I post this every Memorial Day to remember my friends whose lives were cut short in the Vietnam War. Let’s continue to lift our voices against the insanity of war and insist that peace be given a chance. Too many flowers have gone. SW 

Today, I will again lift a pint of ale in memory of my three friends and their comrades who died in Vietnam.

I honor them without honoring the aggressive and unjust war in which they fought.

I don’t know what their reasons were for joining the military, maybe it was simply that the draft gave them no choice, but it really doesn’t matter. What I do know, f0r sure, is that their lives were unnecessarily cut short.

As a young peace activist in the late 60s, I probably didn’t always make a distinction between the soldiers fighting the war and the war itself. The soldier and the general were equally responsible as I saw it.

But I think differently now. I place the main responsibility for war on its architects in high places and a social system – capitalism – whose logic is to expand, dominate, and make war.

Ricky, Tuna and Cotter — my friends, all of whom were good at merrymaking — were at the bottom of the food chain of war making, nothing but cannon fodder, They were working class kids whose lives didn’t count for much in our government’s war plans. None of them were born with a silver spoon in their mouths, which is why in no small measure they ended up with a gun in their hand so far away from their homes.

I will always wonder what kind of lives they would have lived has they safely returned. With no hero’s welcome, no counseling waiting for them, no easy slide into a well paying job, I can’t help but think if they would have had the internal resources and support to come to terms with their war experience and live productive lives?

I easily (perhaps unfairly) doubt it, because each of them was not that different from me, and I have no confidence at all that I could have made that transition. It was hard enough to grow up in the 1960s without the ghastly and up close bloodletting of Vietnam on my emotional resume.

I wish, though, that they had a chance. I wish that their lives hadn’t been wasted doing things that no one should be forced to do. I wish that they had the opportunity to live long and, to the degree possible, joyfully.

I miss them. I celebrate them. They were “my buddies, my friends.” I wish they could join me at the Bronx Ale House today for a pint in their honor, although knowing them, I suspect, a single pint wouldn’t quite satisfy them, or me for that matter.

I also wish that we would toast to the millions in our generation who opposed the war. Some of them lost their lives, some of them went to jail, and some of them were scarred by the experience. They, too, deserve to be honored. In choosing to oppose the war, it was our generation’s “Finest Hour.”

Finally, I like to think that the four of us would clink glasses to the people of Vietnam who suffered so much during and after the war, and who are now rebuilding their country in conditions of peace.

Maybe that would be too much to expect. Unfortunately, I will never know. They will join me only in memory this afternoon. I wish it were different, but I will treasure their memory anyway, as I wash down my pint of ale.

Today would have been the 87th birthday of Armando Ramirez. But two months ago he quietly bid farewell to this world — a world that he loved, but also gave his energies and spirti to change for the better. In his final moments, he was listening to his favorite folk songs, sung by two of his children.

Armando was my pal of forty years. Someone I could lean on, and I like to think he could do the same. I miss him dearly and daily.

Though we were living on opposite ends of the country, we talked frequently on the phone and few things gave me more pleasure than to hear his voice. Our conversations were never long. And sometimes we talked nonsense, although in the past year we inevitably gravitated toward the elections.

And of course basketball, a game we loved, often came up. So much so that when we were both living in Detroit we were fans of the famed Southwestern High School high school in our neighborhood.

Armando, perhaps more than anybody I know, was extraordinarily kind, generous of spirit, and modest. Bullshitting and name dropping to impress others were not in his DNA. He was also, over a lifetime, a warrior for justice and socialism and a member of the Communist Party. If the term “genuine article” has any meaning, he embodied it. He’s on my Mt. Rushmore of beautiful people and will stay there forever.

Of course, my affection for him was no more than that felt by others who met and loved him too.

His life journey began in Chicago’s “back of the yards” neighborhood and eventually took him to Detroit, where he was first a Communist Party organizer and then an auto worker, at GM and at Ford. He told me more than once that his political education largely took place in Detroit. There he was involved in a whole range of struggles — against plant closings, the organization of Mexican Industries, the election campaigns of Mayor Coleman Young, and much more. He was no Monday morning quarterback.

He knew socialism had no delivery date, but no doubt he wished it would have arrived before he departed this world. Nonetheless, he was happy in the good fight, shoulder to shoulder with the class and people of which he was a proud son.

When I saw him last, in Oakland in January, I told him that I would come back when the weather  warmed up — he hated the cold — and that we would sit on his daughter’s deck. And the deal was that he could regale me with stories and I would drink some good red wine and probably get a little tipsy. He liked the bargain, and I did even more.

Two weeks ago, we planted an apple tree in my daughter Julia’s backyard in memory of Armando. Our small ceremony included short remembrances by each of us and a toast or two. We also buried a tennis ball — he loved and played tennis well into his early 80s — with the tree. And songs he knew and loved well filled the air: De Colores (Joan Baez), Guantanamera (Cubans around the world), Deportee (Arlo and Emmy Lou Harris), and Long Way Around (Dixie Chicks). The rain that fell blended with our bittersweet tears of love and sorrow.

After the planting, we went inside, enjoyed some homemade (and very good) Mexican food plus drink, and shared more memories of Armando.

Armando will never disappear into the recesses of our memory. He will remain, presente!

The senseless killing of upwards of 22 innocent people and the injuring of many more in Manchester, England last night at a music concert serves no purpose other than to put the wind in the sails of the most right wing, reactionary, anti-democratic, and xenophobic politicians and political groups worldwide – not least Trump and his ilk. To think that such inhumane and deadly actions in any way serve the cause of justice in the Middle East or anywhere else is delusional.

The organizers of these dastardly acts aren’t “freedom fighters.” What animates them is a retrogressive, exclusivist, and sectarian ideology that pivots on hate and violence. While they should be apprehended and brought to justice in quick order, security and safely will come to people in the Muslim and non-Muslim world only when the ground on which they thrive and recruit new adherents is transformed into an oasis of peace, equality, opportunity, and economic security.

Introductory note: below is a reply to a post of mine that I received from Juan Lopez. I asked Juan if I could post it on my blog site and he graciously agreed. Juan’s reply raises a number of important issues that warrant further discussion. I will reply to some of them soon, but if the spirit grabs you, please do so yourself. Dialogue is an essential part of gaining new insights into past and contemporary events. SW

Dear Sam,

I want to thank you for raising these critical issues and, in so doing, pushing the envelope. I agree with your general conclusions as a matter of principle and practice. You elaborate them clearly, powerfully and succinctly.

Now, I’d like to develop some ideas that your piece stimulated in me.

[But two caveats first:

[One: as you well know, life never unfolds neatly. It is messy, contradictory, more complicated and more nuanced than any conclusion or theory we humans can arrive at. So what may appear as absolutes are approximations of reality.

[Two: for the sake of brevity I will use “democratic” and “humane” alternately instead of the full “democratic, egalitarian, sustainable, and humane” to characterize the socialism you project and that I agree with).

I would argue that power and democratic values must co-exist and, even more, reinforce each other. I agree when you say, “…we still have to ask what measures are necessary to guarantee that power and its practitioners are subordinated to (and, when necessary, reined in by) socialist values, norms, vision, and democratically constituted bodies.”

At the same time, I think that power and its practitioners (worthy of their revolutionary values) must act as facilitators and guarantors of “socialist values, norms, vision, and democratically constituted bodies,” as you say.

Power can be wielded to advance and/or suppress democracy.A particularly egregious example of suppression of democracy is that of the Stalin reign and its political, ideological and practical premises and consequences, as you have been so wel  elaborating for some time.

As for power to advance democracy I will cite something closer to home: The presence of the Union army in the South after the Civil War as guarantor of the safety of newly freed slaves and of democracy’s burst during the Reconstruction period. This short-lived but consequential period is an example of power in the service of advancing democracy and, at the same time, suppressing the class and political forces impeding democracy.

Or, take Cuba and Venezuela.

The former is an example of power being wielded in defense of democracy and democracy being applied to reinforce power in the face of imperialist aggression. One cannot do without the other. These two inter-dependent categories are critical to the nation’s economic development which, depending on the latter’s success or lack thereof, can play a critical role in advancing or retarding the consolidation of power and democracy.

For the moment at least, that’s the dilemma in which Venezuela’s revolutionary process finds itself.As you say, “Power has to be devolved and decentralized to the people and popular institutions,” which I think Raul Castro at the 6 th Congress of the Communist Party of Cuba did very ably. “And the only hope of such an outcome,” you add beautifully, “is a multi-racial, working class-based, majoritarian movementof great depth, understanding, and unity that acts as socialism’s midwife and stays engaged long into its old age.”

This brings me to an additional observation I had: The quest for power and democratic values must co-exist and reinforce one another at every stage of struggle. For example, at the Riverside Church I was struck when Fidel said that, in guerrilla encounters, vanquished enemy government soldiers who were captured, instead of being executed as the oligarchy would do, would be cut loose (I suppose after an education on the revolution’s aims). In some cases, this happened with the same soldier more than once.The rebel army was in no position to tug along prisoners.

More importantly, the rebels cut loose prisoners as a living example of the humanistic revolutionary values for which they were aiming. This played a role in eventually winning over many soldiers and those with whom they came into contact and, when coupled with other measures, securing the moral high ground with the people generally. These and other humanistic and democratic-minded actions foretold early on the nature of the revolution once power was won.

During our own Civil War, after an initial “tug-of- war” among generals in the field and in Lincoln’s own thinking, the Union forces went on to encourage consciously what initially the enslaved did spontaneously – running away from the plantations (in what Dubois aptly described as a general strike).

Later Lincoln proclaimed the Emancipation Proclamation and went on to arm the newly freed slaves (which played a decisive role in victory over the Confederacy and the abolition of slavery).

I have some questions regarding point 1 and 2 in your piece.

With reference to point 1, in arguing against the “vanguard” party you say: “Power should never again be the property of anyone party (or movement). There is little evidence for the notion that under socialism social contradictions disappear and thus obviating the need for a multi-party system.”

I do agree we should retire the “vanguard” party concept. But, let me raise these questions:On the world scene today there are nations at various levels of anti-imperialist and socialist development with one party rule and also multi-party left-center coalitions at the helm of government. In the case of multi-party left-center fronts while proclaiming a socialist path they are confronting right-wing parties coalescing together in most, if not all cases, being encouraged by imperialism (Here I’m thinking of Latin America because I am unacquainted with developments in Africa and Asia).

In our country, we have a two party winner-take- all electoral system, obviously not based on proportional representation and multi-party electoral system as in most countries.

Let’s put aside the idea that we are “the vanguard” party. The party has argued for the formation of an anti-monopoly party, in which the party is one force among others, as we enter the anti-monopoly stage laying the basis for the socialist stage.

Whether the anti-monopoly party emerges within or outside the Democratic Party shell remains to be seen, in my opinion. So, how would your views in point 1 play out in these circumstances?

Then you say: “Much the same can be said about state-controlled media. Experience abounds that an independent and broadly based media is crucial in socialist as well as capitalist societies.” I too think it’s necessary.

How would this play out at different junctures on the road to socialism? In countries where big business and the rightwing sections still can influence public opinion through its media outlets? Or where imperialist media outlets continue to try topenetrate? And finally, in nations on the path to socialism (here I include China, Cuba and Vietnam) where power is consolidated in one party and, depending on the country, with varying degrees and forms of participation, influence and decision-making powers by the people?

How do you envision “an independent and broadly based media” in our country as we move through higher stages of struggle? What popular forces do you envision constituting “independent and broadly based media?”

Perhaps on these last two points, I am trying to give concrete shape to general principles that developments over time will determine.

Anyway, again I want to emphasize how much I appreciate your probing ideas.

Take care my friend and brother,

Juan

1. New York Times columnist Charles Blow writes, “We may have reached an inflection point at which even partisans grow weary of the barrage of lies and the indefensible behavior, and Republican representatives finally realize that they are constitutional officers who must defend the country even if it damages their party.”

This strikes me as a fair read of the present moment. It does seem like the political fortunes of Trump are in steep decline, and, unless reversed, could eventually force him from office. Not everyone shares this point of view. Times columnist Tom Friedman, for example, echoes the sentiments of many when he exclaims in an op-ed column this week that there is no way in hell (my words) that the Republicans would move against Trump. His advice is to give up such fantasies and turn our collective attention to next year’s elections.

No one in their right mind would disagree that preparations for next year’s elections should be at the top of everyone’s To-Do list. But why should that preclude efforts at the same time to remove Trump from office? Trump is too much of a clear and present danger to humanity and democracy to concede the White House to him for the next four years.

Each day he does something that reaffirms his unfitness for the office. A recent poll has a majority of Americans supporting his impeachment. And this comes on top of polls that show record disapproval levels for a president at this stage of his presidency.

Earlier this week, Laurence Tribe, constitutional scholar and a member of the political-academic elite, made a compelling case to impeach Trump in the Washington Post. And this was before the latest bombshells rocked the country. One was the public disclosure that Trump “suggested” to FBI Director James Comey that the FBI terminate its investigation into possible collusion between his campaign and the Putin government. The other was the abrupt firing of Comey a day later. Together they became, albeit with some prodding from the public and Congress, the final straws that forced the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to look into this cancerous situation that endangers the democratic fabric of the country.

Admittedly, Republicans aren’t in complete flight mode from Trump, but their support for the Justice Department’s decision reveals that they are no longer ready to defend him no matter how bizarre and illegal his behavior. Needless to say, their motivation and agenda are very different from the millions of ordinary people who are worried about the future of the country.

If they had their way, Congressional Republicans would probably prefer for now anyway a chastened and malleable Trump to a Pence presidency. But that could change for they are tired of the “drama” on Pennsylvania Avenue, to use Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell’s word. it interferes with their right-wing legislative agenda.

Ousting Trump isn’t a diversion from more pressing problems, as some claim. Nor will it inexorably lead to war with Russia, as others assert. In fact, the longer Trump stays in office, the greater the risk of war, if not with Russia, then perhaps in the Middle East or on the Korean Peninsula.

Setting aside the peculiar optics of people of progressive and radical views appearing indifferent to foreign interference in our election process, it is a big roll of the dice by some of these same people to stand aloof from the struggle to force Trump from office. Such a posture rests on a gross underestimation of the danger that Trump presents to the country and world. It also fails to realize that timely popular intervention could turn an “inflection point” into a “done deal,” forcing Trump to step down in disgrace and take his place as an ignoble figure in our history.

The present turmoil in Washington isn’t simply a feast that keeps on giving to political junkies and late night talk show hosts. It’s a dance that should engage all of us.

2. I hear said, “If we get rid of Trump, Pence will become president and that will likely be as bad, or even worse.” My short answer is: Trump is a singularly dangerous political figure. And his removal by itself would be a major victory for the democratic movement opposing him.

In addition, the GOP would be surely weakened. Its political and moral authority would take a hit as well as its political agenda of austerity, inequality, militarism, and hate. And its grip on the Congress could change dramatically in the fall of next year when voters go to the polls.

Finally, the unity, understanding, and confidence of the millions of people who oust Trump and defend democracy, equality, decency, and the best traditions of our country can only ratchet upward. And that can only bode well for the future.

3. Someone said that the recent election of Emmanuel Macron to lead France wasn’t a victory for either its working class or its left. One can only make such an assertion if one looks at politics in the most narrow and static way. As I see it, in the outcome of the French elections we all dodged a bullet. The rise of the right, after all, is a global phenomenon. And what happens in France doesn’t stay in France; it reverberates elsewhere.

4. Yogi Berra said,”It ain’t over til it’s over.” And the health care struggle ain’t over. Still has to go to Senate. Time to join some public action today and/or this weekend – not to mention talk to our neighbors and call our Senate representatives. We should urge Democratic Senators to make a public fight of it as well as make Republican Senators think twice and three times before supporting it. The politics of the Senate are not the same as the House. This bill is not yet the law of the land.

5. Several studies have pointed out the role of racism in motivating the voting decsions of white people in the last year’s election. And yet I still see people deny this dynamic, resting their position on some rigid, abstract, and subjective concept of class and working class that doesn’t allow for behavioral patterns outside of politically prescribed (class) boundaries. This, by the way, isn’t marxism, even if someone claims it is. It’s a caricature of it.

6. The role of the left has many dimensions. It shouldn’t be reduced to politically outbidding the center in every situation. The left, after all, has done that for years. But, as we well know, its militant and radical rhetoric hasn’t catapulted it into the center of U.S. politics? So why will it now? If you examine the work of the Communist Party in the 1930s, it grew in influence and size -= into a major player in U.S. politics — only when it rejected narrow and sectarian approaches. Indeed, it executed a political about-face in the mid-thirties. It didn’t change its name, but everything else was retrofitted to the crisis conditions and popular upsurge at that time. It didn’t allow “traditions’ chains” bind it to outmoded, leftist thinking and practices.

7. In his path-breaking work, Capital, Marx turns individual capitalists into an abstract economic/class category that act in prescribed ways in order to elucidate the underlying motion and dynamic of capitalist production. But while such a methodology served Marx well in arriving at an understanding of the general logic of capitalism, the same can’t be said about the use of such an approach by Stalin in particular and Soviet communists in general in the actual process of socialist construction.

In turning people into nothing more than the embodiment of abstract class and political categories — some supporters of the state, others its enemies, some good, others evil, some on the right side of history, others on the wrong side — it became a rationale, dressed in the language of Marxism-Leninism, for unspeakable and massive crimes – not mistakes – that occurred in the Soviet Union in the 1930s.

Moreover, this sort of thinking found its way into the mentality and practices of other parties in the world communist movement to one degree or another.

8. Closer to home, abstract categories of analysis and struggle – capitalism, establishment, economic elites, class struggle, etc. – can cause of lot of political mischief if the user of them resists moving from the general to the concrete level of experience where the contradictions and complexity of daily life modifies them, sometimes in unexpected ways. Only in employing such a methodology is the basis created for the  elaboration of strategies, tactics, and political demands that have any chance of capturing the political realities and possibilities of that moment. Too many on the left failed to do exactly this in last year’s elections.

9. Hillary Clinton said recently that she is ready to join the “resistance.” Not everyone, I noticed, was happy with her announcement. But such a reaction doesn’t make sense to me. After all, the resistance. isn’t a coalition of the left. Nor is it the exclusive franchise of the center.

The resistance is a coalition of the center and left — and, to go a step further — other democratic minded people and organizations. This expansive coalition is the ground floor of a successful strategy to defeat Trump and the Republican gang in Congress. Its unity doesn’t rest on either side fully accepting the political demands and program of the other side. Competing views co-mingle with cooperation and compromise. This however isn’t always understood .

Nor is it well understood that the main task of the left in this coalition is to persuade and move the center (or major sections of it) to the left in order build a majoritarian movement that can reverse the damage done by Trump and the Republican gang in Congress as well as enact deep political and legislative reforms. The center isn’t simply a handful of people at the top who salivate at the thought of market-based reforms, globalization, smart government, and a robust U.S military presence worldwide. It’s a mass current as well. Not everybody, including millennials, is a socialist, or ready to embrace radical solutions at their mere mention, or itching to hit the streets. Much work in broad, politically heterogeneous coalitions is still to be done before we reach that denouement.