Issue LXIV: American Hypothesis -Prohibitionism and the Pro-Life Movement

28 Mar

On my flight to Kansas City, a Kansan explained to me some of the essential differences between Kansas and Missouri.  “You see, all the bars are on the Missouri side because Kansas for years did not allow liquor by the drink.  Also, all the beer had be diluted three-two beer until recently.  There will be old signs right on the Missouri side of the street advertising full-strength beer.  And the Attorney General of Kansas used to fine airlines serving alcohol over Kansas air space,” she said. 

Given that Missouri’s most famous export is Budweiser and a corrupt bootlegger made Harry S. Truman into a U.S. senator, the contrast strikes any driver going down State Line Road. 

But is alcohol Prohibition just a strange relic from the 1920s that does not have any relevance to the present?  Americans think of it as this weird experiment that failed but made cool clothes, jazz music, Al Capone, and the FBI.  As a historical antecedent, it has no meaning for today’s politics.

I think the politics and morality of Prohibition have continued in a different form in the United States; after a few decades dormant they erupted into the pro-life abortion prohibition movement.  In the process of exploring these prohibitions, I will come across some hypotheses as to why we are in the present moment and how to fix it. 

From anti-drink to anti-choice to the politics of women

The first woman elected mayor in the United States was in Kansas.  It was a joke, but it still counts.  In fact, the states that have had women governors you notice that most of the states are in the western United States (especially if you exclude acting governors that were never elected in Massachusetts and Ohio).  Women also got the right to vote in western states before many eastern states.

But what did women want the right to vote for?  Anyone who has watched Boardwalk Empire would notice that many of the suffragettes are pushing for Prohibition as well.  More women voting would make the nation more Christian because men did not think of the home and God in the voting booth.

More explicitly, Kansas-Missouri prohibitionist Carry A. Nation used to chop up saloons with her axe and fight for the women’s voting rights.  She also complained about women wearing tight clothing for a good measure as well.

A ban on alcohol was seen as a national good in and off itself.  All social problems like family violence, child abandonment, education problems, unemployment, vice and sin all stemmed from alcohol.  Evidence for or against this idea did not matter.  Directly funding or attacking these social problems did not matter either.  This single policy would erase these problems.  It is a very narrow morality that focuses on the sin while doing nothing concrete about the (often alleged) consequences.

The point is that the link between women’s suffrage and liberalism or feminism is actually quite tenuous in most of the nation.  The link between elected women politicians and progressive politics is probably thin as well.  Are most elected Republican women legislators any more pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-sex education, or even pro-public education than the men today?  A different sort of women’s leadership developed with very different politics in most of the United States.  Why else did white women overwhelmingly vote for Trump instead of Hillary Clinton?  It is not something that happened by accident with no historical roots.

A fascinating article in Kansas History explored how certain fundamentalist churches in Wichita fought modernization of Christianity in the region (aka accepting evolution and science).  Monkey-baiting preachers fought for Biblical literalism and against the trend of northern churches accepting evolution.

The churches were mostly peopled by migrants from Southern states who came to work in the airplane factories that popped up during World War II.  They also fought against alcohol legalization in Kansas which did not end Prohibition until an election in 1948, long after the rest of the nation ended Prohibition.  These churches went on to become backbones of the pro-life movement which in 1991 erupted in Operation Rescue’s “Summer of Mercy” in Wichita.  2,600 people were arrested over 6 weeks during blockades of abortion clinics.  These activists went on to seize control of the Republican Party from the moderate, pro-choice wing of Kansas Republican Party and turn it almost uniformly into a pro-life party by the end of the decade.

Again, the narrow moralism of pro-life politics is just as narrow as the old prohibition politics were for alcohol.  It focuses entirely on the act of abortion and not at all about making a society which is good for children and families.  Unlike the Catholic pro-life worldview which encompasses anti-capital punishment principles and concern for the poor and families, the American Protestant pro-life seems to focus on the sin of abortion only.  Last year, Kansas Governor Brownback (a pro-life hero) had a major scandal when the privatized foster care system lost 74 children.  The idea that a pro-life governor had a privatized foster care system that lost children left and right is proof positive that pro-life politics is not really about the life of children.

The Way Out

This article may have been going out on a limb to mark the connections and continuities between  Prohibition and the pro-life movement.  But the solution to this problem will have a much greater evidence base.

Alcohol Prohibition died when the voters decided to democratically destroy it. The Eighteenth Amendment was repealed when 36 states amended their constitutions with the same repeal amendment, bypassing Congress.  Some states carried on for longer like Kansas and Mississippi but eventually even they by vote or by law ended the policy.  Why can’t we do the same for abortion?

Abortion has been legalized in many nations of the world by act of Parliament or by referenda.  Catholic nations like Italy, for example, legalized abortion by Parliament (1978) and ratified them in a referendum (1981).  Canada and the United Kingdom legalized abortion by national law in the 1960s.  Ireland, which has a constitutional ban on abortion, will soon have a vote on it and likely will end the ban on abortion according to polling.

The United States is standing more and more alone among developed nations (totally alone among Protestant developed nations) as even Catholic countries start to move legalize abortion (Mexico City, Argentina).  The problem is that the United States Congress never legalized abortion.  It was all decided by the Supreme Court in Roe vs Wade to throw out state abortion restriction laws all at once in 1973.  Some states had like New York and Washington had legalized abortion and many states had some limited right to abortion (see this map) and the rest had complete prohibition.  Had the Supreme Court not ruled on abortion at all, many states would have continued to legalize or liberalize abortion laws over time.  Moving too early to legalize abortion before a consensus had been formed in a majority of states or even the larger states has paralyzed the pro-choice movement to be perpetually be in defense of a policy that was undemocratically decided and unlike abortion legalization anywhere else in the world.

Had the Supreme Court waited more states could have legalized abortion or liberalized it and then they could make a ruling that would have thrown out the laws in the recalcitrant states.  This would be similar to what happened with state sodomy laws (widely considered a joke and rarely a legal threat to anyone in 2003) or gay marriage laws (widely accepted and legal in many states by legislation).  Or like Prohibition laws, they could have slowly died out state by state, extinguished by their own voters and not by a federal court.

The solution?  The pro-choice movement should push for Congress to pass a federal law legalizing abortion and limiting interference and regulations designed to prevent access to abortion.  Until that happens, locally the movement needs to push for every state to pass a law or referendum legalizing abortion and limiting restrictions to access.  That way if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, state laws will already be ready.  When George W. Bush became president in 2001, California passed a law to do just this.

The costs of this defensive strategy are huge.  By arguing continually about abortion’s basic legality we are ignoring the even larger problem of access and affordability and funding in one of the largest nations in the world.  Harper’s poignant article about the difficulties of getting an abortion in South Dakota shows how this defensive focus forgets how abortion may as well be illegal for the poor and rural women of the nation.  A grassroots mobilization for state legalization the way other nations have decriminalized abortion is the only way forward.

No one thinks any state will bring back alcohol prohibition.  Why can we not do the same for abortion prohibition?  Only if you dream of it can you do it.


Harper’s –  Letter from South Dakota


Issue LXIII: American Hypothesis – The Death of the North

15 Feb

This year, I am going to try making a stab at making some hypotheses about the United States and the world.  These have been based on conversations, travels, and readings I have made.  Random facts have come to me from places off the beaten path that I think lend themselves to a pattern.  This issue, I will elucidate my first theory towards American mass identity confusion lays in the death of a regional culture.

The Death of the North

Growing up in the South, I felt a kinship and understanding of places I had never been to in the South.  To Kill A Mockingbird seemed it could have been written in my hometown.  I felt I understood Alabama or Georgia or Tennessee or the Carolinas even though I really hadn’t been to any of these states.

Not too long ago, someone with a thick Southern accent told me about something at work in Ohio and about how someone was coming in from Alabama.  I said, “It sounds like you came from Alabama yourself.”  “Well….” he said, “I am from Arkansas but I have been living in Alabama until this year.”  When I told him I was from Texas, he said, “It is nice to talk to a fellow Southerner.”

He hung up.  I smiled in recognition.

Then I thought, “What the heck?  I have never even BEEN to Alabama or Arkansas.”

In my mind, I thought there must be some sort of inverse in the North.  A “fellow Northerner” feeling or “fellow Northeasterner” or “Midwesterner” feeling.

There really isn’t any such thing.  There is no kinship at all.  No understanding at all.  Within Ohio, people do not have anything in common.  Nor do people in the Great Lakes Region seem to share a certain city they can all claim (to me, it should logically be Chicago).  There is not much interstate or intrastate travel that unites people into a shared consciousness, nor is there any art form or shared metaphor (even as cheesy as a Sweet Home Alabama or Waterboy).  That nod and wink between people of a shared region seems absent.  Was this always so?

How the Northeast Colonized Westwards

A historical first thought would be, what about the Civil War?  What about the Union?  Should that have created a shared memory and mentality that defines them the way the South defines itself (haziness and inaccurate nostalgia notwithstanding).

Well, it seems to me that at least once a upon a time the Yankee moved west from Boston and spread his culture across a large swathe of land.  As they traveled they founded universities like Oberlin, Grinnell, and the University of Kansas.

The New England Colonization Society sent settlers west to fight pro-slavery forces in Kansas.  They were given a Bible and a Beecher Bible (a rifle) to go fight the Missouri ruffians.  John Brown came from Massachusetts lived in Akron and came to Lawrence, Kansas to fight the slavery forces.  Portland, Oregon’s name came from a coin toss between a man from Boston and a man from Portland, Maine.  The Mainer won the coin flip.

This was the social, cultural, and economic geography of the North.  Roughly, interstate-90.

How do you maintain ties to your ancestral land?  You maintain it via education, travel, shared experiences, and marriage with those from your homeland.  When I see the education and travel patterns of President McKinley (R-OH), educated in Pennsylvania and New York, I see that at that time northern states traveled east for education and moved west for business.  Southern contemporaries often did the same, travel to the eastern Southern states for education.

At the Woodrow Wilson’s home tour in Washington D.C., I was told that it was very important for Wilson to have only married Southerners.  He was born in Virginia.  Despite being known as the governor of New Jersey when becoming president, his second wife tried to insist that his portrait in the White House upon retiring label him being from Georgia not New Jersey.

How and why did the northern unity fall apart?  Was it ever that strong?  I do not know.  But the collapse of the historic links between New England and the people of the Great Lakes and the Plains States may explain the vast identity crisis felt in the industrial Midwest.  This identity crisis has been filled currently with authentic anger and vague displacement as reality and prosperity fall apart around them.  This void has been filled by retrograde (often Southern-inflected) religiosity, intolerance, and Tea Party hysteria.

New England’s civilizing educational mission (their “City on a Hill” in Puritan times) has been a historic boon for the social development of the United States.  It was crucial in the struggle to end slavery, labor abuse, and voter disenfranchisement.  This mission has been replaced with fleecing the world with expensive private education to produce a homogenously mediocre “cosmopolitan” class of occasionally second rate writers, third rate politicians, and even worse philosophers and economists and media personalities.  Their obligation to their northern brothers seems dead.

How did northern unity fall apart?  I leave that up to you readers to give me ideas.  But why is a place a place and a region a region?  One thing is for sure for this Texan, the South is a place and the North is decidedly not.

Unless Minnesota decides to run off with the term.


KCUR – “Why Minnesota Should Break up with the Midwest



Issue LXII: The Neoliberal’s Health “Reformer”

7 Oct

Few people’s reputations are so sancrosanct in my field as the reputation of the surgical oncologist and New Yorker health policy journalist, Dr. Atul Gawande.  Nary a criticism of him gets published in either the popular or medical press (Russell Mokhiber’s one article is all I can find). But behind his strangely class-free, race-free, and context-free view of the history of American medicine lays the worst instincts of technocratic market liberalism. An avatar of progress he is not.

This week Dr. Gawande, in an echo of Hillbilly Elegy, decides to wander around his hometown in Ohio (my current state of residence) looking for a consensus on health care as a human right. Being from Texas, I have come to violently disagree with his much-hailed 2009 New Yorker article about McAllen, Texas. His naive traipse through southeast Ohio talking to people is just that: naive.

He finds that, golly gee, health care is expensive, and even conservatives cannot pay their $6000 deductibles, immunosuppressant medications are outrageously costly, and surgery bills keep people up at night. In this region where people repair their own cars and shoot their own deer (a symbol for real America), people can’t repair their own appendix! And they hate freeloaders.

Liberal or conservative, everyone agrees there has to be some sort of level playing field where everyone contributes, costs are controlled, and people will have the freedom to work or start businesses as they please without worrying about insurance. Just like how we do not worry about police and fire protection. Despite his Rhodes Scholarship in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at Oxford, Dr. Gawande just now seems to be coming around the concept of positive rights and how these guarantees enhance liberty. But then he goes backwards and ponders if Americans have a right to garbage pickup… and then declares the idea irrelevant.

The muddled thinking of the Harvard doctor extends to his use of region and history. It may shock Bostonians, but Athens County is actually the most consistently Democratic county in Ohio. Historically, Appalachian Ohio has allied with Northeast Ohio (Cleveland) to form the bulwark of the Democratic Party in opposition to Southwest Ohio (Cincinnati). The last Democratic governor of Ohio, Ted Strickland, hails from the region and progressive Senator Sherrod Brown still wins in the region.

This coal and union region is economically liberal and socially conservative like its neighbor West Virginia but (as documented brilliantly by this magazine) has rapidly been shifting to the Republicans since 1992.

While he writes about the irrelevant Vaccine Act of 1813 to prove the point that Jefferson and Madison supported some concept of public health (as if that evidence will convert the Right!), he avoids discussing class or race as potential reasons why a logical health system never developed in the United States. When he notes that Athenians love Medicare but hate unemployed, idle people on Medicaid, he neglects look at the relevant legislative history of Medicare and Medicaid. Congressman Wilbur Mills (D-AR), chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, deliberately separated Medicare and Medicaid to create a two tier system in 1965. The elderly would get a national Medicare program while the poor (often black and minority) would get an inferior, unequally implemented, joint state-federal program called Medicaid. De-linking the poor from the elderly has cost Medicaid politically for decades, and it was deliberate strategy.

Elitism In, Elitism Out

What do we expect from a man who took time away from medical school to campaign for Bill Clinton in 1992, who proudly worked for Blue Dog Congressman Jim Cooper, and supported Al Gore in 1988? His national profile ignores his essentially conservative and elitist politics.

Dr. Gawande (who gained fame nationally bashing greedy doctors in South Texas) has never mentioned how regional hospital monopolies result in higher prices for all, including his employer Partners HealthCare. The 2000 merger of Massachusetts General and Brigham & Women’s Hospitals into Partners HealthCare, as noted by the Boston Globe’s Spotlight team, led to bullying of insurance companies to pay them much more per visit and procedure than local non-chain hospitals. Elite hospitals’ price-gouging is fine, but these unscrupulous border physicians and hospitals are just so gauche. Robbery and health care profiteering has to have a proper pedigree. In one ludicrous article, Dr. Gawande extolled hedge fund takeovers of Catholic hospital chains and how they should make hospitals more like the Cheesecake Factory. Seriously.

Stumbling on Solutions

Based on his on the ground conversations in Athens, Ohio, the logical political, moral, and marketable answer to the health care crisis would be Medicare for all. The simple appeal of everyone in and nobody out with direct tax contributions would seem to pass the moral and practical conditions of all these victims of the American health care system.

But Dr. Gawande, perish the thought, cannot make that clean leap in logic.

Instead he buries the idea in fatuous maxims about tradeoffs and the social compact. He does not even seem to answer the question of health care (or even garbage pickup) being a right. He thinks Medicare for all, Medicaid buy in by state, and even health savings accounts are all equally morally acceptable solutions. His bias, as always, is towards a hodgepodge of regional incremental solutions.

And he seems to fear a transition more than any lasting, political solution. And he never mentions Bernie Sanders’s new Medicare for all bill or the collapse of the private insurance system or non-profit hospital price gouging and mergers.

If we are to have Medicare for all and a not for profit health system, we will need to abandon “thought leaders” like Dr. Atul Gawande. They hold us back with their faith in MBA-style management of health care from above and small, incremental, unscaleable experiments in health delivery from below.

We will need a dedicated cadre of physician and public health leaders who understand the role of the public sector in finally providing and implementing the Alma Ata Declaration’s promise of Health for All in the United States. It is only with such dedicated leaders who know that only by confronting the inequalities in wealth, power, geography, and race directly, we can produce a healthy society and finally join the civilized world in guaranteeing health care as a human right.

Issue LXI: A British History of Game of Thrones

6 Aug

Upon meeting His Catholic Majesty Felipe VI, King of Spain, Castile, Léon, and Aragorn, Professor Pablo Iglesias presented him with a modest gift.  A DVD box set of Game of Thrones.

The leftist lecturer of political science and leader of the political party Podemos, professed his love for the show in 2015.  He would, like Khaleesi, ride the dragons of political power to the summit of the state.

Now what could he be talking about when ranting about Weber, Machiavelli, and Gramsci in an HBO serial?  Professor Iglesias is not off the mark at all, dear readers, and I will show you how Game of Thrones explains the creation of the modern world via British history.  But with dragons.

 From Antiquity to Modernity

George R.R. Martin has explicitly stated that Game of Thrones most resembles the War of the Roses.  The War of the Roses was an insanely complicated civil war between 1455 and 1485 for control of the British throne.  As a war between dueling relatives of House Plantagenet, there were many alliances and betrayals and short-term kings that in turn got overthrown by another.  Fighting over hereditary “legitimacy” really was a fig leaf for different groups to support different sides.

The House of York (white rose) fought with the House of Lancaster (red rose) until it ended with the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485.  The Lancastrians defeated the Yorkists and Henry Tudor became King Henry VII.  To wrap it all up he married Elizabeth of York to unite the two families and thus claims for the throne.  The Tudors ruled until 1603.

What makes the Battle of Bosworth Field more important than other fights over kingship is that this was really the last time inheritance had to be decided by war in Britain.  We can really say that British dynastic stability begins from then until now (notwithstanding complications like Cromwell and the Glorious Revolution).

Stability is the key word in this.  A stable realm with stable rules and rulers can lead to people planning for the future.  They will not have to worry about soldiers wrecking their farm, their apprentices being drafted by the local aristocrat, and changes of religion that lead to religious persecution.  What George R.R. Martin shows, but does not tell, is how political stability will be created in Westeros by the (likely) victory of Daenarys Targaryen.

Origins of Political Order

 It all goes back to German sociologist Max Weber.  The state, in political science, is the only institution allowed to commit legal violence in a modern society in a defined geographic area.  This violence encompasses the police, prison and court system, the death penalty, or (in olden stays) corporal punishment and torture.  We are shocked at the violent actions of terrorists, criminals, or militias because, unconsciously, we believe that only the government is allowed to use violence legitimately.

This was not always the case.  In the New World, it took centuries to develop a political culture in which cowboys can’t just shoot Indians or the Hatfields shoot the McCoys and get away with it.  Being civilized means settling disputes non-violently and using the court system if disputes cannot be settled.

In the Old World, monarchs could not directly control their entire nation and had to rely on local nobles to collect taxes and draft men for their army for centuries.  These nobles could also commit violence and keep some of the tax money they collected for their estates.  They may have additional mandates to protect certain bridges, rivers, mountain passes, or borders from the king.  This is the world of Game of Thrones.

The Birth and Death of the Seven Kingdoms

A brief recap of Westerosi history draws out the parallels with British history.  The original people of the continent were the Children and the First Men.  These natives (equivalent: Celtic tribes) were disrupted by the Andal invasion of Westeros.  They are pushed to the margins of continent just as the Celts were pushed towards Wales, Scotland, and Ireland.  The First Men become the Wildings and are pushed beyond the Wall.

The Andals form the Seven Kingdoms and most likely represent the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes who invaded Britain from Northwestern Europe in 410 AD.  These Germanic tribes form the English people who are the Anglo-Saxons.  The majority of people in Westeros descend from the Andals.  The exception are the Starks in Winterfell (which most likely represents York, England) who are mixed with Andal and First Men blood and follow the religion of the First Men and the Children.

The Seven Kingdoms were all dramatically conquered by Aegon the Conquerer who invaded from Dragonstone three hundred years before the show begins.  Aegon the Conqueror, undoubtedly represents William the Conqueror.  William the Conquerer and his Norman invasion from France conquered Britain at the Battle of Hastings in 1066 AD.  William the Conqueror began much of the current British state including Parliament and government records (the Domesday Book).  One can say the British monarchy as an institution began with his rule.

Like the Normans, the Targaryens are not native to Westeros but come from Essos.  They also do not speak the Common Tongue at home (aka English) but speak Valerian (French/Latin).  In some of the backstory videos on the DVDs (you can find them on YouTube), it is made clear that the Targaryens reduced the amount of warring between the different kingdoms.  By being foreigners, they could stand above any of the individual Seven Kingdoms.  By having dragons, they have the overwhelming monopoly on violence and the ultimate weapon.  You can view the dragons symbolically as the supreme power of state violence, like nuclear weapons or a very strong army, and these dragons make lesser kings submit to the Iron Throne in Kings Landing.

The Seeds of Modernity

Unification and centralization of political power into a single state is an essential precursor for advanced civilization.  The Chinese achieved this thousands of years ago under the emperors of yore while Spain, Portugal, France, and England achieved the nation state centuries later.  What George R.R. Martin’s stories metaphorically reveal are the seeds that will lead to the destruction of the Middle Ages and the beginning of Enlightenment and modernity.

In terms of learning, the Citadel clearly represents the origins of universities and knowledge that will lead to science.  Universities descend from medieval monasteries dedicated to training priests and studying religion.  Samwell Tarley’s apprenticeship (an ancient grad school if you will) shows how medicine is developing from their studies both new and old.

In terms of technology, Cersei contracts the Alchemists’ Guild to develop technology like wildfire and the dragon-slaying ballista.  Medieval alchemy tried to convert common substances into gold.  The knowledge of these thousands of failed attempts led to a body of knowledge about substances which led to modern chemistry.  Once cannon technology began to destroy medieval fortress walls, the point of using castles for defense ended and so too did the Middle Ages.

In terms of statecraft, Lord Varys represents English philospher Thomas Hobbes and his book Leviathan.  Lord Varys, uniquely, defines the goal of governance to be the good of the common people.  Unlike the other advisors, he is a commoner.  Furthermore, he sees stability and peace in the realm to be the primary goal of politics, not who sits on the throne.  His loyalty is not to the ruler but the realm…. or as we would call it, the nation.  His switching from supporting one ruler to the next makes no sense to the others except as a way to get or keep power.  They do not understand his goal of a commonwealth.

In terms of political power, Daenrys Targaryen represents Henry VII. Raised in exile in Essos (France), she will return to her native land to end the family feuds.  She understands that the back and forth between the different families is ruining Westeros.  When Tyrion describes it as a wheel where families rise and fall with the turn of the wheel, Khaleesi responds that she does not want to stop the wheel but to break it.  Her ultimate goal will be the disestablishment of feudalism.  It helps that the families are killing each other off anyway.

An astute marriage, like the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella in Spain in 1469, could consolidate the territorial gains (Cersei Lannister and Euron Greyjoy?  Jon Snow and Khaleesi?).  A foreign invasion by White Walkers will help consolidate her authority the way the invasions of the Moors helped unify Spain and Portugal in the 1400s.

A single, unified monarchy will rule Westeros without any challengers from below.  In essence, it will be the end of the Seven Kingdoms and the beginning of the modern nation-state of Westeros.


YouTube – Complete History of Westeros

Atlantic Monthly – “Political Order and Political Decay


Issue LX: Red October (part 3)

31 May

Passport to the Finland Station

Stranded in Switzerland for years, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin saw his chance. He immediately began writing his party platform and planning his dramatic return to the former Russian Empire.  The February Revolution, having overthrown the tsar, had incompletely resolved the issue of who ruled Russia.

On one side, rested the Provisional Government composed of certain members of the Duma (parliament).  This government represented the Russian bourgeoisie of liberals and some moderate socialists.  This moderate class had the revolution thrust into their hands in a way they could not avoid the way they did in 1905.  They tried to work with the former nobility and tsarist authorities to maintain control of the nation.  They pledged to the Allies that they would continue to fight in World War I.  An imperial war by the tsar had become a “democratic” and national war by the Russian people.  It was led by Alexander Kerensky.

On the opposite side stood the soviets of workers, soldiers, and sailors.  These workers’ councils practiced “democracy from below.”  Each military unit and factory would elect representatives to these councils in all the major cities.  The most important soviet was the Petrograd Soviet.  The Petrograd Soviet decreed in Order No. 1 that soldiers should follow orders from their officers and the Provisional Government only if they did not contradict the Petrograd Soviet.

Lenin described this situation as dual power.  Who ruled Russia?  The soviets of workers and soldiers or the Provisional Government of liberals and moderate socialists?  As all revolutions end in changing who controls state power, Lenin argued that the revolution had not been settled.

But first he had to get out of Zurich.

April Theses

V.I. Lenin negotiated with the German government to be placed on train to Russia.  Germany, still at war with Russia, bordered both Switzerland and Russia.  He negotiated safe passage through Germany on a sealed train that would make no stops and would have no passport checks.  From the German coast he would take a ferry and then train to St. Petersburg.  As an antiwar radical, Germany liked the idea of sending someone like Lenin who would promote ending the war on the Eastern Front, even if they did not care for his revolutionary socialism.      

Upon arrival at the Finland Station in St. Petersburg, Lenin was greeted by Bolsheviks and Mensheviks alike.  With the overthrow of the tsar, Bolsheviks and Mensheviks worked together again to support the Provisional Government and continue the war. Even if Russia would not aim to annex land, they would defend the nation from German attack.  The Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, split between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, could now be mended with Lenin’s arrival and his support for the bourgeois revolution and the Provisional Government.

Instead, the fiery speech he gave shocked everyone.  The essentials of his remarks are summarized in the April Theses.  His ideas, which were widely condemned initially, eventually formed the nucleus of the party position.  What were the April Theses?  The best summary comes in the form of popular slogans and posters from the spring and summer of 1917.

  • Bread, Land, Peace – food for the workers, re-distribution of land to the peasants from the big landowners, end the war
  • Turn the Imperialist War into a Civil War – do not fight Germany on behalf of France and England, negotiate an immediate peace treaty, fight the bourgeoisie within Russian society
  • All Power to the Soviets – end the system of dual power by overthrowing the Provisional Government in the name of the soviets of workers and soldiers
  • Fraternize with the Enemy – do no fight “enemy” soldiers anymore, socialize with them instead, rebel against officers who want to continue the war

This did not go over well at all with party members, Bolshevik or Menshevik.

Revolutionaries denounced Lenin as a madman with his calls for ending the war, overthrowing the government, and immediately moving from parliamentary government to a workers’ state based on the soviets. Lenin denounced the Mensheviks (who controlled the soviets and the Provisional Government) as opportunists and social chauvinists who did not really believe in creating a government by and for the working class.  He teamed up with Leon Trotsky, recently returned from Canada, to push for proletarian revolution as the only way to end the war.

But his once radical ideas appeared to make sense to many as the war continued under the Provisional Government which started a new offensive.  The offensive ended in humiliating defeat.  The Bolsheviks began to gain strength in the soviets and the countryside.  By June, workers were beginning to rebel.  In July, they went on strike marching for “All Power to the Soviets.”  Kerensky’s government shot them down by the hundreds and ordered Lenin’s arrest.  Lenin went into hiding while Trotsky was arrested.

The Provisional Government then suffered an attempted right-wing coup by General Kornilov.  Kerensky had to release Trotsky and Bolshevik leaders from jail and then arm them to defend the city from the General Kornilov.  The debacle made the Provisional Government look even worse.  Bolshevik membership soared and soon they controlled a majority in the Moscow and Petrograd Soviets.  Lenin returned from hiding in Finland for the Congress of the Soviets.  After a debate, the soviet executive committee voted to overthrow the Provisional Government and assume state power in October.

Red October

The Bolshevik Revolution began with soldiers refusing to follow orders.  The Bolsheviks then quietly took positions around the city.  The battleship Aurora then fired a blank shot to announce the start of the uprising.  Finally, the Winter Palace of the tsars was stormed and the Provisional Government arrested.  The world’s first socialist revolution had begun.

What happened next is extremely long and complicated.  The Bolshevik Revolution led to the Russian Civil War between the Bolshevik Red Army and the White Army which did not end until 1922.  Lenin and Trotsky began immediate peace talks with Germany while the United States, Japan, and Britain tried to support the White Army.  Despite all odds, Trotsky’s Red Army defeated all parties.  Lenin declared the name of the new nation the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics or the Soviet Union.

He and Trotsky hoped for a similar revolution in Germany. The Kaiser fell but the German soviets failed to win state power.  Isolated from the world, the Soviet Union never benefited from socialist revolutions in advanced capitalist nations.  Instead this backward nation had to bear the brunt of socialism for decades….. and was hugely unsuccessful on the whole.

Lenin had a stroke and then died soon after in 1924. The Soviet Union lasted until 1991.  All sorts of failures, disasters, and crimes occurred during the USSR’s existence including the ignominious reign of Josef Stalin.  In any case, the theoretical arguments I began this series with remain relevant to understanding why or how the Soviet Union failed.

Did Russia need a phase of liberal capitalist development? Did Lenin rush the revolution when he saw the soviets re-form?  Did the failure of revolution in Germany push Russia into a constantly defensive position?  Did the long and brutal civil war prevent formation of democracy?  Was repression and dictatorship always in the genes of the Bolshevik Party from the start or is it all Stalin’s fault?  Should Lenin have relied on the peasants or waited until the nation became majority urban?  Was Marx wrong to assume most people would become urban industrial workers under capitalism?

All of these questions are of great importance and debate, but now I feel, dear reader, that you will be ready to argue this history with the basic points in mind on this centenary. Were they all heroes, villains, or just 100 years too early?

Issue LX: Boarding the Train (part 2)

18 May

Cutting in Line

Marx and Engels predicted that liberal revolutions led by bourgeois merchants, lawyers, and the professional middle classes would end the restrictions on capitalism by the nobility and church. Human rights and parliamentary democracies would be established. These parliaments would emphasize human rights, political equality, re-distribution of large estates, and the rule of law. The growth of capitalism would plant the seeds of the next revolution by the creation of a large industrial working class.

The United States had two bourgeois revolutions. The American War of Independence separated the thirteen colonies from Great Britain, ending British hereditary feudal aristocracy, and established a Constitution and Bill of Rights. The American Civil War ended slavery and extended liberty to all citizens in the United States and eliminated the South’s feudal social system and broke up the grand planter estates for re-distribution. The Russian Empire in comparison had nothing like these revolutions on the eve of World War I. The Russian socialists were not even thinking of socialist revolution…. they were still waiting for a capitalist one!

In Russia, the Middle Ages had never really ended in any real way. Russia opposed the French Revolution and fought Napoleon’s reforms until his defeat at the Battle of Borodino and eventually Waterloo. Serfdom was not officially abolished until 1861 but without the large-scale land redistribution and public education that spread throughout the American South after the Civil War. The Russian Orthodox Church had incredible power, and the tsar was seen as God’s representative on Earth. There was no limitations on his power. No Magna Carta, no Parliament, no Cabinet, and no freedom of the press.

Military needs pressed the nation to modernize somewhat. The Russian Empire did begin limited industrial modernization after the abolition of serfdom by creating the trans-Siberian railroad to connect the east and west coast of Russia. St. Petersburg and Moscow developed large factories. But most of the population still lived in rural squalor under the oppression of big aristocratic landowners.

But after the shock defeat of Russia by the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese War led to an awakening by the Russian people. In the Russian Revolution of 1905, the people rebelled against the tsar’s imbecilic management of the war. Many members of the Navy rebelled as well. Workers formed work councils called soviets. Masses of people marched against the tsar and protested for more freedom and a parliament. The government responded with bullets and police brutality. The police crushed the revolt.

Yes, a weak Duma (parliament) was created. But it was mostly ignored. At the cusp of the revolution succeeding, the middle classes and industrialists failed to overthrow the tsar. They feared the workers more than the aristocracy. And especially the soviets. Many revolutionaries fled the country.

So again, why did the first socialist revolution happen in Russia when it never even had its liberal revolution? Probably because of revolutionary V.I. Lenin.

Lenin in Switzerland

The great response of the left was to fight amongst each other.

V.I. Lenin, a lawyer and son of small town teacher fled to Switzerland. He was a leading member of the Russian Social Democratic Party but split the party into two factions over some obscure issue. He called his group the Bolsheviks (majority) and his opposition the Mensheviks (minority), even though he had the smaller group.

All radicals continued to write and publish and smuggle banned literature back into Russia. Many performed union activities and promoted the socialist cause to the workers. All of this was illegal and highly dangerous.

In a neutral country, Lenin watched as the great powers began a march towards World War I. Other European nations had expanded overseas and divided up Africa and Asia. Now with increasing nationalism, militarism, and imperialism, the Continent was building up for a global conflagration. Lenin mostly wrote and observed in these years of exile. He argued that imperialism was the highest stage of capitalism and that the search for increased profits left to imperialism abroad. Now that the world was divided up, the only thing left was for the imperialist powers to attack each other for the spoils of empire. War was inevitably a consequence of capitalism.

What shocked Lenin was the behavior of the many socialist and labor parties that constituted the Second International. All of these parties pledged to oppose international war because war led to working class people fighting and killing working class people of other nationalities. Yet despite their international pledges of class solidarity, the British Labor Party, the German Social Democratic Party, and the French Socialist Party all voted for authorizing war in their parliaments.

And the war came. Russia supported the Allies of Great Britain, France, and Italy against Germany, the Ottoman Empire, and Austria-Hungary. Imperial Russia performed disastrously on the Eastern Front with conscripted peasants. Tsar Nicholas II took charge of the war himself and performed even worse than the generals. Food was short, and civilians, soldiers, and sailors began to rebel. Strikes became increasingly common in the capital of St. Petersburg (called Petrograd during WWI). Lenin’s and the other hardline socialists looked increasingly prophetic by 1917.

Finally in February 1917 (O.S.), the women of Petrograd went on strike for food and an end to the war on International Woman’s Day. They marched from factory to factory and told the workers inside to put their tools down and come out on strike until the tsar abdicated. Hundreds of thousands joined. This time, the police did not shoot the protestors. The strike widened until it even the soldiers and sailors refused to fight for the tsar and against the people. The Petrograd Soviet of workers (and now soldiers and sailors) re-formed spontaneously.

The Duma was paralyzed. The tsar, as usual, was paralyzed. Tsarist symbols were torn down. Finally, the Duma asked the tsar to step down. He abdicated, and with no acceptable successor, the Provisional Government was proclaimed. After three centuries, Romanov rule ended in Russia forever.

Excitedly, V.I. Lenin planned his return to Russia.

Issue LX: Prelude to the Revolution

10 May

One hundred years ago last month, revolutionary V.I. Lenin boarded a train in Switzerland and headed to St. Petersburg, Russia to begin the second phase of the Russian Revolution. Due to the centennial of World War I and the October Revolution, I felt that a summary of the events 1917 would benefit readers.  Since this is a long topic, it will be multi-post report.  In this post, I will summarize the backdrop leading to World War I and the theories behind the Russian Revolution.

The World of Yesterday

At the start of the World War I in 1914, Europe had undergone a long stretch of (mostly) peace and (mostly) prosperity and development.  From the 1815 defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo until 1914, a conservative consensus developed by the victors at the Congress of Vienna more or less held sway for almost a century.  After Napoleon, the internal challenges of industrialization, reform, and revolution preoccupied Europe.

In fact, the French Revolution kickstarted the process in Continental Europe by overthrowing the ancien régime in 1792.  By killing the king and royalty and even banning the Catholic Church, French revolutionaries ended the centuries-old system where one’s birth determined one’s place in the social order for life.  Instead, a system of merit and one’s accomplishments would determine your role in society.  The Revolution established a system of Grand Schools (grandes écoles) to open up education and government jobs in the military, science, engineering, and civil service to the public instead of passing these out to unqualified nobility.  Sounds great right?

Napoleon’s conquest of Europe allowed him to spread this model across the Continent.  His Napoleonic Code codified this in many nation’s legal systems.  Ending the discrimination of religious minorities, emancipating Jews, and ending hereditary preference across Europe ended up lasting much longer than his military victories.  The three big holdouts to this were the monarchies of Britain, Austria, and Russia, and they eventually ganged up on him long enough beat him.

As the Industrial Revolution swept North America and Europe, the social order fell apart as people moved from the countryside to cities and found new jobs as industrial workers.  Modern industry destroyed artisanal crafts like weaving and blacksmithing and turned them into textile manufacturers and steel mills.  Instead of rural self-employment in a trade or agriculture, people became employees and workers for large corporations.  By selling their labor in exchange for a wage, they ended the traditional feudal order where one worked at one’s family trade or farm.

Eliminating the feudal order while inventing manufacturing technology led to capitalism.  Without the liberal revolutions that ended feudal privileges, capitalism could not exist.  Liberal policies also encouraged public education, taxation of large landowners, infrastructure, free trade, and efficient government.  They also promoted freedom of religion.  Conservatives opposed these because it reduced the power and money of the nobility and the church.  An educated public that can travel around and work where they want will not look up to the old masters who benefited from large rural and ignorant population.

Capitalism started most strongly in Protestant northern Europe, France, and North America.  Internal trade within nations destroyed the need to make most clothes and tools at home or in the nearby town. This concentrated employment in central cities.  Railroads moved these mass manufactured goods out to the public.  This meant that for the first time in human history, people were able to buy non-local goods on a regular basis.  Fewer and fewer local jobs were needed and more things were bought and sold instead of being made at home.  But this also had negative consequences.

After a few decades, it became clear that capitalism concentrated wealth more and more of the wealth in fewer and fewer hands. People complained that instead of a feudal order running things, there was an economic class order.  Instead of aristocrats and commoners, society divided into the bourgeoisie and the proletarians.  The bourgeoisie class were owners and the proletarian class were urban workers.  Specifically the owners owned the means of production (factories, land, equipment), and workers sold their labor (for a wage) to make goods for the owners.  Because of the horrific conditions of urban factories, workers began to rebel and form working class parties.

Amidst the tumult, Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels published the Manifesto of the Communist Party in 1848.  They argued that world history is the history of class struggle.  The class struggle against aristocracy was led by the bourgeoisie and now won (he called these revolutions bourgeois revolutions).  Their victory led to the creation of the proletarians who will lead the final revolution… the revolution of socialism to create a classless society.  The working class will create a revolutionary government with the goal of eliminating all class differences.  At that point, the state would wither away and people would live in a perfect state of communism where there was no government and no class differences between people.

To summarize, feudalism ends when merchants and the middle classes overthrow them (bourgeois revolution). These classes become the bourgeoisie and create industrial workers out of the now-employed and no longer hereditary lower classes.  These industrial workers become proletarians should overthrow the bourgeoisie (socialist revolution) to create a worker’s state to eliminate all classes and create economic equality.

The perfect place to do this would be an advanced capitalist nation like France, England, or Germany because the number of industrial workers would be highest and feudal power the weakest. But oddly enough, the first revolution happened in Russia, a rural and backward nation.  But more on that in the next post.