Sunday, April 20, 2014

JAZZ: PERSONAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXTS



A Presentation Celebrating Jazz Appreciation Month

Harry Targ

Autobiography

Probably the first music I remember as a child is jazz music. My household was not a musical one but somehow I got a mini-portable phonograph and some 10 inch long playing records. I think one of those was a collection by Louis Armstrong and His All Stars. Something about the music electrified me. I think I was attracted to the beat, the horn harmonies, the passion, and how all this stimulated my senses when turned up good and loud. Later I remember being so moved by early Klezmer music, what one might call Jewish jazz. Samples of Jewish jazz appeared in choruses embedded in spoof songs presented by the Mickey Katz orchestra.

Later on my musical listening gravitated to the New Orleans musical revival of the early 1950s, foregrounding not only Louis Armstrong but such younger imitators of the original jazz music, “Dixieland,” by such groups as the Dukes of Dixieland and Turk Murphy’s band. Other artists from the past such as Jack Teagarden became visible again. Popularizing of the jazz genre occurred as a result of Hollywood biopics about Glenn Miller (with Jimmy Stewart) and Benny Goodman (with Steve Allen). I have a vague recollection of the melding of live music and biopic when I saw a stage show of Louis Armstrong and His All Stars followed by the movie about Red Nichols, The Five Pennies, with Danny Kaye in the lead. The stage show and movie appeared at the old Chicago Theatre on State Street.

Later in the 1950s my friends and I came across the LP collection of Benny Goodman’s band playing at his famous Carnegie Hall Concert in 1938. Along with the jazz/klezmer renditions of Bei Mir Bist Du Shein and The Angels Sing, my friends and I were electrified by the awesome rendition of Sing! Sing! Sing! including Gene Krupa’s booming drums, a great trumpet solo by Harry James, and a totally unplanned piano riff by Jess Stacy, wrapped around a loud and driving finale with drums, horns, and clarinet.

Somewhere around this time, I think I was a senior in high school, I took a speech course. The final assignment was a researched, well-prepared speech. I signed up to present on the history of jazz. While I had been doing some reading, the teacher called on me to give my speech on a Friday, three days before I thought I was to give it on Monday. Totally freaked I got up and gave a lecture on the initiation of jazz and its spread across the North American continent, from New Orleans to St. Louis, Kansas City, and Chicago to New York, and then the world. Everybody said the best part of the speech was I did not appear to have any notes, speaking extemporaneously (perhaps like jazz itself). Nobody knew that I was going to prepare over the weekend and when I stood up at the podium I was just making stuff up.

On Jazz 

Looking back on my youth and connections with jazz I suppose that a number of elements of its appeal to me then and now include the following. First it was a loud and passionate music. Later on I grew to appreciate music that was not loud such as that of the Modern Jazz Quartet and Miles Davis for example. 

There was something about the rhythm and the sound that spoke to me, that made me in my na├»ve way feel this music was a “people’s” music. Of course the conscious framing of a people’s music would come to me much later but something about the proud and joyful trumpet of Louis Armstrong and the rhythm of Krupa’s drums resonated at the level of my emotions.

I had learned from my off-the-cuff speech that this was a music that came from the South. I did not know at the time that it came from Africa.  I had a vague awareness that New Orleans jazz somehow was connected with slavery and the fundamental interconnections between the formation of the United States out of the sweat and blood of people with dark skins. The music, I intuited then, was a cry for freedom and an assertion of the humanity of those playing the new music. Ironically, the music also spoke to white audiences (and future white musicians) many of whom had some vague awareness of the history of racism and exploitation. Some in their own lives would share the passion for freedom and personal empowerment as well.

In addition, as I grew up with jazz I noticed that the playing of the music (whatever form it took: New Orleans or Swing, or Be Bop), was comprised of diverse ways of acting: soaring bouts of individual spontaneity coupled with a collective voice of the band members together playing in harmony. They played with improvisational freedom and thematically, that is according to script with notes on a page of sheet music. In other words, the jazz band represented individuality and freedom and community, the hallmarks of a just and good society. Even as the music reflected personal agony and pain, the performers acted as members of a community who shared their suffering and worked collectively to express it.

Jazz and Politics

I want to connect two academic narratives to suggest additional ways in which jazz is “political.” I have implied already that jazz is about passion for freedom, an artistic expression of outrage against oppression and racism, and presents in performance an alternative to alienation and powerlessness.

Michael Denning, in a book called The Cultural Front, analyzed how the mobilizations of the 1930s were among the most effective in U.S. history to bring about social, political, and economic change. He chronicled the massive uprisings around worker rights in that decade, focusing on the formation of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), the new labor federation which was committed to organizing industrial workers. Protests against violations of worker rights, including the right to form unions, spread across the South and the North. In 1934 alone there were general strikes in Akron, Ohio; Minneapolis; San Francisco; Seattle; and many other places. Millions of workers mobilized to protest their lot. Factory workers were joined by agricultural workers and clerical workers as well. The base, or substructure if you will, was the working class in motion in the context of the Great Depression.

Denning points out that the Communist Party USA (and other left parties) provided much of the organizing and the strategy and tactics designed to inform and mobilize workers. Socialist organizers mattered (and many of the more conservative trade union leaders knew this). Above these layers of labor and Communist militancy was a broad diverse “popular front” of activists, educators, cultural workers and artists. Painters, photographers, poets, novelists, journalists, folk singers, and jazz performers gave their support to movements of social change. Jazz performers did their share, whether it was playing benefit concerts to raise money for labor organizing, or performing powerful music with messages such as Billie Holiday’s “Strange Fruit,” or giving their talents to integrate their performances and by virtue of that making a statement against America as a racist society. Jazz was integral to the popular front.

A second historical moment, connecting the Cold War to jazz, is recounted in Penny Von Eschen’s book, Satchmo Blows Up the World.  Von Eschen reminds us that the United States after World War II was engaged in an ideological struggle against the former Soviet Union. The world saw a United States that was among the most racist of societies in the world. But out of this racism came a musical form that had the same appeal worldwide that it had at home. To change the worldwide image of the United States, the U.S. State Department came up with a program to send U.S. jazz artists all over the world to display its primary indigenous art form and to convince dubious audiences that the US was not the racist autocracy that the Soviet Union claimed it was.

Great jazz artists like Duke Ellington, Dizzy Gillespie and Louis Armstrong, knowing full well that they were being used as U.S. government propaganda tools, chose to embark on the worldwide State Department tours to promote their music all across the globe. Von Eschen points out that for the jazz artists their music was international representing the migrations of people everywhere even from the U.S. Ironically the jazz tours spread the imagery of international solidarity at a point in time when anti-colonial movements were reaching success. The jazz tours spread the message of international solidarity, not the need to defeat communism on the world stage. 

Von Eschen refers to a Dizzy Gillespie tour of Southern Africa in 1992, over twenty years after the first State Department tours were organized, when the trumpeter met with Nelson Mandela who had recently been released from jail. Mandela told Gillespie how his music had sustained Mandela through his 26 years in jail. Von Eschen writes about this encounter: “The meeting of Gillespie and Mandela, more than two decades after the height of the jazz tours, speaks to the power of the international movements of jazz and the abiding power of a democratic vision with roots in an earlier moment.” 

Jazz music is entertainment. Consumers of the movement come to it for a variety of reasons. But part of its appeal is that it tells a story about America, critiques the racism deeply embedded in that history, and emboldens listeners to act both individually and as a community.

Sunday, April 6, 2014

DOES INDIANA NEED A MORAL MONDAYS MOVEMENT?



Harry Targ

The Emergence of Moral Mondays in the South

Moral Mondays refers to a burgeoning mass movement that had its roots in efforts to defend voter rights in North Carolina. Thousands of activists have been mobilizing across the South over the last year inspired by Moral Mondays. They are fighting back against draconian efforts to destroy the right of people to vote, workers’ and women’s rights, and for progressive policies in general. Paradoxically, many progressives in the South and elsewhere have not heard of this budding movement.

Moral Mondays began as the annual Historic Thousands on Jones Street People's Assembly (HKonJ) in 2006 to promote progressive politics in North Carolina. Originally a coalition of 16 organizations, initiated by the state’s NAACP, it has grown to include 150 organizations today promoting a multi-issue agenda. In 2006, its task was to pressure the state’s Democratic politicians to expand voting rights and support progressive legislation on a variety of fronts. 

With the election of a tea-party government in that state in 2012, the thrust of Moral Mondays shifted to challenging the draconian policies threatening to turn back gains made by people of color, workers, women, environmentalists and others. Public protests at the state house weekly in the spring of 2013 during the state legislative session led to over 1,000 arrests for civil disobedience and hundreds of thousands of hits on MM websites. Similar movements have spread throughout the South (Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida) and in some states in the Midwest and Southwest (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Missouri). 

To kick off the spring 2014 protests, MM organizers called a rally in Raleigh, North Carolina on February 8 which brought out at least 80,000 protestors. Rev. William Barber, a key organizer of the movement, has grounded this new movement in history, suggesting that the South is in the midst of the “third reconstruction.” The first reconstruction, after the Civil War, consisted of Black and white workers struggling to create a democratic South (which would have impacted on the North as well). They elected legislators who wrote new state constitutions to create democratic institutions in that region for the first time. This first reconstruction was destroyed by white racism and the establishment of Jim Crow segregation. 

The second reconstruction occurred between Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954 and President Nixon’s 1968 “Southern Strategy.” During this period formal segregation was overturned, Medicare and Medicaid were established, and Social Security was expanded. Blacks and whites benefited. Dr. King’s 1968 Poor People’s Campaign envisioned a defense and expansion of the second reconstruction.

Now we are in the midst of a third reconstruction, according to Barber. Political mobilizations today, like those of the first reconstruction, are based on what was called in the 1860s “fusion” politics; that is bringing all activists—Black, Brown, white, gay/straight, workers, environmentalists—together. Fusion politics assumes that only a mass movement built on everyone’s issues can challenge the billionaire economic elites such as the Koch brothers and their Wall Street collaborators with masses of people (the 99 percent). Fusion politics, he says, requires an understanding of the fact that every issue is interconnected causally with every other issue. Therefore, democracy, civil rights, labor, women’s, gay/lesbian, and environmental movements must act together (http://youtu.be/sOMn8jLjVLE).

At the February action in Raleigh five general demands were articulated as guides for their spring activism. While economic, political, and historical forces vary from state to state the demands can serve as a model for action elsewhere as well. The North Carolina demands are:
  • Secure pro-labor, anti-poverty policies that insure economic sustainability;
  • Provide well-funded, quality public education for all;
  • Stand up for the health of every North Carolinian by promoting health care access and environmental justice across all the state's communities;
  • Address the continuing inequalities in the criminal justice system and ensure equality under the law for every person, regardless of race, class, creed, documentation or sexual preference;
  • Protect and expand voting rights for people of color, women, immigrants, the elderly and students to safeguard fair democratic representation.
The MM Demands and the Situation in Indiana

As to labor rights, poverty, and economic sustainability, Indiana trends mirror the national decline in union membership to a 97 year low. Only 11.3 percent of the American workforce is in unions. Hoosier union membership was 9.3 percent in 2013, almost a 2 percent decline since 2011. Former Governor Mitch Daniels ended collective bargaining for state workers his first day in office in 2005 and signed a new Right-to-Work law at the end of his second term in 2012.

The war on workers paralleled the increases in poverty and the decline in economic well-being in the state. Poverty rates in 2012 included 22 percent of children, 7 percent of seniors, 15.1 percent of women, and included 41 percent of single-parent families. The total poverty rate in Indiana was 15.6 percent with 13.5 percent of Hoosiers living with food insecurity, and 7.15 percent in extreme poverty (living on less than $2 a day). Low income families totaled 32 percent of all families with 24 percent of workers in low wage jobs.

To quote the Indiana Institute for Working Families:

“…more than 1 in 5 children live in poverty and 47 percent are low-income (more than all neighbor states, including Kentucky); more than 1 million Hoosiers over the age of 18 are in poverty and 2.24 million are low-income; more than 70% of Hoosier jobs are in occupations that pay less than 200% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines – that’s less than $39,060 for the same family of three.... we have a larger share of jobs in occupations that pay at or below poverty wages ($19,530 for a family of three) and jobs that pay at or below minimum wage than all neighbor states, including Kentucky; and wages have declined for lower- and middle-income Hoosiers over the past decade, while worker productivity has soared.” (Derek Thomas, “Cato Study Disingenuously Presents Molehills as Mountains,” Indiana Institute for Working Families, August 23, 2013).

As to education, 87 percent of Hoosier adults have a high school education, 23.4 percent with a college degree, while high school graduation rates stand at 77 percent (ranked 31 of 50 states) and 64 percent of college students have debt averaging $27, 886. Indiana led the way in establishing charter schools and vouchers for attendees while budgets for public education have been cut significantly.

Highlighting health care, Governor Pence has refused to allow Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act leaving over 400,000 economically marginalized Hoosiers without any form of health care. In a recent report prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau, Hoosiers were more likely to be without health insurance than Americans in general (The Vincennes Sun-Commercial, September 25, 2013).

Indiana is a state that fails miserably in terms of environmental justice. Denise Abdul-Rahman, Indiana NAACP Environmental Climate Justice chairperson, reported on two coal-fired power plants in the state that produce unacceptable amounts of sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions by federal government standards. She reported on an NAACP study finding that seventy-five of 378 such plants nationally were graded a failure, affecting some four million people with low incomes. Fifty-three percent of those exposed to the excessive emissions are people of color. Abdul-Rahman also pointed out that the state NAACP will be investigating coal ash storage from other states in Indiana, sewage overflow into surface waters, and the progress of recovery of Superfund sites. (Rebecca Townsend, “Confronting Environmental Justice,” Nuvo, July 17, 2013). 

An equitable criminal justice system and equality under the law have been on the national agenda for years. National data are replicated in each state. Evidence from 2003-2006 (Christopher Hartney and Linh Vuong, “Created Equal: Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the US Criminal Justice System,” National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2009) suggests that African Americans experience over twice the arrest frequencies as whites and higher in particular categories of crimes such as drug possession and violent crimes. People of color experience stiffer sentences, higher rates of incarceration, longer probation periods, and higher percentages of convicted criminals on death row. Rates of arrests, punishments, and incarcerations of Black youth exceed those of whites. Mother Jones investigated incarceration rates in the United States in 2010. The majority of the two million in jail are people of color. In Indiana, with an African American population representing 8 percent of the state’s total population, 42 percent of the prison population is Black (http://www.gibbsmagazine.com/blacks_in_prisons.htm).

Other forms of discrimination recently displayed in Indiana include laws prohibiting same sex marriage and efforts to add this existing prohibition to the Indiana constitution. In addition, state laws have been approved that are designed to shrink and eliminate women’s rights to control their own bodies, including defunding and over-regulating Planned Parenthood health care delivery everywhere in the state.

Finally, Indiana has been in the forefront in establishing voter suppression laws. The state established in 2005 one of the first laws mandating photo identification requirements for voter registration. ALEC model legislation has since spread all across the country, disenfranchising people of color, poorer voters, elderly citizens, and demographic groups more likely to vote for Democratic candidates for public office.

Indiana and a Moral Mondays Movement

The threats to economic, social, and political justice in Indiana are not unique. Some states have even worse records on economic and health indicators. Some states penalize people of color even more than Indiana in terms of education, rights and privileges, and the construction of safety nets for the most needy. But the record for meeting the needs of Hoosiers in a number of areas has been declining for at least a decade. And given the threat to democracy that is spreading all across the land, campaigns to fight back and to rebuild the dream for a better future must rise up in each and every state based on local contexts and coalitions of progressive political forces. 

The essay opened with the question, “Does Indiana Need a Moral Mondays Movement?” The answer is clear. It does.

Friday, March 28, 2014

PUSHING FOR STARVATION AT HOME AND WAR ABROAD: A TIME TO RESIST



Harry Targ

Marge Piercy wrote poetically in a recent issue of Monthly Review, Who has little, let them have less. “The hatred of the poor, is it guilt gone rancid? That the rich have so much and still conspire to steal a baby’s medicine, a woman’s life, a man’s heart and kidney….If they could push a button, if they could war on the poor here at home as they do abroad directly with bombs instead of legislation, think they’d hesitate?”

Robert Reich has been a visible observer of the “war on poor and working families”. Recently, he extrapolated from his new film the claim that the “war has been prosecuted across seven political fronts. 

First, politicians in both state and national governments have opposed extending unemployment benefits for those who have experienced joblessness for long periods of time.

Second, these same politicians oppose raising the minimum wage. 

Third, in several states governors have rejected federal resources to support Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act. 

Fourth, Republicans, with Democratic co-conspirators among Democrats, have passed legislation (signed by the President) to cut food stamp payments. 

Fifth, at the federal level the Congress has been unable to make decisions to invest in education and expanded job training programs, 

Sixth, in addition, Congress has rejected proposals to invest in rebuilding the American infrastructure (roads, bridges, transportation facilities, and green energy manufacturing).

Finally, in Red states and Congress there has been a sustained campaign to destroy the labor movement. After a thirty year attack on unions in the private sector, Congress, Red States (and in some cities like Chicago) campaigns are underway to destroy public sector unions.

Concerning United States imperialism, peace forces have won some significant victories over the last year that are in the process of being reversed. Growing pressures on the Obama administration to expand military support to Israel and/or to engage Iran militarily was defeated last summer by popular pressures and sectors of the administration which highlighted the use of diplomatic rather than military tools to expand the U.S. empire. 

Shifting toward his neo-conservative and humanitarian interventionist advisers for a time, Obama flirted with the idea of direct military engagement against Syria. A war-weary nation, an energized peace movement, and Congressional objection forced Obama away from the war path in the Middle East. Shifting again to diplomacy he launched, with the help of Russia, toward negotiations for tension reduction with Iran, reducing chemical weapons in Syria, and dialogue to end the brutal civil war in Syria.

Over the last several months, the war factions in the Obama administration have regained the initiative to stifle ongoing negotiations with enemies in the Middle East in conjunction with Russia as a partner. United States covert intervention has fueled escalating protest and violence in Ukraine. Protesters demanding democratization and an end to corruption there have been superseded in their political influence by rightwing Ukrainian factions supported by United States covert operations. 

U.S. intervention, clearly tied to neoconservative foreign policy influentials, led to the ouster of the corrupt but elected leader of Ukraine. Russia, fearful of the historic drive of western militarists from the Russian civil war to Germany in two world wars, to NATO and the United States during the Cold War moved to solidify its control of the Crimean section of Ukraine, with apparent mass support from citizens of that land. Thus began an escalation of a new Cold War which Stephen Cohen suggests has the makings of a Cuban Missile Crisis style escalation of tensions between east and west.
With the eyes of Europe and the United States on the deepening crisis in Ukraine, United States operatives have been ratcheting up protest activities in Venezuela. 

Protests communicated in the U.S. media promote the idea that there is massive opposition to the Venezuelan government which is framed as autocratic, driving the economy into enormous inflation, and making basic food increasingly scarce. Of course, reports on the ground suggest that protests are largely in wealthy neighborhoods, involve college students who see their economic futures as tied to the maintenance of great disparities of wealth and poverty, and reflect the traditional Latin American ruling classes’ hatred of the poor. In the majority of locations in Venezuela as reflected in the geography of protest in that country and recent elections the majority of the population passionately supports the Bolivarian Revolution.

But the National Endowment for Democracy and its various arms in both political parties and other covert agencies decided that the rightwing Venezuelans cannot oust the Chavistas through elections and must move to a new level of protest violence. For those of us with a long memory the phases of destabilization in Venezuela can be referred to with five letters, CHILE.

What is behind the escalating and ruthless rejection of minimally humane policies in the many states and the country at large as listed by Reich? And what is behind the escalation to war overseas, with the clear goal of ending any chance of negotiating settlements of violent disputes, reversing Russia’s (and later China’s) influence in the world, and destroying people’s movements in Latin America?

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the Theory of the “Deep State”

ALEC was founded in 1973 by Paul Weyrich and noted conservatives such as Senator Jesse Helms and John Kasich to raise money and coordinate the creation of a counter-revolution in the American political system. Its vision was one of deregulation, privatization, weakening workers’ rights, and the facilitation of the unbridled accumulation of private wealth. The achievement of these goals required the rejection of the public commitment to positive government; the idea that for societies to function public energies, resources, and commitments are needed to create and maintain institutions to serve the people. This is so whether the topic of concern is national security, public safety, education and infrastructure, and/or providing for the needy.
ALEC established a network of prominent politicians at the national and state levels, created well-funded lobby groups,  funded “research” to justify reactionary public policies, supported conservative political candidates running for office virtually everywhere and at all levels of government. ALEC creates “model” legislation that is introduced in legislative bodies everywhere on subjects like right-to-work, charter schools, and privatization of pensions. While politicians pay dues to join ALEC, over 98 percent of ALEC’s budget comes from corporate contributions from such economic and political influential as Exxon/Mobil, the Koch brothers, the Coors family, and the Scaife family. ALEC claims to have 2,000 legislative members and over 300 corporate members. Corporations who have benefited legislatively from their affiliations with ALEC include but are not limited to Altria/Philip Morris USA, Humana, United Healthcare, Corrections Corporation of America, and Connections Academy.

One of ALEC’s prominent projects is the creation of the “State Policy Network,” a collection of think tanks in every state (funded up to $83 million) to generate research “findings” to justify the rightwing model legislation generated by ALEC. SPN studies have been disseminated on education healthcare, worker’s rights, energy and the environment, taxes, government spending, and wages and income equality (Center For Media and Democracy, “Exposed: The State Policy Network,” November, 2013, p.6)
Of particular concern to workers are the ALEC model bills that have been introduced in states attacking workers. These include:

-right-to-work legislation
-rules increasing the right for governments to hire non-union contractors
-changing pension rights for government employees
-repealing minimum wage laws
- eliminating prevailing wage laws for construction workers
-encouraging so-called “free trade” to outsource work
-privatizing public services
-gutting worker’s compensation

The role of ALEC, the Koch Brothers, and the largest multinational corporations and banks in America suggest that politics increasingly occurs at two levels. First, at the level of transparency, we observe politics as “games,” largely about electoral contests, gossip and frivolous rhetoric. News junkies like myself avidly consume this first level, glued to the television screen or the social network.

However, Mike Lofgren, a former Republican Congressional aid has introduced the idea of another level of politics, what he calls the “deep state.” Lofgren defines the “deep state” as  “… a hybrid association of elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern in the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process.”  (Mike Lofgren, “Anatomy of the ‘Deep State’: Hiding in Plain Sight,” Online University of the Left, February 23, 2014).   Others have examined invisible power structures that rule America (from C. W. Mills’ classic The Power Elite, Oxford University Press, 2000 to Robert Perrucci, Earl Wysong, and David Wright, The New Class Society: Goodbye American Dream? Rowman and Littlefield, 2013).  

The distinction between politics as games vs. the deep state suggest that the power to make critical decisions reside not in the superstructure of the political process; the place where competitive games are played for all to see, but in powerful institutions embedded in society that can make decisions without requiring popular approval. In domestic politics, the “deep state” apparatuses such as ALEC and its network of organizational ties has initiated a resource-rich campaign--from the school board and city council to the state and nation--to destroy the links between government and the people. Recall Marge Piercy’s reference to “war on the poor.” And the public face of the deep state include the selective and manipulative character of experts, pundits, and major sources of news in the media. This includes what news consumers are told and what they are not told.
 
“The Deep State” and Foreign Policy

Journalist Robert Parry has recently described the character of the “deep state” and patterns of interference in Ukraine (Robert Perry, “A Shadow US Foreign Policy,” consortium news. com, February 27, 2014). Funding for covert operations in support of “democratization” was initiated by Congress in 1983 when it established the National Endowment for Democracy. NED currently receives $100 million a year to engage in non-transparent activities such as in Venezuela and Ukraine. 

Parry raises the issue of who is controlling U.S. covert operations: “NED is one reason why there is so much confusion about the administration’s policies toward attempted ousters of democratically elected leaders in Ukraine and Venezuela. Some of the non-government organizations (or NGOs) supporting these rebellions trace back to NED and its U.S. government money, even as Secretary of State John Kerry and other senior officials insist the U.S. is not behind these insurrections.”

As a result of ousted President Yanukovych’s turn away from joining the European Union, which would require Ukraine to accept IMF/EU austerity policies, the deep state institutions shifted from supporting the elected Ukraine president to funding various opposition elements to him. 

Parry reports that Carl Gershman, neoconservative and president of NED wrote in the Washington Post last September that the U.S. should push all the countries in Central Europe to accept so-called free trade agreements and the neoliberal policy agenda. Although the long-term goal would be removing Putin from office, Parry said that NED has funded 65 projects in Ukraine creating a “shadow political structure of media and activist groups.” According to Gershman, “Ukraine is the biggest prize.”

It is likely that much more data will be uncovered in the weeks ahead (primarily in alternative media) about United States involvement in Ukraine, Venezuela, and the dozens of other countries in which the deep structures of the national security apparatus operate. For now, several points can be made:

First, a multiplicity of agencies, bureaus, funded organizations (often called non-governmental organizations or NGOs) engage in semi-independent foreign policies with political groups in other countries. In addition, banks, multinational corporations, so-called human rights organizations and other NGOs are part of the panoply of interventionist organizations that promote an imperial agenda.

Second, it is not always clear that deep state structures reflect the official foreign policies defined by the President or members of the National Security Council who are supposed to be the public face of United States foreign policy to the world and the American people.

Third, these deep structures promote long discredited foreign policies that have their roots in the post-World War Two period or even further, the Russian Revolution (when the United States and 9 other countries sent troops to help the counter-revolutionaries to overthrow the new government established by the Bolsheviks).

Fourth, these deep structures also promote the neo-liberal policy agenda across the global economy: privatization of public institutions, so-called “free markets,” cutting government services so that countries can pay back loans from international financial institutions, export development policies, and dis-empowering workers, peasants, those barely surviving in the informal sector. 

Fifth, even if the President and key foreign policy decision-makers are not in control of the deep state they still bear responsibility for the correction of policies created by it.

The Moral Mondays Fightback

The most exciting social movement development occurring over the last two years is in the South. In North Carolina the determined, passionate, and constant protest against a reactionary Koch Brothers-like legislative agenda has brought thousands of activists to the state capital in Raleigh for almost a year. Throughout the spring legislative session activists have engaged in civil disobedience, leading by last June to over 1,000 arrests.
The leadership of Moral Mondays includes Rev. William Barber who has argued that we are in the midst of the “third reconstruction.” 

The first reconstruction, after the Civil War consisted of Black and white workers who struggled to create a democratic South (which would have impacted on the North as well). It was crushed by white racism and the establishment of Jim Crow segregation. 

The second reconstruction occurred between Brown vs. Board of Education and candidate Nixon’s “Southern strategy.” During this period segregation was overturned, Medicare and Medicaid was established, and Social Security was expanded. Blacks and whites benefited. 

Now we are in the midst of a third reconstruction. Twenty-first century struggles are based on “fusion” politics; that is bringing all activists—Black, Brown, white, gay/straight, environmentalists—together. Fusion politics assumes that only a mass movement built on everyone’s issues can challenge the Koch brothers numerically. Also, each issue is interconnected causally with every other issue.

Moral Mondays has been gaining more and more visibility; from North Carolina to South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, soon Arizona, and up to the Midwest. The movement is based on organizational pragmatism and leadership, a multi-dimensional fight back strategy, and fusion of class, race, and gender.   

Building a Better Political Future: Fightbacks, Fusion Politics, Intersectionality, and Moving Beyond  Finance Capitalism
 
The growing economic devastation and political marginalization of the working class broadly defined is the centerpiece of the crisis of our age. At base, the profit system, competition and capital accumulation, the appropriation of the value of all goods and services by corporations and banks, political systems that inevitably reflect the needs and interests of the economically powerful, dramatically constrict the capacity to create a humane society, one where the maximization of human possibility is achieved. The analyses of the U.S. economy and polity at this time raise fundamental questions of how to resist, fight back, and create the possibility of better world?

Tentative answers to the fundamental question of how to achieve significant social change requires a sober assessment of where we are today. What are the basic parameters of economic life in the nation and the community? Who governs our political institutions? What are the realistic forces of resistance? What are the relative merits--given power, skill, numbers of people, levels of organization and traditional values—of electoral work, mass mobilizations, and constructing alternative institutions in the intersections of existing society.

Six general points can be raised now:

First, given the varied attacks, as articulated by Robert Reich, on wages and income, on jobs, on healthcare, on education, on transportation, reproductive rights, and basic environmental survivability, fight back movements are justified on all fronts. The assault on the vast majority of humankind occurs in multiple areas, in multiple ways, and across policy areas.

Second, as opposed to the capacity to mobilize masses of people around single issues-the right to form unions, anti-racism, peace—in the twentieth century, twenty-first century movements require what Reverend William Barber calls “fusion” politics. Grassroots and national campaigns around single issues need to be cognizant of and connect with the multiplicity of issues that shape human concern. Twenty first century movements should be built on the proposition that these struggles are inextricably connected.

Third, it has become clear today that what the great progressive movements of the past knew intuitively but not theoretically is that the intersection of class, race, gender, and environmental consciousness constructs our problems and how we are going to resolve them. Workers, people of color, and women, with different gender preferences and concerns about the physical survival of the planet are all in the same fight and must recognize it.

Fourth, in countries that have long traditions and institutions that regularize political competition, particularly elections, it is necessary to recognize that for lots of people those institutions matter. In the United States when most people talk about “politics” they are talking about elections. And as we see in critical moments in our history, elections matter. But, at the same time, the electoral arena is very much affected by unconventional politics: mass mobilizations, protest rallies, civil disobedience, shopfloor and beer hall conversations and even threats of violence. The history of social change in America confirms that these kinds of politics matter and matter profoundly. These assumptions lead to the proposition that the politics of reform and revolution require “inside” and “outside” strategies, often at the same time. And recent history suggests that the power of money which increasingly has shaped inside strategy usually can only be challenged by the mobilization of people, the outside strategy.

Fifth, while social movements have always been international, given twenty-first century technology they are increasingly so. Paul Robeson, W. E. B. Dubois, George Padmore and informed worldwide audiences about the great movements to destroy the colonial systems in Africa and Asia. These struggles also informed and inspired struggles for liberation in the United States as well. In our own day, Arab Spring, mobilizations of workers in the Heartland of the United States, occupy movements, student protests in Quebec and Santiago, the Bolivarian Revolution, and open rebellion in Greece and Spain were increasingly seen as part of the same struggle for human liberation. Now, a modest protest in one geographic space somewhere in the world because a global event within a matter of hours. And the concerns are often the same even if the historical contexts vary. The old IWW adage, “an injury to one is an injury to all,” for reasons of the new technology has been transformed from a slogan to a reality.

Finally, often what animates a movement is the embrace of an issue: access to healthcare, raising the minimum wage, ending fracking, eliminating racist laws, opposing military interventionism. And, as we return to our own communities, we see that what gets people motivated to act is often that single issue that most immediately affects them. From there, the job of progressives is to promote fusion politics; highlight its relevance to class, race, and gender; develop inside/outside strategies to fight back; and to connect grassroots struggles to national and international struggles.

The specifics of this are terribly difficult but the basic outlines are clear. Now we need to act.