Sunday, November 22, 2009
Fight the Cutbacks at the Univ. of California!
Youth for Socialist Action Statement on UC Strike:
A winning strategy for students, faculty and campus workers to
FIGHT THE CUTBACKS!
Unity! Solidarity! Democracy!
Our Nov. 18-20 worker-student-faculty strike/walkout is a powerful expression of what is needed to challenge and reverse the across-the-board 11.2 billion dollar planned cutbacks that California politicians seek to impose on the state’s system of public education – K-12, CC, CSU, UC.
Our Sept. 24 united mobilization of 5,000 UC Berkeley workers, students and faculty set an example that was emulated in many aspects across the state. We set a standard for the kind of unity, solidarity and democracy that is the cornerstone of every successful fight for fundamental democratic rights, human rights, the right to quality education for students, and the right to good jobs for for faculty and workers.
Our Oct. 24 statewide mobilizing conference of 700 students, teachers and public education workers from all sectors also set a standard that bodes well for the future. The massive, inclusive and democratic participation of all those effected by the cutbacks is a pre-requisite for a winning strategy. We are here today and united because of that meeting.
UC Berkeley has a history of unity, solidarity and mass mobilization that set the stage for historic changes in public education and in effecting the course of world events. Berkeley’s massive and democratically-organized Free Speech Movement (FSM) won the democratic right of free speech and assembly at a time when a McCarthy-era witchhunt atmosphere prevailed across the nation’s campuses, when, with regard to free speech and association, the University considered itself in loco parentis (in place of your parents), that is, with the right to abrogate rights protected by the Constitution. The FSM resounded echoed across the country and ushered in a new era of student radicalism and involvement in social issues.
UC Berkeley was at the forefront of the anti-Vietnam War movement demanding “Bring the Troops Home Now!,” a demand on the U.S. government that helped to unify the movement, whose mass mobilizations forced an end to the government’s slaughter there. Four million Vietnamese and 57,000 Americans died in that atrocious war.
Today we confront the spending priorities of the State of California, which has already cut $9.3 billion from California public education this year. We confront the federal government, who uses our tax money to bailout the billionaire banks and corporations at the expense of public services of every kind and that unceasingly spends our tax money waging an unjust war on Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. And we confront the corrupt UC administrators who gave themselves $350 million in bonuses last year and who now claim they have no choice but to cut our classes, increase our fees, lay us off, and force us to take furloughs. We say that if this is the only option, UC should open their books to public inspection and prove it to us.
We don't believe that the cutbacks, fee hikes, layoffs and furloughs are necessary because we know hundreds of millions are gifted in bonuses to a bloated management in an increasingly privatized UC system. We know about the sale of UC bonds and the use of increased student fees as collateral and to pay for dividends. We know the bloated UC management includes 17,000 administrators who are paid over $100,000. We know UC president Mark Yudoff’s salary is $828,000, plus we pay for his mansion. But we don't know the whole story. For that, we'll need to see the full budget.
We demand: No layoffs! • No furloughs! • No student fee increases! • No pay cuts for faculty and workers • Chop from the top! • Proportional access to education for oppressed people, who are victims of a racist society! • Open the books to disclose all sources of university income, profits and all expenditures!
To win these demands requires a united fightback that mobilizes and unites all levels of public education, from K-12 to University, from students to workers to teachers, as well as public sector workers, who suffer similar attacks, to coordinate our actions in such a way that we fight corruption and force the State of California and the U.S. government to fund education and social spending, not wars and bailouts.
Money for education, jobs, pensions, the environment and housing
not for wars and corporate bailouts!
A Statement by Youth for Socialist Action at UC Berkeley. ysaucb@gmail.com
Report on the Univ. of CA Strike
Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday was a 3-day strike at the University of California's 10 campus system, as well as at some of the California State University campuses and perhaps elsewhere. Mostly, it concentrated in Berkley and Los Angeles, the latter where the UC board of regents was meeting to vote to increase undergraduate fees 32% to $10,302. The UC has been using the state's budget cuts as an opportunity to break unions, fire labor activists, furlough professors, not re-hire lecturers, and increase student fees.
But there's been quite a resistance. September 24th 5,000 people marched in Berkeley and several hundred at each of the other UC campuses. We organized a statewide mobilizing conference to defend public education, which attracted about 750 people on October 24th.
November 18-20 we held a three day strike. For the 18-19 University Professional and Technical Employees local 9119 went on strike, with locals from AFT and Coalition of University Employees. The 18th the regents hiked our fees. the 20th, things reached a new high.
On the 18th, pickets started at 5am to shut down construction and reportedly 50 construction workers walked off the job (or refused to cross the picket lines). Pickets were particularly lively from 11am onward. There were building contingents of students (for example, from Barrows Hall, which houses sociology, ethnic studies, African American studies, political science, and Middle Eastern studies) that picketed out front of a couple of buildings to keep build the strike. As well, we had a rally of about 2,500 and a march of about 500 that went to Berkeley High School and Berkeley City College. In the evening some building occupier-bent anarchists occupied a building.
On the 19th, pickets started at 5am again, but someone had spoken with the construction workers in their chain of command, and the pickets were ineffective. Pickets really picked up at about 10 or 11am and at 12pm the unions led a march around campus to various administrators' offices to demand meetings with them. Many of the teach-ins we had planned for the day were shut down by the police, in their escalated level of mobilization and enforcement. We held a good meeting during the evening to plan for the following day. We decided to do a march and a denunciation of the police's actions, and to surround the main administration building, and to do sit-ins and some other stuff that I can't remember. The meeting split at the end into those who wanted to plan stuff for the remainder of the night and those who wanted to plan for the following day--roughly along anarchist direct action vs. mass action lines.
On the 20th, I got a text message at 5:30am saying there were some students occupying Wheeler Hall, one of the central buildings on campus. I got there at about 7:45am. The cops had the whole area taped off with their yellow police line. and there were only about 15 people there. Things were not looking good. In fact, early in the morning, three of the occupiers were arrested while barricading Wheeler Hall, and two were beaten by the cops. Apparently felony charges will be/were brought against the three, though truth be told I am not entirely sure.
However, through a combination of fortuitous circumstances and the fee hikes having enraged people, we managed to grow and grow the rally outside Wheeler Hall to one that, by 11am, had about 1000 people in several smaller rallies. By 12pm it was raining, and raining hard, but that didn't scare people away. Chants were spirited, including a very funny one directed at the riot cops saying "You're sexy, you're cute, take off that riot suit" as well as "No cuts, no fees, education should be free," "Lay off Yudof (the president of the UC)," "UC regents, I see tyrants," union songs tuned to students and workers, Solidarity Forever, etc., etc.
The occupiers' demands were:
-Rehire the 38 laid-off janitors.
-Amnesty for the occupiers and others who were arrested.
-Maintain the low income housing in the Roachdale cooperative.
The first demand illustrates the main strength of the movement right now: the strong unity forged between workers and students.
The police and the administration eventually realized that instead of dissipating, the crowd was actually growing, due partially to it being "the big game weekend" of the football game between UC Berkeley and Stanford. Many UC chauvinists joined in the rally and were swept into politicization due to there being so much energy in the rally.
Eventually, the 30 or so occupiers were released with misdemeanor trespassing charges. None of the demands they asserted were met. However, they met great cheers as they exited the building in threes. They gave speeches afterward emphasizing that it was the rally outside that was of the most importance, that it was the masses that were the future, and also more occupation talk. --by S.N., Nov. 21, 2009
But there's been quite a resistance. September 24th 5,000 people marched in Berkeley and several hundred at each of the other UC campuses. We organized a statewide mobilizing conference to defend public education, which attracted about 750 people on October 24th.
November 18-20 we held a three day strike. For the 18-19 University Professional and Technical Employees local 9119 went on strike, with locals from AFT and Coalition of University Employees. The 18th the regents hiked our fees. the 20th, things reached a new high.
On the 18th, pickets started at 5am to shut down construction and reportedly 50 construction workers walked off the job (or refused to cross the picket lines). Pickets were particularly lively from 11am onward. There were building contingents of students (for example, from Barrows Hall, which houses sociology, ethnic studies, African American studies, political science, and Middle Eastern studies) that picketed out front of a couple of buildings to keep build the strike. As well, we had a rally of about 2,500 and a march of about 500 that went to Berkeley High School and Berkeley City College. In the evening some building occupier-bent anarchists occupied a building.
On the 19th, pickets started at 5am again, but someone had spoken with the construction workers in their chain of command, and the pickets were ineffective. Pickets really picked up at about 10 or 11am and at 12pm the unions led a march around campus to various administrators' offices to demand meetings with them. Many of the teach-ins we had planned for the day were shut down by the police, in their escalated level of mobilization and enforcement. We held a good meeting during the evening to plan for the following day. We decided to do a march and a denunciation of the police's actions, and to surround the main administration building, and to do sit-ins and some other stuff that I can't remember. The meeting split at the end into those who wanted to plan stuff for the remainder of the night and those who wanted to plan for the following day--roughly along anarchist direct action vs. mass action lines.
On the 20th, I got a text message at 5:30am saying there were some students occupying Wheeler Hall, one of the central buildings on campus. I got there at about 7:45am. The cops had the whole area taped off with their yellow police line. and there were only about 15 people there. Things were not looking good. In fact, early in the morning, three of the occupiers were arrested while barricading Wheeler Hall, and two were beaten by the cops. Apparently felony charges will be/were brought against the three, though truth be told I am not entirely sure.
However, through a combination of fortuitous circumstances and the fee hikes having enraged people, we managed to grow and grow the rally outside Wheeler Hall to one that, by 11am, had about 1000 people in several smaller rallies. By 12pm it was raining, and raining hard, but that didn't scare people away. Chants were spirited, including a very funny one directed at the riot cops saying "You're sexy, you're cute, take off that riot suit" as well as "No cuts, no fees, education should be free," "Lay off Yudof (the president of the UC)," "UC regents, I see tyrants," union songs tuned to students and workers, Solidarity Forever, etc., etc.
The occupiers' demands were:
-Rehire the 38 laid-off janitors.
-Amnesty for the occupiers and others who were arrested.
-Maintain the low income housing in the Roachdale cooperative.
The first demand illustrates the main strength of the movement right now: the strong unity forged between workers and students.
The police and the administration eventually realized that instead of dissipating, the crowd was actually growing, due partially to it being "the big game weekend" of the football game between UC Berkeley and Stanford. Many UC chauvinists joined in the rally and were swept into politicization due to there being so much energy in the rally.
Eventually, the 30 or so occupiers were released with misdemeanor trespassing charges. None of the demands they asserted were met. However, they met great cheers as they exited the building in threes. They gave speeches afterward emphasizing that it was the rally outside that was of the most importance, that it was the masses that were the future, and also more occupation talk. --by S.N., Nov. 21, 2009
Kevin Cooper Facing Execution
Rebecca Doran speaking on the case of Kevin Cooper on Nov. 8, 2009 in San Francisco.
Lynne Stewart in Her Own Words
The following is excerpted from an interview that Lynne Stewart did with Pacifica’s Democracy Now just prior to her imprisonment. She explains key features of her case.
LYNNE STEWART: I represented Sheikh Omar at trial—that was in 1995—along with Ramsey Clark and Abdeen Jabara. I was lead trial counsel. He was convicted in September of ’95, sentenced to a life prison plus a hundred years, or some sort—one of the usual outlandish sentences. We continued, all three of us, to visit him while he was in jail—he was a political client; that means that he is targeted by the government—and because it is so important to prisoners to be able to have access to their lawyers.
Sometime in 1998, I think maybe it was, they imposed severe restrictions on him. That is, his ability to communicate with the outside world, to have interviews, to be able to even call his family, was limited by something called special administrative measures. The lawyers were asked to sign on for these special administrative measures and warned that if these measures were not adhered to, they could indeed lose contact with their client—in other words, be removed from his case.
In 2000, I visited the sheikh, and he asked me to make a press release. This press release had to do with the current status of an organization that at that point was basically defunct, the Gama’a al-Islamiyya. And I agreed to do that. In May of—maybe it was later than that. Sometime in 2000, I made the press release.
Interestingly enough, we found out later that the Clinton administration, under Janet Reno, had the option to prosecute me, and they declined to do so, based on the notion that without lawyers like me or the late Bill Kunstler or many that I could name, the cause of justice is not well served. They need the gadflies.
So, at any rate, they made me sign onto the agreement again not to do this. They did not stop me from representing him. I continued to represent him.
And it was only after 9/11, in April of 2002, that John Ashcroft came to New York, announced the indictment of me, my paralegal and the interpreter for the case, on grounds of materially aiding a terrorist organization. One of the footnotes to the case, of course, is that Ashcroft also appeared on nationwide television with Letterman that night ballyhooing the great work of Bush’s Justice Department in indicting and making the world safe from terrorism.
The course of the case followed. We tried the case in 2005 to a jury, of course sitting not ten blocks from the World Trade Center, and an anonymous jury, I might add, which I think went a long way to contribute to our convictions. And all three of us were convicted. Since that time, the appeals process has followed. The appeal was argued almost two years ago, and the opinion just came like a—actually like a thunderclap yesterday. And to just put it in perspective, I think, it comes hard on the heels of Holder’s announcement that they are bringing the men from Guantanamo to New York to be tried.
LYNNE STEWART: I represented Sheikh Omar at trial—that was in 1995—along with Ramsey Clark and Abdeen Jabara. I was lead trial counsel. He was convicted in September of ’95, sentenced to a life prison plus a hundred years, or some sort—one of the usual outlandish sentences. We continued, all three of us, to visit him while he was in jail—he was a political client; that means that he is targeted by the government—and because it is so important to prisoners to be able to have access to their lawyers.
Sometime in 1998, I think maybe it was, they imposed severe restrictions on him. That is, his ability to communicate with the outside world, to have interviews, to be able to even call his family, was limited by something called special administrative measures. The lawyers were asked to sign on for these special administrative measures and warned that if these measures were not adhered to, they could indeed lose contact with their client—in other words, be removed from his case.
In 2000, I visited the sheikh, and he asked me to make a press release. This press release had to do with the current status of an organization that at that point was basically defunct, the Gama’a al-Islamiyya. And I agreed to do that. In May of—maybe it was later than that. Sometime in 2000, I made the press release.
Interestingly enough, we found out later that the Clinton administration, under Janet Reno, had the option to prosecute me, and they declined to do so, based on the notion that without lawyers like me or the late Bill Kunstler or many that I could name, the cause of justice is not well served. They need the gadflies.
So, at any rate, they made me sign onto the agreement again not to do this. They did not stop me from representing him. I continued to represent him.
And it was only after 9/11, in April of 2002, that John Ashcroft came to New York, announced the indictment of me, my paralegal and the interpreter for the case, on grounds of materially aiding a terrorist organization. One of the footnotes to the case, of course, is that Ashcroft also appeared on nationwide television with Letterman that night ballyhooing the great work of Bush’s Justice Department in indicting and making the world safe from terrorism.
The course of the case followed. We tried the case in 2005 to a jury, of course sitting not ten blocks from the World Trade Center, and an anonymous jury, I might add, which I think went a long way to contribute to our convictions. And all three of us were convicted. Since that time, the appeals process has followed. The appeal was argued almost two years ago, and the opinion just came like a—actually like a thunderclap yesterday. And to just put it in perspective, I think, it comes hard on the heels of Holder’s announcement that they are bringing the men from Guantanamo to New York to be tried.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Black is Back: an antiwar mobilization & more
by Clay Wadena and John Leslie
On November 7, a national demonstration, called by the Black is Back Coalition, will be held in Washington DC. Black is Back is a united front of progressive, anti-imperialist, nationalist and revolutionary forces of the Black Liberation Movement aimed to mobilize Blacks and their allies to action once again in the Obama era. They are marching under the call “Resist U.S. Wars and Occupation in the U.S. and Abroad! Reparations Now!” Some of their additional demands are: Free All Political Prisoners; Single Payer Health Care/Medicare for All!; STOP Police violence, Black Community Containment Policy!; Stop Gentrification, Home Mortgage Foreclosures, Bail-out the victims!; and NO AFRICOM!
Endorsers include the African Peoples' Socialist Party, Cong. Cynthia McKinney, Mumia Abu Jamal, the Hip-Hop group Dead Prez, Pam Africa,Glen Ford of Black Agenda Report, Rosa Clemente (2008 Green VP candidate), the National Assembly to End the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and Occupations, and Larry Hamm of the Newark, NJ Peoples' Organization for Progress among others.
For Blacks of various political viewpoints to state their opposition to the policies supported by both major capitalist parties is only natural on the heels of 8 years of the reactionary and racist policies of the Bush administration, including the criminal neglect of New Orleans both during and after Katrina. For many activists, the election of Barack Obama increased illusions that somehow American capitalism might be humanized by an Obama-led administration and the Democrat Party. Obama's record in power is now clear: he is continuing the policies of the Bush regime with the wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Additionally, Obama's domestic policies put the interests of the ruling rich ahead of those of workers and the oppressed. For example, the continued bailout of banks and big business while unemployment and foreclosures reach record highs and the promotion of a health care reform that favors big insurance companies and still leaves millions without adequate coverage.
Recently ultraright mobilizations in opposition to Obama's proposed health care reforms have taken on a proto-fascist and racist character. Anti-reform reactionaries raised the slogan of "take our country back" --code for the removal of the first Black President. This racist reaction to Obama's policies has served to reinforce the tendency of reformists to take an uncritical stance towards Obama. As the Black is Back Call To Action states: “Many well-meaning people in this country and around the world are afraid to take more progressive political positions for fear of being seen as anti-Black…The political paralysis now being experienced by anti-war and other progressive movements suffer from the lack of a Black-led anti-imperial movement to off-set the traps set by Obama’s so-called ‘post-racial’ politics that perpetuates the same oppressive militarist agenda well known during the Bush regime.” Black is Back is a step forward for the Black Liberation Movement and the left in general because their demands point out the glaring contradiction between what Blacks need and what they are getting. Many activists across America still have illusions in the Obama administration and Black is Back increases the potential for creating a mass movement capable of not only stopping imperialist wars abroad but stopping the war on poor and oppressed people at home.
Making the connections with the war at home. Over the past thirty plus years there has been a one-sided class war waged against workers in the US; aimed at driving down wages and living standards and lining the pockets of the ruling rich. Black workers and other oppressed nationalities have borne the brunt of these attacks with an increase in racist policies, unemployment, the expansion of the prison-industrial complex and the gutting of any social programs aimed at addressing the legacy of racism and discrimination in this country.
Revolutionaries recognize the need for a multi-racial fightback against war, racism and oppression. We see the need for a revolutionary party that brings together the best fighters in the interests of workers and the oppressed and to overthrow capitalism. We also understand that the racist dynamics of US society may require the self-organization of oppressed people into fighting organizations of their own. Black workers have traditionally played a vanguard role in the US class struggle-- from the formation of the CIO, to the Civil Rights movement, to the auto strikes of the 60s.(Dodge Revolutionary Union Movement aka DRUM) Black is Back is a step towards these goals. For more information go to http://blackisbackcoalition.org/
On November 7, a national demonstration, called by the Black is Back Coalition, will be held in Washington DC. Black is Back is a united front of progressive, anti-imperialist, nationalist and revolutionary forces of the Black Liberation Movement aimed to mobilize Blacks and their allies to action once again in the Obama era. They are marching under the call “Resist U.S. Wars and Occupation in the U.S. and Abroad! Reparations Now!” Some of their additional demands are: Free All Political Prisoners; Single Payer Health Care/Medicare for All!; STOP Police violence, Black Community Containment Policy!; Stop Gentrification, Home Mortgage Foreclosures, Bail-out the victims!; and NO AFRICOM!
Endorsers include the African Peoples' Socialist Party, Cong. Cynthia McKinney, Mumia Abu Jamal, the Hip-Hop group Dead Prez, Pam Africa,Glen Ford of Black Agenda Report, Rosa Clemente (2008 Green VP candidate), the National Assembly to End the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and Occupations, and Larry Hamm of the Newark, NJ Peoples' Organization for Progress among others.
For Blacks of various political viewpoints to state their opposition to the policies supported by both major capitalist parties is only natural on the heels of 8 years of the reactionary and racist policies of the Bush administration, including the criminal neglect of New Orleans both during and after Katrina. For many activists, the election of Barack Obama increased illusions that somehow American capitalism might be humanized by an Obama-led administration and the Democrat Party. Obama's record in power is now clear: he is continuing the policies of the Bush regime with the wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Additionally, Obama's domestic policies put the interests of the ruling rich ahead of those of workers and the oppressed. For example, the continued bailout of banks and big business while unemployment and foreclosures reach record highs and the promotion of a health care reform that favors big insurance companies and still leaves millions without adequate coverage.
Recently ultraright mobilizations in opposition to Obama's proposed health care reforms have taken on a proto-fascist and racist character. Anti-reform reactionaries raised the slogan of "take our country back" --code for the removal of the first Black President. This racist reaction to Obama's policies has served to reinforce the tendency of reformists to take an uncritical stance towards Obama. As the Black is Back Call To Action states: “Many well-meaning people in this country and around the world are afraid to take more progressive political positions for fear of being seen as anti-Black…The political paralysis now being experienced by anti-war and other progressive movements suffer from the lack of a Black-led anti-imperial movement to off-set the traps set by Obama’s so-called ‘post-racial’ politics that perpetuates the same oppressive militarist agenda well known during the Bush regime.” Black is Back is a step forward for the Black Liberation Movement and the left in general because their demands point out the glaring contradiction between what Blacks need and what they are getting. Many activists across America still have illusions in the Obama administration and Black is Back increases the potential for creating a mass movement capable of not only stopping imperialist wars abroad but stopping the war on poor and oppressed people at home.
Making the connections with the war at home. Over the past thirty plus years there has been a one-sided class war waged against workers in the US; aimed at driving down wages and living standards and lining the pockets of the ruling rich. Black workers and other oppressed nationalities have borne the brunt of these attacks with an increase in racist policies, unemployment, the expansion of the prison-industrial complex and the gutting of any social programs aimed at addressing the legacy of racism and discrimination in this country.
Revolutionaries recognize the need for a multi-racial fightback against war, racism and oppression. We see the need for a revolutionary party that brings together the best fighters in the interests of workers and the oppressed and to overthrow capitalism. We also understand that the racist dynamics of US society may require the self-organization of oppressed people into fighting organizations of their own. Black workers have traditionally played a vanguard role in the US class struggle-- from the formation of the CIO, to the Civil Rights movement, to the auto strikes of the 60s.(Dodge Revolutionary Union Movement aka DRUM) Black is Back is a step towards these goals. For more information go to http://blackisbackcoalition.org/
Monday, October 12, 2009
UC Students Walk Out!
BERKELEY, Calif. — On Sept. 24, the first day of classes, University of California students and faculty across the state walked out against fee hikes, cutbacks in services and classes, increased class sizes, and faculty and staff layoffs, furloughs, and pay cuts.
Out of the 10 UC campuses statewide, Berkeley had the largest walkout by far; some 5000 students (out of a school enrollment of 35,000) joined a rally in Sproul Plaza that day. Observers said it was the largest protest gathering at the university since the Vietnam War days.
Also at the rally were students from local community colleges and from San Francisco State University, some faculty, and a fair number of workers from UPTE (on strike for unfair labor practices), and some from AFSCME, the UAW, AFT, and CUE. After the rally, students and workers joined a march through the campus and into the streets of downtown Berkeley behind a banner reading: “Solidarity with Students, Teachers, and Workers!” Marchers chanted, “It’s our university!” and “Defend public education!”
The walkout was promoted throughout the UC system by a call signed by over 1200 faculty members. Some faculty members at Berkeley led “Teach-out” seminars inside and outside campus buildings on topics such as “The Free Speech Movement Was Just the Start” and “Confronting the Crisis.”
The UC Board of Regents has ordered faculty and staff pay cuts of from 4 to 10 percent. In addition, UC President Mark Yudoff proposes raising student fees by close to a third—to over $10,000 a year. The university system faces a budget shortfall largely because of cutbacks in financing from the state. Many signs at the rally read, “Chop from the top.”
Yudoff, for example, has a salary of $540,000 a year—plus lucrative benefits, such as free rent for his house.
In the evening, some 500-600 enthusiastic Berkeley students assembled at a meeting to decide what to do next. Plans were made for an Oct. 24 conference in Berkeley to coordinate the struggle to defend public education across California—from K-12 to community colleges and universities. --Ari Kilpatrick
Out of the 10 UC campuses statewide, Berkeley had the largest walkout by far; some 5000 students (out of a school enrollment of 35,000) joined a rally in Sproul Plaza that day. Observers said it was the largest protest gathering at the university since the Vietnam War days.
Also at the rally were students from local community colleges and from San Francisco State University, some faculty, and a fair number of workers from UPTE (on strike for unfair labor practices), and some from AFSCME, the UAW, AFT, and CUE. After the rally, students and workers joined a march through the campus and into the streets of downtown Berkeley behind a banner reading: “Solidarity with Students, Teachers, and Workers!” Marchers chanted, “It’s our university!” and “Defend public education!”
The walkout was promoted throughout the UC system by a call signed by over 1200 faculty members. Some faculty members at Berkeley led “Teach-out” seminars inside and outside campus buildings on topics such as “The Free Speech Movement Was Just the Start” and “Confronting the Crisis.”
The UC Board of Regents has ordered faculty and staff pay cuts of from 4 to 10 percent. In addition, UC President Mark Yudoff proposes raising student fees by close to a third—to over $10,000 a year. The university system faces a budget shortfall largely because of cutbacks in financing from the state. Many signs at the rally read, “Chop from the top.”
Yudoff, for example, has a salary of $540,000 a year—plus lucrative benefits, such as free rent for his house.
In the evening, some 500-600 enthusiastic Berkeley students assembled at a meeting to decide what to do next. Plans were made for an Oct. 24 conference in Berkeley to coordinate the struggle to defend public education across California—from K-12 to community colleges and universities. --Ari Kilpatrick
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Interview With Kevin Cooper
Kevin Cooper is a death row inmate at San Quentin Prison, framed up for a 1983 multiple murder in Chino Hills, California. Below is a link to a radio interview carried on San Francisco's KPOO radio station by Rebecca Doran. It's a great introduction to Kevin's case!
http://www.sendspace.com/file/jvngbc
(In the photo above, from left to right, is Jeff Mackler, Rebecca Doran and Kevin Cooper)
Support the Iranian Mass Struggle for Democratic Rights! U.S. Hands Off Iran!
by the Political Committee of Socialist Action (June 23, 2009)
1) A division in the ruling elite has opened up the way for an explosion of discontent with the reactionary clerical capitalist regime in Iran. The massive mobilizations clearly reflect the deep hatred of the government by the masses in Iran's largest city. The greater Tehran area accounts for about one-fifth of the total population of the country and is where most of the industry is based. It is the major working-class center. It was also the focal point of the 1979 revolution that overthrew the U.S.-backed crowned dictatorship of the shah. (To date, there is relatively little information in the Western media about the situation in other cities or in the countryside).
Even the speaker of the Iranian parliament, Larijani, a leading conservative, has declared that a majority of Iranians are convinced that the election results were invalid. The fact that the official victor, Ahmadinejad, was credited with a score similar to his victory in 2005 did not provide any credibility; in that year and in the previous parliamentary elections the opposing faction largely boycotted the vote because its candidates had been rejected by the Council of Guardians—that is, they were denied the right to participate in the elections.
The arguments of some commentators in the West that only or primarily the upper class supports the mass protests against the officially declared election results are clearly false. Mass demonstrations have been held in the poorer, working-class southern districts of Tehran as well as the north. These protests have obviously been an outpouring of discontent of the general population with an undemocratic and oppressive regime. In no country and at no time in history have privileged sections of the population defied murderous repression in the streets.
2) There is no clear difference between the two major candidates, Ahmadinejad and Moussavi. Both represent factions of the ruling bourgeois elite, divided only by competing ambitions and perhaps by tactical differences (although even this is unclear.). Both support the continuation of the present theocratic regime.
The June 12 presidential elections offered no real choice. The theocratic bourgeois rulers would not allow any candidate opposed to the continuation of the present system to enter the election. Only four of about of 400 nominated candidates were permitted to run.
Thus, Moussavi was also vetted by the authorities of the present system. He has in the past served as prime minister of the Islamic Republic and as such assumed responsibility for its repressive policies. It is simply because he offered a legal cover for expressing opposition to the present regime that he has emerged, at least in part and momentarily, as a symbolic leader of the mass movement. The extent of Moussavi’s control of the opposition movement or whether he will be able to maintain leadership are far from clear.
The previous experience with the “liberal reformer” president, Khatami, who collapsed when the reactionary clerics clamped down, was deeply demoralizing for the masses who wanted a change. He is now a supporter of Moussavi. The outcome of the Khatami period also made it clear that the Iranian president had no real power, that the real power was vested in the “Supreme Leader,” Ayatollah Khamenei. It is he who has issued the orders for suppressing the protests. But he is unelected by the people and has little personal credibility. His decision to mobilize the repressive forces to crush the demonstrations inevitably tends to turn the movement against the Islamic Republic as such.
3) It is in the interests of the Western bourgeoisie, who claim to rule on the basis of democracy in their own countries, to identify themselves publicly with the movement for democratic rights in Iran. But that does not mean that they really think that it would be in their interests for the movement to win. There have been a number of indications, most egregiously by the head of the Israeli secret service, Mossad, that they think that it will be more difficult for them to deal with the threat that Iran represents to their interests if the country is headed by a less discredited regime.
In any case, the more intelligent U.S. leaders, represented by President Obama, have acknowledged that the U.S. has little credibility in Iran, especially because of its role in overthrowing the elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953, and installing the repressive dictatorship of Shah Mohammad Reza Pavlavi. The shah’s military shot down 50,000 Iranians who were peacefully demonstrating against his rule and brutally tortured and murdered tens of thousands opposed to his regime. The attempts of Republican Party politicians to wrap themselves in the mantle of the Iranian protesters are clearly a self-interested domestic political ploy and only make them look ridiculous.
4) Socialist Action defends the mass struggle in Iran against the government’s violent repression, and we wholeheartedly support the demands of the Iranian people for democratic rights. We encourage the masses to organize themselves in their own interests and to not trust or subordinate themselves to any bourgeois politician or representative of the ruling elite.
The present struggle shows the essential fallacy of bourgeois elections. This is a process the masses cannot control. They need to trust in their own organizations, in which they can participate and control. The rise of shoras (popular councils) in the 1979 revolution was an example that needs to be followed and taken further.
Khamenei's claim that the elections were a glorious victory of the Iranian people is an outrage—especially when his own henchman, Larijani, says that most Iranians think they were a farce and hundreds of thousands of Iranians have shown a determination to denounce them in the face of threats of mass repression. It disastrously discredits the regime. We call for the people insulted by Khamenei’s claim to reject the entire process, and to find ways to express their real aspirations.
Since the immediate aftermath of the 1979 revolution, the workers have been denied any right to organize themselves and to fight for their demands. Democratic rights are an essential demand for them, and it runs counter to the fundamental objectives of the Iranian capitalist class and the imperialists, who remain its big brothers, despite their demagogic pretenses.
Socialist Action stands on the side of the masses. We know that there can be no socialism unless the masses and the workers have the freedom to express themselves.
5) The attempts of the dominant clerical faction to demonize the protests as manipulated by foreigners or pro-imperialists are obviously self-interested demagogy. But it is nevertheless certain that the United States and other imperialist states will seek opportunities to exploit or intervene in the present conflict—including taking possible military action.
Iran is surrounded by U.S. military bases, and there is abundant evidence that plans have been drawn up for aggression against Iran. It is an open secret that the U.S. has covert military teams operating in the country, even if so far only in remote frontier areas among marginalized ethnic groups.
Nothing could be more deadly to the aspirations of the Iranian people to take their fate into their own hands than U.S. intervention. For that reason, the primary task of socialists, progressives, and friends of democracy in the United States, the imperialist state that bears the principal responsibility for the miseries of the Iranian people, is to expose, denounce, and mobilize against any attempt by the U.S. government to intervene in Iran.
Clearly, the Iranian government’s ruthless repression of the mass movement demanding democratic rights increases the threat of U.S. intervention. Such policies will inevitably deepen divisions among the Iranian people. The best and ultimately the only effective defense of the gains of the Iranian Revolution and of the sovereignty of the Iranian people is the unity of the masses of the country behind a leadership that is prepared to once again mobilize in the millions to challenge and provide a real revolutionary and socialist alternative to the present repressive clerical capitalist state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
