vol. 2, no. 3 •• may 2004 may 2004 50¢ ($1 solidarity)50...

1Vol. 2, No. 3 • MAY 2004

socialistsocialistThe MICHIGANThe MICHIGANWorkers of the World, Unite!Workers of the World, Unite!

Vol. 2, No. 3 • May 2004Vol. 2, No. 3 • May 2004 50¢ ($1 Solidarity)50¢ ($1 Solidarity)

The MICHIGAN SOCIALIST2

socialistThe MICHIGAN

Editor

SPMI ChairpersonSPMI Secretary

MARTIN SCHREADER

MATT ERARD

MIKE TREACY

The Michigan Socialist is the voice of the Social-ist Party of Michigan (SPMI), affiliate of theSocialist Party USA. Party address: 909 WalwoodCt., No. 2, Kalamazoo, MI 49007; e-mail:[email protected]; WWW: http://news.mi-socialists.org.

All submissions to the Michigan Socialist canbe sent by mail or e-mail. Articles sent in hard-copy format should have 1-inch margins all theway around, and be printed in a basic, legibletypeface (e.g., Times New Roman or Helvetica).Articles sent electronically, either by e-mail oron diskette, should be in plain text (.txt), RichText (.rtf) or MS Word (.doc) format, althoughany format will be accepted. Submissions sentby e-mail can be addressed to [email protected].

Signed articles, columns and letters do notnecessarily reflect the viewpoint of the SocialistParty of Michigan, which are expressed in edi-torial statements, or the Socialist Party USA.The Editor of the Michigan Socialist reserves theright to edit all articles for typography and spell-ing without consultation. On all other mattersof editing, the Editor will attempt to collaboratewith authors as much as possible.

THE SOCIALIST PARTY strives to establish aradical democracy that places people’s lives undertheir own control: where working people own andcontrol the means of production and distribution,through democratically-controlled committees andassemblies; where full employment is realized foreveryone who wants to work; where workers havethe right to form unions freely, and to strike andengage in other forms of job actions; and where theproduction of society is used for the benefit of allhumanity, not for the private profit of a few. Webelieve socialism and democracy are one andindivisible.

The Socialist Party fights for progressivechanges compatible with a socialist future. Wesupport union and electoral actions — independentof the capitalist-controlled two-party system — topresent socialist alternatives. We strive fordemocratic revolutions — radical and fundamentalchanges in the structure and nature of economic,political and social relations — to abolish thepower now exercised by the few who control theeconomy and the government.

The Socialist Party is a democratic, multi-tendency organization, with structure and practicesvisible and accessible to all members.

Socialist Party USA:

Outline of Principles

party notes

APRIL 26 — This morning, Ben Burgis, asupporter of the Socialist Party and candi-date for Michigan State University Boardof Trustees, was arraigned on charges of dis-orderly conduct and malicious destructionof property.

The charges stem from a protest held out-side the East Lansing, Mich., recruiting sta-tion of the U.S. Marine Corps on March 1,in response to the “regime change” in Hai-ti, organized by the regime in Washington.

It is alleged that Burgis removed a Ma-rine Corps poster from the wall and attempt-ed to burn it. The poster, mass produced bythe government, is valued at 10 cents.

Burgis was released on his own recogni-zance pending a pre-trial hearing on May13.

Looking at the facts of the case, it is clearthat the pressing of charges by the State ofMichigan is politically motivated.

First of all, the Marine recruiter in chargestated in an interview to the State News thatthe protest was an “American right,” im-plying that, in his opinion, what he saw takeplace was legal and well within the bounds

Socialist chargedfor exercising rights

Drop all charges against Ben Burgis!

of the First Amendment.(In fact, the Marine stood and watched

the protest take place, and at no time raisedany concern about illegal activity.)

Secondly, the first anyone heard of charg-es being pressed was the day before the na-tional day of protest against the Iraq war onMarch 20, when a detective from the EastLansing Police Department had Burgis godown to the station and make a statement.

“The poster was just an excuse, some-thing they could ‘get someone on’,” saidBurgis. “The real issue was the entirely le-gal antiwar protest.”

Burgis compared the charges to RobertKennedy’s famous line about prosecutingMafia figures in the 1960s, that he wouldhave them arrested for “spitting on the side-walk” if that was all on which he could getthem.

Socialist Party members will be showingup to support Burgis at his pre-trial hearing.If you are interested in helping with his de-fense, please contact the Michigan Socialistor the SPMI. �

Martin Schreader

I, the undersigned, desiring to bring about by democraticmeans a new society based upon democratic socialism,hereby apply for membership in the Socialist Party USA,

and subscribe to its principles.

Join theSocialistParty USA

Send check or money order to 909 Walwood Ct., No. 2, Kalamazoo, Mich. 49007.Or go online to http://www.mi-socialists.org/join.html and sign up.

Name: _____________________________________________

Address: ___________________________________________

__________________________________________________

City: ______________________ State: ______ Zip: _________

Phone (optional): (_______)____________________________

E-Mail (optional): ____________________________________

Interests (optional): ___________________________________

Annual Income Dues

❏ Striker/prisoner FREE❏ Student $10❏ Under $20,000 $25❏ $20,000-35,000 $60❏ $35,001-50,000 $125❏ $50,001 and up $250

Waiver for poverty available

✁CLIP HERE AND SEND

3Vol. 2, No. 3 • MAY 2004

A LITTLE OVER a year ago, the Ameri-can capitalists and their supporters thoughtthey had every reason to celebrate.

The invasion of Iraq and the toppling ofSaddam Hussein’s Ba’athist regime werehailed in the media as an astounding suc-cess. Nearly all the political representativesof capitalism were triumphantly proclaim-ing “a new day” for Iraq and reveling in thebelief that they brought “liberation” to theIraqi people.

In the 12 months since, as the invasionbecame an occupation, ongoing resistancechipped away at both the patience and theimage of the occupiers. As the numbers ofwounded and killed in action reached intothe hundreds, retaliation by occupationforces escalated.

By the end of 2003, the American occu-piers, and their allies in the so-called “Coa-lition of the Willing,” had begun to taketheir aggression and frustration out on Iraqicivilians. Reports began to surface of atroc-

lead article

All troops out now!The real war of liberation has begun...

By MARTIN SCHREADER

Editor, the Michigan Socialist

ities and war crimes committed against ci-vilians suspected of being “sympathizers” ofthe resistance forces.

Many of these acts of aggression werecarried out against an emerging movementamong the Shi’ite religious community inBaghdad and the southern region of thecountry. Iraqi Shi’ites, who had been a fa-vored target of the Ba’athist regime due totheir religious kinship with Iran, began toorganize themselves into militia groups.

In March of this year, the American vice-roy in Iraq, Paul Bremer, ordered the clo-sure of a small newspaper aimed at the Shi’acommunity in Baghdad’s “Sadr City” neigh-borhood because, they claimed, the publi-cation advocated violence against the oc-cupiers (an unsubstantiated charge).

And then, all hell broke loose.Within days of this act, Shi’ite militias

throughout Baghdad and southern Iraq hadmobilized for combat.

By the anniversary of the Americans’ en-trance into the Iraqi capital, these militias,now joined by hundreds of thousands of or-dinary Iraqis of all religions and ethnicities,

The lucky ones: Young children made refu-gees by the presence of U.S. Marines aroundthe Iraqi city of Fallujah. These children areforced to endure the weather and militaryguard dogs in order to wait for a time whenthey might be let back into their homes.

Antiwar activist targeted by Grand Rapids policeBy BRIAN McAFEE

The Michigan Socialist

IN THE MONTHS preceding and duringBush’s war in Iraq last year the global andnational protests included generally conser-vative and birthplace of Amway, westernMichigan.

The cities of Grand Rapids, Muskegonand Holland, Mich., had regular weakly pro-tests typically ranging in size from 30 to 200.Grand Rapids, the largest of the three, withabout 200,000 in population, was spotlight-ed in the Muskegon Chronicle last week, inan article titled, “Police infiltrate peace ral-lies.”

The article, written by Ted Roelof, ex-poses how the Grand Rapids Police Depart-ment “sent undercover police officers to an-

tiwar meetings and rallies, collecting intel-ligence about the aims of activists.”

Throughout the protests, demonstratorshave cited the lack of an evident link be-tween the attacks of Sept. 11 and Iraq, andthe silence and tacit approval of the U.S.when Saddam Hussein used poison gas inthe Iran-Iraq war and against the Kurds in1988.

Many demonstrators believe Bush’s pri-mary motives to be a move toward MiddleEast hegemony and control of the oil fields.

Demonstrator Abby Puls, 24, a Spanishinterpreter at the Kent County Courthousewas singled out by undercover police offic-ers and told she could be fired for “choosingsides.”

She was also threatened with arrest for“hindering and opposing” police if she iden-

tified any of them.Grand Rapids Police Chief Harry Dolan

confirmed Puls’ statement, saying he fearedfor his officers’ safety at peace demonstra-tions.

Police conduct at anti-war rallies firstsurfaced in February in Salon, an onlinemagazine, according to Roelof’s article.

Grand Rapids City Commissioner RickTormala said of police conduct: “To moni-tor citizens and their activities when theyare dissenting against the government iswrong.”

“People have a right to assemble and saywhat they want.”

From Vietnam to the present, there hasnever been any instance of violence perpe-trated by protestors in western Michigan.

continued on page 12


spoken opponents ofthe occupation.

The first act was theclosure of al-Sadr’sBaghdad newspaper,which, though small,was considered vital tothe Shi’ite residents ofSadr City. The issuing ofan arrest warrant for al-Sadr by the CoalitionProvisional Authority,allegedly for the killing of a pro-Americancleric shortly after the 2003 invasion, quick-ly followed.

When Shi’ite residents of Sadr City pro-tested the arrest warrant and the closure ofal-Sadr’s newspaper, the occupiers respond-ed with rocket attacks from Apache heli-copters. Close to 40 people were killed, andover 100 were wounded.

The result was open rebellion; militiassupportive of al-Sadr, organized as the Armyof the Hidden Imam (the al-Mahdi), rapid-ly took power in several cities, includingNajaf and Karbala. In many of the areaswhere the al-Mahdi took power, the local

councils appointed by the occupiers simplyhanded over control without a struggle.

Iraqis of all ages, both men and women,have joined in the new struggle. Sunni andShi’ite militias have formed working agree-ments to common strikes against the occu-piers, and have found support in both thereligious (Chaldean) and ethnic (Kurdish)minority communities.

For his part, al-Sadr sought to appeal tothe people of the United States for supportand assistance: “I call upon the Americanpeople to stand beside your brothers and sis-ters, the Iraqi people, who are suffering aninjustice by your rulers and the occupyingarmy, and to help them in the transfer ofpower to honest Iraqis.”

This statement alone explodes the mythcreated by Washington — that all thoseopposing the occupation of Iraq are, at once,“anti-American” and akin to former CIAagent-turned-terrorist leader, Osama binLaden.

Al-Sadr’s call quite clearly (and quitecorrectly) makes a distinction between thepeople of the U.S. and the regime of George

had seized control of most major cities southand west of Baghdad, including Falluja,Najaf and Karbala.

In northern cities like Tikrit, Kut andKirkuk, Sunni militias exchanged gunfirewith U.S. Marines. In Baghdad itself, armedstrikes and demonstrations by workers arecoupled with skirmishes between militiasand American occupation forces.

The isolated pockets of resistance havegiven way to a generalized mobilization ofthe people against the occupation. Even thenewly minted Iraqi Army has collapsed,with significant sections of it joining withthe militias or formally declaring neutrali-ty.

The situation in Iraq today is nothingshort of a war of national liberation againstcolonial occupation.

THE SPARK THAT lit this prairie fire wasthe series of moves against Shi’ite clericMoqtada al-Sadr. The son of a revered Shi’areligious figure (for whom Sadr City isnamed), and a self-proclaimed direct de-scendant of the Muslim prophet Muham-mad, al-Sadr has been one of the most out-

‘The people of Iraq are not the enemy’The following is excerpted from a statement by Ben Burgis, Chairpersonof the Military Outreach Commission of the Socialist Party of Michigan.The full text is available at the SPMI’s website — www.mi-socialists.org.IN THE LAST few days, the long-termtrend of armed resistance by individualsand small groups of Iraqis against their for-eign conquerors has exploded into an out-right, mass-based popular uprising....

A full transfer of power to a provision-al government formed by the rebels andempowered to organize direct elections toa constitutional convention could be se-cured within days, and there is no logisti-cal reason why the full, orderly withdraw-al of American and “coalition” soldiersfrom Iraq (protected by the surrenderagreement) would have to take longerthan the three weeks it took them to driveto Baghdad (through heavy fighting) inthe first place....

The movement’s message to thosetroops stationed in Iraq should be terriblysimple: Unlike Bush and his accomplices,we truly support you; we believe that yourblood is worth more than Iraq’s oil. Laydown your arms!

Camp out in your bases and refuse togo on patrol. Refuse to fire on crowds ofIraqis who want what we in America our-selves gained by force of arms in the 18thcentury — independence from foreignrule. The people of Iraq are not your ene-my.

The people who sent you off to die forthe sake of oil profits, regional control and‘reconstruction contracts’ are the enemy,in Iraq no less than in shop floor strugglesfor better wages and working conditionsback home.

Being a soldier does not make you lessa citizen entitled to equal protection un-der the law.

According to the U.S. Constitutionand foreign treaties signed by the UnitedStates government, thereby becoming su-preme law according to that Constitution,you have no legal obligation to follow im-moral, illegal orders to fight in Bush’s dirtywar of counterinsurgency.

Your efforts in Iraq and ours in theUnited States, combined with the ongo-ing uprising of the Iraqis to emancipatethemselves, can result in an Americanwithdrawal, so that the Iraqi people canhave national independence and free elec-tions.

When that happens, you can comehome and help us settle accounts with theunelected administration that sent you toIraq in the first place and is openly plan-ning to steal the next election through theprivatization of vote-counting into thehands of GOP-friendly corporations —with an “opposition” party that acts as aknowing accomplice to that administra-tion’s crimes — with the unelected mediabarons who monopolize our public air-waves to spread that administration’s liesand with the unelected aristocracy of cor-porate executives and stockholders onwhose behalf the war is being fought.

You need to come home and join us infighting for the same things for this coun-try that the Iraqis want for Iraq, in a move-ment for civil rights and free elections inthe United States of America. �

Shi’ite cleric Moq-tada al-Sadr, headof the al-Mahdi.


5Vol. 2, No. 3 • MAY 2004

By MATT ERARD


The dialectics ofneoconservatismSINCE THE BUILD-UP to the U.S. inva-sion of Iraq, the term, “neocon” has becomesomewhat of a household word.

Generally it is attributed to those whoadvocate the principle positions of the Bushregime: unilaterally engaging in wars of con-quest, skyrocketing increases in corporatewelfare and the military budget, and gut-ting essential social services that benefit thepoor and working-class while spending with-out any regard to the deficit.

To fully understand the Bush doctrine,however, it is essential to understand thatthe philosophy of neoconservatism is fardeeper than the whims of a foolish presi-dent to keep his corporate donors happy andensure his re-election.

Despite their frequent tactical errors andpolitical setbacks, the neocons represent themost calculated and determined politicalcurrent we have seen on the AmericanRight since the time of Kissinger, albeit farmore dangerous.

What is most surprising, although notmost shocking, about the philosophy of neo-conservatism is its origins. The first genera-tion of neocons has their roots not in theolder waves of American conservatism, butin the opposite movement to the one thename of their philosophy would suggest.

Those who now lead the American NewRight began on the American Old Left.

Many of the most powerful and promi-nent neocons today began their political ca-reers in the Socialist Party, Socialist Partyyouth branch: the Young Peoples SocialistLeague, and Socialist Party splinter group,Social Democrats USA.

Such figures include Special Assistant tothe President Elliot Abrams, State Depart-ment appointee Pen Kemble, National En-dowment for Democracy Chairman CarlGershman, leading neocon author, JoshuaMuravchik, former foreign policy adviserunder Reagan, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, andBush’s original appointee for Secretary ofLabor, Linda Chavez.

Non-members such as Deputy Secretaryof Defense Paul Wolfowitz, member andformer chairman of the Defense PolicyBoard Richard Perle, and Defense PolicyBoard member William Kristol were alsowell connected to the same political cur-rent within these organizations.

NEARLY ALL OF these figures came intoSocialist Party or one of its affiliates duringone of the party’s most regressive and divi-sive periods.

In 1958, the Socialist Party merged withthe Independent Socialist League, a“Trotskyist” group led by Max Shachtman.

Not long beforehand, Schachtman, aformer “Trotskyist” himself, had drasticallyshifted his viewpoint on Communist move-ments around the world, acquiring a “ThirdCamp” ideology of equal opposition to bothAmerican capitalism and (“foreign”) “Com-munism.”

Bent on using the ISL merger to takecontrol of the Socialist Party, Shachtmanadvocated what was often referred to as “re-alignment strategy,” in which socialistsshould attempt to realign with and subse-quently transform the Democratic Partywhile concealing their socialist identities.

As both support and resistance towardrealignment strategy in the Socialist Partyincreased, Shachtman’s philosophical and

From the Old Left to the New Right

Neocon Rogue’s Gallery (from top to bottom,left to right): Max Shachtman; JeanneKirkpatrick; Paul Wolfowitz; Richard Perle;Elliot Abrams; William Kristol; Linda Chavez;Carl Gershman.

national/analysis


programmatic drift to the rightwing fol-lowed.

Shachtman revised his previous “ThirdCamp” ideology to a new perspective thatAmerican capitalism was incomparably su-perior to “Communism” and should be sup-ported accordingly.

By 1972, Shachtman and his supportershad gained a majority in the Socialist Partyand consequently blocked a resolution op-posing the Vietnam War. Soon after, theShachtmanites launched Social DemocratsUSA as a new organization to further hisstrategy of realignment.

Among Shachtman’s most ardent sup-porters were the young Socialist Party andSDUSA members who would shape the fu-ture of the neoconservative ideology.

Bypassing the New Left movement alto-gether and trading their Old Left revolu-tionary zeal for placatory liberalism, manyof the young future neocons were attractedto the arch-Zionist and Cold Warrior Dem-ocratic Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson,whose hawkish views made pivotal contri-butions to the neocons’ perspective.

Crediting Jackson alone, however, forbridging the gap between the neocons post-Schachtmanite liberalism and the philoso-phy they subscribe to today would be a graveinaccuracy without noting the crucial in-fluence on nearly all neocons from a Uni-versity of Chicago professor by the name ofLeo Strauss.

STRAUSS WAS KNOWN for his philoso-phy based on the “politics of deception,”primarily influenced by the philosophies ofNiccolo Machiavelli, Friedrich Nietzsche,existentialist and Nazi philosopher MartinHeidegger, and Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt.

The chief tenants of Straussian philoso-phy are aggressive nationalism, the absenceof moral truth, intensive secrecy and “per-petual deception” between rulers and theruled, appeals to religion as a means of con-trolling the masses, and support for an aris-tocratic elite.

According to Straussian analyst andUniversity of Calgary political science pro-fessor Shadia Drury, Strauss believed that“those who are fit to rule are those who re-alize there is no morality and there is onlyone natural right — the right of the superi-or to rule over the inferior.”

It was the influence of Leo Strauss com-bined with other pre-neoconservativethinkers such as Norman Podhoretz and Irv-

ing Kristol that led the former Shachtman-ite bloc of neocons to become ideologicallylinked with other, now-prominent Strauss-ian adherents: Attorney General John Ash-croft, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Th-omas, Office of National Drug Control Pol-icy Director William J. Bennett and formerVice-President Dan Quayle.

Straussian influence today has not onlydeveloped a chokehold on the WhiteHouse, State Department, Justice Depart-ment and the Pentagon, but has also per-meated through educational institutionswith an increasing level of influence overmodern-day academics.

Neocons represent the only major seg-ment of contemporary conservatism ofwhich the vast majority of its adherents havepost-graduate degrees.

The website Straussian.Net lists over 200professors in universities across the UnitedStates that it claims subscribe to the phi-losophy of Leo Strauss.

Straussian and neoconservative profes-sors have had most success in political sci-ence departments, in which they are com-ing increasingly close to making the disci-pline their own, as Marxists have accom-plished to some extent with sociology andright-libertarians have accomplished witheconomics.

Much of Straussian influence amongmodern day academics during the past de-cade can be attributed to the best-sellingbook, The Closing of the American Mind, writ-ten by Straussian disciple Allan Bloom in1988.

The book, in which Bloom directly ref-

erences his teacher only once, was a sourceof regular outcry in the early nineties dueto its influential role in censorship policiesand restrictions on academic freedom.

ALTHOUGH ANY remnants of socialistprinciples among today’s leading neoconshave diminished entirely, what they haveretained from their “Trotskyist” backgroundsis the underlying Marxian philosophy ofdialectical and historical materialism —viewing class as the predominant factor inpolitics and economics, and the class strug-gle as the predominant basis of history.

What the Straussian influence has result-ed in, however, is a fundamental inverse inMarxian principle — i.e., no longer view-ing class struggle from the perspective of theworking class, but rather from the viewpointof the bourgeoisie.

It is this very reason that we hear suchunprecedented comments in the media fromthe Bush regime such as casually dismissingcritical responses to Bush’s tax cuts as at-tempts at “class-war.”

For those familiar with the Marxian and“Trotskyist” view of capitalism’s progression,it need not be stated that such an inverseapproach to Marxian philosophy by thosein power would result in a refined and de-veloped approach to imperialism based onan awareness of the near inevitability ofcapitalism’s eventual collapse.

Not only would such a form of imperial-ism be more overt than imperialistic endeav-ors in the past century, it would contain amore holistic understanding of the histori-

Among friends: Leo Strauss (top) and Martin Heidegger were prominent supporters of theGerman Nazis before going on to become the philosophical leaders of the neoconservatives.Heidegger regularly held parties where he invited prominent Nazis to socialize and meet.


7Vol. 2, No. 3 • MAY 2004

SURVIVORTHE 2004 ELECTIONTHE 2004 ELECTION

By L. MEYERS


The anointed oneThe anointed oneThe political significance of John Kerry

BARRING SOME major catastrophe, it isobvious that the Democratic candidate forpresident will be Senator John Kerry of Mas-sachusetts.

When the race for the Democratic nom-ination began, Kerry was seen as someonewith little chance of winning.

Indeed, until the Iowa caucuses in Janu-ary, it looked like the junior senator wasready to pack up and go home.

But then, something happened.As the situation in Iraq began to worsen

for the American ruling class, millions ofangry citizens began flocking to the per-ceived “outsider” candidates in the race —specifically former Governor Howard Deanand retired General Wesley Clark.

The capitalists watched in worried fasci-nation at the grassroots network built byDean’s populist movement.

They really began sweating when Deanincreasingly took an antiwar line.

Meanwhile, the more “hawkish” candi-dates — senators Joe Lieberman and JohnEdwards — were languishing in the polls.Something had to be done to offset the suc-cess of the “outsiders.”

Enter John Kerry ... and the ruling fac-tion of the Democrats, the DemocraticLeadership Council.

Together with their friends in the mediaindustry, the DLC began spinning the linethat Kerry was the most “electable” candi-date.

That is, he was the one who could defeatGeorge W. Bush and his Republican regime

in the 2004 election.That line tapped into a more generalized

sentiment among many Americans, regard-less of political affiliation.

Coupled with the DLC-contrived “Any-body But Bush” movement among Demo-cratic activists, the tide began to shift.

The anger and resentment (and fear!)millions of Americans feel toward the Bushregime, combined with a media smear jobon “unacceptable” Democratic candidates,tipped the scales back in favor of the DLCand its stable of candidates.

The end of Iowa caucuses saw Kerry asthe “comeback kid” (a line made famous byanother DLC creature, Bill Clinton).

By “Super Tuesday,” it was already clearthat he would go into the 2004 DemocraticNational Convention with the majority ofdelegates.

The job is done. Kerry is the Democraticnominee. But what does this mean for theelection?

More importantly, what does Kerry’s se-lection mean for working people looking foran end to the Bush regime?

THE BEST PLACE to start in answeringthose questions is with Kerry himself. Whois he? Why did the DLC leadership do ev-

erything it could to make sure he won thenomination?

Kerry first came to public attention inthe early 1970s, when he became a leadingvoice for antiwar veterans of the VietnamWar.

As a founding member of Vietnam Vet-erans Against the War, Kerry was featuredat rallies and demonstrations calling for theunconditional withdrawal of all U.S. forcesfrom Southeast Asia.

But this is only one part of Kerry’s histo-ry — a side he has all but repudiated re-cently. To know the real John Kerry, it isnecessary to look at what happened beforeand after this period in his life.

John Kerry is, quite literally, a child ofthe capitalist machine.

His father, Richard Kerry, was a longtimegovernment operative, working for the StateDepartment in Europe during the post-WWII years under the tutelage of such iconsin the capitalist foreign policy milieu asGeorge Kennan and George Ball.

John Kerry grew up for the most part inEuropean boarding schools, and later at-tended Yale University.

During his time at Yale, Kerry was a mem-ber of both the Young Democrats (in hisfreshman year) and Young Republicans (inhis senior year).

He was also a member of the secret, tight-knit fraternity known as “Skull and Bones.”One of Kerry’s more famous fraternity“brothers” is George W. Bush, his allegedopponent in the November election.

After graduating from Yale, Kerry vol-unteered to command a Navy Swift Boat inVietnam and earned a number of medals and


feature

Not a representative, but a member: JohnKerry with his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, heir-ess to the Heinz Co. fortune.

decorations for his service, including threePurple Hearts for being wounded in com-bat.

When he returned home, Kerry, at theurging of his father, became an outspokencritic of the Vietnam War.

As a leader of VVAW, he addressed aCongressional hearing about the conditionsof soldiers in the region.

After the end of the Vietnam antiwarmovement, Kerry graduated from law schooland became a district attorney.

In 1982, he was elected Lieutenant Gov-ernor of Massachusetts; two years later, Ker-ry was elected to the U.S. Senate.

Kerry could quite rightly be described asone of the first neoliberals to be elected toCongress.

During his 16 years in the Senate, Kerrywas well known for breaking with his partycaucus and voting with Republicans on anumber of issues.

Kerry was one of the first to embrace theDLC/“New Democrat” agenda of fiscal con-servatism and “welfare reform,” foreshadow-ing the Clinton years.

During the 1990s, Kerry voted for a num-ber of bills aimed at destroying the socialsafety net, strengthening the prison indus-try and eroding public education.

In January 2001, when Congress had theability to place the systematic disenfran-chisement of African American voters inFlorida under the microscope, potentially

affecting the outcome of the presidentialelection, Kerry chose to not support his col-leagues from the House who were callingfor a Congressional review.

After the events of September 11, 2001,Kerry — following the lead of the capitalistclass — moved increasingly to the right,voting for the USA-PATRIOT Act, theDept. of Homeland Security and the reso-lution authorizing the invasion of Iraq.

THE DEVELOPMENT of John Kerry close-ly parallels that of a key section of the mid-dle class, which entered into the New Leftand now resides in the New Right.

Like many, Kerry participated in the rel-atively moderate wing of the antiwar move-ment. After the ebb in political struggle thattook place in the 1970s, he, like so manyothers, made peace with capitalism and en-tered the Democratic Party.

At this point, his class background andrelative closeness to the state apparatus be-gan moving him closer and closer political-ly to the views of a section of the ruling classlooking for a way out of the stalemate be-tween the U.S. and the former SovietUnion.

Even while Kerry was visiting Sandinis-ta government officials in Nicaragua andbeing critical of then-President Reagan’simperialist adventure in Latin America, hewas favoring measures that would accom-plish the same ends that the Republicanssought — albeit with different means.

After the collapse of the Soviet Unionand the end of the Cold War, Kerry becameone of the more outspoken “New Demo-crats,” acting as a solid supporter of Clin-ton’s DLC-approved agenda of “ending wel-fare as we know it,” expanding the deathpenalty and restricting democratic rights.

This development as a neoliberal was aparallel to what many saw in the rise of theneoconservative movement, which tookplace at the same time (see article, page 5).

As the neoconservatives won control ofthe Republican Party in the late 1980s andearly 1990s, so too did the neoliberals —sometimes in alliance with old conservativeswho defected — take over the DemocraticParty, edging the old liberal/social-demo-cratic alliance out of leadership.

As the 21st century opened, these twocentral currents of capitalist political

thought began to draw ever closer. WhatBush then called “a difference of opinion,not principle” is now even less than that.

Today, the differences between Bush andKerry are mere matters of method — themeans to reach shared goals.

This is a reflection of the developingconsensus among the capitalist class thatthey can no longer go on governing in theold, formally democratic way.

ON MATTERS OF international policy,Bush and Kerry are virtually indistinguish-able. The differences that one attempts tosee between them are either “spin” or illu-sion.

For example, supporters are quick topoint out that Kerry is openly calling for a“multilateral” occupation of Iraq, via theUnited Nations, as opposed to Bush’s rela-tively unilateral stance.

However, this ignores the fact that theBush regime has been negotiating a new UNSecurity Council resolution that would pro-vide for precisely the kind of “multilateral-ism” that Kerry advocates — including thecontinued presence of U.S. occupationtroops.

On the situation in Israel/Palestine, bothKerry and Bush have lent their support forAriel Sharon’s “disengagement” and illegalland grab in the West Bank, which will cutin half the territory of the bantustan “Pal-estinian Authority” and leave Israel in pos-session of all vital natural resources in theregion.

Both Bush and Kerry have supported theongoing attempts by Venezuelan capitaliststo overthrow the democratically-electedBolivarian government of Hugo Chavez.

As well, Kerry supported the U.S.-im-posed “regime change” in Haiti last Febru-ary.

It is only in regards to relations with theEuropean Union where any divergence be-tween Bush and Kerry can be seen. Kerry isnot as bellicose toward Europe as Bush hasbeen; but that seems to have more to dowith Kerry’s upbringing than anything re-lated to policy.

Domestically, there has also been a grow-ing convergence between Bush and Kerry.

Both of them strongly support the use oftax cuts for the rich — billed as being forthe “middle class” — and the shifting of the

9Vol. 2, No. 3 • MAY 2004

Who is John Kerry? According to his YaleYearbook, he’s a former Young Republican.Go figure.

Birds of a feather...:John Kerry and Sen.

Joe Liebermancampaign together inFlorida. Kerry’s open

embrace of thecapitalists’ agenda of

endless war andrepression, which

Lieberman cam-paigned on duringthe primaries, hasstrengthened the

bond between them.

tax burden on to the backs of working peo-ple.

Both of them support the extension ofthe USA-PATRIOT Act, which has system-atically stripped American citizens of theirdemocratic rights, and the Dept. of Home-land Security.

One area where Kerry makes Bush seemmore “moderate” is on the question of man-datory service — the draft. Kerry has open-ly supported mandatory service, while Bushhas remained relatively silent.

Two major areas where Kerry supporterslike to point out that their candidate is dif-ferent from Bush are on the issues of abor-tion rights and federal judges.

On abortion, Kerry says he is pro-choice.However, on those issues where anti-choiceforces have been staging their struggle toeliminate a woman’s right, he has generallysided with them — in spirit, if not in fact.

For example, when the Senate voted onthe so-called “partial birth abortion” ban in2003, Kerry skipped the vote and then laterstated that his only opposition was that itdid not allow for exceptions in the case ofthe woman’s life being in danger.

Kerry has gone on record saying he willonly appoint federal judges. However, un-less he has a Democratic Senate, the chancesof him making good on his word is slim.

One of the major issues so far this yearhas been the question of gay marriage.

Both Bush and Kerry oppose extendingthe rights guaranteed under the FourteenthAmendment to the Constitution to same-sex couples.

Unlike Bush, but like many Republicansin Congress, Kerry does support civil unions(which hold no weight and may or may not

be honored).

SO WHERE DOES all of this leave us, theAmerican voter?

The two major candidates are virtuallyidentical in their political positions. Whilethe tone and form may differ, the fact andcontent remains frighteningly the same.

The only real motivation the peoplehave to vote for John Kerry is the fact thathe is not George W. Bush.

However, on all the issues that are mostimportant to people — especially workingpeople — at this time, they are almost in-distinguishable.

This brings us back to the ugly truth be-hind the concept of “Anybody But Bush.”

The reality is that, as long as the capital-ists have a tight grip on the political sys-tem, it will be their desires that are fulfilled— their interests that are represented.

The reason that U.S. soldiers are occu-pying Iraq today is not simply because ofBush, Cheney or even the Project for theNew American Century.

Rather, they are acting in the interestsof the capitalists, and cannot do otherwise.

Should Kerry be selected to be presidentin November, he too will maintain troopsoverseas, invade and occupy relatively de-fenseless countries, suppress democraticrights at home and wage his own “class war-fare” against working people.

“Anybody But Bush” may be a good slo-gan to use for rallying the Democratic faith-

ful, and those scared or angry at the Bushregime, but it does nothing to affect theunderlying cause — capitalism.

To put it another way: this country’spresent belligerence toward the rest of theworld does not reflect the views of some“evil” occupants of the White House andCongress; it reflects the nature of capital-ism and its desire to exploit the world.

THIS IS WHY THE Socialist Party choos-es to run its own candidates, on its own anti-capitalist platform, in elections.

We seek to offer a voice for those whoare locked out of the two-party system, andwish to see a better world emerge from thewreckage we call our modern society.

After all, why should working people,who make up nearly two-thirds of the U.S.population, be coerced into continuouslyelecting members of the capitalist class(which is less than 5 percent of the popula-tion) and its agents?

This November, we are being offered thechance to vote for either a billionaire capi-talist or a billionaire capitalist — a pro-war,pro-occupation hawk or a pro-war, pro-oc-cupation hawk — a sneering opponent ofdemocratic rights or a smirking opponentof democratic rights.

Because of this, many people will “votewith their feet” and stay home, feeling thatno real choice is being offered.

But, there is another way. There is an-other option. �


Neoconscontinued from page 6

cal climate surrounding the exploitation ofthe world’s population and resources in pur-suit of profit, as well as the revolutionaryand international potential of the working-class to resist.

The internationalist perspective from theneocons’ Marxian and “Trotskyist” influencecoupled with the nationalist perspectivefrom their Straussian influence provides arather interesting and paradoxical combi-nation within their viewpoint.

Understanding the potential revolution-ary response to unprecedented levels of im-perialism by an internationally unified work-ing class and the setbacks in potential gainsthat a paralleled international unificationof the ruling class would cause, the neoconshave determined that the most appropriateresponse is to move rapidly forward in con-trolling the markets of other wealthy capi-talist countries in addition to those in poorercountries.

Through this strategy, their gains are nolonger solely economic, but also political,serving as a centralized shield against polit-

ical insurrection.Such a strategy was exemplified by the

compelling need to go to war with Iraq.Not only does Iraq sit in the heart of the

only region of the world that the UnitedStates has not been relatively successful incontrolling through economic institutionssuch as the WTO, IMF, and World Bank, itwill also likely grant the United States theability to control the oil markets of its cap-italist former allies in Europe who are sub-stantially more dependent than the U.S. onMiddle Eastern oil.

BUILDING UPON THE models set byformer presidents Ronald Reagan andGeorge H.W. Bush, the neocons aim to ful-ly establish a unipolar world in which theU.S. has military superiority over, not onlyevery other country, but all other countriescombined.

The 1991 and 2003 invasions of Iraqhave been used as cases in point for a worldin which other countries have no choice butto either give the green light to the U.S. forall of its military pursuits while pretendingthat a semblance of international law stillexists or to challenge the U.S. politicallyand later pay the consequences as U.S. mil-

itary strength is flexed and unleashed with-out regard.

Cheney’s frequent proclamations thatthe “War on Terror” will continue indefi-nitely across generations is an inversion ofLeon Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolu-tion into a well-derived theory of perma-nent imperialism and inexhaustible nation-alism. In organizational form, the neoconsof today are best represented by the right-wing think tank, Project for the New Amer-ican Century.

PNAC, currently chaired by the son offormer Young People’s Socialist Leaguemember Irving Kristol, was founded in 1997by such prominent neocons as Abrams, Ben-nett, Podhoretz, Quayle and Wolfowitz, aswell as Vice President Dick Cheney, formerpresidential candidate Steve Forbes, Secre-tary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, andGeorge W. Bush’s brother, Jeb Bush.

The stated mission of PNAC is “Ameri-can global leadership [read: domination].”

The front of their webpage, which dis-plays a map of the world allowing the view-er to click on any region to see PNAC’s planfor it, also links to PNAC’s statement ofprinciples, a document calling for massiveincreases in defense spending and a foreignpolicy based on American leadership andinterests abroad.

The organization receives much of itsfunding from the Lynde and Harry BradleyFoundation, a foundation established underthe principle of absolute employers’ control,after the business of its founders was forcedto recognize unions, hire African Ameri-cans, and pay its female employees as muchas it paid to males. With over half a billionin assets, it is arguably the most powerfulrightwing foundation in the country.

PNAC received some media attentionafter the Iraq War when it was discoveredthat the organization sent an openly pub-lished letter to Bill Clinton in 1997 callingfor the invasion of Iraq and citing SaddamHussein being a significant threat to theworld’s supply of oil as a justification.

PNAC’s most telling documents can befound on its “Publications and Reports”page, in particular its document titled “Re-building America’s Defenses,” which hasoften been perceived to be a blueprint forthe foreign policy of the Bush regime.

The document, published in September2000, calls for fighting and decisively win-ning simultaneous theater wars around theworld, states that increasing U.S. forces in

March for Women’s Lives

On April 25, 2004, well over 1 millionsupporters of a woman’s right tochoose assembled on the Mall (left) inWashington, D.C., for the annualMarch for Women’s Lives. Many cameto Washington to tell the Bush regimethat a woman’s right to have anabortion will be defended andprotected. Members of the SocialistParty USA (above, inset) participatedin the March, under the banner slogan“Pro-Choice and Anti-Capitalist.”

11Vol. 2, No. 3 • MAY 2004

W. Bush. He regards (again, quite correct-ly) the people of the United States and thepeople of Iraq to be “brothers [and sisters].”

This is a far cry from the reactionary re-ligious fundamentalism commonly associ-ated with al-Qa’ida and similar groups,which see no difference between the peo-ple and the government of a given country.

Such a distinction not only displays akind of nuance and sophistication that isnotably absent from the proclamations ofthe capitalist politicians in Washington, italso reflects an often-ignored reality withinthe U.S. itself.

FOR THE LAST 12 months, the people ofthis country have sat in shocked silence asthe Bush regime has devastated one of theoldest civilizations on earth.

From the “shock and awe” attacks of theearly days to the violent suppression of pro-tests and torturing of innocent civilians, we

have watched the destruction of an entirepeople for the benefit of corporate donorsto Bush and his Republican Party.

The combined power and influence ofthe government, media and ruling class havesought to either win over or silence Ameri-cans into supporting the war.

However, these efforts have only partiallyworked; mass antiwar demonstrations stilloccur with regularity, involving tens of thou-sands of people.

As a result, the capitalists have to spendmore time dealing with the domestic situa-tion (i.e., the antiwar movement), insteadof securing their interests in Iraq (whichincludes brutally and violently suppressingthe anti-occupation movement).

Many of them thought that the victoryof John Kerry in the race for the Democrat-ic nomination would be enough to keepthose who dissent in line (see article, page6). However, with the outbreak of the na-tional liberation struggle in Iraq, the situa-tion has once again went “out of control” ofthe ruling class.

There is now open talk of how long it

will be before Bush’s proclamation that “allnecessary force” will be used to suppress thenational liberation struggle leads to the useof nuclear weapons.

For working people still caught in thegrips of war propaganda and patriotism, themain concern seems to be how best to “saveface.” That is, they are concerned about howto best end this situation without openingthe people of this country to another attackon the scale of what happened on Septem-ber 11, 2001.

While it is understandable that mostpeople do not want to see another wantonattack on innocent civilians, most of whomreally do not support the program of end-less wars of conquest, the fact is that such“vulnerability” exists now because of thegovernment’s agenda of war and repression.

The continued occupation of Iraq andAfghanistan, combined with uncritical sup-port for the policies of the State of Israel inOccupied Palestine and a continued pres-ence on Muslim “holy lands,” have been andcontinue to be the impetus for such attacks.

In other words: until the United States

Iraqcontinued from page 4

the Gulf transcends the issue of the Sadd-am Hussein regime (which serves only asan immediate justification for doing so),calls for complete control of space and cy-berspace, calls for the establishment of aworld-wide command and control system forballistic missiles, and says that this “processof transformation … is likely to be a longone, absent some catastrophic and cata-lyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor.”

From the parts of this document thathave already been accomplished by the Bushregime since its publication, it is very clearthat September 11, 2001, was that cata-strophic and catalyzing event.

The extent to which political setbacksand world-wide resistance to Bush’s wars willstall this “process of transformation” remainsto be seen.

DESPITE THE DEGREE of danger that theneocons present to the world, to believe thatsimply voting the neocons out of office andreplacing them with Democrats is a fatalmistake.

The neocons have not risen to powerfrom their level of political savvy, but rath-er from material conditions that capitalismhas created in the world.

The neocons represent a level of crisisin the profit system in which intensified im-

perialism is essential for expanding to newmarkets and maximizing profits.

This crisis is not a result of the capitalistsystem’s miscalculated errors, but rather itsnatural development. This new wave of im-perialism is also a response to the collapseof the Soviet Union, a once great impedi-ment to U.S. unipoliarity.

The Democratic Party does not remainunaffected by this stage of capitalism. Dem-ocratic presidential front runner John Ker-ry, a supporter of the U.S. occupation of Iraqwho also voted for many of Bush’s mostloathsome proposals including both warsand the USA-PATRIOT Act, is a memberof the “New Democrats,” formally knownas the Democratic Leadership Council(DLC).

The “New Democrats” represent a simi-lar faction in the Democratic Party to TonyBlair’s “New Labour” faction in the BritishLabour Party. The temporal proximity ofthese two movements across nationalboundaries is no coincidence.

Both represent historically mainstreamliberal parties moving in accordance withworldwide political and economic changeand embracing a rightward, more anti-la-bor and pro-military-interventionist shift.

The DLC has established its own equiv-alent to the Project for the New American

Century, called the Progressive Policy In-stitute, an official DLC-sponsored think-tank advocating the establishment of a“third way” that embraces the “new econo-my” and moves beyond the “left-right de-bate.”

While sharing a more subtle contemptfor workers’ rights in the domestic sphere,the PPI fundamentally differs from PNACby advocating a more multilateral approachto imperialism, an approach in which theUnited States cooperates with rather thansubverts its Great Power capitalist allies.

The un-televised debate between the“New Democratic” and neoconservativesegments of the ruling class this election yearwill primarily surround the issue of the ex-tent and current method to which we en-gage in the “process of transformation” thatPNAC has laid out.

It will be a debate over how much to stallthis process and the degree to which oldermethods of conquest both at home andabroad will be used in relation to newerones.

Regardless of which faction wins theWhite House in 2004, it is only workers’internationalism and the transformationfrom capitalism to democratic socialism thatcan permanently resist this process.

The stakes only get higher with time. �


government ceases its role as imperialistsuperpower, the risk of another Sept. 11-style attack hangs over the heads of allAmericans.

IT HAS BECOME clear that the only waythe current war of national liberation couldbe successfully suppressed by the UnitedStates is for the Bush regime to commit tonothing short of genocide as its agenda.

As long as the occupation continues inits current form, the protracted conflict willcontinue to draw more and more Iraqis tothe side of al-Sadr and the al-Mahdi.

Only immediate withdrawal of all occu-piers or the brutal suppression of the Iraqipeople can change that.

Certainly, the unconditional, immediatewithdrawal of all occupation forces from Iraqwould be a stinging defeat for the Bush re-gime and American imperialism in general.

However, the fact is that such a defeat isfundamentally more desirable than eithercontinued occupation or the massacre of theIraqi people — both of which will only leadto the loss of more innocent lives.

Anti-imperialist Socialists work for thiskind of defeat, actively organizing and mo-bilizing people to demand the uncondition-al, immediate removal of all occupationforces from Iraq.

As part of this work, Socialists also pointout that the only way to avoid this kind ofbloody mess from happening again — theonly way to secure real peace — is to trans-form the specific movement against war andimperialism into a general movementagainst capitalism and class rule.

In a conflict such as we see in Iraq today,where the people have armed themselvesand are actively fighting against a foreignoccupier, our sympathies and support arewith the people.

We cannot reconcile our determineddesire for a peaceful solution to the conflictin Iraq with acceptance of the continuedoccupation, and we cannot expect that suchcontinuance would ever lead to a peacefulsolution.

On the contrary, the continued occupa-tion — to say nothing of its military victoryover the forces of national liberation —would mean years and years more bloodshedand violence visited upon the Iraqi people(and, in turn, on the American people).

AT THE SAME TIME, while we Socialistsstand in solidarity with our brothers and sis-ters in Iraq, by working and organizing forthe immediate withdrawal of all occupationforces, we give no measure of support to al-Sadr’s religious movement.

Iraq has a long and proud history of sec-ularism and democracy. Throughout the20th century, the Iraqi people have contin-ually fought to secure peace and freedom intheir country.

Beginning with the anti-colonial strug-

gles against the Ottomans and British, andcontinuing through the guerrilla strugglesagainst the Ba’athists and now the “Coali-tion” occupiers, the people of Iraq — espe-cially working people — have fought forfreedom and self-determination.

However, in the vacuum of power creat-ed by the invasion and occupation of Iraq,religious figures like al-Sadr have been ableto come forward and be political leaders.

The Iraqi people deserve better leaders.They deserve a leadership that best reflectsthe traditions of secularism and democracythat have defined the people of Iraq overthe years. While al-Sadr is certainly a sightbetter than many other politically activereligious leaders, he stands on a politicalplatform that is at odds with the desires ofthe Iraqi people.

The only advice we can give our broth-ers and sisters in Iraq is to come togetherand build the organizations and bodies thatcan effectively and democratically governthe country.

The best place to start with such work isamong the many independent trade unions,organizations of the unemployed and, wherethey exist, the democratically elected work-ers’ councils.

These bodies, still in many ways in theirembryonic stages, can serve as the basis fora new democratic republic and new societyin Iraq that is representative of the majori-ty of the people.

It will be on the basis of such democraticassemblies and organizations of workingpeople that a genuinely democratic (andsocialist) solution can be created — a solu-tion that can open the door to a better worldfor all humanity. �

Reiterating this, longtime Grand Rapids-area activist Jeff Smith said, “we have nohistory of doing anything that could bedeemed violent or a threat to anybody.”

Most of the antiwar demonstrators knowthe history and motives of past interven-tions: Iran (1953, oil); Guatemala (1954,United Fruit); Indonesia (1965, oil); Chile(1973, ITT Corp. and copper); and, the pastcoup shifts from democracies to dictator-ships.

While Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was cer-tainly no democracy, many believe Bush’s

motive was the oil and a new U.S. hegemo-ny in the Middle East.

American-owned businesses such as Hal-liburton and Bechtel are in Iraq in a pre-planned rebuilding effort, and will becomesome of the major profiteers from a ques-tionable war.

While ignoring the lack of a presence inIraq of the authors of Sept. 11, Bush hadreoriented the focus to Iraq. What was hismotivation?

Bush’s Iraq war is clearly evolving intohis Vietnam as we continue to send moretroops and the body bags continue to re-turn to the U.S., in what has become theincorrect motivation of a “profits-before-people” foreign policy. �

Activistcontinued from page 3

Broken: Thecharred remainsof a U.S. CH-53Sea Stallionhelicopter outsideof Fallujah, Iraq.

13Vol. 2, No. 3 • MAY 2004

� I Endorse �

GEORGE W. BUSHPresident of the United States

“[It is not possible to find someone] more foolish than you [Bush], who deals with matters by force rather thanwith wisdom.... Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning toembellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization. Because of this we desire youto be elected.” — Open letter from al-Qa’ida to George W. Bush, March 16, 2004

Thanks to the policiesenacted by the BushAdministration, mybusiness has experiencedunprecedented growth.I have expanded into newmarkets, diversified mycapabilities and createdthousands of new jobs.George W. Bush made meeverything that I amtoday, and I am eternallygrateful to him for that.That is why I supportPresident Bush in his bidfor re-election.

Parody ad. Not to be taken seriously. However, the quote from the al-Qa’ida letter is real, and, yes, they do want Bush to be in the White House for four more years. Food for thought.

This message brought to you by the staff of the Michigan Socialist

Authorized and Paid for by Qa’idaPAC, c/o Dick Cheney, Undisclosed Location, USA


Budgetcontinued from page 16

In addition, Kilpatrick proposes to “spinoff” (i.e., privatize) the City’s Housing De-partment and to mortgage the City throughthe selling of municipal bonds.

Kilpatrick shed a few crocodile tears forthe workers he chose to condemn to star-vation, but made it clear that he plans tomake the working people of the City payfor the bosses’ mistakes.

City workers who protested outside of theColeman Young Municipal Building duringKilpatrick’s presentation were not fooled.

“It sounds as though the mayor is takingit out on the worker ants,” said Dora Jen-nings, a DDOT mechanic with 18 years se-niority. “We work very hard for the Citybecause we are the City.”

IT SHOULD COME as no surprise thatKilpatrick has decided to make workers payfor his (and his masters’) mistakes.

One of the main reasons he was chosenby the ruling class to be its mayor in thefirst place was because he was perfectly will-ing to wage war against the working peopleof the City.

Almost immediately after entering officein January 2003, Kilpatrick demanded re-negotiation of all City contracts, with aneye toward imposing massive layoffs andcutbacks.

He reorganized the Detroit Police Dept.in order to stage a “show of force” in work-

ing-class neighborhoods — and just in timefor the federal government to take it over.

Working in conjunction with the racistsuburban media, Kilpatrick also engaged ina number of high-profile stunts aimed at“sending a message” to City workers: standup to me and you’ll be fired.

His proposed budget is little more thanan extension of this anti-union record.

In fact, all of what Kilpatrick does nowas Mayor of Detroit was fashioned when hewas a leading member of the State House ofRepresentatives.

During his time in Lansing, Kilpatrick

was infamous for his “bipartisanship” — thatis, his collaboration with, and capitulationto, outstate Republican politicians and theirrightwing agenda.

This “bipartisanship” reached its high-est point when Kilpatrick sided with theRepublicans to strip Detroit residents oftheir right to vote and elect members of theDetroit Board of Education.

(Kilpatrick even tried more recently tokeep Detroiters from getting back their rightto vote by trying to push through legisla-tion in Lansing to declare him dictator overthe school district. See “Dictatorship 101,”

Detroit City workers protest Mayor Kilpatrick’s proposed budget, which will mean hundredsof laid off transit and maintenance workers.

Williamscontinued from page 16

Bloomfield Hills and Birmingham. Withina 15-minute drive, you can go from theheights of wealth and power to the depthsof poverty and ruin.

The County government, like most plac-es in Michigan and the U.S., is dominatedby representatives or members of the capi-talist class, as are all boards and local offic-es. This fact alone makes Williams’ cam-paign significant.

Of the nine people seeking the threespots on the OCC Board of Trustees, Will-iams is the only candidate who is not a rep-resentative or member of the capitalists.

“As someone who both works at and at-tends OCC as a student, I feel I can bring a

unique perspective to the Board of Trust-ees,” says Williams. “I want to build my can-didacy around the needs and concerns ofthe people who attend Oakland Commu-nity College and maintain its operations ona day-to-day basis.”

Among the elements of Williams’ plat-form are demands to provide year-roundchildcare for students, additional onlinecourses for working students, greater partic-ipation by workers and students in the de-cision-making process, and eliminating thecriminal background check for students ap-plying to the nursing program.

In addition, Williams has committedhimself to opposing any increase in tuitionor fees at OCC, declaring his support forfree, quality education.

Williams’ election to the OCC Board ofTrustees would be a small but significant

victory for working people in OaklandCounty.

For the first time, workers and studentswill have one of their own sitting on themain decision-making body for the college— someone who understands what it meansto balance work and school while trying tomake ends meet.

Since the overwhelming majority ofthose who attend OCC are workers, or thechildren of workers, Williams’ election asan OCC Trustee would mean their concernswould not simply be ignored or dismissed.

The OCC Board election is June 14, andwe encourage all our readers in OaklandCounty to go to the polls and vote for CarlWilliams for OCC Board of Trustees.

For more on Williams’ campaign, or tohelp out, check out his website at www.williams2004.org. �

15Vol. 2, No. 3 • MAY 2004

TMS, Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2004.)There is little doubt that, as long as he is

in a position to do so, Kilpatrick will use hispower to make the workers of Detroit re-sponsible for repairing the damage he andhis capitalist handlers create in the City.

KWAME KILPATRICK is, without a doubt,the “new” face of the Michigan DemocraticParty — or, more accurately, the face of theparty machine.

The son of Congresswoman CarolynCheeks-Kilpatrick, with several relatives inhigh places in the state government, Kil-patrick represents the “New Democrat”/DLC wing of the party, made famous by BillClinton and Al Gore (and Joe Lieberman,John Kerry and John Edwards).

That is, he is in fact a conservative cap-italist politician using the party machine asa means of gaining office in a traditionallyliberal Democratic stronghold.

Once in office, however, he willinglyserves his capitalist masters, using heavy-handed bureaucratic tactics to launch at-tacks on working people throughout theCity.

His proposed budget is only the latestexample.

For the moment, it looks like Kilpatrickis going to have problems getting the CityCouncil to approve the budget. The Coun-cil has traditionally been more left leaningand social-democratic in its outlook andcomposition.

Nevertheless, he will continue to usestrong-arm tactics to make sure his (and hisbosses’) agenda of unionbusting and mas-sive cuts in services goes through.

At this point, it is clear that the City,under the leadership of the Kilpatrick, ismoving in the opposite direction that itsresidents want.

For all of his imagery as the “hip-hopmayor” — the flashy suits and gator shoes,the diamond earrings and sport utility ve-hicles — Kilpatrick is, in the final analysis,little more than a shill for capitalist corpo-rations that want a free hand.

After all, if he really wanted to close thebudget gap in the City and state, he couldhave called on the City Council and StateLegislature to repeal the fat tax breaks andcorporate welfare handed out to capitalistsin Michigan, to the tune of over $6 billiona year.

If the legislature in Lansing were to endcorporate welfare, they could quite easily

make up for all the budget shortfalls foundthroughout the state.

In fact, the $6 billion saved by endingcorporate welfare in Michigan could notonly fill all the budget gaps, it could alsorestore school funding to previous levels,allow us to finance schools without the “as-sistance” of federal funds tied to Bush’s “NoChild Left Behind” act, and would haveenough left over to put into repairingschools, reducing class sizes through newhiring, etc.

NONE OF THIS, however, is in the inter-ests of the capitalists who pull the strings inCity and state government, or the politi-cians from both parties that administerthem.

In order for the City of Detroit and theState of Michigan to operate in the inter-ests of the overwhelming majority — the 7million-plus working people and their fam-ilies in the state — requires a governmentand system that is guided by, composed ofand serving in the interests of working peo-ple.

This year, the Socialist Party is workingto give working people the opportunity tostart building that system.

We are seeking to place our candidateson the ballot for the November 2004 elec-tion in order to build support for the princi-ples and policies of democratic socialism,and for measures that put the interests ofthe working majority ahead of profit andcorporations.

Much of the work we Socialists are do-ing today is also in anticipation of local elec-tions taking place in 2005, including in theCity of Detroit.

If there is anything that the tenure ofKwame Kilpatrick has taught the workingpeople of Detroit so far, it is that the onlyway to have a City government that worksin our class interests is to elect our own —i.e., working people — to the City Counciland Mayor’s Office.

The Socialist Party of Michigan, work-ing closely with its brothers and sisters inthe Detroit Socialist Party, and other work-ing-class and community organizations, willactively seek to present a working people’salternative in that election.

Our goal will be to finally give a voice tothe overwhelming majority of Detroit resi-dents, and send a message to the capitaliststhat we will no longer be slaves on their21st-century “plantation.” �

As well, Ben Burgis has declared him-self a candidate for the Board of Trustees ofMichigan State University.

Burgis, a native of Lansing and current-ly a graduate student at Western Michigan

University, has been alongtime political ac-tivist in the Capitolarea.

In addition, severalSPMI members areseeking nominations forstate representative.

In Lapeer, SterlingHeights and Detroit,

Party members have already begun to cam-paign as Socialist candidates for the StateHouse.

To aid the work of the Socialist Partyduring this campaign season, the SPMI hasestablished the Michigan Socialist Cam-paign Committee to coordinate and assistcandidates in their races for public office.

The MSCC is being chaired by MartinSchreader, a member of the SPMI and aSocialist candidate for state representativein the Ninth District, covering northwestDetroit.

Over the coming weeks and months,more members of the SPMI will be declar-ing themselves candidates, in anticipationof the success of the Party’s petition drive.

The full slate of Socialist candidates forthe Nov. election will be finalized at theSPMI’s State Convention, scheduled forJuly 17-18, 2004.

If readers are interested in helping theSocialist Party of Michigan gain ballot ac-cess, or if you are interested in being a So-cialist candidate for public office, visit thewebsite of the MSCC at vote.mi-socialists.org. �

Electioncontinued from page 16

Ben Burgis

On the Internet...

Michigan Socialist Campaign Committeevote.mi-socialists.org

Lisa Weltman for Mich. Board of Ed.www.weltman2004.org

Ben Burgis for MSU Board of Trusteesburgisformsuboard.spmichigan.org


socialistThe MICHIGAN MICHIGAN NEWS

IN THE 2004 election, working people ofMichigan are being given a definite choice.

The Socialist Party of Michigan has be-gun the work of placing itself on the ballotfor the November 2, 2004, election, andmembers have begun to come forward tobe candidates.

On April 13, the Board of Canvassers ofthe State of Michigan formally approvedthe “New Party” petition submitted by theSPMI, giving formal sanction to the Partyto collect signatures to secure its place onthe ballot.

For a new political party to be placed onthe ballot in Michigan they have to collectat least 31,776 signatures from registeredvoters. In reality, it takes close to 50,000signatures to guarantee success.

IT HAS BECOME something of a generalrule that, when capitalist politicians mis-manage their affairs and run up huge defi-cits, working people are expected to pickup the tab and clean up the mess.

Thus, it is no surprise that the budgetproposal by Detroit Mayor Kwame Kil-patrick, presented to the City Council onApril 12, once again forces workers to payfor his — and his paymasters’ — mistakes.

The City of Detroit is facing a budgetgap of over $330 million for the coming year.A large portion of this gap is due to a loss ofincome tax revenues as a result of the re-

Kilpatrick takes aimat workers, disabledBy MARTIN SCHREADER

Editor, the Michigan Socialist

cession.Another major factor in the budget prob-

lem is the rising cost of health care and pen-sions for City workers and retirees. Skyrock-eting health care costs have been breakingmunicipal budgets across the country.

Kilpatrick’s budget calls for the elimina-tion of 670 jobs, including laying off hun-dreds of maintenance workers at the DetroitDepartment of Transportation — the agen-cy responsible for the City’s bus service.

As well, he proposes to charge disabledriders 75 cents to take the bus — a plan thatwill devastate the meager fixed incomes onwhich most disabled people are forced tolive; currently disabled persons ride for free.

Tears of a clown: Detroit Mayor Kwame Kil-patrick tries to look concerned about the pos-sible layoffs and privatization. It’s not con-vincing, is it?

Socialist Party starts2004 campaign seasonBy L. MEYERS


The Party has notbeen on the ballot heresince the 1970s, whenit ran under the bannerof the “Human RightsParty.”

Anticipating thesuccess of securing bal-lot status, SPMI mem-bers have already begunto campaign as Socialist candidates for var-ious state offices.

Lisa Weltman, who sought the SocialistParty’s nomination for president last year,has declared her intention to be the So-cialist candidate for Michigan Board of Ed-ucation.

Weltman made her formal announce-ment following the March 8 meeting of theBoard in Lansing.

Carl Williamsfor OCC Board!IN THE MONTHS leading up the Nov.2004 elections, there are a number oflocal races that will be decided.

Among these is the election for theBoard of Trustees of Oakland Commu-nity College.

What separates that race from othersis that the working people of OaklandCounty have a choice in that election.

Carl Williams, a student and workerat OCC, and a supporter of the SocialistParty of Michigan, has entered the raceto present a democratic socialist andworking people’s alternative to the can-didates of big business.

Oakland County, one of the largestand richest counties in Michigan, is alsoa microcosm of class division and antag-onism.

Working-class cities like Pontiacstand beside capitalist enclaves like

continued on page 15continued on page 14

Lisa Weltman


vol. 2, no. 3 •• may 2004 may 2004 50¢ ($1 solidarity)50...

Documents