Sam Webb vs. Glenn Beck

I watched Glenn Beck yesterday. I haven’t had the displeasure of watching this man for several months since I visited my Fox News loving father this past summer, and usually their was enough going on that I could zone it out. But yesterday was different because his featured guest was none other than comrade Sam Webb, National Chair of the Communist Party USA. So, for the first time ever, I sat down and actually watched Glenn Beck.

(Oh, and if you don’t set your DVR to Glenn’s show and want to watch it, you can view the clip on the Party’s website.)

The first thing that struck me, other than his propensity for hyperbole, was the ridiculous faces he makes. I guess he wants to appear animated and enthusiastic but to me he looks more like he’s trying to force a dump while constipated. But hey, people who tune in to Fox News are looking for entertainment rather than information and thoughtful commentary, so cartoonish facial expression are about par for the course I guess.

Anyway, I give Sam all the credit in the world for having the guts to go on the show even though he had to know that Glenn Beck only invited him there to try and make him look like an ass. The fact that his whole strategy for debate is to ask loaded questions that can’t be answered directly, and then cut the guest off mid-sentence with a shouting match should they find a way to explain, is evidence enough that he has no interest in a thoughtful debate and is only there to entertain his cheerleaders at home. For the record, I thought that Sam did a good job under these circumstances. He held his own in the discussion even though Glenn wouldn’t let him finish a statement. I understand that 99% of the people who watch Glenn Beck regularly were probably laughing and cheering for Glenn to verbally kick ass or something, but if the other 1% said “you know, I’m interested to hear what this guy had to say, I wish Glenn Beck wasn’t such a douchebag. Maybe I’ll go read what this Sam Webb guy has to say” I think it was a successful engagement.

The height of Beck’s stupidity became apparent when he tried to pin communists for Hitler (even though we Communists were the ones who defeated the Nazis, not to mention organize the International Brigades in the first fight against Fascism). Sam pointed out that Glenn wouldn’t let him answer a question, and that every time he had a response the conversation got diverted to Stalin or something else all together. He then stated that he didn’t hold Glenn responsible for Hitler, who arose out of capitalism. To which Beck responded that the Nazi’s were actually leftists because their name was derived from “National Socialism“, and when Sam argued against that point, Glenn told him to look it up in a dictionary.

Hey, Glenn: I can change my name to Santa Claus but I’m sure as hell not going to drop any presents down your chimney on Christmas Eve. Or a lump of coal in your stocking, even though you probably deserve one.

As an interesting aside, when Beck brought up Marx, first, and then later Stalin, a big image of each person would pop up on the screen with a caption next to it reading “Marx” or “Stalin”. Why? What did this contribute to the discussion? Were they worried that their viewers wouldn’t know who Marx and Stalin were so they should at least show them what they looked like? My guess is that the average Glenn Beck fan doesn’t have the attention span to watch two men have a conversation for ten minutes without some kind of fancy graphic to draw their attention back.

At one point Glenn asked Sam how much he donated to charity, and how much he made. Sam replied that he didn’t give to charity, he gave $500 to the People’s Weekly World, and that his salary is $26,000 a year. He turned the question around on Glenn who purposely avoided revealing his salary, despite being asked repeatedly, only answering that he gave “25%” to unnamed charities. 25% of what?

This led Sam to make one of his greatest statements of the evening (or, I should say, start to make the statement before Beck started shouting at him): that the problems of this financial crisis and capitalism in general aren’t going to be solved by philanthropy. Working people don’t want charity from rich people. Most working class people would be happy if they had the opportunity to put in an honest day’s work and get an honest day’s pay in return…an opportunity that is getting harder and harder to find. Working class people don’t want to live off the crumbs that the wealthy spit out. What we need is worker’s power in government. I think that giving $500 a year to the People’s Weekly World has the potential to do more for working class people than Glenn’s mysterious 25% donation. Glenn Beck, if your handouts make you feel better about being a stuck up corporate stooge, that’s fine. But as far as I’m concerned you can keep your charity.

Anyway, it was good to see “the boss” on TV for once. Obviously I’m not hoping for a massive amount of new recruits given the arena of debate but who knows? I thought it was great to get an opportunity for a sharp comrade like Sam Webb to cram a few words of sense in edgewise on a major media outlet like Fox News.

The Christian Right’s Persecution Delusion

Believe it or not, the recent threat against my life has reinvigorated my desire to blog. I poked around on the WordPress forums to see if there was a procedure to deal with this sort of thing and I guess you’re not really “somebody” in the blogosphere until you’ve received death threats on your blog. So I guess this means I’ve finally made it! I’d better keep blogging so as not to disappoint all the people from New Jersey who claim they’re going to come to Montana to kill me.

One group of people at whom I roll my eyes even more than little kids who think they’re going to intimidate Marxist bloggers are Evangelical Christians who have the delusion that they’re being persecuted for their beliefs. Over at one of my favorite Montana blogs, 4&20 Blackbirds, there is a great discussion going on about the latest antics of one of these dorks, Senator Shockley, and his latest masterpiece of legislation which “basically…makes sure the protester isn’t harrassed by the persons entering the clinic” (obviously a clinic that performs services which religious wingnuts would want to protest, namely, abortions).

Besides the obvious logical response this raises — that if you set out to harass people, you deserve to be harassed yourself — I have to ask the question: who exactly are these poor mistreated abortion protesters who are being harassed and intimidated by women seeking abortions? Are there really a lot of women who just walked out of the clinic after having an abortion that go on a rampage?

Or is it just these fundamentalist Christian lunatics trying to justify their fantasy that they are persecuted for their beliefs by getting legislation on the books that would make the state government apparently agree with that delusion?

I have no problem with people having their right to demonstrate protected but it honestly makes me sick, as communist and an atheist, to hear these crybabies going on and on. I’ve said this before but I’ll just make a few comparisons here. Christian fundamentalists routinely get their type elected to government all the way up to and including the President of the United States. They have powerful lobbies that get legislation passed to push their extremist morals onto everyone else. Now, when was the last time a Communist Party member was elected to a national office? You know what we get? Thrown in jail. Look up the Smith Act. Go on Wikipedia and read the biography of Gus Hall. Last I checked no one has ever done 5 years in prison for being an evangelical Christian. I’ve never heard of states outlawing fundamentalist Christian churches or passing legislation saying that Christians can’t be public employees. Yet these things have happened, and in some cases continue to happen to communists.

This persecution delusion is so ridiculous. But the truth is that it’s a wondeful motivational tactic. The minions of these millionaire preachers get whipped into a fervor, thinking that their backs are against the wall and that they have to fight to save their way of life from an imaginary enemy, when the truth of the matter is that they are one of the most powerful and frightening movements in the United States today. Persecution? More like persecutors.

Death threats, awesome!

So it was only a matter of time before I got my first death threat for this blog. If you scroll down to the latest comment on my “Revolt with a Vote” post, you’ll see this gem. But I’ll copy and paste it here for you:

Communist scum. Watch your fucking ass because I have no problem killing you. There is revolt brewing and you are on the losing side. Get the fuck out of Montana if you value your life.

Of course, wordpress gives me plenty of tools to identify assholes like this. I don’t have anything to pin down exactly who this hateful fellow is, like his name and address. But I do know that his e-mail is elohim757@gmail.com, his IP address was 68.38.147.199 at the time which would make him a user of Comcast in the vicinity of Plainsboro, New Jersey.

This is new to me since most of my detractors have been smart enough not to do something as stupid as make an illegal death threat while leaving clues to your identity. I’m sure if the authorities wanted to they could easily find out exactly who this dude is. However, I doubt there is anything seriously worth worrying about; if this guy really wanted to kill some Commies, there’s a whole office building full of them in New York which is much closer than yours truly, all the way out in Montana (but hey, if I wind up dead in a ditch somewhere, you know who to blame).

That being said, I wonder if maybe Comcast would like to know that one of its subscribers is using their service to threaten to kill people? If this guy is going to threaten to kill me I figure the least I can do is fuck with him a little bit. Maybe getting his (or probably his mom’s) internet service disconnected would teach him not to be an internet tough guy.

Our grocery worker neighbors need our help!

A couple years ago, when this blog was just a glimmer in my eye, I worked at Safeway. And at this particular point in time our contract was up and we nearly went on strike before we came up with a new agreement at the 11th hour. Well now it’s someone else’s turn to fight for a fair contract.

Employees of Albertson’s, Safeway and Fred Meyer (a Northwest/Alaska chain owned by Kroger) in Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho — just a short hop over to the West from those of us here in MT — have been fighting for a new, fair contract. Wages for grocery workers in this area, as in the rest of the country, have stagnated over the past few years while the cost of living continues to rise dramatically.

With the current economic crisis in full swing, the employers at these grocery stores are pushing to dip into workers’ pockets in order to shore up their bottom lines without the big shareholders having to feel the pinch themselves. They claim that the only way to save their businesses in the current economic situation is to drive down the quality of life of their workers which, as this former grocery worker and proud member of UFCW Local 4 can tell you, is not a luxurious one as it is.

Fortunately one local grocery store chain, Rosauers, doesn’t think so. Having recently signed a fair contract with their union workers, Rosauers’ CEO was quoted as saying, “we say that we’re a family, and we got to prove we are what we say we are.”

The natural trend in capitalism is for one enterprise to drive down the quality of life of its workers, and the others to follow in order to compete. But could this be reversed? Could we use the exampel of Rosauers to put pressure on Safeway, Albertson’s and Fred Meyer? Only if working people and their allies stand united and send a clear message to the grocery giants: we want our brothers and sisters in the grocery business to make a decent living, too!

You can help. The Grocery Workers United website, run by the UFCW, has a page that gives you info on how you can show solidarity with our comrades in Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho: http://ufcwaction.org/campaign/yourgroceryworkers/iesxkserq7b6dni3?

Why EFCA Should be part of Obama’s First 100 Days

The election of Barack Obama to serve as our country’s next President has given hope to organized labor and the class-conscious section of America’s workers that the Employee Free Choice Act, which will make it easier for workers to form unions and increase penalties for union busting, will finally pass into law. But where does Obama actually stand on the issue?

Obama recently told the Washington Post that he agrees with the “basic outlines” of the Employee Free Choice Act and, while he would be willing to listen to input from employers, “…if the business community’s argument against the Employee Free Choice Act is simply that it will make it easier for people to join unions and we think that is damaging to the economy then they probably won’t get too far with me. If their arguments are we think there are more elegant ways of doing this or here are some modifications or tweaks to the general concept that we would like to see.”

I feel that these comments are progressive and welcome. However, the President-elect seems to believe that EFCA should not be a top priority: “…in terms of time table, if we are losing half a million jobs a month then there are no jobs to unionize. So my focus first is on those [other] key economic priority items that I just mentioned.”

America’s workers are waiting for the chance to unionize. Just the other night I was in a shop, where I overheard a conversation between three employees. It wasn’t hard to overhear — they were so worked up they were practically shouting. They all agreed that Unions were “the best thing to ever happen to workers,” that “every worker should be in a union” and that the time was right to organize their shop. I also overheard that the three of them were the only employees of the store, other than the manager. So what was there to stop them from organizing? “As soon as management hears the word ‘Union’, we’re all fired.”

Those are their words, not mine. I couldn’t make this stuff up!

With the Employee Free Choice Act in place, this shop could organize tomorrow. If every employee were willing to do a card check, and have it binding, they would be a union shop without a doubt. Under the current system, they would probably all get fired — that’s the only reason they don’t organize.

When EFCA passes, the working class will have a key legislation on its side, which is in some ways a little bit of socialism in itself. Then we can start working on the underlying causes of our economic crisis. When people have higher wages and better benefits, they can afford to make their house payments — not foreclose. They can afford to buy American-made goods — not sweatshop crap from overseas! We can’t just re-inflate the “bubble”. Without the Employee Free Choice Act, all of our economic stimulus efforts are like trying to fill a bucket with a hole in the bottom.

I applaud President-Elect Obama’s pro-labor stance, but I feel that we can’t keep pouring more money into Wall Street without shoring up the foundation of our economy — the working class. Mr. Obama, the Employee Free Choice Act should be priority #1!

Morality and Class Struggle

The basic process that allows the whole capitalist system to function is surplus value. I’m not going to give you a whole lesson on it here, but in a nutshell, the ability of humans to use technology and produce more value in a day’s labor than is required to produce another day’s labor. The difference between the profit your boss makes off your work, and what you’re paid so that you can survive to come to work another day, is the surplus value. Of course, you have no say in how much of this surplus value he keeps and how the rest of it is spent, so in other words you are being exploited for your labor power because you don’t own capital, and that’s how the whole system functions.

Of course, when you use the word “exploited” it raises a big red flag. “My boss?” you might be asking yourself. “Never! He’s a saint!” Well, maybe not that enthusiastically. But a lot of people look up to and admire the people who own the companies they work for, and get offended when you suggest that they are exploiters.

People say, “Look at a guy like So-and-So. He gives all this money to charity, starts foundations to help people, gives back to the community. He’s a good guy. How can you hate him? How can you say he’s an evil man?” To which I would reply that I don’t hate him. I don’t think he’s an evil man. If the guy invited me over to his house I’d drink beer with him, or his fine wine, or whatever the hell a guy like that drinks. It’s nothing personal.

But the hard truth is that capitalists are exploiters, without exception. It doesn’t matter if they’re good people. In fact, in most cases they can’t help but exploit. It’s the only thing that allows them to continue their existence. It’s their job to do it and even if they would like to “exploit less”, they are driven to exploitation in order to stay competitive in their field.

Case in point: when I worked at Safeway here not long ago, we were undergoing contract negotiations and almost went out on strike. The company kept saying, “We have to compete with Wal Mart, and they pay their workers minimum wage and give them some Mickey Mouse benefits. That’s why we have to cut your wages and benefits to keep up.” Was there any truth to this? I don’t know. Safeway used to be a place where a working person could go make an honest living with good wages and benefits so maybe they do have a heart. But regardless of whether or not they’re sincere about treating their workers right, they can’t. It’s true that they can’t afford to pay their workers a living wage and keep up with the sweatshop down the road.

Sometimes you have to feel sorry for some of these people.  Maybe they really want to do the right thing but can’t. Especially people who run the Mom & Pop store. They might treat you OK and maybe they turn around and give all the profit you make for them to the bank, to pay off the loan which keeps the business afloat. But the point is, they are still exploiting you for your surplus value. Does that mean you should slash their tires or something? No (unless they’re assholes of course). But we have to continue to struggle for socialism regardless of whether or not we like our bosses. The fact that they’re nice people doesn’t change the cold, hard truth that capitalism is an unsustainable system built upon exploitation of labor.

Statistics are Fun!

The World Health Organization is concerned that 40% of the world’s smokers live in India and China.

That’s interesting.

It just so happens that 40% of the world’s population lives in India and China.

Go figure!

Marx and God

One of the most quoted writings of Karl Marx, if not the single most well known of any sentence he ever wrote, was his line from Critique of Hegel which reads, “religion is the opiate of the masses”. This passage has been repeated time and time again, and used as ammunition to rile religious folk up and direct their rage toward Communist Parties and Marxists in general.

At a glance, Marx’s remark is indeed inflammatory. Religion is the opiate of the masses? So does that mean going to church is the same thing as shooting up? It’s obvious why conservative, anti-heroin church-going folk would be turned off by this statement.

What most people fail to mention is that it’s taken completely out of context.

Directly preceding this famous statement is a largely unknown line: “Religion is…the heart of a heartless world”. Can you imagine how the perception of Communists would be if that line were repeated as often as the “opiate” line is? And are these two statements contradictory?

I have had this discussion with my wife. I am a militant atheist, she is kind of “undecided”. She is not religious but she is not an atheist, nor is she as militantly anti-religion as I am. She can understand and relate to most of my views on the topic, but I believe once she posed an interesting question to me. Maybe I don’t need religion in my life, but what about someone who is addicted to heroin (trading one opiate for another?), or waiting on death row, or people in similar circumstances who need to “find Jesus” or “become one with the universe” or whatever kind of religious experience it takes for them to straighten their life out? Do I really want to take the one hope they have away from them?

This is what Marx means. As Communists are goal should not be to obliterate religion. Religion is the product of the fucked up world we live in. People need to have some sort of reason to live their life, especially people who have fallen on hard times, people who have fucked up their lives, or have gotten fucked by someone else. If religion is the thing that can motivate them to avoid putting a bullet in their brains, who am I to say they’re better off without it?

The idea is not to eliminate religion; religion is the cause of a lot of bad things in our world but dialectics teaches us that causes can be the effects of a previous cause. Religion, like an opiate, is the way people numb themselves to the shitty world they live in. Therefore, the key link in the chain is not to eliminate religion, but to eliminate the soulless conditions that give rise to it.

Happy Thanksgiving!

It’s Thanksgiving. It’s a happy day for me because I love food like you can’t imagine. But as we celebrate the harvest today, we have a lot to be thankful for.

If you’ve got a big old bird in the oven, remember to be thankful to the farm workers who raised it, the workers in the slaughterhouse who prepared it, the truck drivers who brought it to the store, and the store clerks who put it on the shelf and sold it to you!

Be thankful that in a few short months we’re finally going to get rid of the dumbest President the United States has ever had and replace him with someone with a brain in his head.

Be thankful that, for the moment at least, the political momentum in the U.S. has shifted, and we’re no longer drifting rightward but finally toward the left.

So there’s a little bit of “food for thought” while you’re whipping up some “food for gut”. Hopefully I’m not the only one who thought of this. My head is buzzing with ideas so I will probably make a better post here in the next couple days, so stay tuned.

Spreading the wealth around?

During the Presidential campaign, during the whole Joe the Plumber show, Barack Obama’s economic policies were summed up as “spreading the wealth around”. Of course, the right seized on this as an example of “socialism”. As I’ve pointed out previously, that’s not socialism, except maybe by the most vague idea of what socialism is. I would now go further; that Obama’s policies, or even real socialism, aren’t even really spreading the wealth around at all.

If you go to work at a factory, an oilfield, a mine, a McDonald’s restaurant, whatever, the owner of the enterprise you work for is taking the wealth you create away from you. Your labor is what creates profit for capitalists. The thing that turns materials into commodities is human labor, and that’s what gives them value. If a capitalist buys a bunch of lumber, nails, glue, paint for $100, he can’t turn around and sell them all again for $300 (unless he is very successful in market speculation). But if he hires you to turn them into a table, he can. Your human labor has created a commodity of increased value for the capitalist.

So, if you work for 8 hours making a table, and the owner writes you a paycheck for $100, pays $100 for the materials, and sells the table for $300, that leaves a $100 balance. That’s called surplus value. You created that surplus value with your labor and the capitalist has taken it away from you, having done little or no work himself, but simply by virtue of the fact that he owns the table factory and you don’t. Despite the fact that you created the wealth, you had no say in how much of it goes into the pocket of the bourgeois owner. He took the money from you without even asking.

Now, suppose the government taxes the capitalist. Then they turn around and give you health insurance, energy assistance, and education subsidies. If you’re low income, maybe they give you food stamps, housing subsidies and childcare assistance. Or, maybe they just cut your income taxes. That’s not spreading the wealth around. That’s returning the wealth to its rightful owner!

What’s wrong with that?