Category: Politics

My opening remarks at Fourth Street Fantasy Convention

This last weekend Fourth Street Fantasy Convention took place.  At the beginning I made an opening statement that has generated discussion, dispute, and even some hard feelings. I have exactly no interest in perpetuating one of those idiotic feuds or convention brawls that plague the science fiction community like aphids on tomato plants, but as the discussion is continuing in various places, it seems appropriate to permit those discussing it to have the text at hand.   Though these conversations often, alas, degenerate into personal attacks, I am hopeful that the issues themselves will receive some discussion.  For those of us who love fantasy fiction, and want there to be better fantasy fiction, it should be obvious that, at least, the issues are important.

(The closing statement, which addresses the same issues from another, perhaps opposite perspective, was delivered by Scott Lynch and can be found here.)

There are two  points I want to make about my remarks:
1) I thoughtlessly permitted my statement to be interpreted as coming from the Fourth Street Board, rather than being my own opinion.  That was a mistake and I regret it, and I apologize to the board and membership for that confusion.
2) I stand by what I said.

 

Fourth Street Fantasy Convention is not a safe space. On the contrary, it is a very unsafe space. Of course, it ought to be safe in the sense of everyone feeling physically safe, and in the sense that there should be no unwanted harassment, and it should be free of personal attacks of any kind. But other than that, it is not safe.

Your beliefs about writing, and my beliefs about writing, and what is good, and how to make it good, should be sufficiently challenged to make us uncomfortable.

The interaction of art and politics is getting more and more in our faces. Whether this is good or bad is beside the point (although I think it’s good); it reflects changing social conditions, intensification of conflicts. Anyone who thinks art is independent of social conditions is as hopelessly muddled as someone who thinks there is a direct, simplistic 1:1 correspondence between them.

The result of this is that political understanding, unexamined assumptions, agendas, are very much present in the art we create and thus in the discussions of that art.

If no one feels unsafe, or threatened during these discussions, we’re doing them wrong. The same is true in discussing technique, because technique, content, form, attitude toward the creation and role of art, and understanding of society, are all interconnected, and in challenging one, we are liable to find ourselves challenging another. Am I interested in turning a discussion of writing craft into a political dispute? No. I’m here to talk about craft. But I recognize that there is no clean separation, and that the one can lead to the other, and I’ll not shy away from it when it does.

If our primary goal in such discussions is to make sure everyone feels safe, then we must above all avoid the very sorts of passionate dispute this convention was created for. At that point, the convention has lost so much value that I, for one, would rather spend the weekend writing. I come to Fourth Street to have my assumptions and opinions about fantasy writing challenged and threatened; I come here to feel unsafe. If you aren’t here in order to have your assumptions and opinions challenged, then one of us is at the wrong convention.

If no one feels unsafe, we’re wasting our time here.

President Obama’s Legacy in his Own Words Except Not

Many things are happening with people’s thinking as the Trump administration does its best to drag the world back to the dark ages. Large numbers are taking it as a wakeup call that the system is fundamentally broken. Others haven’t gotten that far yet, but are asking important questions. Still others are squeezing their eyes more tightly shut than ever and seem determined to continue the policies that got us here.  The political crisis within the Democratic Party between Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters isn’t just an ideological difference, the depth and bitterness of the conflict reflects the hopelessness of reformism in the face of the world crisis of capitalism.

One feature of those determined not to let go of the Democratic Party, especially those who idealize Clinton, is the attempt to canonize President Obama, to paint a picture of him as some sort progressive hero.  I remember, though I didn’t share in it, the huge wave of hope that swept across broad masses of people at his election in 2008, followed by 7 1/2 years of increasing disappointment—I’m far from the only one who referred to his tenure as Bush 3 and 4.  This was followed, at the very end, by his rehabilitation among hardened Democrats as the nomination went to someone who clearly intended to continue his policies.  This is important to be aware of.   Most of us on the left found ourselves able to find more and more common ground with our liberal friends in disgust with Obama’s actions, until, as the election approached, these same individuals suddenly could find nothing but virtues in him, and if you didn’t agree you’d be told sardonically that he wasn’t “pure” enough for you.

Why does this matter?  Why am I going back to the previous presidency in discussing how to approach this one? Because, to put it in as simple terms as I can, we are never going to solve the problems that produced Trump while we idealize the 8 years that prepared the ground for him.

With this in mind, I’ve collected some quotes from his presidency.

“I did not want to open a war in five new countries, nor did I wish to incite civil war in Syria, I was forced to by the Republican controlled congress.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“I would have prosecuted the Wall Street criminals—at least one of them—if I hadn’t been prevented from doing so by Republican intransigence.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“Instructing Secretary Clinton to prevent the Haitians who worked for US corporations from achieving a modest wage increase was an action I was forced into by conservatives in Congress.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“It is true that my administration deported more people, especially more children, than any other in history, but that was forced on me by the Republicans.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“I feel terrible for the hundreds of thousands who were hurt by the two cuts I made to the food stamp program. It was a result of Republican majorities in the House and Senate.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“I recognize that in the most vital civil rights case of my administration, the Hobby Lobby case, I instructed Justice to not argue it on First Amendment grounds, the most powerful argument, and that this permitted an important victory for the religious right. If the Democratic Party had had control of Congress, I would have been able to make a different decision.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“The Patriot Act was extended against my will.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“The need to compromise with Republicans unfortunately required instituting regime change in Libya, and aiding the neo-fascist coup in Ukraine.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“Republican domination of the House and Senate prevented me from pushing for a climate policy in Paris that actually committed signatories to specific actions, rather than vague handwaving about intentions.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“Spying on US citizens was something I would have stopped if there had been Democratic control of Congress.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“The drastically increased use of drones to kill non-combatants, including American citizens, without due process, was something I could not avoid because of the Republicans.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“I had hoped for a Democratic Congress in order to stop the racist and reactionary ‘war on drugs.'”
— Barack Obama
Never

“Because of the need to work with Republicans, this administration was forced to prosecute more whistle-blowers than any other in history, which I consider unfortunate.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“If it weren’t for Republican control of Congress, I would have had the Justice Department prosecute at least one murdering cop.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“The drastic increase in income disparity is something I was prevented from fighting by Republicans.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“With a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate we could have passed a health care bill that wasn’t based on more money passing from the pockets of workers to the health insurance companies.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“The Republican majority in both Houses of Congress made it impossible to address the poisoned water in Flint, Michigan, or prevent the thousands who are now being evicted there for failing to pay the bill for the poison they’re required to buy.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“All of my efforts to prevent police militarization were forestalled by Congressional Republicans.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“This is an intramural scrimmage . . . we’re all on the same team.”
— Barack Obama
November 9, 2016

Clausewitz Was Right

When Carl von Clausewitz made the observation that wars are started by the defender, it wasn’t a mere sophistry. He was making a point that is very much worth thinking about today. To take the purest example of a war of aggression, which was Nazi Germany’s invasion of Poland in September of 1939, the point is that Hitler didn’t want war—Hitler wanted Poland. It was the decision to militarily resist the conquest that actually began the war.

The reason I think this is so important today is because I keep coming across statements to the effect of, “There won’t be a nuclear war because no one wants it.” This makes it sound like wars happen because national leaders wake up one morning and say, “Gee, I think I want to have a war.” If that’s how it happened, we’d be living in a Ghandi-esque paradise.

But Clausewitz was also right when he identified war as the continuation of politics by other means, and Marx was right when he identified politics as concentrated economics.

No, the ruling elite of the US does not want war with Russia or China. For that matter, neither does the ruling elite of Russia, nor of China, want war with the US. But capitalism is organized on the basis of nation-states, which means the interests of profit are fundamentally tied to the interests of nations. Russia does not want war, but neither are the capitalists of Russia willing to give up their remaining interests in oil pipelines and markets in Syria.   The drive for profit cannot be separated from the drive to control geographic regions, and the minor detail that there are human beings living in those regions cannot, of course, be permitted to interfere with the accumulation of wealth.

The point is, it is not a question of individual, or even collective greed, it is simply how capitalism works. To give up control of markets, resources, and labor in various parts of the world is a threat to US economic interests.   So long as production is based on the exploitation of labor for private profit, rather than common ownership based on human need, there can come a point where war is the only alternative to the collapse of a nation’s economy.  In other words, there comes a point where the decision to attack another nation becomes, for the ruling class, the lesser evil.  And the most horrifying thing is, from their standpoint, they’re right.

“No,” cries the US, “we don’t want war, we just need to control those regions.”
“But those regions are ours,” says Russia.
“And we need those,” puts in China.
Meanwhile countries like North Korea become terrified that they will be squashed in the battle of giants, and think to stake out their claim by demonstrating such aggression that no one will dare attack them,  which sounds stupid, but really, what choice do they have?  What choice do any of them have?  They must have control of those regions, and if that country resists, or if another imperialist nation is unwilling to surrender its claims, that is war.

And so the brinksmanship begins. “If we posture enough, they’ll back down, and our interests will be advanced without fighting,” they all say. “Okay, I guess we need to show that we’re willing to use our military force, then they’ll be afraid of us and give us what we want.” “All it will take will be one or two tactical nuclear strikes, and they’ll know we’re serious.”

So say the major powers, and their various elites, willing to kill billions in defense of their interests.  Meanwhile, as they play dice with human civilization, the propaganda machines in each country go to work, vilifying the individual leaders of other countries, accusing them of “human rights violations,” and social media fills up with chauvinism and pretexts.  This is preparation for war, for a nuclear catastrophe that no one wants, and we’re living in it, because Clausewitz was right.

The fight against war must be a fight against capitalism; anything else is, in a word, futile.

Rant: Lying, or Simply Stupid?

I’ve heard a couple of time on this blog and a couple of times on other media that I believed Clinton and Trump are “the same.”  My patience with this rubbish is gone.

Obviously, I at no time said or implied that Clinton and Trump were “the same.”  On the contrary, I repeatedly insisted on the difference, and attempted, as best I could, to analyze those differences within the context of capitalist politics.  I used the phrase “the threat of Trump” in this post, made several posts on Facebook in which I referred to the different interests of the various capitalists who supported each of them and how that was significant, and on twitter linked to a WSWS article that said (paraphrasing from memory) that millions of workers will see a Trump victory as the herald of increased assaults on their living standards, and will see a Clinton victory as continuing an intolerable status quo.  Anyone who considers those to be identical is an idiot.

However, for those of you who are either foolish enough or, more likely, dishonest enough to still maintain that I think Clinton and Trump were “the same,” let me pose a simple question: If you voted for Clinton, that means you did not vote for Trump, and you also did not vote for the Jill Stein. Are you, therefore, claiming Trump and Stein  are the same?

International Women’s Day

100 Years ago today, commemorating International Working Women’s Day, the women textile workers in St. Petersburg, Russia called a strike to protest the war and the lack of bread. They sent to the steel workers for support, which support was not refused. Five days later, the Romanov Dynasty was gone forever.
 
It was not an accident, as Marxists like to say, that the most oppressed, downtrodden section of society led the way in overthrowing an autocracy that ruled 1/6th of the globe.
 
No one can predict what form the coming struggles will take, but I think it’s safe to say that the poor and working woman—in Trotsky’s words, doubly and triply oppressed—will not take the last place in the fight.