Exposing the Witch Hunt: Not Mainly About “Defending Van Jones”
Posted by Mike E on September 6, 2009
Anti-communist witch hunter Glenn Beck
TellNoLies writes in our discussion of the witch hunt against Van Jones that forced him to resign as the “green jobs tsar” for Obama:
“Was Van wrong to work in the 1990s as a member of a group committed to “organizing a revolutionary movement”? On what basis, precisely, were we supposed to back up Van? I was contemplating whether my signature on a petition would do him more harm than good when I learned that he was out.”
Saoirse writes:
“I too debating more publicly defending Van Jones when my name too can be associated with the lunatic left that is so easily dismissed while Glenn Beck has a frakking TV show.
I’d like to understand better the thinking here. So please break it down for me. Let me share some thoughts and questions which might help sharpen up the issue.
A Communist Voice Has Its Own Strategic Importance
First, communists and revolutionaries are always told that putting out our own, independent politics will harm the short term struggle. It is not always true (depending on how creatively we do our work, of course). But certainly we are always TOLD that (including by social democrats who deeply believe that our revolutionary work is — precisely — “the lunatic left” and inherently alienating).
In one sense, don’t get me started — because certainly in my experience (including in the decade of coalfield communist work) there was often a sharp (sometimes very sharp) and objective contradiction between the needs of the “immediate struggle” and the need to do long range communist political organizing.
But really, the importance of doing communist work can’t be judged by whether or not it narrowly serves thi- or-that immediate demand or struggle. Projecting an independent communist analysis and an independent communist voice are in some ways “inflexible tasks” (as Maoists put it) for larger reasons, for strategic reasons. And (to put it sharply) there is a real need for revolutionary analysis and discussion even if in some ways and at many moments it may conceivably hurt some immediate struggle.
Second, I don’t believe it is a given that making open communist statements on the events of the day are going to “hurt.” Example: There is a huge debate over whether Obama and his health proposals are “socialist.” Can’t real socialists speak out (and mock this claim, mock the right and even expose Obama) in ways that don’t “objectively help the right”? Yes, obviously.
Third, our tasks around the firing of Van Jones shouldn’t be boiled down to “defending Van Jones” — that is hardly the only goal (or even a particularly central one).
Yes, we should (and do) denounce the witch hunt by the right. Yes, we should (and do) expose the stand of the liberals in the face of red-baiting (which is often to proclaim their loyalty to capitalism, and try to insist that they share such common principles with the right). Both those two things too are not just in service to “defending Van Jones.”
If you look at the essay I wrote above, it was also an attempt to critique the strategic arguments of Van Jones, without being part of a piling on or a dissing. That’s part of the point of “How is this working for you?” While denouncing the attack on Van Jones — it is both fair and necessary to sum up what this shows about the weakness of his strategic approach to change.
I think TellNoLies is right when he says:
“The way I see it, in the absence of an organized and explicitly revolutionary movement, there will never be the forces to successfully defend someone like Van in a situation like this except on the basis of repudiating revolutionary politics. As long as we refuse to speak explicitly about revolution in our mass work, all that we do to build the “progressive wing” of the Democratic Party will never produce not just the organizational strength, but, more importantly, the political clarity, to beat back anti-communist witch hunts like the one that just took down Van. Put another way, anti-communism will always prevail in the absence of an actual communist movement willing to speak up in its own defense.”
I don’t see Van Jones’ career or position as some kind of “victory for the left” (that would have to be defended on that basis). I don’t see the appointment of Van Jones as a foothold of “the left” within the White House — especially given Van Jones’ politics, his job, the ways his appointment can serve all kinds of cooptation etc.
The firing of Van Jones (and his public demonization) is, in many ways, far more significant than his appointment — which is reflected in the fact that we didn’t rush to debate and analyze his appointment! And (as i argue in the essay above) that is because the demonization of Van Jones is part of enforcing very reactionary standards on everybody, on the whole political arena (and on us!) In some ways, it is STORM’s politics and Van’s previous once-revolutionary politics that we should be defending — not mainly his post as Obama’s adviser.
Paranoid lying fascistic witch hunts against left liberal impose frameworks on society’s political discourse that affect the prospects for revolution and socialism – not just Van Jones job. And we communists have a right and obligation to speak TO THAT from OUR perspective.
And, so why in the world would communists restrain themselves in speaking out on this firing of Van Jones?
Don’t we have a lot to say (including to each other, and more broadly)? Don’t we have things to say that no one else will be saying? And if we restrained ourselves every time the controversy of our views might “hurt” this or that immediate struggle… would we ever give ourselves permission to speak? Isn’t that really a terrible logic of self-negation — all in the name of the immediate or palpable result?
Tell No Lies said
Mike asks me to break down my thinking, but that assumes that I have worked out thoughts on this subject. I really don’t.
I basically agree with the view that this is not simply about defending Van Jones, but I was, as I imagine many of my friends and comrades were, confronted with a pretty concrete personal and political dilemma.
I don’t watch a lot of cable news these days, so this whole thing really only entered my peripheral vision before it was practically over, and it did so largely in the form of calls from folks who know Van better than I do to “stand by him.” My general instinct when asked to lend my name to statements of public solidarity with people under actual attack from the racist right is to ask “where do I sign?”
But this case presented a dilemma since Van was clearly actively trying to distance himself from people with my politics. While I don’t agree with the decisions that led him into that situation, my respect for him from back in the day made me not want to do something that was counter-productive to the stated aim of helping him weather this attack and keep his job. In other words I didn’t want to contribute to Van losing a job I though he was mistaken in taking by “standing by him.”
It was a weird dilemma rooted in conditions so ultimately untenable that it evaporated before I could even wrap my head around it.
Mike E said
Are there public left-disavowing statements of solidarity that you could link us to — so we have a sense of the kind of message being organized?
Is there room for a statement by unrepentant radicals of the former SLAM and STORM circles that the rest of us could endorse and circulate?
Tell No Lies said
Great photo of Beck, by the way.
Miles Ahead said
There’s a lot of things circling ‘round my brain with this post/comments, but I will try and focus in on a few things I think are key.
From original post:
This is a continued battle for public opinion and we need to be an unwavering part of that battle. Unlike during the McCarthy witch-hunts we do have “the excitement and hope of millions”–not contradiction-free– that should work in our favor, instead what had and still has the potential of shaping a different political landscape.
Soon after the election of Barack Obama, the Right became more emboldened, especially around the healthcare debate, but not limited to that—even calling Obama a socialist and at the same time a Nazi. But the Right being emboldened (and much of their racist attacks not at all subtle), and the Liberals being nambdy-pambdy, is not the whole picture. And if we don’t defend revolutionary politics, in fact, flaunt them, we are giving in to both the Right reactionaries and the Liberal back-peddlers. This battle is nowhere near decided, although the Right would have the majority of us believing they’ve won.
I was alive and kicking (but too young to kick effectively) during the McCarthy era. I wish the CPUSA’s leadership had taken a more forthright and militant stand, but their stand was a reflection of their general political line. While thousands upon thousands of people’s (from different classes) lives were ruined, how many of those thousands would have actually been able to turn the tide, had the CPUSA (and other forces) not bought into what was “allowable politics” or played by the enemy’s rules?
Even homosexuality was common cause to be targeted by HUAC or the FBI/J. Edgar Hoover [sic]. (Among many excellent tomes, an extremely comprehensive book by David Caute, “The Great Fear: The Anti-Communist Purge Under Truman and Eisenhower” should be required reading. http://www.powells.com/biblio/17-9780671226824-2 )
But even during the McCarthy era and witch-hunts, public opinion started to change. And when McCarthy and his committees went after Pvt. David Schine, U.S. Army personnel, even that was too much for Ike and some of the Democrats like Stuart Symington, and tilted the scales in the other direction.
I have always admired Michael and Robert Meeropol. Meeropol is their adopted parents’ name. The Meeropol brothers are the biological sons of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Even though they experienced untold suffering, their parents executed when they were only young children, they have not denounced radical or militant politics, au contraire. In fact, Robert Meeropol went on to establish (20 years ago) The Rosenberg Fund for Children (whose parents have been politically persecuted). And on the website a recurring link, “Across the U.S. activists under attack.” Plus: “Celebrate the Children of Resistance– is the RFC’s signature public event. The program honors the progressive legacy that Ethel and Julius Rosenberg left to their sons while celebrating the courage of activists today. Website: http://www.rfc.org/
While the following famous poem is speaking about a different context, I don’t think it is too far-fetched to remember its content:
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
–Pastor Martin Niemöller
saoirse said
it’s hard for me to say this isn’t about defending Van Jones b/c I feel a personal sense of loyalty to defending a friend. I too haven’t worked out all my thoughts and feelings here. They are a mixed jumble.
I tend to think we (the left) should defend broad left voices in society and within government from Elia Kazan to Ward Churchill to Van Jones. B/c when they attack Jones they are also attacking ideas outside the realm of acceptable progressive politics in the mainstream.
Van Jones may have made different choices and have different politics than we (i) have but our broader agenda is not riding on the coat tales of this particular debate. We’re not legitimating Van’s current politics by defending him.
This is/was a witch hunt. It has a long tradition in this country. Beck is a modern day brown shirt. I want him to be exposed and also defeated in big battles and small ones. This may have been the later but in his eyes and the eyes of many he won. This win builds momentum and energy on the right. This is certainly bad for the Obama administration but its also potentially bad for us. We are re conceiving and re building many on the left are scrambling.
lunita said
2 side points:
didn’t kazan “name names” during his testimony at the hearings?
re the pic of beck: why do we have to see this despicable m.f. on this site? sorry, but this creature – and his ugly fascist brethren– are so utterly abhorring that this site should be a safe haven from having to even glimpse at their contorted, hateful images.
saoirse said
He did. Kazan may be a poor choice I was referring more broadly to the 50s witch hunts that targeted activists and actor. I was attempting to include someone I don’t agree with but who was a target. My bad
Bill Bartmann said
Excellent site, keep up the good work
Mike E said
I agree with much of what Miles Ahead wrote above… and there is an interesting story involved in one part of what she touched on:
The issue of homosexuality was more complicated — because two key players in the witch hunts WERE themselves gay men. J. Edgar Hoover and Roy Cohn (who was in many ways “the brains” behind Senator Joe McCarthy and the driving force behind the hearings and charges).
David Schine was Roy Cohn’s lover and rabid anti-communist propagandist, and had been brought onto McCarthy’s staff. When Schine was drafted into the Army, Cohn waged a one-man campaign to have all kinds of special treatment for Schine — trying to lean on military officials at various levels. This caused a huge opening for forces within the ruling class who wanted to cut back the McCarthy rampage especially when McCarthy’s machinery shifted from “finding communists” in the State Department to charging that the Pentagon and military were infiltrated by communists.
It is often not understood that the famous climax of the McCarthy era — when Joseph Welch (head counsel for the Army) openly started attacking McCarthy — was a moment of gay-baiting aimed at McCarthy’s staff…. The quote that is often remembered is Welch’s comment “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?” But it is less widely understood that this Welch commentary was riddled with anti-gay innuendo.
There was a whole exchange where, after asking a witness if a photo entered as evidence “came from a pixie,” he defined “pixie” for McCarthy as “a close relative of a fairy.” Fairy was a derogatory term for a gay man — and Welch was baiting McCarthy for tolerating gay men on his staff (specifically Cohn and Schine). And this was the sub-theme of the question about “decency” too.
It is true, of course, that Hoover and McCarthy (in the most hypocritical way) targeted gay people as part of their witch hunts. But it is worth noting that it was the gathering anti-McCarthy forces that exploited anti-gay prejudices most openly and crudely at the high point of the period. In other words, it was the liberals (and the military high command) who used anti-gay innuendo to knock McCarthy (and especially Roy Cohn) in the chops.
(And while we are talking about the complex role of liberals in this McCarthy period of witch hunts– it is worth noting that Robert F. Kennedy started his political career as assistant counsel of the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (I.e. for McCarthy). And he spoke about his “affection” for McCarthy during his life.)
Mike E said
I received the following article from Doug:
Progressives decry resignation of Van Jones
Joe Garofoli, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, September 7, 2009
The middle-of-the-night resignation Sunday of longtime Bay Area activist Van Jones as a White House environmental adviser left many progressives angry at the Obama administration for buckling to conservative criticism of Jones’ controversial past comments and actions.
The administration is losing not only one of the nation’s leading environmentalists, progressives say, but one of the few liberal voices with President Obama’s ear.
Jones resigned amid a furor over his signature on a 2004 petition questioning the government’s actions around the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Supporters say the administration surely knew his background when they appointed Jones, the first African American to write a best-selling environmental book, as special adviser for green jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality. In fact, agents interviewed at least one of his former supervisors in San Francisco – Eva Paterson – when the FBI vetted his appointment.
This year, Time magazine named Jones one of the 100 most influential people in the world. Former Vice President Al Gore is a fan, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said his best-selling book, “Green Collar,” showcased his “sparkling intelligence, powerful vision and deep empathy.”
Little backing
But few stepped up to protect Jones during the past few weeks.
“He was swift-boated,” said Medea Benjamin, a co-founder of the anti-war group Code Pink and a San Franciscan who has known Jones for 15 years. She spoke to him recently and said he was “very conflicted” about whether to resign.
But with Obama facing an uphill battle to gain bipartisan support on health care, as Jones said in his resignation statement Sunday, “I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past.”
“The timing was hideous for Van,” said Paterson, a San Francisco civil rights attorney who hired Jones, a Yale Law School graduate, at her Equal Justice Society organization in the early 1990s and has remained close to him.
“Still, I find it very disturbing that real progressive people with a track record of lots of speeches and actions will find it difficult to speak out,” Paterson said. “That’s going to have a chilling effect on anyone like that who may some day want to serve in public office.”
Some feel that the White House caved too quickly to pressure from conservative activists and commentators – particularly Fox New Channel’s Glenn Beck – who have hammered on Jones’ mid-1990s Marxist affiliations and liberal activism. In the mid-1990s, after he co-founded the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, an Oakland group focusing on police brutality, Jones became known for headline-grabbing statements like “Willie Brown’s Police Commission is killing black people.” Regarding the 2004 petition calling for a congressional investigation into the actions of the Bush administration surrounding the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Jones issued a statement last week saying, “I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever.”
Jones also drew conservative fire for calling Republicans “- holes” during a speech in February in Berkeley. In the speech, Jones used the same term to describe himself and the political resolve needed to move legislation.
Even though Jones apologized, the campaign to oust him gained steam Friday when conservative legislators like Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., called for an inquiry into his comments.
Often, an administration will send a representative to the Sunday morning TV talk shows to defend an embattled appointee. But none came Sunday. On ABC’s “This Week,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs only thanked Jones “for his service to the country” and said that Obama does not agree with his views.
Increased pressure
Beck first criticized Jones earlier this summer on his radio show and recently increased the pressure. An online Berkeley organization that Jones co-founded but no longer is associated with, Color of Change, called on advertisers to boycott Beck after he said in late July that Obama “has a deep-seated hatred for white people.” A few dozen companies responded by pulling their ads from Beck’s show.
“Van’s resignation is the tragic result of a retaliatory witch-hunt by Glenn Beck and Fox News Channel,” Color of Change co-founder James Rucker said Sunday. “Beck’s attacks against Van Jones haven’t been about finding the truth, they’ve been about changing the subject from his bigoted comments and continued race-baiting.”
In response, Fox News Channel referred to Beck’s statement to the New York Times Sunday that “instead of providing (answers about Jones’ background) the administration had Jones resign under cover of darkness,” and Beck’s promise to focus on other “radicals” in the Obama White House.
E-mail Joe Garofoli at jgarofoli@sfchronicle.com.
Suzy Subways said
you know, one of the things that’s really scary is that i was just looking for an internet link to send to friends about STORM, so they could check out what an amazing organization it was. And all I can find so far is right-wing hate sites, porno links and dead links saying it will harm my computer. They are raising up a shitstorm. We need to make sure there are good sites with STORM info prominently featured that can be easily found, especially by young people who are looking for good information.
Suzy Subways said
this one seems to be working:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10717234/Reclaiming-Revolution-history-summation-and-lessons-from-the-work-of-STORM
Miles Ahead said
While Mike’s comment (Nº 9) was not a digression, and enhanced this discussion, my following added comment might be considered a digression.
The reason I put [sic] after J. Edgar’s name was precisely because of his treacherous hypocrisy. Thought about mentioning Roy Cohn, and even RFK (another side of the hypocrisy and fanatic conservatism) but didn’t, so am glad Mike did.
I never thought about some fairly disguised homophobia coming from Joseph Welch or others. So Mike’s points were food for thought. When I think of Welch, “Point of Order” always comes to mind–with McCarthy continuing to rant to an empty courtroom. But, where were the Joseph Welches before that stark moment?
Perhaps Geo. Clooney’s more contemporary “Good Night and Good Luck” as well as the more than powerful “Angels in America” by Tony Kushner should be re-released to help counter some of the current witch-hunt practices and politics.
As far as Glenn Beck goes–I can’t help but think that part of his reactionary campaign against Van Jones is to help bolster his sagging ratings (with some reiteration to his base), with the pull-out of many advertisers after he called Obama a racist. Be that as it may, that doesn’t change our (and all progressives) role in fighting the “marginalized” Right, and keeping the larger picture in mind.
IMO it cannot be overstated that this isn’t strictly about Van Jones. I can however appreciate Garofoli’s exposé, if for no other reason that it points to another pole out there doing battle with the Glenn Beck’s.
But a N.B. on Elia Kazan. No one can deny some of the greatness of his films and screenplays. But as much as Kazan was revered for his art, he was equally detested by many for his cowardice and naming names. And that the Academy would award Kazan a lifetime achievement award (1999) was highly controversial. Even at the Oscars, one could see a split in the audience.
In a bittersweet moment, blacklisted because she refused to testify/name names before HUAC, Lillian Hellman, years after the fact (but before Kazan rec’d the award) was on the same Oscar stage–having been exonerated by the more conservative members of the Academy. Not only was Hellman not that thrilled, she was unrepentant and happened to be one of the most vocal critics of Elia Kazan. And Hellman was originally suspect because of her association with Dashiell Hammett, and while always supporting progressive causes, was not in fact a member of the CPUSA.
Recently the author Budd Schulberg died. Along with other books and screenplays, but probably most famously “What Makes Sammy Run”, Schulberg was most-definitely part of the Leftist/progressive genre in the creative arts. But he ultimately named names–something that supposedly haunted him his whole life.
Seems to me, while things are not always cut and dry, with this latest attack, and any future attacks–and you know there will definitely be future ones– progressive and revolutionary mind people need to go on the offensive in this battle for public opinion and be even bolder than the reactionaries of all stripes. And the time is now.
Adrienne said
The way I see it, it’s not that Van Jones wasn’t defended by people on the Left, but that Van Jones chose not to defend himself. Or defend what he supposedly believes in. Or defend his opportunity to hold such a powerful government position and work to make the changes he claims he wanted to affect.
I mean seriously folks, where was the power of Van Jones’ convictions?
The man chose to step down from his position. Why is that?
Was he really so afraid that it would make Obama look bad? Was it really because a racist, emotionally unstable train wreck like Glenn Beck who clearly belongs in a tightly laced straightjacket wouldn’t stop talking about him on the TeeVee?
Does Van Jones really think that his stepping down will now make Republicans stop going after Obama?
And I have to wonder, what does Van Jones really think about Obama?
Does he stand behind what the president has, and has not, been doing?
Did Jones like Obama’s decision on the FISA bill and his lies about telecom immunity? Or how about the bank bailouts to crooks with their total lack of curbs on executive pay? How about his inaction on climate change and on allowing mountain top removal? Or his failure to lift a finger to repeal DOMA and DADT? Or Obama’s refusal to comply with a treaty against torture that even fucking Reagan signed? Or his expansion of Bush’s state secrets claims, or his expansion of Bush’s preventive detention claims? Or the fact that he hasn’t shut down Gitmo? What does he think about how Obama has handled health care? Did he approve of Obama immediately saying that single payer should be off the table? And what does Jones think now that Obama is asking the progressive wing of his party how far they’re willing to compromise on the public option — even though the public option was also a compromise? What does he think of how Obama has been kissing conservative ass since before he even got elected, even when the conservatives have treated him with nothing but contempt?
Why didn’t Obama, or any of the Democrats defend Van Jones, or refuse to accept his resignation?
Isn’t the real problem here due to their own fearful weakness and overall lack of spine?
And isn’t it a fact that there isn’t a thing that we on the Left can do to really help them with that?
Can anyone here imagine a Republican apologizing or stepping down for the reasons that Van Jones did?
No, isn’t it true that the Republicans never step down, no matter what it is they’ve been caught out in? And that they never apologize no matter what despicable thing comes out of their mouths?
So, for instance Cheney can loudly tell a Democrat to go fuck himself on the Senate floor and there will be no apology. Or Tom Delay can be a blatant and utterly shameless criminal, and still remain the Republican House Majority Leader. Or Senator Ted Stevens can be faced with seven felony corruption charges, but won’t be asked to step down. Or Senator Larry Craig can be busted for soliciting anonymous bathroom sex at the airport and won’t step down. Or Rep. David Vitter can be found to be paying prostitutes to put diapers on him, and yet he still remains in place.
But of course Van Jones simply has to step down because (gasp!) he dared to publicly call the Republicans assholes, and because he signed a petition regarding the need for more investigation into 9/11!
The unceasing spinelessness of Democrats is just totally pathetic. And their fear in the face of Republican shamelessness makes no bloody sense at all.
Mike E said
Suzy writes:
Hmmmm.
It really would be a shame if there was such a spotlight on the STORM past, and no available resource.
There are some summations of Storm that exist, and some personal recollections.
Can we gather the links up and make them available — here (and elsewhere if possible)? (This site has a remarkably high google rating cuz of its SEO practices, and often gets quite a bit of traffic from google searches.)
Email Kasama with the links that seem most representative of STORM, perhaps with some excerpts. And we could entitle it something like “STORM: The Change that They Accuse Van Jones of Once Wanting?” (or something like that).
Thoughts pro and con?
Miles Ahead said
And if any of us had any doubt about the Right’s plans, this from an article on the Huff. Post today, with a quote from G. Beck:
“It’s exceedingly unlikely that Beck will be satisfied by Jones’ resignation, seeing in it evidence that he was correct in his assessment of Obama’s supposed radical lieutenants. “Jones is the tip of the iceberg,” Beck said.
“Glenn Beck gets first scalp”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/06/glenn-beck-gets-first-sca_n_278281.html
Miles Ahead said
Another county heard from:
Revolution #2009–by Steven Weber.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-weber/revolution-2009_b_278381.html
Suzy Subways said
In case this is helpful, I just posted the PDF of Reclaiming Revolution on my ftp site in case people need to link to it.
http://suzy.defenestrator.org/STORMSummation.pdf
I also posted it on the website of our radical (mostly anarchist) newspaper here in Philly, so some folks here could get at it. Here is what I posted there:
Reclaiming Revolution: History, Summation and Lessons from the work of Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM)
Van Jones, Obama’s special advisor for green jobs, was just forced out by a right-wing witch hunt because of his radical past. Lost in this conversation is information about the amazing and innovative group Van was part of in the Bay Area in the 1990s. Lucky for us they collectively wrote this document, Reclaiming Revolution, to sum up the lessons of their work. For more info on Van Jones’ resignation, see this insightful piece by the good folks at Kasama or this Alternet commentary
Here’s an excerpt from Reclaiming Revolution’s “Preface: Why This Document?”
This is the story of Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), a revolutionary cadre organization based in the San Francisco Bay Area. From September 1994 to December 2002, STORM helped to re-invigorate the Left, both locally and nationally. STORM members fought on the frontlines of some of the most important struggles of those eight years. We built organizations and institutions that continue to fight. And we supported the development of a new generation of revolutionary internationalists in the Bay Area and across the country.
During that time, we gained a wealth of experience that offers the Left some important lessons. To ensure that those lessons are not lost or clouded by time and memory, we have chosen to document that experience now. We humbly offer this document in hopes that it may help move the Left forward.
As young leftists starting a revolutionary organization, we certainly could have used such a document. Most of us had never been in a revolutionary organization. After all, STORM’s membership was always more than 60 percent women and more than 75 percent people of color – people all too often (and tragically) marginalized by and alienated from the U.S. Left….
Reclaiming Revolution is divided into five sections. The first section offers an overview of the historical period in which STORM operated. The second section detail’s STORM’s history. Next, we summarize the politics that defined the organization. The fourth section describes STORM’s organizational structure. And we end the document by evaluating STORM’s work – our successes, our errors and the lessons we have drawn from all of this….
“Hide nothing from the masses of people. Tell no lies. Expose lies whenever they are told. Mask no difficulties, mistakes, failures. Claim no easy victories.” – Amilcar Cabral, African revolutionary leader
LS said
I agree with Suzy that making information available about the history and politics of STORM is timely and politically important.
At Left Spot blog I’ve had a copy of the PDF of STORM’s posthumous summation “Reclaiming Revolution” posted there for a while. Thanks to Glen Beck & co, the traffic on Left Spot skyrocketed with people looking for the STORM info there, which knocked the site offline for a bit for exceeding bandwith limit. Anyway, that’s taken care of now and it’s back online. So another link the STORM summation can be accessed at is:
http://www.leftspot.com/blog/files/docs/STORMSummation.pdf
Also if I remember correctly there was quite a bit of discussion/struggle about STORM on the long-defunct 2changetheworld.info website.That website is long gone but I imagine it can be accessed through archive.org if someone thinks there might have been anything valuable written in those discussions about STORM that would be worth revisiting.
Radical-Eyes said
Not that this is really “about” Van Jones, but for the record, below is a clear statement from Jones, from last year’s DemocracyNow (It was re-aired this morning).
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/8/white_house_environmental_adviser_van_jones
Notably, even though DNow! made Van Jones resignation their lead story today, there was little to no discussion there about the broader and wider significane of this attack on high level “progressives” as a policing of the limits of “legitimate” discussion and debate in this society.
*******
“VAN JONES: I think it’s really important to point out that we’re sort of at the end of an era of American capitalism, where we thought we could run the economy based on consumption rather than production, credit rather than creativity, borrowing rather than building, and also, most importantly, environmental destruction rather than environmental restoration.
We’re trying to make the case in this book that that era is over. We now have to move in a very different direction. And key to that will be basing the US economy not on credit cards, but based on clean energy and the clean energy revolution that would put literally millions of people to work, putting up solar panels all across the United States, weatherizing buildings so they don’t leak so much energy and put up so much carbon, building wind farms and wave farms, manufacturing wind turbines. We argue you could put Detroit back to work not making SUVs to destroy the world, but making wind turbines, 8,000 finely machine parts in each one, twenty tons of steel in each wind tower, making wind turbines to help save the world.
So we think that you can fight pollution and poverty at the same time. We think that you can actually power our way through this recession by putting people to work, but we’re going to have to start building things here and re-powering, retrofitting, retooling America, and that that’s the way forward both for the economy, for the earth and for everyday people.
AMY GOODMAN: How exactly do you expect to get support for this? We’re talking about a global economic recession. True, there has been $850 billion found to deal with the bailout of the banks, but what’s your plan, Van Jones?
VAN JONES: Well, you know, the good thing about it is that Senator Barack Obama has come out in the past week saying that this clean energy revolution is going to be his main priority. You’re going to see something very interesting happen in American politics. We’ll call it the rise of the green Keynesians, the idea that the government is going to have to play a role in the economy, we’re going to have even more deficit spending to kind of stimulate the economy, to move us through.
And when you look at, you know, what should you spend that money on, last time we had a stimulus, we gave out a bunch of checks to people who ran out to Wal-Mart and bought flat-screen TVs, so we stimulated the economy—it was just the Chinese economy, not this one. The smart way to do a stimulus is to invest in infrastructure. And the smart infrastructure that we need right now is infrastructure that gets the price of energy down, that gets us more energy independent. All roads point toward a major investment in clean energy, probably funded in part by deficit spending on the part of the government.
But let’s be clear. The real solution to this whole thing is to put a price on carbon. The biggest economic stimulus I can imagine would be a carbon tax or a cap and trade, cap and dividend, cap and cash back, some sort of cap on carbon, so that suddenly there is a market signal for private capital to start moving aggressively in a clean energy, low carbon direction.
Once you do that, you unleash innovation, you unleash technology, you unleash entrepreneurship. Much more importantly, solar panels don’t put themselves up. Wind turbines don’t manufacture themselves. Everything that is good for the earth, that’s good for clean energy, gives a job and an economic opportunity. What we’ve got to do is capture that for people here who are going to be out of work, who are struggling, and use that as a springboard. You can’t build the economy on credit cards. You can build an economy based on clean energy, based on solar panels, based on wind, based on geothermal, smarter, non-food-based biofuels. There are literally—there’s literally, I think, a $100 billion play out there in clean energy for the United States, but not a whole lot of $100 billion plays in the economy right now. This is one of them. “
Mike E said
Interesting and revealing snapshot of Van Jones’ current politics and present incarnation.
I don’t assume that people reading that quote have identical responses or insights into what it means.
Can you, perhaps, Radical Eyes, lay out for us what you draw from this quote, and how you view its politics?
Adrienne said
Article from the website Alternet that appeared today: Big Business’s Hidden Hand in the Smear Job on Van Jones: How Americans for Prosperity, the astroturf group that organized town-hall thuggery, teamed up with FOX News to force out Van Jones.
Mike E said
hmmmm.
LS writes:
I was the main moderator of 2changetheworld…. so have (somewhere?) all the records of the site.
Which reminds me that not only are the discussions of STORM interesting… but a lot else.
hmmmm.
Radical-Eyes said
Well, Mike, I only have a moment before I must go to bed. I teach at 8am, with an hour commute… :0
But I would say for staters that Van Jones’ belief that massive deficit spending–green or otherwise– is a feasible strategy for saving the US state and economy at this point seems to overlook certain objective conditions that in the present moment delimt even ruling class “freedom.”
And besides this there is this obvious limit of Jones’ nationalist framework for evaluating economic stimulus etc.
There is much more to say of course, and I would like to see others engage Jones’ views, certainly.
LESTER said
I wonder, does the white house already control the internet? It must have been a heck of a feat to erase the document, STORM: Reclaiming Revolution from the internet , the web archives, google,and replace it with this partisan crap. What are you attempting to hide? We are not as stupid as you commie/marxist lying leeches think. we know your schemes. you will be defeated.
Tell No Lies said
Hey Lester,
Not to interrupt your paranoid reverie or anything, but I just checked the link given above: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10717234/Reclaiming-Revolution-history-summation-and-lessons-from-the-work-of-STORM and it is still working.
Have a nice day.