Thursday, March 24, 2011

sigh...

Dave Amos Working by paynehollow
Dave Amos Working, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

In the news...

[CNN] Maine Gov. Paul LePage ordered a 36-foot mural depicting the state's labor history be removed from the lobby of the Department of Labor headquarters building in Augusta, Maine, according to LePage's office...

The 11-panel mural depicts labor scenes including a cobbler and a textile worker, and pro-labor organizations have used the action to criticize the governor.

A statement from the Maine AFL-CIO said removing the mural is an "insult to working men and women" and is another example of how LePage is putting politics before people.

And, from Politico.com...

LePage’s push to remove the mural came after “several messages” from members of the public complained about it, as well as an anonymous fax last month from someone who said the artwork was reminiscent of “communist North Korea where they use these murals to brainwash the masses.” And it comes as several governors and legislatures around the country are engaged in debates over the power and privileges of labor unions.

And so, the governor has decided that THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR is an inappropriate place for artwork depicting the HISTORY OF THE LABOR MOVEMENT? Really??

And this, after complaints that artwork depicting Labor history is too much like the Communists of N Korea?!!?

I repeat: sigh.

Or maybe Aaaarrrrggh! would be more appropriate.

When wilt thou save the people?
O God of mercy, when?
The people, Lord, the people,
Not thrones and crowns, but men!
Flowers of thy heart, O God, are they;
let them not pass like weeds away
Their heritage a sunless day
God save the people

Shall crime bring crime forever,
Strength aiding still the strong?
Is it thy will, O Father,
that men shall toil for wrong?
No, say thy mountains; No, say thy skies;
man's clouded sun shall brightly rise,
and songs be heard, instead of sighs,
God save the people!

16 comments:

John Farrier said...

Unless the mural expresses approval for Communist labor organizations and their fellow travelers, leave it up, save the money, and return it to the taxpayers.

Alan said...

These sorts of murals were put up all over the country (lots of them in Post Offices) by the WPA during the depression. They are important historical artifacts from that time. Our city recently moved its post office and the public wouldn't allow that to happen unless they saved and moved the mural too.

This is a teachable moment for the Governor to explain such murals to his constituents rather than bow to the ignorance of one anonymous fax.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

John, would those Communist labor organizations be the racist American Federation of Labor, or perhaps the mob-infiltrated Teamsters, or perhaps the Congress of Industrial Organization that, back before it merged with the AFL, was endorsing Eisenhower?

There have not ever been "Communist labor organizations" or "fellow travelers", because the CPUSA, through much of its history, saw labor as part of the problem, not a solution.

There have been radical anarcho-syndicalist unions, like the Wobblies. But communists? No.

As Alan said, the mural in Maine, like so many, was produced by liberal-leaning artists during the Depression.

Dan Trabue said...

Actually, THIS particular piece of art was created in 2008...

...Judy Taylor, a local artist, installed the mural in 2008 after winning a state competition that came with a $60,000 grant.

As to what John said, I think he's agreeing with me/us: Leave it up. "UNLESS" it expresses approval for communist labor organizations, which it doesn't.

I'd just posit that, we are a free nation and US communists (not the scary boogetymen of Stalinist nightmares, but patriotic Americans) are/were very much a part of our history and, I'm sure, part of the labor movement back in the day. It seems to me that a LABOR Dept having artwork that depicts that history is nothing to fear or demonize, even if there may have been some US Communist types involved.

John Farrier said...

As to what John said, I think he's agreeing with me/us: Leave it up. "UNLESS" it expresses approval for communist labor organizations, which it doesn't.

Yes.

I'd just posit that, we are a free nation and US communists (not the scary boogetymen of Stalinist nightmares, but patriotic Americans) are/were very much a part of our history and, I'm sure, part of the labor movement back in the day. It seems to me that a LABOR Dept having artwork that depicts that history is nothing to fear or demonize, even if there may have been some US Communist types involved.

I dispute the notion that it's possible to be a patriotic Communist, any more than one can be a patriotic Nazi. These are evil, totalitarian ideologies and anathema to the American ideal of individual liberty.

Dan Trabue said...

John, HELEN KELLER was a communist. Do you really think she was an advocate of an evil totalitarianism?

Woody Guthrie, Albert Einstein, W.E.B. DuBois, Angela Davis... these are NOT advocates of totalitarianism - QUITE THE OPPOSITE!

"Communism" and "socialism" comprise a wide range of beliefs, not all of which are totalitarian in nature. I have friends who describe themselves as Christian Democratic Socialists or lean that way and they are absolutely NOT advocating anything contrary to our ideals.

Justice for workers, protection of the environment, justice for the poor... these are NOT ideals that are contrary to our values. Just because SOME who call themselves socialist have ALSO been totalitarian does not mean that socialism or communism = totalitarian.

Fair enough?

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

You assert it is impossible to be both a communist and a patriot, John. Based upon . . . what, exactly?

Now, it may have been true during the middle decades of the last century the CPUSA took its marching orders from Moscow. Yet, the hundreds of communists in the US - and it was barely above that number at any given time - were motivated not only by ideology, but the desire for their country to be more just. As Cornel West said in the title of his work on the subject, there is a deep ethical dimension to Marxist thought.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

And, Dan, thanks for the corrective on the dates on the mural although that doesn't change the reality that it should stay up, and the Maine governor should just leave such stuff alone.

John Farrier said...

I realize that it may seem unfair to equate Nazism and Communism. After all, Communists have killed far more people than Nazis.

John, HELEN KELLER was a communist. Do you really think she was an advocate of an evil totalitarianism?

Woody Guthrie, Albert Einstein, W.E.B. DuBois, Angela Davis... these are NOT advocates of totalitarianism - QUITE THE OPPOSITE!


And yet they expressed support for the ideology directly responsible for the Cultural Revolution, the USSR’s gulags, Stalin’s starvation of the Ukraine, the killing fields of Cambodia, the re-education camps of Vietnam, and the ongoing nightmare that is North Korea.

Perhaps this should not surprise us, for evil lies within the heart of man. Certainly Germany’s experience tells of how easily ordinary, seemingly decent people can execute their neighbors. That this same flaw can be found here, even among Americans, is not a radical statement. Nor should it surprise us that tyrants would seek to exploit it.

Rough monsters have long used genteel, refined men and women of good manners to put a nice face on their brutalities. Edward VIII elevated Hitler’s international respectability. Henry Ford warned of the “International Jew”.

Yet the end is the same: the concentration camp. Oh, but we didn’t mean that! Of course not. No, when Communism goes wrong, as it always has throughout its entire history, somehow, the problem was not that Communism is evil. No, the problem is that it just wasn’t carried out properly! It must be tried again and again, upon ever increasing piles of human bodies.

Gerard Vanderleun said of Communism that “there are some lies that lodge so deep in the hopes of man that they can never be killed no matter how many are executed to make them true.” I do not understand this totalitarian impulse; this yearning to rule others. But I do understand that there are many good, respectable people who will not hesitate to bring the gulag here if they ever get the chance.

Dan Trabue said...

John...

the end is the same: the concentration camp. Oh, but we didn’t mean that! Of course not. No, when Communism goes wrong, as it always has throughout its entire history, somehow, the problem was not that Communism is evil. No, the problem is that it just wasn’t carried out properly!

And so, when capitalist nations embrace war crimes and support for thugs and terrorists (see the US in Nicaragua, with their contras, with Saddam Hussein, with bin Laden), are you blaming CAPITALISM itself or just those who'd use war crimes, terrorism and thugs?

Come on, John, we can't reasonably blame capitalist idealists for the human rights violations by other capitalists and we can't reasonably blame communist idealists for the human rights violations by other communists.

Again: The IDEALS of communism/socialism are NOT tied to totalitarianism. Unless you have some support for that, then I don't see how you could reasonably make these associations.

Helen Keller was NOT a totalitarianist.

The problem is NOT that communism is evil,it's that SOME who have called themselves communists have also embraced totalitarianism. Communism does not require totalitarianism, any more than capitalism does.

John Farrier said...

Dan wrote:

Again: The IDEALS of communism/socialism are NOT tied to totalitarianism.

In his Critique of the Gotha Program Karl Marx wrote:

Between capitalist and communist society lies a period of revolutionary transformation from one to the other. There is a corresponding period of transition in the political sphere and in the period of the state can only take the form of a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

But this is, of course, temporary, Communists promise us. Let them have absolute power for only a little while (and only for our own good, mind you), and they shall sculpt a perfect society. Then they shall relinquish power.

But suppose, hypothetically, Communists had not made clear that they must be given absolute power. Suppose that they had not established firmly the link between totalitarianism and Communism. We can judge from the fruits of their labors the value of their ideas. Again, we find ourselves among the bleached skeletons of Cambodia, the living skeletons of North Korea, the cannibalism of Mao’s China and Stalin’s Ukraine, and the gulag. Always, the gulag.

How shall we judge an idea if, when implemented, it has always led to poverty and slavery?

The problem is NOT that communism is evil,it's that SOME who have called themselves communists have also embraced totalitarianism.

Perhaps you could explain how Communism is so particularly susceptible to failure. Certainly the course of liberty does not have Communism’s terrible track record.

Ah, the ordered liberty of a limited, constitutional republic! So messy on paper, yet so successful in practice.

Communism does not require totalitarianism, any more than capitalism does.

Then name one country that has embraced Communism that has not been totalitarian.

Dan Trabue said...

1. South Africa has ruling communists
2. Nicaragua had a communist gov't that wasn't totalitarian... BEFORE the capitalist nation engaged in terrorism and war crimes to overthrow the democratically-elected communist gov't
3. France and Sweden both have democratic socialists in gov't

For instance. Now, clearly, many communist nations HAVE had problems with totalitarianism, but it's not one in the same.

Communism as an IDEAL, to me, is much closer to what is good and right and true - what I picture the Realm of God to be. HOWEVER, having nations trying to implement that ideal has proven to be problematic sometimes and rarely has gone smoothly.

Thus, I find myself in the position of agreeing with communist ideals (not Marxist ideals, mind you, but communist), I tend to believe that capitalist solutions at a state level are more appropriate - or a mix of socialism and capitalism, perhaps. A well-regulated capitalism.

Anyway, certainly, many socialist nations have had problems. We're seeing it right now in Venezuela, which started as a democracy, but has become increasingly LESS democratic as Chavez has attempted to grab more and more control. But, it's not one and the same.

I've given you some examples, but beyond that, it's just not in the definition so you can't really say communism = totalitarianism. Communism is an economic system. Totalitarianism is a system of rule. They're not even in the same category of ideals.

Dan Trabue said...

To further clarify, some definitions:

Totalitarianism:
1: centralized control by an autocratic authority
2: the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority

Communism:
1: a theory advocating elimination of private property
2: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

Socialism:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Totalitarianism is NOT built into communism or socialism, not by definition. Add to that, is that, like any other "ism," there is a huge range of folk who ascribe to some parts of communism, socialism, who do not agree on what that looks like. Further, there are many who deliberately make such distinctions as saying they are DEMOCRATIC socialists/communists, emphasizing that it is a movement of liberty and freedom of/for/by the people.

John Farrier said...

1. South Africa has ruling communists

Er, no. The ruling party includes Communists.

2. Nicaragua had a communist gov't that wasn't totalitarian... BEFORE the capitalist nation engaged in terrorism and war crimes to overthrow the democratically-elected communist gov't

Er, no. Ortega lost office to Violeta Barrios de Chamorro in a democratic election.

3. France and Sweden both have democratic socialists in gov't

The Communist equivalent of decaf coffee. Now had the French Communists succeeded in taking over at the end of World War II, do you think France would be doing so well?

I've given you some examples, but beyond that, it's just not in the definition so you can't really say communism = totalitarianism. Communism is an economic system. Totalitarianism is a system of rule. They're not even in the same category of ideals.

Unless you're talking about a commune of people trying to live in a small collective, then no, it's inherently totalitarian. That's because Communism asserts that government must control the means of production. Communism thus requires that government be given enormous power.

Totalitarianism is NOT built into communism or socialism, not by definition. Add to that, is that, like any other "ism," there is a huge range of folk who ascribe to some parts of communism, socialism, who do not agree on what that looks like. Further, there are many who deliberately make such distinctions as saying they are DEMOCRATIC socialists/communists, emphasizing that it is a movement of liberty and freedom of/for/by the people.

Provided that it's completely voluntary, Communists are welcome to anything they want with their own lives. But if they imply that by residing in their same locality as them that I'm consenting to government interference in my economic activities, we're going to have problems.

Woody Guthrie? Seriously? Stalin's fanboy? If he's among your examples of a good Communist....

Dan Trabue said...

John...

Ortega lost office to Violeta Barrios de Chamorro in a democratic election.

Yes, but BEFORE he lost that election, he was the leader of a communist, non-totalitarian gov't. Beyond that, he lost the election (his second election - he won the first one) under literal fire from the capitalist US gov't. The people of Nicaragua felt that if they continued to elect the leader they wanted, the US would continue to wage war against their people.

Which is not to say that Ortega was a perfect leader or anything of that sort. Nor is it to say that some people didn't truly want to see Chamorro elected. It's just to say that for six years after his 1984 election, he ran a communist, non-totalitarian gov't. Also, since 2006, he has been the democratically elected president again, now running as a democratic socialist, I believe.

The points remain:

1. There ARE/HAVE been socialist/communist nations that are democratic and non-totalitarian
2. Communism does not equal totalitarianism

If you'd like to inist that a strictly Marxist VERSION of Communism includes a period of more totalitarianistic leadership, I think you could make the case. But that's only ONE version of Communism and not everyone who subscribes to communism is subscribing to that version.

Generally, in my experience, the vast majority of US/western type of socialism/communism supporters are supporting a more egalitarian, just, equitable system that looks to take seriously the teachings of Christ (although not all would say it that way or align themselves with Christ) to tend to the needs of the least of these and to end oppression. THESE folk simply do NOT support totalitarianism and it would be ridiculous in the extreme to suggest they would.

John Farrier said...


Generally, in my experience, the vast majority of US/western type of socialism/communism supporters are supporting a more egalitarian, just, equitable system that looks to take seriously the teachings of Christ (although not all would say it that way or align themselves with Christ) to tend to the needs of the least of these and to end oppression. THESE folk simply do NOT support totalitarianism and it would be ridiculous in the extreme to suggest they would.


In my experience, they're quite happy to use government force to redistribute wealth to preferred groups. That's the totalitarian temptation, and it lies completely athwart your principle of "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."