Author: skzb

I play the drum.

A Response to the Anti-Trump Petition

I’ve received a request to sign this petition of writers against Trump. There can be no question of my opposition to Trump and all he stands for: his appeal to ignorance and bigotry, his threats to carry out war crimes, his efforts to generate hatred of immigrants, his overt jingoism.  I would go so far as to say that Trump is the first major politician of my lifetime who can be accurately characterized as, if not a fascist, certainly fascistic; this becomes more clear as we see him whipping up his supporters to commit acts of violence against those who oppose him.

Nevertheless, I cannot, in good conscience, sign the petition. When I read, “Because we believe that knowledge, experience, flexibility, and historical awareness are indispensable in a leader,” I am forced to ask: a leader of what, leading for what purpose, in whose interest, and in what direction? This indicates to me that the petition is not merely against Trump, but can and will be used to support someone who, to those using the petition, would be a better choice to, “speak for the United States, to lead its military, to maintain its alliances, or to represent its people.”

And here is the problem. When you say, “lead its military…represent its people” this contains an implication that it is possible to do both. In other words, that the Bush-Obama war, with its war crimes and murders of civilians (openly and publicly supported by Senator Sanders, and with which Secretary Clinton has been actively complicit) is the will of the American people, which I cannot and will not accept. In addition, it implies that this war is not the problem, but rather the problem is how it is carried out.

I have only respect for those of my colleagues who are horrified by Trump and what he represents—how can we not be? Furthermore, I am always encouraged by signs that we as writers are aware of and involved with the political questions that matter so deeply to our future. And yet it seems to me that we need to take a closer and more critical look at what is being done here. It is all very well to be “anti-Trump.” But if being anti-Trump means support for the Democratic Party whose administration has overseen, in the last 8 years, more deportations (especially of children) than any other administration in history, has encouraged and justified the murder of the poor and minorities by police, has created the greatest income disparity in history, has continued illegal rendition and torture, has bombed more civilians than Bush dreamed of, has retreated before the religious right’s attacks on freedom at every opportunity, then one must ask: why are we doing this?

There is nothing in the petition that prevents it from being used to rally support for Clinton or Sanders, both of whom are defenders of capitalism. But it is capitalism itself, and its insoluble crisis, that has produced Trump as a staph infection might produce a boil. However painful and unsightly the boil, the problem is the infection.  This petition is part of what seems to be a growing “anti-Trump” movement, and of course, the impulse behind this movement is laudable and healthy. But if it becomes a movement in support of the Democratic Party, and especially of Hillary Clinton who is close to sewing up the nomination, then it is useless at best, and will play into Trump’s “anti-establishment” narrative at worst.

You appeal to me as a writer. Yet isn’t our highest goal as writers to lay bare the contradictions that are concealed within the relations of everyday life? To denounce Trump without also denouncing the other candidates of the capitalist parties—that is, the parties that support wars of aggression, the militarization of the police, domestic spying, persecution of whistle blowers, torture, and war crimes, all of which have been carried out by both major parties, and none of which have been opposed by any major candidate—is not to reveal the truth, but to conceal it.

And to those who insist that some Democratic politician is a “lesser evil” and (as people so often do) bring up Hitler and Nazi-ism, it is worth remembering that Hitler was defeated in the election of 1932 by a coalition organized by those who thought anyone was better than Hitler. The Nazis, in other words, were “lesser eviled” all the way into power. If when someone says Trump you hear Hitler, than when someone says Clinton you ought to hear Hindenberg.

No, I do not support Trump. Nor do I support the imperialist wars, militarized police, domestic spying, movements toward war against Russia, provocations against China, restrictions on reproductive rights, poisoning of water supplies, and attacks on basic rights that are the legacy of the Democratic Party as well as the Republican. Are the two parties different? Certainly. They represent different sections of the ruling class, and different approaches for how best to preserve and defend capitalism, and the very bitterness of the conflict between them indicates how deep runs the crisis, how insoluble are the problems. But I am not interested in picking which candidate will do a better job of preserving the system that is oppressing and murdering my brothers and sisters. If you offer me that as a choice, I vote “no.”

I believe that only the unity of working people, immigrants, the unemployed, the poor, and all of the oppressed, fighting under a socialist program directly against the two parties of big business, can provide any sort of way forward. The candidacy of Donald Trump represents all of the filth, degeneracy, and despair of capitalism in its death agony; the Democratic Party candidates who oppose him represent different policies to accomplish the same goal, and it is the goal itself, continuing the system of war and oppression, that I oppose.

In November, I will be voting for Jerry White and Niles Niemuth of the Socialist Equality Party. I urge everyone who is as appalled as I am by, not only Trump, but by the criminal and inhuman system that produced him, to do the same.

Some Disjointed Thoughts About The Clinton-Sanders Acrimony

1. That the Democratic Party is in such a crisis (not since ’68 have I seen anything like conflict so bitter) at the same time as the Republican Party is ripping itself apart, is not an accident. It is a product of wide-spread perception, and accurate perception in my opinion, that there are problems that the capitalist parties simply cannot solve.

2. There is no question that the Sanders campaign has pulled in large numbers of people who had not previously been involved in party politics. They perceive that the forces (ie, Wall Street) that have caused most of the problems in their lives are the same forces, personified by Clinton, that are preventing them from having a voice.

3. The “liberal elite” (the upper middle class and white collar urban liberal) that has been the foundation of the Democratic Party for the last two generations, with its focus on identity politics and its open disdain for the worker, is directly clashing with the those forces that are still trapped in the idea of party politics but are angry that the Democratic Party has nothing to say to the millions of poor and working class people whose lives have been shattered by capitalism.

4. I doubt there is a single billionaire, a single Wall Street banker, a single oil executive, a single Washington power broker or politician, a single media mogule, a single Halliburtan executive, a single general, who is pleased about how furious people are at the two parties.  None of them are happy about the general hatred of both Trump and Clinton, at seeing the Democrats squabbling like unruly fourth graders while the Republicans stare at Trump like a smallpox patient looks into a mirror trying to convince himself it doesn’t look so bad after all. And if they don’t like it, and they can’t fix it, that indicates the problem is the capitalist system itself, not who happens to be running it at any given moment.

5. The mutual frustration and hostility between Clinton and Sanders supporters can be reduced to one group that wants business as usual under conditions where business as usual is a dead-end, and another group that wants to change the Democratic Party into something that it is fundamentally incapable of being.

6. Bottom line: Both political parties are in crisis because the ruling elite are in crisis about what to do about the tremendous anger and resentment directed at the out-of-control juggernaut called American capitalism.

“Incremental Improvement” vs transitional demands

Because I am always seeking ways to feed my ego, I have a tweetdeck column set to look for various terms, and one of them is incrementalists. As you can imagine, the term comes up mostly in contexts that have nothing to do with the book. Some of the things it brings up are pretty ugly—apparently a lot of anti-abortion people don’t like “incrementalists” who want to deny human rights to women a piece at a time instead of all at once.

But, what with the Sanders campaign* and the acrimony within the Democratic Party, the term has been coming up a lot in that context, and there is one particular misconception that I think I can actually address.  I keep hearing people demanding to know what’s wrong with incremental improvements, as if that were the question. Posing it that way makes me think of some guy saying, “Well, let me see, do I want to improve things gradually, or all at once? I guess I’ll flip a coin.” It has nothing to do with how society works.

I am convinced that capitalism is driving us backward.  “Incremental improvements” are not possible under conditions of the build-up of contradictions between social production and individual ownership, between world-wide economy and political nation-states, between capacity for production and profit-based distribution, between increased productivity and falling rate of profit. Rather than gaining health care in the US, it is being attacked in other countries (notably Britain). Rather than establishing peace, capitalism now requires constant war. Rather than peace at home, the police are increasingly militarized. Income disparity is getting worse. Political repression at home and abroad is on the rise. Backwardness such as white supremacy is becoming more, rather than less acceptable. Efforts to limit birth control and abortion are becoming more, rather than less common. Reactionary state governments are not only trying to work their way into our bedrooms, but into public restrooms as well. Rejection of science in public schools is increasing rather than decreasing. Rather than “spreading democracy around the world” the major imperialist powers are quelling it at home through police violence and domestic surveillance. I, rightly or wrongly, believe this is a consequence of capitalism in its death agony.

Does that mean I am against fighting for universal health care, against defending civil rights, against the fight for free and universal access to contraception and abortion, against fighting for higher pay, against fighting to end war, against attacking racism? No. It means that in my view, in order to fight for any of those things, we have to recognize that capitalism is incapable of supplying them, and so we organize the fight against them as part of the fight to organize the working class around a socialist program.

The key concept here is what Trotsky called transitional demands. A transitional demand can be defined as something that a) the working class needs, and b) capitalism is unable to provide.

You ask me, why aren’t you trying to get universal health care, a higher minimum wage, an end to police violence and war? I ask you, if capitalism is incapable of giving these, then what? Do you surrender, because preserving the profit system is more important than the needs of the people?

And here’s the kicker: sometimes we’re wrong, and capitalism can supply some of those things. In the past,  it has done so by extending its life through world war, or sometimes a country can buy off its own working class at the expense of robbing and oppressing the people of other countries. But, on those occasions when capitalism is able to provide certain improvements in conditions, it has only done so with a gun to its head. People speak of the 8-hour day and welfare and medical assistance and unemployment insurance and so on in this country forgetting how hard the working class fought for those things, and how many workers died in the struggle. It is no different in other countries, including those so-called “socialist” Scandinavian countries so often held up as models we should strive to emulate.  In other words, if there are reforms to be gained, they are only gained as a by-product of revolutionary tactics, never by supporting this or that capitalist politician.

Workers do not strike unless they feel they have no choice; this is ten times as true for revolution. Given how difficult the period after a revolution is, it isn’t something anyone would call for on a whim, but only because one is convinced it is the only way forward. I firmly believe that capitalism is incompatible with peace, with democracy, with social equality, with human rights. Therefore, when I fight for those things, I do so under a program that does not assume capitalism will be able to supply them, because to do so would be, essentially, to lie to the working class. The task, then, for one who believes that revolution is inevitable, is to prepare for it so that when it comes, it is victorious. And that requires spreading socialist consciousness in the working class, and it is that which guides the activity of the fight for those things the we need.

To summarize:
1. It is not about whether to fight for “incremental” gains, but of what the working class needs, and how to fight for it.
2. If I am correct, and capitalism is unable to meet the needs of the working people, then by fighting for small improvements in such a way that you remain committed to capitalism, you are ultimately betraying even those incremental goals that are so dear to you.

 

*The irony of people complaining about Sanders because he’s “not incremental enough” is something I won’t get into here.

Roger and Me

I’ve created a new category called “squee” just for this post.

I received an email from my friend Moshe Feder concerning the work of a friend of his named Ted Krulik.  Ted is, apparently, as big a Zelazny fan as I am but more ambitious, and interviewed Roger many times over the years.  He is hoping to publish this collection of interviews, and, needless to say, I really really hope this happens.  More Roger = better world.

One section of the interviews concerned, ahem, me.  It took place at Necronomicon, Tampa, Florida, 1985, and this is the section Moshe was kind enough to send me, and which Mr. Krulik was kind enough to give me permission to post here.   With my thanks to them both, I now reproduce it without further comment.

 

                                      “Helping a Young Writer in Hell”

Steven Brust was just starting out, and his publisher sent me his novel Jhereg just to read and see if I cared to give them a publication quote to promote the book.  Along with Jhereg, they included his second book, Yendi.  I read them both and liked them.

When Brust heard I’d commented on Jhereg, he dropped me a line thanking me.  Then he sent me a copy of the manuscript of his latest novel, To Reign in Hell.  He wrote, “Ace purchased this one but, in the meantime, it’s going into a limited edition by a local outfit called Steel Dragon Press.  Ace felt that it was all right to use the quote you had given for Jhereg, but I don’t feel quite right about it.  If you have time to read To Reign in Hell, I’d appreciate your taking a look.  This is an extra copy.  You can throw it away.  If you don’t have the time, I’ll understand.”

So I took a look at the first few pages and got into it.  Instead of giving them a comment, I liked this stuff so much I decided to write something at greater length and help the guy out.  I wrote the introduction that was included in To Reign in Hell completely unsolicited.  I’d never done that before, but I was particularly taken by his writing.

Most writers have only one strong point, but Brust has several.  I like his dialogue and descriptions.  He has a sense of humor that is similar to my own.   It’s true that someone who might appeal to me most is a writer who sounds like me.

In fact, he called me up the other day.  He works with computers, and he said he’s quitting his job.  He’s leaving in a couple of weeks to write full time.  I hope he makes it.

What Middle Class Ideology Means

I’ve found myself using the term “middle class ideology” and realized that I’ve never explained what I meant. Let’s start with some basics: The bourgeoisie, or capitalist class, or ruling class, means that class of people who live by selling the products of the labor of others. The working class are those who live by selling their labor-power to capitalists. There is also a broad middle class of small shop owners, craftsmen, family farmers, private contractors, free-lance artists, middle managers, and academics.

The middle class is, by definition, caught between the two major classes of society. The bourgeoisie has the entire state at its command: the police forces, the military, the jails, the courts, surveillance legal and illegal; in a word, overwhelming armed might, backed up by ownership of the media and control of education, all of which represents enormous power. The proletariat, insofar as they are organized, has the capability for mass, united action, and, even more, have in their collective hands all of the wheels that make society function, that produce and transport the goods we need, keep the roads open, keep us healthy, and create and maintain all of the infrastructure that permits society to function, all of which represents enormous power.

The middle class, or the petty bourgeoisie, has—well, they have hope that between the two clashing armies they won’t get crushed to death. The bourgeoisie advances its interests in direct conflict with the working class, ie, by attempting to drive down wages and conditions so that a larger share of the surplus value goes into their pockets. The working class advances its interests in direct conflict with the bourgeoisie, ie, by attempting to raise wages and improve conditions so that a larger share of the surplus value goes into their pockets. The middle class, as a class, has no direct way to advance their interests. As individuals, they may choose to align with the working class, with the ruling class, or, most often, they will hope and pray that the two great classes do not come into open conflict, because that is a dangerous time to be in the middle: major labor battles are inevitably accompanied by the bankruptcy of small businesses and difficult times at best for artists, managers and academics. Thus it is in the interests of the middle class, above all, that conflict between these armies be prevented, or at least delayed as long as possible.

As long as society is driven by the conflict between property owners and those who must labor for the enrichment of the property owners, political ideologies will and must represent, above all, the interests of one of the classes of society: ideologies either emerged and gained popularity through educational institutions run by the ruling class, or ideologies that grew up in conscious opposition to them, and all ideologies gained influence because they “spoke” to some segment of society. No one would make such a simplistic claim as that the social class to which you belong is the only thing that determines your ideology: if that were true, every worker would be thoroughly imbued with revolutionary consciousness and there would be no need for a vanguard party. But to understand the development of political ideas in class society, we must begin, above all, with understanding whose class interests those ideas serve.

Ideologies of the ruling class are easy to identify if we bother to look; nationalism and patriotism come first of course—we should see ourselves above all as part of a nation, not a class. But there are others: What’s good for GM is good for America. Thou shalt not steal. Law and order. You, too, can become a rich property owner if only you work hard enough to enrich someone else in the meantime. Your success or failure is purely a function of yourself and has nothing to do with social conditions, &c &c. Under certain conditions, pacifism.* Anything such as racism and sexism and hatred of immigrants or foreign workers that pits one section of the working class against another is of obvious benefit to those who have nothing to fear except working class unity.

Ideologies that are in the interest of the working class are those of solidarity, of resistance to tyranny, of class consciousness, of democracy, of equality, of independence from the political frauds of the class enemy. Even more, ideologies that actually help us understand the processes of history, that help lay bare the conditions that determine the laws of motion of society, help arm the working class for battle. We might even go so far as to say that every idea (ie, science) that helps us understand the objective processes of the world is, in a revolutionary epoch, at least in some measure revolutionary. This could help to explain the close ties between political reactionaries and those who oppose science. Marxism is, so far, the highest form of working class ideology, not because it is a schema or a system or a set of formulas, but because it is above all a method for understanding the development of the class struggle and providing a guide for activity to advance the working class.

Ideologies of the middle class** inevitably attempt to soften, hide, and diminish the conflict of the great classes. If you are looking to identify middle class ideology, look always for ideas that disguise hard edges and blur lines: Do not speak of enemies, we are all just people. Let’s not talk about conflicts over profit, but rather about how something makes someone feel (the middle class is always big on feelings). Don’t get upset about political disagreement, it’s just ideas. Let us, above all, renounce violence.* Let’s not talk about class conflict, but about love and kindness. Do not use harsh language that “alienates” people—ie, it makes them feel bad, and “how are you going to convince them if you’re being mean to them?” as if it were a question of convincing those who have already taken a stand on the other side! But the middle class, you see, hates the idea that there are “sides” and so, to them, everything must boil down to ideas, and if people oppose one another, that must only be because they have different ideas. Middle class ideologies like to talk about “people.” As in, “people need to realize this,” or, “people should stop doing that.” If they do make divisions among people, they will be based on anything but class; that is, any division that does directly bring them into conflict with capitalist society.

It can pretty much be categorically stated: when you see a cry against social injustice that turns your attention away from the actual oppressors—ie, the capitalist class—and turns your attention to another section of those exploited by capitalism, you are seeing, in essence, “let us see how much we can get without running the risk of making our masters angry,” and this fear of making the masters angry runs through middle class ideology like a yellow thread: whether it is fear of damaging one’s career, fear of outraging public opinion, or just fear of starting something without being able to control it, fear is the unifying factor. I got into a mess a while ago on these pages when I referred to a certain well-known individual as a Stalinist, even though he had explicitly broken from Stalin. I think part of the confusion (that I didn’t understand at the time) comes exactly here: When I speak of Stalinism as an ideology, one thing I am speaking of is a deliberate turn within the workers movement away from the working class and toward a middle class agenda that will, in the hopes of the Stalinist, prevent or delay a conflict with capital.

As we can see, middle class ideology, though concerned with avoiding, preventing, delaying, and softening the conflict between the major classes, inevitably ends up, because of this, supporting the status quo, and as the status quo means rule by capital, middle class ideology must end by supporting the ruling class. That is, as well as I can explain it, what I mean when I refer to middle class ideology. I hope it helps.

————-

*Pacifism deserves its own special note, because of how it moves from a bourgeois ideology to a middle class ideology and back: During an imperialist war, sections of the middle class will be pacifist, because they see the war as oppressive and immoral, but can’t go so far as to advocate a military victory for the other side. But once the imperialists have secured their victory, all of a sudden the imperialists become the pacifists, and resistance by the conquered people is wrong because they are “resorting to violence to solve their problems.” We saw this method with the attacks on the indigenous peoples of the United States, with Israel, later with Yugoslavia, today all over the Middle East.

**Ironically, one of the most pernicious forms of middle-class ideology is the supposed rejection of ideology, usually expressed in some disdainful comment about “isms” that carry the implication that as long as you don’t know the name of your ideology, you don’t have one, reminding one of the famous character of Molière who said, “Good heavens! For more than forty years I have been speaking prose without knowing it.”