bank has arisen, along with a growing antiwar movement. This is where all the vitality, the rebelliousness, the willingness to challenge the rules and strictures of an increasingly narrow and controlled national discourse resides.

Who is fighting against the all-out assault on our civil liberties, and resisting Bush's drive to war? It sure ain't the conservatives, who seem intent on overthrowing our old Republic and installing in its stead a global Empire. As the political elites unite behind a program of endless wars abroad and state repression at home, the old labels of Left and Right are increasingly meaningless: liberals and conservatives, increasingly, have come to stand for minor variations on the same theme. Now is the time for libertarians to, finally, break free of all that – just in time to take a leading role in the next upsurge of social and political change.

Justin Raimondo is Editorial Director of AntiWar.Com.



So if you think the Cato Institute or Tucker Carlson are Libertarians well lets take an issue like:

House Passes Constitutional Amendment to Ban Flag Burning
By Mike Allen Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, June 23, 2005; Page A05

And see what real Libertarians said about this same issue during the Viet Nam war.















LEFT AND RIGHT:
A Journal of Libertarian Thought
(published from 1965-1968)

EDITORIAL
Volume 3, Number 3; Spring-Autumn 1967

ON DESECRATING THE FLAG
The Congress of the United States, in its wisdom, has
now moved to make a federal offense out of "desecrating
the flag'. No doubt the great bulk of those who fought for,
and voted for, this law, believe themselves to be devoted
Christians and champions of the rights of private property.
We shall prove that they are nothing of the kind.
The first thing that should be clear about the flag is
that it is simply a piece of cloth with parallel stripes
of certain colors. So the first thing that we should ask
ourselves is: what is there ahout a piece of cloth that
suddenly renders it sacred, holy, and above defilement
when red and white stripes are woven into it? Contrary
to many of our hysterical politicians, the flag is not our
country; still less is the flag the freedom of the indivi-
dual. The flag is simply a piece of cloth. Period. There-
fore he who tampers with or .desecrates' that piece of
cloth is not posing any kind of a threat to our freedoms
or our way of life.
Consider the implications of taking the contrary posi-
tion: if the flag is nor just a piece of cloth, then this means
that some form of mystical transsubstantiation must take
place, and therefore that weaving a piece of cloth in a
certain manner suddenly invests it with great and awe-
some sanctity. Indeed Webster's defines 'desecrate': as
'to divest of a sacred character or office'. Most people
who revere and worship the flag in this way are religious;
but to apply to a secular object this kind of adoration
is nothing more nor less than idolatry. Religious people
should be always on their guard against the worship of
graven images; but their worship of State flags is nothing
less than that kind of idolatry.
If, indeed, the flag is a symbol of anything through-
out history, it has been the battle standard of the thugs
of the State apparatus, the banner that the State raises
when it goes into battle to kill, burn, and maim inno-
cent people of some other land. All flags are soaked in
innocent blood, and to revere these particular kinds of
cloth, then, becomes not only idolatry but grotesque
idolatry at that, for it is the worship of crime and mur-
der on a massive scale.
There is another critical point in this whole contro-
versy that nobody, least of all the defenders of anti-
desecration laws, seems to have mentioned. When some-
one buys flag cloth, this cloth is his private property,
to do with as he sees fit: to revere, to place in the closet ...
or to desecrate. How can anyone deny this who believes
in the rights of private property? Anti-desecration laws
and ordinances are clear-cut and outrageous invasions
of the rights of private property, and on this ground alone
they should be repealed forthwith.
Freedom must mean, among other things, the freedom
to desecrate.

That's the arguement from Rothbard's libertarian perspective, a critique of destructive stupidity of patriotism, the patriotism of the military industrial religious state. When the arguement is about the American fetish of property rights that is the arguement from the libertarian right or neo-liberal perspective.

Property Rights are a fiction even in the country that enshrined them in their Constitution as proven by the Supreme Court that just banned property rights in the United States. And in Canada the Conservatives and neo-cons want property rights enshrined in the Constitution just like the United States.

As Prodhoun said; Property is Theft. Property is Freedom. The right to your own property/ what you posses, to do with as you will is freedom, to deprive people of propety or possesions to profit from, to use as capital, is usury as Tucker called it.
And so the property arguement is consistant with Tuckers individualist socialism.

So what was Rothbards new libertarianism of Left & Right? Why is it relevant today? Because it is a consistent critique of the neo-cons even today, especially today.

 THE DEATH OF POLITICS
Karl Hess

The following text was originally published in PLAYBOY, March 1969. It is also available as part of Karl Hess' autobiography, as available from Laissez Faire Books. This web edition is now completed with the readers' letters concerning this article, published in the June 1969 issue of PLAYBOY.

Murray Rothbard, writing in Ramparts, has summed up this flawed conservatism in describing a "new younger generation of rightists, of `conservatives' ... who thought that the real problem of the modern world was nothing so ideological as the state vs. individual liberty or government intervention vs. the free market; the real problem, they declared, was the preservation of tradition, order, Christianity and good manners against the modern sins of reason, license, atheism, and boorishness." The reactionary tendencies of both liberals and conservatives today show clearly in their willingness to cede, to the state or the community, power far beyond the protection of liberty against violence. For differing purposes, both see the state as an instrument not protecting man's freedom but either instructing or restricting how that freedom is to be used.

Reading Left & Right should be an eyeopener to a new generation of anarchists and libertarians, who may not know the esoteric history of the libertarian movement of the New Left and New Right and how they came together in the sixties.


FROM FAR RIGHT TO FAR LEFT — AND FARTHER — WITH KARL HESS

James Boyd

This text was originally published in The New York Times Magazine, December 6, 1970.

On a June afternoon in 1960 Karl Hess 3rd, an assistant to the president of Ohio's vast Champion Paper and Fibre Company, was driving toward Cincinnati, lost in the manipulative thoughts common to rising young executives. Suddenly the sound of a police siren intruded and he pulled over, perplexed but not alarmed, for in his world the police menaced not.

"Mr. Hess?" The trooper spoke deferentially. "The White House is trying to reach you, sir. Please call this number."

He called. Would he write the platform for the upcoming Republican National Convention at Chicago, the platform Richard Nixon would run on for President? He would; shortly thereafter he moved into an office in the White House.

At 37, clean-cut, huskily handsome, mellow-voiced, he was the kind of fellow that big business loans out to politicians to advise them what to do and say, a fellow who conducted seminars for Congressmen, authored Republican white papers on military and diplomatic strategy, would one day help ghost a book on defense policy for Representative Mel Laird. He was good at it, was in demand. In 1964 he did his stint again, co-authoring the Republican platform and staying on as Barry Goldwater's speech man in the Presidential run. Better than anyone else, Karl Hess could tell you what conservative Republicanism stood for.

Nowadays when the sirens sound, Hess scrams for the nearest exit. From Goldwaterism, which sought to abolish half of government, he has progressed to anarchism, which would abolish all. Night after night he socks it home to receptive audiences that the old conservatives were wiser than they knew: that growing militarism and welfarism have brought the garrison state and stagnation to America, just as they had prophesied; that the Old Right must join forces with the New Left in a libertarian revolution to restore neighborhood government by boycotting all other kinds. The Hess platform for 1970 is a blueprint for resistance to authority: don't pay taxes; don't submit to the draft; don't move out when the government condemns your neighborhood in the name of eminent domain; pay no attention to permits, licenses or craft certificates; hide political prisoners; support all who resist — whether it be Vivien Kellems, Rhody McCoy or the Panthers.

"The revolution occurs," Hess says, "when the victims cease to cooperate."

Why did he defect from the palace to the barricades?

"The immediate cause was Vietnam," he says. "Conservatives like me had spent our lives arguing against Federal power — with one exception. We trusted Washington with enormous powers to fight global Communism. We were wrong — as Taft foresaw when he opposed NATO. We forgot our old axiom that power always corrupts the possessor. Now we have killed a million and a half helpless peasants in Vietnam, just as Stalin exterminated the kulaks, for reasons of state interest, erroneous reasons so expendable that the Government never mentioned them now and won't defend them. Vietnam should remind all conservatives that whenever you put your faith in big government for any reason, sooner or later you wind up as an apologist for mass murder."

If Vietnam persuaded Hess that government is evil, the new technology convinced him it is an unnecessary evil. "Power institutions developed because of scarcity. Historically, there was never enough of the necessities to go around, so people submitted to kings and armies, either to steal from others or to defend what little they had. But new developments in ways of growing and making things mean there is no longer any logical reason for scarcity, and so there is no longer any justification for the nation-state that outweighs its obvious threat to human survival."

Hess feels that the logic of decentralization and the impulse of people to take things onto their own hands is visible everywhere and will crumple Stalinist states at about the same rate it does capitalist ones.

"They are in the same boat and they know it; remember, it was the Communist party of France that bailed out the Gaullists from the student-worker revolution. You'll see that alliance more and more, because Stalinism is only the perfected model of state capitalism. Anarchism is the common enemy of both."

A little booklet has fallen out of his shirt pocket. It is a membership card in the International Workers of the World,(sic)* which I had wrongly thought was long ago defunct. "We used to have a labor movement in this country, until I.W.W. leaders were killed or imprisoned. You could tell labor unions had become captive when business and government began to praise them. They're destroying the militant black leaders the same way now. If the slaughter continues, before long liberals will be asking, 'What happened to the blacks? Why aren't they militant anymore?'"

Why, you ask, are the hardhats so hostile to radicals?

"The men in construction unions are the least representative of workingmen. They are at the mercy of government appropriations, the pawns of goons who tell them whether they can work or not. They know that their wages are inflated, conditioned on a monopoly given them by politicians and on excluding blacks who would like to work. No wonder they are insecure and turn violent at the thought of change. They are creatures of the worst elements in our society, perfect examples of what government and its collusions do to decent people."

"Libertarianism is rejected by the modern left — which preaches individualism but practices collectivism. Capitalism is rejected by the modern right — which preaches enterprise but practices protectionism. The libertarian faith in the mind of men is rejected by religionists who have faith only in the sins of man. The libertarian insistence that men be free to spin cables of steel as well as dreams of smoke is rejected by hippies who adore nature but spurn creation. The libertarian insistence that each man is a sovereign land of liberty, with his primary allegiance to himself, is rejected by patriots who sing of freedom but also shout of banners and boundaries. There is no operating movement in the world today that is based upon a libertarian philosophy. If there were, it would be in the anomalous position of using political power to abolish political power." (* a common mistake that is still made today, it's the Industrial Workers of the World. ep)



We need a new libertarian revival that recognizes what Rothbard and Hess did, that Tucker and Goldman did, that accepts the labour theory of value is the begining of liberty. That private property is an economic fiction that does not gaurntee liberty but the exact opposite. And that capitalism is monopolistic usury.

Is there such a revival in the making? It certainly appears so, especially with the mobilization against war and imperialism at Anti-War.com. And even further there are counter economy Libertarians known as Mutualists who recognize an anarchist labour theory of value.

Samuel Edward Konkin III (SEK3 to his libertarian and sci fi cronies) inherited Rothbard and Hess's mantel of being on the Left of the Libertarian right. His Movement of the Libertarian Left still finds a place in my anarchist philosophy. Sam passed away last year, and the American Libertarian movement lost a consistant anarchist critic of psuedo-libertarianism of the neo-cons.

I discovered a kindered spirit in Sam, back in the early seventies, he was originally from Edmonton and we shared common interests in Anarchism and Sci-Fi.
He introduced me to right wing anarchism, and we debated off and on over the years. Prior to his passing we had revived short belated coorespondence, and he had actually asked me to represent him at the New Left reunion at the University of Alberta, the graduating class of 68, where Sam was the only right wing Anarchist on the Gateway amidst a horde of socialists.

There is a certain irony that the scion of American Libertarianism should be a Canadian. But it is not unusual when you look at where he came from, the Social Credit movement in Alberta. Another of the radical prairie populist federalist movements. But unlike the current ilk around Ralph Klein or Stephen Harper in this province, or the more extreme Seperatist right, Sam was a Libertarian. He, like Hess and Rothbard would have no cant with the likes of Kenney, Solberg, or Anders.

As Sam developed his particular economic philosophy of mutualism which he called Agora, he left his old militancy behind him. But a new challenge has seen his comrades seek to revive his project for a Libertarian Left, as the American State bares its Imperialist Authoritarian nature for the world to see.

This July 4th the American masses will cry "We're Number 1", as your Ruling Class wars are fought by a volunteer army of black, asian, latino and white working class men and women, as Fox news cheers them on.

The disparate and disfunctional Anarchist movement in North America needs of a new socialist indvidualism that a real Movement of the Libertarian Left could provide. A Proletarian Monism is needed for the Libertarian Movement in North America. A move beyond the labels of right and left, not as a third way, but in the dialectical understanding that as indivduals we are not merely the subjects of our property but that we are social beings who subject (individualize) collective property through the free association of producers.

The proletarian monism of Joseph Dietzigen and Foucault's critque of Governmentality/State Theory allow us to once again posit an anarchist alternative to the capitalist market place in this age of global bio-political crisis.

Anarchist comrades of the Movement of the Libertarian Left your country needs you. You live in the heart of the beast as Che said, and the world needs you to expose it to the light of reason in the name of Freedom and Liberty for all.

We need a federation of the left and the right in the Libertarian movement based on consistant principals of our historical struggle for the liberation of the working class. Karl Hess and SEK3 saw that years ago.

BUILDING A NEW LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENT - Wally Conger
[The following, which I co-authored with the late Samuel Edward Konkin III, originally appeared in slightly different form under the title “Smashing the State for Fun & Profit!” in Tactics of the Movement of the Libertarian Left (Vol. 5, No. 1), May Day 2001. I offer it here as a clarification of “Libertarian Leftism,” an illuminating piece of political revisionist history, and a contribution to Tom Knapp’s ongoing Symposium on Building a New Libertarian Movement.

The New Libertarian Manifesto
by Samuel Edward Konkin III.

Posted by at No comments:

Friday, July 01, 2005

Ralph's World: Homophobic Hate Speech and Gay Bashing

But Klein says his position against same-sex marriage – and that of his caucus – is unchanged. "You aren't going to change the political philosophy and the political mind of this caucus," Klein said. "You might change the law, but you're not going to change the attitude." Klein has been vocal in his opposition to any change to the definition of marriage to include gays and lesbians. His government has said it will fight any federal legislation, but has admitted it has little legal recourse.
 CBC News Feb 2, 2005

Bill C-38 the Same Sex Marriage Act passed the house this week. It was the last act of parliament prior to the summer recess. The gnashing of teeth, whining and breast beating of the Alberta Conservatives; both provincial and Federal, both Klein and Harper, was predictable and expected. Alberta the bastion of Republican Lite Politics in Canada produced the usual red neck response from the usual suspects.

But it also led to something more shocking, gay bashing. Not just one incident but three, in the provinces capital city, Edmonton. What made it shocking was that Redmonton is a liberal left city opposed to the vast drift to the right of the rest of the province. The incidents didn't happen in Calgary home to the redneck polticians of the right but in Edmonton; which has an active gay community and a gay city councillor.

The attacks took place as the Premier's made his predictable statements bashing gay marriage. While his pal Harper insisted that his Conservatives (the vast majority from Alberta) will repeal the act, if they ever get elected to be the government (woe is us).

This fueled hate filled attacks on two gay men in Edmonton. Edmonton cops investigate attacks on gays, activists blame Klein. I was shocked further to discover it was two acquantinces of mine that had been attacked. Long time gay activists who worked for human rights and with AIDS programs in the city, one of whom is also active in the NDP.

Murray Billet, a leader in Edmonton's gay community, said politicians openly opposing same-sex rights filters down to the public."When we have a provincial government that behaves the way it does, in such a homophobic manner, the verbal kind of gay-bashing, it almost endorses and validates some of the narrow-minded activity of some of the young people in our community," he said.
Edmonton police investigate attacks on gay men CBC News Thu, 30 Jun 2005

Klein and Harper and their political minions have spent over two years attacking same sex marriage and gay/lesbians and their human rights. They and their caucuses have used their bully pulpits to denigrate gays and lesbians and their relationships. The result has been hateful stereotyping, hate speech against gays and lesbians, rampant homophobia that has resulted in gay bashing, figuratively and now literaly.

Welcome to Alberta home of hatespeech, homophobia and gay bashing.

But it doesn't stop with just with thugs in the street, in this hot house climate of homophobia even the godly stoop to gutter politics. Witness the comments made by Catholic Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary who stated; " Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the State must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good."

Verbal thuggery is no less gay bashing than a fist in the face. And gay bashing, which is what opposition to gay marriage is, makes strange bedfellows. When gay activists as well as the media challenged Bishop Fred's outrageous comments, he was defended not only by the Catholic Right Wing but by the Nazi 's as well.

This is Ralph's constiuency, as well as Harpers. The fundamentalist religious right, and the anti-semitic/anti-gay/conspiracy theorist/social credit right wing of Southern Alberta.

Always the political opportunists they use this constiuency to stay in power while knowing full well that their promises to over turn same sex marriage are hollow.

'There are no legal weapons. There's nothing left in the arsenal,'' Klein said. ''We're out on a lurch.''
Alberta may stop solemnizing marriages: Klein
CBC News Wed, 29 Jun 2005

Mr. Harper has previously vowed to repeal the same-sex marriage law if he becomes prime minister, although on Tuesday, he only went so far as to say a Tory government would "revisit" the issue.
Minority government 'got the job done' PM: Says he'd fight an election on gay marriage
CanWest News Service, June 30, 2005

The right wing in Canada used to be centred in Southern Ontario, but when Ralph came to power in Alberta they moved here. The National Citizens Coalition, the Fraser Institute, all moved to Alberta where right wing politics of Ralph and Preston Mannings Reform Party gave renewed vigour to the new right. And along with the right wing think tanks and business/corporate poltical lobby came the the hardcore fascist right wing like the Canadian League of Rights.

These right wing former Social Credit activists have always focused on hating Trudeau and the Liberals because they dropped the old Ensign flag, introduced bi-lingualism, and legalised homosexuality.

Their far right politics are reflected in the gay marriage debate by Alberta MP's in Harpers Reform/Alliance/Conservative Party as well as in Ralph's caucus.

Alberta MP David Chatters lamented what he described as the country's "moral decay." He blamed former prime minister Pierre Trudeau's promise of a just society as the start of that decay in the 1960s.
Harper to revisit law if he forms gov.
Conservative party leader says his party will revisit the same-sex marriage law
Canadian Press Tuesday, June 28, 2005


December 22, 1967:
 Justice Minister Pierre Trudeau proposes amendments to the Criminal Code which, among other things, would relax the laws against homosexuality. Discussing the amendments Trudeau says,"It's certainly the most extensive revision of the Criminal Code since the 1950s and, in terms of the subject matter it deals with, I feel that it has knocked down a lot of totems and over-ridden a lot of taboos and I feel that in that sense it is new. It's bringing the laws of the land up to contemporary society I think. Take this thing on homosexuality. I think the view we take here is that there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation. I think that what's done in private between adults doesn't concern the Criminal Code. "

The extreme right in Alberta has an agenda to oppose human rights based on sexual orientation, which they call the gay agenda. They will go to any exterme to defend their manliness,and their rights as patriarchs. They opposed Jews, Catholics and interracial integration in the past. Today they oppose human rights for gays and lesbians.

Gay bashing in print leads to gay bashing in the streets of Edmonton. This extreme homophobia of the right has its origins in their Nazi predecessors. And like the brown shirts of the past these thugs can justify their actions because politicans like Klein and Harper encourage them.

Ted Morton, one of the former emince de gris behind both Perston Manning and Stephen Harper and the Reform/Alliance/Conservative party, is now an MLA and is one of those who has continued to push Klein to oppose same sex marriage. Morton like the rest of his political ilk don't give a fig about marriage being sacred, they are homophobic, they oppose gay rights period. Ted and the boys want some action (Edmonton Sun, July 1)

The Klein government also has a disproportional amount of MLA's that belong to the homophobic religious cult known as Mormonism. Ty Lund is one of those and he has aligned with Morton to push the anti-gay/lesbian agenda of challenging gay rights at every opportunity.

Alberta may still challenge gay marriage in court
CanWest News Service
June 30, 2005

The Alberta government will consider going to court to clarify the rules on gay marriage, even though it is certain to lose the challenge.
The admission came Wednesday after Attorney General Ron Stevens met for two hours with caucus members to discuss their response to the federal same-sex marriage bill, which was passed Tuesday in the House of Commons.
Stevens said Alberta will soon have two seemingly contradictory pieces of legislation on the books. One is a provincial law, saying marriage is solely between a man and a woman. The second is the new federal law which allows same sex couples to marry.
"We can have a court rule on it so we can have absolute clarity as to the relationship of the two pieces of legislation," Stevens said.
But the Supreme Court has already said in this case, the federal law trumps the provincial one. Stevens admitted as much.
"There's no doubt, in my view, that the federal legislation is paramount -- it will rule the day," he said. The decision whether or not to go to court ultimately rests with Government Services Minister Ty Lund. Lund hasn't decided what to do, but a spokeswoman said he will consult with his caucus colleagues in the coming weeks.
Experts questioned the wisdom of challenging a decision that has already been made.
"It's a dangerous and very stupid thing to do," said Sanjeev Anand, a University of Alberta law professor. "When lawyers are called to the bar, they take an oath not to bring vexatious or frivolous claims or applications," Anand said. "This would be right in contravention of those concerns."

Province still looking at fighting same-sex marriage
CBC News Jun 30 2005


Klein knows full well he has lost this battle as he did with the Vriend case, which cost Alberta taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, and resulted in the inevitable decision that yes gays and lesbians have human rights in Canada and provinces are obliged to protect them.

The right wing alliance of anti-abortion/anti-gay/anti-feminists/anti union activists like Real Women oppose homosexuality outright, and opposed gay and lesbian rights. Their influence in both the Klein and Harper Conservatives is significant. They opposed changing the law in Alberta to recognize sexual orientation as being a form of discrimination and they opposed same sex marriage. And they oppose 'forced unionization'. And like the NCC and the Canadian League of Rights, Real Women is based in Alberta with links to Southern Ontario.

It's this unholy coalition of the right that is using the Alberta Conservatives, provincial and federal, to push their right wing agenda disguised as family values. It would be easy to dismiss Klein and Harper as mere political demegauouges and opportunists (as many in the media do). Too easy. This campaign against human rights for gays, lesbians, transgendered and bi people are core to the right wing values of their respective Conservative parties. It goes beyond homophobia and is a polticial campaign of gay bashing. They are opposed the very existance of sexual minorities that are not patriarchical and heterosexual.

When you have Catholic Bishops calling for the state to limit gay rights or worse to have a Catholic Archbishop state that gays and lesbians are part of the "culture of death" (not so subtle reference to AIDS) and these are considered normal reasonable people, then you have a culture of homophobia, where hate speech is allowed and encouraged. The result is gay bashing, in the press and in the streets.

Are these the 'values' Albertan's and Canadians really cherish, I think not.

Alberta may still resist gay marriage
Canadian Press
June 30, 2005


EDMONTON -- Alberta's fight to stop gay marriages has been lost, but the justice minister suggested the province may not be ready to throw in the towel just yet.

Ron Stevens said Wednesday that the province is considering going to court to challenge the new federal law that allows gay marriages - even though it knows it will lose the case.

Stevens, who admits personally that he believes such resistance is futile, said the province's government services minister could ask the court to clarify whether the federal law takes precedence over provincial law.

"I know what the outcome will be because the federal legislation, when it becomes law, will determine what marriage is," he said. "It will take precedence to the definition that we have in our marriage act."

When he was asked why the province would bother going to court when it already knows the outcome, Stevens noted there is a political side to the issue which he declined to discuss.

But Keith Brownsey, a political scientist at Calgary's Mount Royal College, said there isn't much doubt that if the Alberta Tories choose the court option, it will be in the interest of maintaining the support it garners from its right-wing Christian supporters.
"They have to be doing it for political reasons to shore up the fundamental evangelical right-wing in the party to make sure it stays loyal to the Conservatives," he said.

"They represent a substantial constituency in this province, but at this point, it seems rather futile."

Even Ted Morton, one of the vocal right-wing Tory members of the legislature, conceded as much after he and six other members of Ralph Klein's caucus met with Stevens and Government Services Minister Ty Lund Wednesday.

Morton suggested that the province should get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses and instead issue "civil union" licenses, leaving marriage to churches.

Both options enraged the Alberta gay and lesbian community.

"In 2005 in Canada it's clearly unacceptable for them to suggest we're anything less than full Canadians," said Murray Billett, Edmonton representative for the advocacy group Canadians for Equal Marriage.

"They are asking us to accept crumbs from the table of equality."

Billett said that it would be "absolutely unacceptable behaviour" for the province to force gays and lesbians to go to court to fight for the right to marry when the Supreme Court of Canada and federal Parliament have already decided the matter.

"I think taxpayers should be absolutely horrified at the thought of this government taking us to court when they know full well they will lose," Billet said.

Human rights lawyer Julie Lloyd said the only reason the government would engage the court process at this time would be - as Premier Ralph Klein suggested Tuesday - for optics.

"It's utterly ridiculous and irresponsible and mean-spirited to use a minority in Alberta for a political end," she said.

The province released a discussion paper Wednesday that examined such things as seeking a constitutional change to enshrine the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The paper suggested this approach "is unlikely to work" because it would require resolutions in both the House of Commons and the Senate and the legislative assemblies of two-thirds of the provinces, representing more than 50 per cent of the population of Canada.

Thomas Collins, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Edmonton, urged Albertans Wednesday to pray for the strengthening of family life in society and to "resist the culture of death."

"We need to become engaged in the world of popular culture, presently in the grip of fuzzy thinking and unwholesome values," he said in a statement.
© The Canadian Press 2005


KLEIN BLASTED FOR STAND ON GAY MARRIAGE
By Katherine Harding
Friday, July 1, 2005 Page A7 Globe and Mail

EDMONTON -- Members of Edmonton's gay community want Premier Ralph Klein to apologize for his recent comments opposing same-sex marriage, which they say played a role in two gay bashings.

"Words have consequences," Murray Billett, a long-time gay rights activist and member of the police commission, said yesterday. "What Mr. Klein and his government is doing is nothing short of schoolyard bullying."

The provincial Conservative government has long opposed same-sex marriage, and politicians said this week that they would use every legal option to fight new federal legislation legalizing it.

The Edmonton police's hate and bias crimes unit is investigating the two attacks, one of which happened outside city hall, and have made an arrest in one of the cases.


In the most recent case, Robert Smith, 58, and his boyfriend, Guy Cohoon, 43, were holding hands and walking out of a downtown convenience store early Saturday morning when eight men attacked them.

Mr. Smith said they were called faggots and homos, and when he yelled back at them to stop, the group began to chase the men, both of whom are more than six feet tall and 200 pounds. Mr. Cohoon was knocked to the ground and kicked in the head.

Mr. Smith also blames the Klein government for inflaming homophobic sentiments Alberta with its resistance to allowing gay marriage.

"That kind of rhetoric fuels the kind of hatred that we experienced," he said. "When are they going to stop lambasting us with the attitude that, 'Well you may have rights in the rest of the country, but you don't have them here'?"

The other attack took place 11 days ago, during the city's annual gay pride festival. A small group was walking to an event at Edmonton city hall during the afternoon when four men jumped them.

"It was just because of what I was wearing, a fur coat, and how I was walking," Ryan Mackenzie, 21, told the CBC.

Mr. Klein wasn't available for comment yesterday, however, his spokesman denied allegations that Alberta's position against same-sex marriage had anything to do with the attacks.

Jerry Bellikka said the Premier has always made it "clear that there is no place in Alberta for gay-bashing. There is no place in this province for hate crimes."

Edmonton Mayor Stephen Mandel also expressed his anger about the two attacks on gays.

"Those people should be punished severely and they shouldn't be so homophobic, if that's the right word," he said. "It just shocks me, absolutely shocks me that people act like that."

In 2003, there were 21 reported attacks against gays and lesbians in Edmonton, according to police. In 2004, that number dropped to 13.

Kris Wells, who is a member of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans-Identified and Queer, Edmonton Police Service Liaison Committee, said such attacks -- most of which go unreported -- must stop.

He also accused Alberta's government of promoting intolerance against gays.

"Recently Ralph said in the media that he has run out of weapons in his arsenal to fight same-sex marriage. That language is incredibly violent," Mr. Wells said.


Ralph Klein's Year Long Campaign of Gay Bashing over Same Sex Marriage

Ontario to recognize same-sex marriages
Last updated Jun 11 2003 01:04 PM EDT
CBC News

TORONTO – Ontario will start registering the marriages of gay and lesbian couples, Ontario Attorney General Norm Sterling said Wednesday morning.
He said Ontario cannot use the not-withstanding clause in the constitution to nullify the court decision, because it ruled against a federal law, not a provincial one.
When Sterling was told Alberta Premier Ralph Klein had threatened to invoke the clause, Sterling said he didn't know what the Klein was talking about.

Elsie Wayne doesn't want gay marriages

Last updated Jun 18 2003 07:06 AM EDT
CBC News
Wayne says the government should have fought court rulings upholding gay marriages."They probably should have used the notwithstanding clause as Ralph KLein has said he will do, but they're not doing that at this time and definitely we had hoped, the majority of the people had hoped, that they would appeal the decision on Ontario, but they haven't done that either.

Ottawa won't have referendum on same-sex marriage
Last Updated Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:56:29 EST
CBC News

Marriage bond between man and woman, Alberta minister says

The federal government has rejected the idea of holding a national referendum on same-sex marriage.
Alberta Premier Ralph Klein suggested the referendum after the Supreme Court said on Thursday that the federal government had the legal right to change the definition of marriage to include gays and lesbians
Klein said he and most Albertans oppose gay and lesbian marriages.

Last week, Alberta Justice Minister Ron Stevens said "The government of Alberta has continually defended the traditional definition of marriage, believing that marriage is deeply rooted in history, culture and religion and is a special bond between a man and a woman."

Alberta passed a law four years ago stating marriage is the union between a man and a woman.

Stevens said that despite the Supreme Court opinion, that law stands and marriage licences will not be granted to same-sex couples in the province.

MICHELLE MANN:
Same-sex marriage and jurisdiction
CBC News Viewpoint | December 10, 2004
As was expected by most in the legal community, the highest court affirmed that legal capacity for civil marriage is a matter solely within the jurisdiction of federal Parliament pursuant to the division of powers contained in The Constitution Act, 1867. And while changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples will necessarily impact upon provincial powers relating to the performance of marriage, this alone does not oust federal jurisdiction.

Legal advisors to Alberta Premier Ralph Klein might want to pay special attention to this part of the reference, what with Alberta's Marriage Act defining marriage as between a man and a woman. There had previously been some pretty big talk in Alberta about utilizing the charter's notwithstanding clause should the courts find that province's legislative definition to be discriminatory and unconstitutional.

The problem with this little scenario is that any provincial legislation defining marriage is now clearly ultra vires, that is, outside provincial jurisdiction, and would be struck down on those grounds long before any charter analysis took place. And, unfortunately for Alberta, the notwithstanding clause doesn't help with the division of powers.

No Conservative rift on same-sex marriage: Klein

Last updated Dec 21 2004 08:14 AM MST
CBC News

Premier Ralph Klein says he and federal Conservative Leader Stephen Harper may differ on how to fight same-sex marriage, but that they agree on the fundamentals.

Klein has openly criticized Harper's stance – he is opposed to using the notwithstanding clause – as being too soft, but says there is no rift.

The premier is taking centre stage in the fight against any change in the definition of marriage to include gays and lesbians.

"On the fundamental question, we're on the same wave length," Klein said during a year-end interview. "So there's no rift.

"He believes that the traditional definition of marriage should be maintained. I believe that. The mechanics as to how you go about challenging the proposed legislation – understanding the federal government doesn't have to do that, but if it does – then we're dealing with proposed legislation.

"I would say that Stephen should strongly encourage members of his caucus to vote no. And at least to invoke the notwithstanding clause."

Klein's government has said it will fight any federal legislation, but has admitted it has little legal recourse.

On Dec. 9, the Supreme Court of Canada said that the federal government can change the definition of marriage to include gays and lesbians. Prime Minister Paul Martin said he will introduce legislation in January.
Posted by at 8 comments:

Happy Canada Day! Make Poverty History




July 1 - International Day of Action to Help Make Poverty History
On July 1 (Canada Day), Canadians will be joining millions around the world for White Band Day, a global call for action against poverty. International White Band Day will see national landmarks wrapped in huge versions of the campaign's symbol - a white band."This international White Band Day is an opportunity to show the G8 leaders that the world is watching and wanting them to act to end poverty," says Gerry Barr, co-chair of the Make Poverty History campaign in Canada.


Being an Internationalist libertarian communist I can be proud of the revolutionary history and struggles of the aboriginal people and the working class immigrant men and women who built this modern nation.

But to wave the flag and say like Joe Molson " I AM CANADIAN" well please give me a break. Such patriotism led to the Whyte Riot of 2001 (on Whyte Ave) here in Redmonton thanks to an overabundance of Molson's Canadian.

I dedicate this space to the project above in the spirit of Internationalism on Canada Day. Party down folks but don't forget we have it good here because millions of people feed us through their exploitation and oppression abroad and at home.

What, then, is patriotism? "Patriotism, sir, is the last resort of scoundrels," said Dr. Johnson. Leo Tolstoy, the greatest anti-patriot of our times, defines patriotism as the principle that will justify the training of wholesale murderers; a trade that requires better equipment for the exercise of man-killing than the making of such necessities of life as shoes, clothing, and houses; a trade that guarantees better returns and greater glory than that of the average workingman. Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays: Patriotism: A Menace to Liberty
Posted by at 1 comment:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)