Chris Harman (1942-2009)

November 10, 2009

Chris Harman

I was at an ISO meeting in Seattle on Saturday, when Lee Sustar got up and announced that Chris Harman had died the day before. Harman was a leading member of the Socialist Workers Party of Britain and an influential figure on the British Left. He wrote a number of important books on Marxist economics and on history. I highly recommend his A People’s History of the World. Alas, I lent my copy to someone and never saw it again. (I also lent my copy of Harman’s How Marxism Works to someone and never saw it again. I guess it’s just as well. His writings deserve to be widely circulated.)

I never met Harman, but I did hear him speak once. It was in Chicago in 1996. I’m afraid I don’t remember much about it except that Harman had the most intense gaze I have ever seen in my life. There were several hundred people in the auditorium, and I was sitting all the way in the back. Yet, throughout his entire talk I had the distinct impression that he was looking directly at me. My sense of this was so vivid that it actually made me feel uncomfortable. I can’t recall ever having a similar experience. Looking at some pictures of him on the Internet lately, I could see how I was able to get that impression.

Harman’s death is a great loss for the international Left. My sincere condolences to his family and to his friends.

Pavlov’s Dogs

October 29, 2009

The ISO held a meeting the other day at the University of Oregon campus entitled “Socialism: What It Is and Why We Need It”. About a half-hour into the meeting, a group of campus Republicans showed up, one of whom was carrying a US flag. During the discussion, someone made the point that the working class was created when peasants in Europe were driven off their land at the end of the Middle Ages. One of the Republicans said, “No one’s being driven off their land now.” A woman then pointed out that 600 farmers are driven off their land every day.

“That’s because they’re lazy,” said the guy with the flag.

Some people have it easy in life. They can sleep soundly at night, knowing that all the world’s problems are because people are “lazy”. If farmers are forced off their land, it’s because they’re “lazy”. If people can’t afford health insurance, it’s because they’re “lazy”. If people are homeless, it’s because they’re “lazy”. If a levee breaks and people’s homes are destroyed, it’s because they are “lazy”. The world is falling to pieces, but they can rest assured that it’s just a matter of people being “lazy”.

It was actually a good thing that Republicans showed up at this meeting. People got a chance to hear just how vacuous are the arguments that are made in defense of capitalism.

Divided Heaven

October 24, 2009

In an effort to round out my required credits, I am currently taking a college course devoted to German cinema during the Cold War. There is one film that I saw recently that I found particularly interesting. It is called Divided Heaven (1964). It was made in East Germany and was directed by Konrad Wolf, based on a novel by Christa Wolf. It tells the story of a young woman, Rita (Renate Blume), who falls in love with Manfred (Eberhard Esche), an ambitious chemist. Rita spends part of her time attending a training institute for teachers and part of her time working at a factory that makes train cars. Manfred gradually becomes frustrated with the reluctance of authorities to adopt a new process he has developed for making dyes. He leaves for the West. Rita soon follows. She eventually becomes disenchanted with what she regards as the aimlessness of life in the West; she misses the sense of purpose she had in the East. She reluctantly decides to leave Manfred and return to the East.

One of the things I found most interesting about Divided Heaven was the portrayal of the factory workers. It quickly becomes clear that there are tensions between individuals: resentments, rivalries, petty jealousies. There are suspicions that the foreman, Meternagel (Hans Hardt-Hardtloff) is too eager to please management, and one of the workers, Wendland (Hilmar Thate) is regarded as a loud-mouth and a show-off. This is very different from the standard Stalinist portrayal of heroic workers selflessly devoting themselves to the cause of socialism. Another way in which the film departs from Stalinist “art” is that it doesn’t take a worshipful view of the Communist Party. For example, Manfred is contemptuous of his father, who was a Nazi during the Second World War, but joined the CP afterwards. (When Manfred departs for the West, his parents regard this as a good career move.)

In the scenes at the teachers’ institute, problems are caused by a student, Mangold (Uwe Detlef Jessen), who is a self-appointed enforcer of political orthodoxy. He tries to have a student expelled simply because she concealed that fact that her father had fled to the West. It takes an impassioned intervention by the institute’s director, Schwarzenbach (Günther Grabbert) to defeat his witch-hunt. Interestingly, political orthodoxy is not an issue for the factory workers. Perhaps because of the concrete nature of their work, it is simply impossible for them to concern themselves with ideological nit-picking. They are more concerned with practical questions, such as how much labor is reasonable to expect of people in a single day. The students at the institute, on the other hand, perhaps because of the more abstract nature of their concerns, are sometimes prone to drift into dogmatism and phrase-mongering.

Divided Heaven provides a sharp contrast to the cartoonish depiction of East Germany in another film I saw for this course, One, Two, Three (1961), an American film made in Germany , in which East Germans are shown marching around with signs saying “Yankee Go Home”. From what what I’ve read about this film it appears that, at the time of its release, critics thought this was brilliant satire.

I found Divided Heaven a bit hard to follow at times. The film jumps back and forth in time, and the characters are constantly referring to events in the distant past. (The voice-over narration doesn’t help much.) The fogginess of this film might at least be partly due to the fact that five different people worked on the screenplay. Nevertheless, Divided Heaven provides an interesting glimpse into that strange and evanescent place known as East Germany.

The Police State Continues to Grow

October 17, 2009

Those of you who believe that civilian review boards are the solution to the problem of police violence should consider this: on October 1, a civilian review board in Eugene, Oregon ruled that a police officer “did not break department policy” when he tased a man who was pinned to the ground. (You can read about the board’s decision here and here. You can find a detailed account of the tasing incident here.) Now, obviously, if someone is pinned to the ground, there’s no need to use a taser. This simple logic is apparently beyond the comprehension of three of the five members of the Eugene Civilian Review Board.

The Eugene Weekly article I linked to above notes: “…the Eugene mayor and City Council recently expanded and packed the CRB with appointees that appear opposed to the concept of civilian review that voters passed overwhelmingly.” The mayor, Kitty Piercy, is a liberal Democrat, who has spoken at anti-war rallies. The City Council is dominated by liberal Democrats. These high-minded liberals apparently can’t bear the thought that police officers should abide by any kind of ethical standard. This is the state of democracy in the US today.

Update: the Eugene City Council has refused to reappoint Richard Brissenden to the Eugene Civilian Review Board. Brissenden, a municipal court judge, was one of the two CRB members who dissented on the board’s ruling on the tasing incident. At the above-mentioned meeting, Brissenden criticized the behavior of the Eugene Police. The council members who voted against his reappointment were: Andrea Ortiz, Alan Zelenka, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, Chris Pryor and George Poling. (Remember this when these people are up for re-election.) The Eugene Weekly comments:

    Credible independent oversight of police review in Eugene now appears dead. Resurrecting oversight could take citizen action in recalling officials who oppose police review or defeating them at reelection, citizen ballot initiatives, intense public pressure on city government, and lawsuits. We also join conservatives on The [Eugene} Register-Guard editorial board in calling for an immediate moratorium on the use of Tasers by Eugene police until the department ends its secrecy and develops a meaningful policy that actually restricts this dangerous, excruciating weapon.

A Peace Prize for Obama?

October 10, 2009

It seems that everyone is baffled by the decision to give President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize. Even the sycophants in the media have been unable to hide their surprise. A few people have suggested that this is meant as a slap at George W. Bush. This seems to me to be the most plausible explanation. Certainly, Bush was never popular in Europe. His sneering comments about “Old Europe” and his proposal to put a “missile shield” (that nobody wanted or needed) in Poland didn’t win him any friends. The hapless Gerhard Schroeder’s approval ratings skyrocketed when he merely thumbed his nose at Bush. Perhaps if Dubya had been nicer to our friends across the pond, they might have given him the Peace Prize. After all, they’re not too picky about whom they give these things to.

I heard a TV reporter ask someone if the Peace Prize had been “degraded” by giving it to Obama so early in his administration. Actually, it was degraded a long time ago. In 1906, they gave the Prize to the arch-imperialist, Theodore Roosevelt, who presided over the bloody suppression of the Philippines. (The Nobel Prize for Literature has been similarly degraded. In 1953, they gave the prize to Winston Churchill for his ghost-written history of the Second World War.) In fact, giving the award to Obama actually elevates it somewhat, since he hasn’t killed nearly as many people as Nobel Laureate Henry Kissinger did.

Here in Eugene, where I live, there’s a group called The Nobel Peace Laureate Project. Their stated aim is to build a monument to Amercian winners of the Nobel Peace Prize in one of our city’s parks. (Why only Americans? War criminals from other countries aren’t good enough?) Their website gives a revealing list of these laureates. There’s Woodrow Wilson, who maneuvered the US into World War I. (In the cause of peace, of course.) Then there’s Frank Kellogg, Herbert Hoover’s Secretary of State, who negotiated the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which “outlawed war”. (Hey, we all know what a roaring success that was.) There is Nicholas Murray Butler, President of Columbia University, who “proposed to Frank Kellogg the idea for the Kellogg-Briand Pact”. ( And where did he get the idea from? I want to know!) Then there’s Cordell Hull, FDR’s Secretary of State, who was an “advocate of freer international trade by means of reducing trade restrictions.” (This has resulted in people working under sweatshop conditions for Nike. Nice job, Cordell.) And there’s Henry Kissinger. (Any comment here would be superfluous.) Then there’s Elie Wiesel, cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq. (Truly, a man of peace.) And, of course, there’s Jimmy Carter, who gave the CIA the green light to supply arms to right-wing mujahedeen in Afghanistan – before the Soviet invasion – leading to the destruction of that unfortunate country. (But, hey, Jimmy supports women’s rights!)

Please, don’t get me wrong: I don’t doubt for a moment that the people in the Nobel Peace Laureate Project are completely sincere and well-intentioned. My point here is that it’s not enough to say that one is in favor of peace. (I don’t doubt for a moment that even Gen. McChrystal believes that peace is a worthy thing.) The problem is that nations go to war for specific reasons, not because they believe that war is an end-in-itself. The abstract notion of “peace” can mean different things to different people. This is why the Nobel Peace Prize is meaningless.

School Spirit

October 7, 2009

As I mentioned in my previous post, I recently went to see Michael Moore’s new film, Capitalism: A Love Story. I got to the cinema early, so I had to watch commercials on a giant movie screen. (That’s right. To see an anti-capitalist film, you have to watch advertisements.) As I was starting to zone out, an image of a huge green “O” against a yellow background suddenly appeared. This is the copyrighted symbol of the University of Oregon, where I work part-time and take classes. I roused myself from my stupor, thinking that this must be some important public service announcement. How else could one possibly explain the appearance of this hallowed emblem of my beloved school under such cheesy circumstances? I then saw a series of images of people in various stages of exultation. A male voice-over solemnly informed me that it is a tradition for Duck sports fans (the UO’s mascot is a duck) to wear green and yellow (the school colors) every Friday. (I must guiltily confess that this was the first time I had ever heard of this tradition. Lest the reader think me utterly clueless, let me say that I did cannily notice that the people in the photos were all wearing green and yellow.) The voice then informed me that, while it was nice that I was wearing the school colors every Friday, I needed to take my school spirit to “the next level”. I don’t quite remember what he said next. Perhaps I became a bit delirious from seeing all these images of happy, smiling people showing their school pride.

Afterwards, when I had recovered my senses, my first thought was: how much money is the university spending to run these announcements in movie theaters? This is not an idle question. In recent contract negotiations with employees, the school has proposed that they be required to take 24 unpaid furlough days every year. (You can read about it here.) This obviously amounts to a cut in pay. Recently I had to pay $300 for my yearly campus parking permit. This is about three times what I had to pay last year. So, the school is saying that it has to cut wages and raise fees, but it can nevertheless find the money to run announcements in movie theaters that we need to take our school spirit to “the next level”.

Every year the UO rents billboards all over the city of Eugene, promoting the school’s various sports teams. Now, does anyone really believe that if they didn’t do this, people would stop coming to the games?

I might add here that the UO is currently spending millions of dollars to build a new basketball arena. I discussed this in an earlier post.

Now, we all know that school spirit is important. It’s important because…well, because it’s important. Clearly, if all people are doing is wearing green and yellow every Friday, that shows a shocking lack of school pride. We must take it to the next level, but how? Perhaps we should have our skin and hair dyed in the UO colors. Perhaps we should have our teeth coated in alternating green and yellow enamel. Perhaps we should have the words “Go Ducks!” tattooed on our faces and on our genitalia. Perhaps each one of us should have the trademark “O” branded on his or her buttocks with a red-hot iron.

Perhaps then we shall finally achieve that nirvana of complete, unexcelled Duckness!

When Moore is Less

September 28, 2009

Michael Moore’s new film, Capitalism: A Love Story has just been released. The comments I’ve heard about it have been mostly good. (You can find Louis Proyect’s review here.) I will no doubt go to see it. I must, however, admit to having some feelings of trepidation. Every Michael Moore film, no matter how good, has at least one awful moment in it.

Sicko is a great film. One has to admire the courage that Moore showed in taking on the insurance industry. Yet there’s that horrible moment when Moore starts gushing over Hillary Clinton, as if he has a school boy crush on her. (For all I know, he does.) What makes this insulting is that Clinton helped to kill the single payer movement in the 1990’s.

I know I’m not the only lefty who cringed when Moore started berating Charlton Heston (who was in the early stages of Alzheimer’s Disease) in Bowling for Columbine. Heston was a crank, but he was a relatively harmless one in the larger scheme of things. I remember that when this film first came out, I heard an interview with Moore on the KPFK radio station in Los Angeles. The interviewer started things off by asking him to explain what the movie was about. Moore responded with a quote from D. H. Lawrence. I can’t remember the exact words, but it was something to the effect that “every American is essentially a killer.” The only conclusion I could draw from this was that Moore was saying that violence is ingrained in US culture. Interestingly, this was the argument that Heston tried to make in the film, but Moore kept interrupting him.

By the way, does anyone actually know what the main argument of Bowling for Columbine is?

On the thread following Proyect’s review, Renegagde Eye reports: “I saw a screening of this film, with MM in person there. He was asked about a labor party, why he doesn’t split with Dems. He replied he was too old to start a new party. He recommended taking the Dems over.” Moore might as well have argued that we should take over the Roman Catholic Church. In both cases, we have an entrenched institution with a great deal of money and vested interests behind it. The very idea that leftists (even ones who wear baseball caps) can take it over is moonshine. It would actually be easier to start a new party.

Moore is a talented and important filmmaker, but when it comes to trying to find some way for us to move forward, he is clueless.

Update: I went to see Capitalism: A Love Story and I must say that I liked it a lot. I think it is the best of the Moore films that I’ve seen. There wasn’t anything like the horrible moments that I talked about. True, the movie was soft on Obama, and there was a teary-eyed tribute to Franklin Roosevelt that I could have done without. However, the film was powerful because it showed concrete examples of the suffering that capitalism causes, and it also showed examples of people fighting back (though I would have liked to have seen more of the latter.) At the screening that I went to, people applauded at some moments. I strongly urge everyone to see this important film.

The G20 Protests: Getting Back to Where We Were

September 28, 2009

I suppose everyone has seen the disturbing videos of police attacking demonstrators at the G20 protests in PIttsburgh. There are a couple of things we can learn from this. The first is that the cops will start busting heads if they know they have overwhelmingly superior numbers. The attacks were all on gatherings of a few hundred or so people. Clearly, demonstrations need to be as large as possible. Actions by small groups of anarchists just don’t cut the mustard.

The second is that the US Left has greatly weakened itself through its strategy of tailing the Democrats. According to the New York Times, there were between 3,000 and 4,000 people at the main march on Friday. Even if one assumes this was an under-estimate, it’s clear that there were much fewer people than those that showed up for the anti-WTO protests in Seattle in 1999. (The only union that took part was the United Steelworkers. So much for the AFL-CIO’s efforts to “revive” the labor movement.) It’s clear that it’s going to take a great deal of work just to get back to where we were ten years ago. This is what comes from making “lesser evil” arguments. The Left demobilizes itself.

Wolf Blitzer Humiliated

September 21, 2009

Wolf Blitzer

According to the Huffington Post, Wolf Blitzer, host of CNN’s The Situation Room completely bombed in a recent episode of Celebrity Jeopardy. He ended up with a total of $-4,600, a rare feat in the history of Jeopardy (I suspect this may be a record in the history of game shows. You can find a video here). He lost out to Andy Richter and Dana Delaney. Does this surprise anyone? Any person who has ever suffered through an episode of Wolf’s program knows that he’s not the brightest bulb. His journalistic skills largely consist of being able to say “situation room” in a melodramatic voice. That’s pretty much it.

It’s interesting to note that Blitzer lost out to Andy Richter, a comedian. According to a recent poll, the most trusted “newsman” in the US is a comedian, Jon Stewart. This may have something to do with the fact that comedians have to figure out how to get people to laugh, which requires thinking. It doesn’t take a lot of thinking to be able to say “situation room”.

I remember when I was very young, watching a news program about the relationship between the US and Britain. A woman reporter started the show off by solemnly informing her audience that the US and Britain have been allies “since 1776”. I almost fell off my chair. This was my first inkling that most TV reporters are essentially dumb people. And I know that there are many people who have the same general perception that I have. From Ted Baxter on the old Mary Tyler Moore Show to Kent Brockmann on The Simpsons, the Dumb TV Reporter has become a stock character in American comedy.

I would argue that this is not an accident. Intelligent people who spend all day discussing the news are likely to develop opinions, which may possibly be displeasing to their corporate sponsors. So producers look for people who will swallow whatever nonsense is placed before them. Consider the fact that, during the build-up to the Iraq invasion, no TV reporters questioned the Bush Administration’s absurd claims about “weapons of mass destruction”. (The only exceptions I know of were Bill Moyers and Phil Donahue, both of them marginal figures in the news media.)

With these sorts of people providing us with information, is it any wonder that so many people can’t think clearly about issues such as health care reform?

The Ambassador Hotel

September 17, 2009

As I was writing my recent post on the Kennedys, I was reminded of an experience I once had involving the Ambassador Hotel, where Robert Kennedy was assassinated in 1968. This historic structure in Los Angeles was torn down in 2005, to make room for new schools. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I know that the schools in L.A. are badly overcrowded (and they will be even more so when Schwarzenegger’s budget cuts come into effect). On the other hand, the Ambassador was a striking example of a Spanish/Art Deco style of architecture that I have only ever seen in Southern California. (Union Station near downtown Los Angeles, is a good example of this type of building. If you’re ever planning to visit the Big Orange, I recommend checking this place out.)

The Ambassador was built in 1921. Over the years many famous people stayed there, including Charlie Chaplin, Marlene Dietrich, Cary Grant, Jean Harlow, Anna May Wong, and Frank Sinatra. (The wikipedia article gives a lengthy list of names.) You can find pictures of the place here.

The Ambassador Hotel was closed to guests in 1989. However, during the 1990’s, it was frequently used as a location for film shoots. This is where my story begins. I spent a brief period of my life working as a movie extra. (The politically correct term is “background artist”. This was a weird experience that I will have to write about in more detail in a future post.) My agent instructed me to go to the Ambassador Hotel in the late afternoon to work on a night-time shoot. Now, the building and its grounds occupied a sprawling expanse off Wilshire Boulevard. (I must have driven past there a hundred times previously, without even being aware of the place.) I wandered around for a while, not quite sure that I was even supposed to be there, since the property was surrounded by a chain-link fence with KEEP OUT signs on it. I eventually stumbled across a film crew shooting a movie. I thought this must be the place I was supposed to be. I stood around for a while, with people busily brushing past me, until I managed to get the attention of a production assistant. This woman was unusually polite for a PA. When I told her the instructions that my agent gave me, she told me I was at the wrong shoot, that the one I was supposed to be at was right around the corner of the building. I was a bit incredulous at this, but I followed her directions, walking a path lined by overgrown trellises. Sure enough, right around the corner there was a film crew shooting another movie. I think this experience gave me some idea of what Hollywood must have been like during the 1920’s, when film crews were shooting all over the place, sometimes side by side.

They were making a cop film starring Burt Reynolds. I can’t remember the name of it (I’m not sure anyone bothered to tell it to me), but it probably wasn’t very good if it had BR in it. We were shooting a scene right in front of the main entrance to the hotel, and it was possible to walk into the building when the PA’s weren’t looking. It was dark inside, but there was enough light coming in through the windows that one could make out details. There was an an enormous carpeted hallway that sloped upward. To the left, a large doorway led into what had clearly been a bar. I felt a strong urge to go exploring. However, the PA’s sternly warned me and the other extras – um, I mean background artists – not to go wandering around in the place. They said the structure was in disrepair and therefore possibly dangerous. I figured this was probably true. More importantly, I was afraid of getting fired. (I needed the money.) Nevertheless, I still sometimes feel a twinge of regret that I didn’t give in to my impulse for adventure. To explore the rooms of a huge, dark, abandoned building; what could be more fun? Who knows, I might have been in a room that Marlene Dietrich once stayed in. Oh, well.

One other thing I remember is that there were dozens of feral cats roaming around on the grounds. I wonder what happened to them.

This brings me to the Bobby Kennedy connection. There was a story going around among the extras – er, I mean background artists – that there was a pool of water on the exact spot where Kennedy was shot. I remember people saying this to one another in hushed tones, as if it had some profound significance to it. Since the kitchen where Kennedy was shot was off limits to us, it was impossible to confirm or deny this story. (And who the hell would have have known the exact spot where he was shot?) Supposing this story was true, wouldn’t it have just indicated that the place had leaky pipes?

Myths, legends, folktales, superstitions, etc. have always fascinated me. There seems to be some fundamental human impulse to make these things up. It’s not clear to me why. Perhaps it all starts with somebody bullshitting other people. Once I had a friend who liked to pull other people’s legs. One day he decided, just for the hell of it, that he was going to make people believe that he took part in the invasion of Grenada. He invented this elaborately detailed story. (“There was a body on the ground in front of me. I stepped over it and kept on moving forward…”) I remember hearing him telling this story at parties. Finally, he admitted to me that he had made the whole thing up. For years afterwards, whenever I mentioned his name to people, they would say, “You mean the guy who was in Grenada?”