The new assault on civil liberties

Scan page 7

Below is a section of the Political Resolution discussed and approved at the August 2012 Socialist Action Na­ tional Convention in Minneapolis.

T ing rise in government attacks on basic civil The past few years have seen a rapid and alarm­ liberties. Any underestimation of the gravity of this assault would be a serious mistake. It is not our intention here to list all of assaults; it is sufficient to point to a few to make the necessary points that need explication.

Since 9-11, for example, over 100,000 Muslims have been investigated by government agencies. Some 40,000 have been detained, and thousands arrested. Just a handful of these have been convicted of any seri­ ous crime and of these most convictions have been as a result of court interpretation of the Constitution or legislation that has stretched definitions beyond rec­ ognition. In the name of national security, as in the Mc­ Carthy era, basic civil liberties have been subordinated to Constitutionally protected rights to free speech, as­ sociation, and assembly.

Indefinite detention without charges and recourse to the courts now applies to citizens and non-citizens alike, as was most recently demonstrated the week leading up to the May 20 anti-NATO protests in Chi­ cago, which saw the arrest of a few scores of people who had committed absolutely no illegal acts. This kind of “preventive” arrest and detention of antiwar activists has now become the norm whenever govern­ ment agencies declare any protest a “national secu­ rity” event.

In the name of securing convictions against the most innocent of groups, as with the largest Muslim charity, the Holy Land Foundation, five leaders of which were convicted of providing material aid to terrorism, the law has been bent beyond recognition. In this case the material aid was given to a hospital that no one, includ­ ing the government, charged with having any relation to terrorist groups. But the gift itself was nevertheless ruled illegal on the grounds that had the Holy Land Foundation not given such aid, a terrorist organization would have had to do so!

This case followed that of attorney Lynne Stewart, which resulted in a 10-year sentence for conspiracy to aid and abet terrorism because Lynne had issued an innocent press release on behalf of her client, the “blind sheik” Omar Abdel Rachman.

Every variety of internet spying, FBI spying, drone spying, NYPD spying on Occupy activists, and more are justified in the name of the fake war on terrorism. This time round, however, the “enemy” is a handful of Mus­ lims who resent imperialist mass murder around the world and who resort to isolated terrorist attacks, as opposed to the Cold War era, when the state power of the USSR and its associated deformed workers’ states, along with China, Vietnam, and North Korea, presided over some two billion people. However degenerated and deformed, and however counterrevolutionary, these states nevertheless represented a severe limita­ tion on imperialist prerogatives around the world. To­ day’s endless U.S./NATO wars of conquest and occupa­ tion could not have been conceived of during that era.

The anti-NATO, UNAC-initiated and CANG-8-spon­ sored demonstration in Chicago on May 20, accord­ ing to our Chicago comrades, received the most con­ certed violence baiting than they had seen in that city for their entire lives. Every kind of government police agency—local, state and national—was mobilized in numbers estimated by city officials to be in the neigh­ borhood of 20,000, with police squads mobilized from as far away as San Francisco.

This took place in the face of a nine-month effort on the part of protest organizers to repeatedly counter the unprecedented violence-baiting, with great efforts to secure permits for march routes and rally sites for a peaceful, “family-friendly” mobilization.

Not a day passed in the months preceding May 20 when new restrictions were not announced to dis­ courage public participation. Major streets and ex­ pressways were closed, stores were pressured to close, landlords were instructed to allow no one but tenants in their downtown buildings to enter, colleges and universities were asked to shut down, and inspec­ tion stations were established at sites for plane, train, and other forms of public transportation.

City officials sought to enact special legislation im­ posing qualitatively increased fines for any arrested persons. While these new forms of intimidation have been pressed into operation at various “anti-globaliza­ tion protests in the past, the Chicago preparation ap­ peared to far exceed anything previously experienced. It would not be an exaggeration to postulate that the Chicago preparations were more in accord with mass practice sessions aimed at qualitatively larger working class-led protests in the future than they were for the modest turnout expected on May 20.

Government incursions on civil liberties and demo­ cratic rights already described in this resolution, in­ cluding the deepening attacks on immigrants, the rise in police brutality and murder and near slave labor prison-industrial complex and more add up to some­ thing more than a modest change in government pol­ icy.

Private companies can, in most states, lease factories in prisons or prisoners to work on the outside. All told, nearly a million prisoners are now making office fur­ niture, working in call centers, fabricating body armor, taking hotel reservations, working in slaughterhouses, or manufacturing textiles, shoes, and clothing, while getting paid somewhere between 93 cents and $4.73 per day.

All previous resolutions in which we discussed in­ creasing government attacks on civil liberties always noted that however severe they are, we cannot con­ clude that we are heading for a degree of repression akin to fascism, if for no other reason that such mon­ strous measures are in no way required by a U.S. capi­ talism that faces little or no resistance from a still pas­ sive working class.

Fascism, we correctly observed was that form of capitalist political rule, as compared to bourgeois de­ mocracy, where the very existence of an organized and fighting working class was incompatible with the ex­ istence of capitalism. In short, fascism is the politico-military rule required by a ruling class whose despera­ tion in the face of the immediate possibility of socialist revolution, gives it no choice.

German bourgeois democracy ceded leadership and power over the economically and politically crisis-rid­ den state to Hitler when the overt exercise of mass re­ pression, including of the para-military or extra-legal death squad-type, was a necessity. German capitalism preferred the fascist dictatorship of Hitler, despite re­ strictions on its own prerogatives, than it did to work­ ing-class rule and the abolition of capitalist property and wealth entirely.

Of course, we are nowhere near the situation that prevailed in 1933 Germany. Then why, we must ask, the imposition and putting into place of so many and such serious restrictions on all forms of civil and dem­ ocratic rights? The answer to this question lies in part in capitalism’s realization that there are no immedi­ ate if not mid-term solutions to its present crisis other than deepening austerity imposed on workers.

Second, the ruling rich understand full well that workers, consciously or not, do have limits as to what they can endure without fighting back. They under­ stand that such a fightback, to be successful, must consist of a level of unity, mobilization, and leadership that has not existed for almost 100 years, that is, since the 1917 Bolshevik-led Russian Revolution.

Today, capitalism’s best advisers, experienced in the administration of every form of mass repression imag­ inable, anticipate, perhaps better than we do, a work­ ing-class fightback that exceeds in power and scope anything in modern history. They also understand, as we do, that the pace of development of working-class consciousness is not arithmetic—that is, a slow and steady rise—but rather one characterized by sudden great leaps that occur at special moments when every­ thing that seemed impossible yesterday becomes the order of the day today.

A tiny example is the leap into the public eye of the Occupy movement, whose class-divide, 99% versus 1% formulation crystallized a deeply felt sentiment that had been developing for a long period. Undoubt­ edly, the Occupy movement served to change the na­ tional dialogue regarding the cause of the economic crisis from a Tea Party emphasis on big government spending, including racist overtones fostering resent­ ment against recipients of welfare, to a focus on the ruling rich as the cause of the crisis.

Perhaps the best explanation for the present “war on terror” and its associated escalating attack on civil lib­ erties is the ruling-class anticipation of and prepara­ tion for the coming fightbacks. This includes putting into place the “legal” justification for arrests of every sort, from socialists to trade unionists, and concerted efforts to arm these repressive forces with the most modern technology and devices, to prepare them for action.

The preparation itself, as with the months of threats of mass arrests and fear-mongering that preceded May 20, undoubtedly had a deterrent effect, making it clear, in advance, to millions that even the democratic right to protest, to peacefully march down the street in a “family-friendly” protest, could come at a costly price. Some 15,000, perhaps, or more, took to the streets on May 20. Had the unprecedented threat of repression and violence emanating from the police been absent, few doubt that the size and scope of the action would have been larger.

On the eve of the Chicago protest an official report was released on the excessive use of police force em­ ployed in Toronto a few years ago when some 10,000 took to the streets to protest a G-20 Summit. Some 1100 arrests were recorded, the great majority—the overwhelming majority—innocent bystanders or peaceful demonstrators. Of course, the powers that be are more than willing to pay some modest fines, per­ haps a few million dollars, in exchange for the message (continued on page 9, in “Talk of Lib-Green alliance is not quite dead yet”)

SOCIALIST ACTION DECEMBER 2012 7

Scan page 8

“Jean Paul Marat: Tribune of the French Revolution,” by Clifford D. Conner. Pluto Press, London 2012.

H Published scholars of the French Revolution, at Historians have not been kind to Jean Paul Marat.

least in the English language, almost invariably disparage Marat and his work, portraying him as a wild man, a demagogue, even a criminal. Some histo­ rians belittle Marat’s significance to the revolutionary struggle as being of small consequence, while others, in complete contradiction, credit his calls for the guil­ lotine as a major inspiration for the Terror that began after his death.

Similarly, a glance at popular biographies of Marat on the internet will find little sympathy for the French leader. The on-line Encyclopedia Britannica states in its summary for young readers: “… Jean-Paul Marat was murdered at the peak of his power and influence. His own violent death came as a result of his fanatic support of violence and terror.” Another essay (NNDB, “tracking the entire world”) concludes: “He stands in history as a bloodthirsty monster, yet in judging him one must remember the persecutions he endured and the terrible disease from which he suffered.”

Peter Weiss’s musical play “Marat/Sade,” from 1963, is certainly sympathetic to Marat. But at least in its English-language rendition, the revolutionary lead­ er (portrayed by an insane asylum inmate) appears rather pathetic. Throughout the production, Marat declaims from his bathtub, as the loyal Simone Evrard sponges his disease-pocked body. When the “common people” of the asylum demand, “We want a revolution now,” Marat can offer them no effective leadership, and they end up in nihilistic riot.

The playwright, a Marxist, added an epilogue to the script in which Marat was brought back to life, and an attempt was made to present the political dialogue in more reasoned outline. But the epilogue is missing from English-language versions and from the popular Peter Brooke movie based on the play.

In truth, Marat was neither a bloodthirsty monster nor ineffectual in his political activities. The recurring nature of these slanders, in fact, might well raise sus­ picion that they were manufactured precisely in order to blot out Marat’s ideals and tactical successes as an example for social revolutionaries of later generations.

Although Marat’s ashes were removed from the Pantheon in Paris a year and a half after his death, he should be restored to our “pantheon” of revolutionary heroes. To that end, it is important news that a biogra­ phy of Marat has been published this year that aims to clear the record of the myths and half-truths concern­ ing his political views and activity. And the book, “Jean Paul Marat, Tribune of the French Revolution,” goes even further in providing insight into Marat’s efforts as a political organizer, with the observation that such knowledge might be of use to social struggles today.

The author, Clifford D. Conner, a teacher at the City College of New York Graduate Center, has written sev­ eral books in the fields of scientific and political his­ tory, including “A People’s History of Science” (Nation Books 2005). Socialist Action Books has published a number his pamphlets.

8 SOCIALIST ACTION DECEMBER 2012 Conner begins with a summary of Marat’s years as a physician and scientist. He debunks the notion, which originated in Marat’s own lifetime, that Marat was a charlatan or a crank. This topic is developed further in Conner’s book, “Jean Paul Marat: Scientist and Revolu­ tionary” (Humanities Press 1997).

In the present volume, Conner rapidly leads us into and through the later phases of Marat’s life, in which Marat devoted himself almost exclusively to political journalism. The author shows that Marat was awak­ ened—and even rejuvenated from the effects of his debilitating disease—by the political ferment that led to the French Revolution.

Conner notes that the upsurge was carried out by a broad range of social forces: “The process of the Revolution has been described as a succession of four overlapping revolutionary waves crashing against the monarchy. In the wake of the aristocratic rebellion, the bourgeoisie (the incipient capitalist class) joined the fray, and then the peasants, and finally the urban poor for whom Marat became the tribune.”

Other chroniclers of the French Revolution, such as Albert Saboul, have pointed out that protests by the poorer classes often took place in the years preced­ ing the revolution, as living conditions steadily wors­ ened. But these protests had been local and generally sporadic in character. Moreover, the majority of the population was itself divided. Some 80 percent of the French population was comprised of small peas­ ants, and rural laborers who thirsted for land. And the working populace of the towns and cities was strati­ fied. Its “higher” ranks included master craftsman and small merchants, many of whom identified with the bourgeoisie more than with the journeymen, appren­ tices, and laborers who worked in their shops.

However, the mass movement against royal privi­ leges, and later against the aristocracy, was able to unite the disparate classes into a united revolutionary movement—at least for a time.

Conner shows that Marat’s views at the beginning of the revolution were not yet very radical. At the time of the fall of the Bastille, on July 14, 1789, Marat was still a political unknown, and still harbored illusions that the king could help bring democracy to the na­ tion. But the mobilizations of the common people so inspired Marat that he quickly adapted his views. He began to publish a journal, L’amie du peuple (The Peo­ ple’s Friend), which championed the demands of the masses for social equality and economic justice.

In taking this stance, Marat soon encountered the wrath of major political leaders—not only functionar­ ies left over from the old regime but also ostensibly “revolutionary” (though conservative) politicians. His courageous refusal to back down in the face of slan­ ders and outright police repression only increased his political influence. Marat’s wide circle of supporters defended and hid him from the police.

Louis XVI’s failed attempt to escape Paris in June 1791, and the appearance of evidence that the king had conspired against the Revolution, began to strip away any confidence in schemes to retain a constitu­ tional monarchy. Conner shows, however, that Marat was far from elated by the outcome: “In his view, the people had not yet fully awakened, but were sleep­ walking, wandering in confusion, far, far from achiev­ ing the political clarity that would be necessary to con­ solidate the Revolution.”

The following year, the population was gripped by chauvinistic war fever, when France declared war on Austria. But Marat refused to join the celebrations, even going so far as to say that French defeats would be preferable to victories. “There’s a real danger,” he wrote, that one of our own generals might win a vic­ tory and, manipulating the drunken joy of his soldiers and the population, might lead his victorious army against Paris to reestablish the King’s power.”

Marat’s prediction was proven correct sometime later, when Charles François Dumouriez, the major French military commander in the field, threatened to march on Paris to expel the radical wing from the National Convention. Soon Dumouriez defected to the Austrian army—and later to the British.

The accuracy of this and other “prophecies” that Marat made in his newspaper reflected in part the access he had acquired to “inside” information—of­ ten supplied by his underground supporters within the army, government, and in the streets. But it also showed his acute ability to analyze such information within the context of strategic debate. In many circum­ stances, the clashes of political forces within the Revo­ lution were an expression of the elemental conflicts between social classes. During this era, of course, the two major opposed classes of today, proletariat and capitalists, were only beginning to develop.

In the spring of 1793, the French Revolution was quickly rising to its apogee, and Marat was climbing to the height of his powers. The conservative Girondist wing of the National Convention attempted a coun­ terattack against Marat, indicting him for “sedition.” Instead of simply denouncing his accusers, however, Marat demanded a trial, which he then used as a fo­ rum not only to demonstrate that the charges were absurd but to condemn the Girondins for their com­ plicity with Dumouriez.

Within a month, it became apparent that popular sentiment had turned against the Gironde and toward the radical wing of the Convention, the Montagnards and Jacobins. Tens of thousands of people came into the streets and blockaded the Convention, demand­ ing that the Girondist delegates resign. Marat had ear­ lier cautioned against a premature uprising—which should put to rest the history-book image of him as a violence-prone “wild man.” But the situation had changed; seeing the masses in the streets, he gave the word that “now is the time” for decisive action. Marat was instrumental in persuading the Girondins to leave the Convention, thus avoiding the necessity of a pitched battle to force them out.

That triumph, writes Conner, marked the watershed of the Revolution, the complete defeat of aristocratic privileges. With that, Marat retired from politics and from public life; his disease was proving too debilitat­ ing to allow him to continue. And virtually immedi­ ately, the Jacobins began to ignore him, converting the “People’s Friend” into a harmless icon—which they embraced in order to fight more radical critics.

Conner remarks that Marat, to a certain extent, aided the Jacobins in that task. A week before he was mur­ dered, on July 4, Marat published a denunciation of Jacques Roux and other “Enragés,” who advocated a classless society and were giving voice to the anger of the common people against skyrocketing food prices. Marat claimed that such propaganda undermined the support of the people for the revolutionary govern­ ment and thus emboldened the counter-revolution.

Even today, the issue of whether the Enragés were “too left” might be debatable. In his “Marat/Sade” play, Peter Weiss uses the figure of Roux as the voice of modern class struggle, who sees farther and with more perception than Marat. But in the era of the French Revolution, of course, the working class lacked the cohesion and power to take the reins from the ris­ ing bourgeoisie. It took another half-century until Karl Marx could write that the “specter of Communism” had come to the fore.

In summarizing Marat’s political bequest, Conner gives special emphasis to his role as a tactician, one gifted with a sharp sense of what to do next at key po­ litical junctures. But Conner notes an important failing in Marat’s revolutionary leadership—the fact that he refused to organize his followers into a political party. Marat always insisted that the only “party” was the people. And so, unlike Robespierre and other Jacobins, Marat lacked any lever other than himself to act in cru­ cial situations.

If an influential Maratist party had been on the scene, perhaps the French Revolution might have been spared some of the pitfalls, and the rapid degen­ eration, it encountered in the years following Marat’s death. But putting aside such speculation, we should note that the political legacy that Marat left for future generations is still very real, and needs only to be rediscovered. Marat’s uncompromising struggle for social revolution, Conner concludes, has lost none of its relevance and urgency. The People’s Friend—pre­ sente! n