Mn-prog-events Mailing List: Progressive Calendar 07.16.05

[David Shove (shove001]

              P R O G R E S S I V E   C A L E N D A R     07.16.05

1. Wendy Wilde/950AM   7.18 9am
2. Global studies      7.18+ 9am
3. Greens file/press   7.18 9:30am
4. Al McFarlane/KFAI   7.18 11am
5. Hennepin Co AFSCME  7.18 12noon
6. University Av expo  7.18 5pm
7. KFAI/StPaul Mondays 7.18 6pm
8. Community garden    7.18 6pm
9. Oil factor/film     7.18 6:30pm

10. John Bellamy Foster - The renewing of socialism: an introduction. p2/2
11. Barbara Ehrenreich  - What is socialist feminism?
12. John Ciardi         - On evolution (poem)

--------1 of 12--------

From: Wendy Wilde <wendywilde [at] gmail.com>
Subject: Wendy Wilde/950AM 7.18 9am

7.18.05  Minnesota Govt Shutdown & Election Reform
Wendy Wilde Show
AM 950 Air America Minnesota Radio

9-10am David Schultz Prof. Hamline Univ. on how to avoid another
Minnesota Government Shutdown.

10-11am David Cobb 2004 Green Party Presidential Candidate on election
reform and regional hearing in Twin Cities this week, plus the power
of Secretaries of State to influence election outcomes as introduction
to the National Secretaries of State summer conference in the Twin
Cities this weekend.

Encore Broadcast of Wendy Wilde Show at 5pm

7.19.2005

9-10am David Morris from NewRules.org - topic to be determined and
George Stephanopoulos joins Wendy to promote his speaking engagement
in the Twin Cities this week.

10-11am David Rubenstein on how the Center for the American Experiment
is a Republican propaganda machine and an incubator for Republican
candidates and operatives in Minnesota. It defines the Republican
agenda, including regressive tax cuts, privatization and the crippling
of the public sector to the denial of global warming and the invasion
of Iraq.

Encore broadcast of Wendy Wilde Show at 5pm

Wendy Wilde www.wendywilde.com AM 950 Air America Minnesota Mon-Fri
9am-11am

---
From: David Cobb [mailto:cobbweb [at] greens.org]

I'm pleased to report that I will be on the Wendy Wilde radio show on
AM950 Air America Minnesota on Mon July 18 from 10:10am until 10:45am

It would be great to forward this to lists to generate phone calls about
IRV!


--------2 of 12--------

From: humanrts [at] umn.edu
Subject: Global studies 7.18+ 9am

A Global Studies Summer Institute is a fantastic opportunity for examining
global and international issues!  The Institutes are designed to provide
K-16 teachers with the knowledge and materials to engage students and
skill for applying critical thinking and problem-solving skills to
international issues in the classroom.  Teachers study seminar themes and
issues, explore curriculum materials, and learn new strategies and skills
for teaching global studies in their curriculum.  A feature of the
Institutes is free housing on campus and generous $200 scholarships to
help with the cost of tuition. The Summer Institutes are funded by a Title
VI grant from the U.S. Department of Education.

Participants:  K-16 educators. Enrollments are limited to 20-30
participants.

Location:  West Bank of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

Scholarships:  Generous $200 scholarships available to teachers taking the
course for credit.  There are $50 scholarships for teachers taking the
course for non-credit.

Graduate credit:  Participants have the option to register for 2
professional graduate credits, which is $326 per credit, plus registration
fees.

Free Lodging:  Participants can stay for free in a single dorm room on
campus, with air conditioning and shared bathrooms.

Registration:  Contact Sarah Herzog at 612-624-7346 or by email at
sherzog [at] umn.edu. Registration is also available online at:
http://igs.cla.umn.edu/outreach/outreach.htm. The registration deadline
for this summer is July 5, 2005.

Teaching Asia with Film July 18-22, 2005, 9:00-4:00 pm

How can we use movies to teach students about Asia? As movies are becoming
more diverse--Asian films are frequently showing up in movie theaters and
video stores. This institute will feature four films from Asia, both East
and South Asia. Using films, discussion and readings, teachers will learn
techniques for using and analyzing Asian films with their students.
Teachers will receive a resource guide with films on video or DVD to use
in the classroom. Teachers can register for $125 or for 2 undergraduate,
professional or graduate credits. Register online at:
http://igs.cla.umn.edu/outreach/outreach.htm.

Islam in Global Context July 25-29, 2005, 9:00-4:00 pm

As the fastest growing faith in the world, Islam is a religion whose
historical, cultural, geographical, and political sweep is vast. From
Morocco to Indonesia, Islam is comprised of over 1.2 billion people,
spread over 50 countries and five contents, with over 30 languages and 25
ethnicities. Yet not since the days of the Crusades has a religion created
as much misunderstanding in the world as that of Islam. The goal of this
course is to achieve an understanding of the Islamic world by studying how
Muslims see themselves in the world they live in, and how the world views
them. In order to accomplish this, we will examine the 1) historical
development of Islam 2) Islam in the comparative context 3) Islam and
global conflicts 4) Islam and global media and 5) Islam, art and
architecture. This course is designed for teachers with a general interest
in the Islamic world in its global context, the cultural and historical
aspects of Islam, or in the life, practices and beliefs of Muslims.
Teachers can register for $125 or for 2 undergraduate, professional or
graduate credits. Register online at:
http://igs.cla.umn.edu/outreach/outreach.htm.

Teaching Genocide and Human Rights July 18-22, 2005, 9:00-4:00 pm

This is a special one week course designed to familiarize teachers about
aspects of contemporary genocide and the framework of human rights. The
year 2005 is an appropriate year to study this subject, as it is the 60th
anniversary of the end of World War II and the Nuremberg Trials. The end
of the Holocaust did not prevent other genocides from occurring during the
remainder of the 20th century. The course will familiarize participants
with subject matter, content, texts, important issues such as memory,
dealing with atrocity in the classroom, relating the issues to
contemporary problems in American society, and most important, how study
of this material can affect attitudes toward representing history, as well
as teaching methodologies. This is a two 2 credit course. Teachers
register for 2 undergraduate, professional or graduate credits. Generous
$200 scholarships available to teachers taking the course for credit.
Register online at: http://igs.cla.umn.edu/outreach/outreach.htm.

Sarah Herzog Borden, Outreach Coordinator Institute for Global Studies,
University of Minnesota 214 Social Sciences 267 19th Ave South Minneapolis
MN 55455 Phone: 612.624.7346, Fax: 612.626.2242 Email: sherzog [at] umn.edu
Web: http://igs.cla.umn.edu

Visit the IGS outreach page for information on global studies events at:
<http://igs.cla.umn.edu/outreach/outreach.htm>
http://igs.cla.umn.edu/outreach/outreach.htm


--------3 of 12--------

From: Eric Makela <em [at] bitstream.net>
Subject: Greens file/press 7.18 9:30am

Press Conference, 9:30am Monday 7.18:
MINNEAPOLIS GREEN CANDIDATES TO FILE EN MASSE

The Green Party's candidates for Minneapolis city offices, including
mayor, city council and the park & recreation board, will be filing as a
group and holding a press conference on Monday, July 18, at 9:30 A.M.
inside Minneapolis City Hall, 350 South 5th Street.

The candidates will be filing at the Office of Elections, Room 1B, on the
ground floor. The press conference will be in the Father of Waters Atrium,
also on the ground floor.

The 5th Congressional District Green Party (5CDGP) has endorsed six
candidates for these seats and will be considering additional endorsements
at its July 23rd membership meeting.

In addition to the three Green incumbents, Natalie Johnson Lee (City
Council Ward 5), Dean Zimmermann (Ward 6) and Annie Young (Park Board,
At-Large), the 5CDGP has also endorsed Farheen Hakeem for Mayor, Cam
Gordon (Ward 2) and Aaron Neumann (Ward 3).

The 5th Congressional District Green Party is an affiliate of the Green
Party of Minnesota, which is rooted in the Four Pillars of Grassroots
Democracy, Nonviolence, Social & Economic Justice and Ecological Wisdom.
The Party is established in 44 states and in over 90 countries across the
globe.

Further information can be found on the web:
http://5cd.mngreens.org/
http://www.mngreens.org/
Contact: Eric Makela, (612) 782-2118, eric [at] mngreens.org


--------4 of 12--------

From: Lydia Howell <lhowell [at] visi.com>
Subject: Al McFarlane/KFAI 7.18 11am

Conversaions with Al McFarlane (publisher of Insight News, an
African-American weekly newspaper): broadcasts every Monday @ 11am on KFAI
Radio, 90.3fm Mpls 106.7 fm St Paul all shows archived for 2 weeks after
broadcast www/kfai.org

We have another wonderful show coming up on Monday July 18th from North
Community High School, 1500 James Ave. N. The topic is 'Diversity in the
Workplace: The Hiring Process'. We have invited recruiters, HR reps,
consultants and others to speak about this very important topic.

Topics for the following weeks include:

July 25th - Diversity in the Workplace: Supplier Diversity
		10th Ward Candidate Screening

August 1 - Organ Donation in the Black Community
	     Sponsored by: LifeSource/Southside Community Clinic

August 8 - Homeownership and Wealth Creation
	     Changing the Face of Minnesota Initiative

Remember to listen every Saturday for the re-broadcast of "Conversations
with Al" between 9-11am on KMOJ 89.9FM "The People's Station".

Lauretta T. Dawolo Assistant to Publisher Insight News Group McFarlane
Media Interests, Inc. Office: (612)588-1313 Cell: (763)232-7560 Email:
lauretta [at] insightnews.com
        ldawolo [at] yahoo.com


--------5 of 12--------

From: Minneapolis Central Labor Union Council <kyle [at] mplscluc.com>
Subject: Hennepin Co AFSCME 7.18 12noon

The hard-working employees of Hennepin County have gone three years
without a raise. But these 4000 AFSCME members are gearing up to change
that as they head into negotiations next week. Please join members from
all 9 AFSCME locals at Hennepin County in a rally to kick off their
negotiations.

United to Make a Difference Rally
Monday, July 18
12noon-1pm
Hennepin County Government Center Plaza
Downtown Minneapolis

Following the rally at Hennepin County Government Plaza in
downtown Minneapolis, the negotiating team will be presenting
their opening proposals to the county. Let's cheer them on and
wish them good luck in their negotiations.

If you want to read the union proposal to the county, click
here: http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/fpzRu1Y1Bqt-/

For more information, contact AFSCME Council 5,
www.afscmemn.org , at (651) 450-4990.


--------6 of 12--------

From: Samantha Henningson <samantharaeh [at] yahoo.com> relayed message
Subject: University Av expo 7.18 5pm

[This looks fairly big box, so you may want to go just to find out what
the other side is doing. - ed]

You are cordially invited to a University Avenue Development Expo, on the
occasion of University UNITED's Annual Meeting.

Monday July 18, 5-7pm
Midway Four Points Sheraton Hotel
400 North Hamline Avenue (at I-94)

There will be hors d'hoeuvres, a cash bar, door prizes, and
entertainment.
The event is sponsored by Chocolat Celeste.

Developers and designers of over 20 projects recently built or in the
works along University Avenue will be showcasing their efforts. Projects
include large scale developments like Emerald Gardens and smaller projects
undertaken by family-owned businesses, such as Mai Village restaurant. The
collective impact of these projects signals that a major transformation of
University Avenue is underway. The program will include a "State of
the Corridor" address from University UNITED, and a reaction/analysis by
Tim Griffin, AIA, AICP, Director of the Saint Paul on the Mississippi
Design Center.

The Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority will be presenting an
animated simulation of the proposed Central Corridor light rail line.

The event is free and open to the public.

The University Avenue Development Expo is taking place at the Midway
Sheraton Hotel which is being sold to Target by the St. Paul Port
Authority.

It is widely reported that Target is planning on demolishing the structure
to build a new SuperTarget. This may be one the last opportunities for
the public to enjoy the benefit of this wonderful hotel and conference
center.

Please RSVP by replying to this message if you plan on attending.

Invited Projects Include:

Mai Village Restaurant
Rondo Library and Dale Street Apartments
Proposed University/ St. Albans Project
Proposed NE Corner University/Dale Project
Western Bank
Aldi's Grocery
TCF Bank
Episcopal Homes
Wilder Foundation
Hoa Bien Restaurant
New St. Paul School (at former 3M site)
Menlo Park (conversion of former Bureau of Criminal Apprehension into
            bio-tech incubator)
Model Cities Housing
CVS Pharmacy
Dickerman Park
Goodwill
Menards
Carleton Place Lofts
Center for Media Arts/2446 University
Metro Lofts
Emerald Gardens
808 Berry Place
US Bank, Raymond Avenue Mixed-use
UEL Laboratories
All Projects Previously Selected for University UNITED Annual Awards


--------7 of 12--------

From: erin stojan <erinstpaulissues [at] yahoo.com>
Subject: KFAI/StPaul Mondays 7.18 6pm

KFAI introduces: St. Paul Mondays! Beginning July 11, KFAI News (Weekdays,
6:00-6:30 PM) brings listeners Saint Paul Mondays, news and analysis on
the elections in Saint Paul. Every Monday, KFAI News will keep up with the
mayoral and school board races and interview residents on the issues that
matter to them. Saint Paul Mondays airs during KFAI News at 6:00 PM.
(7/4/05)

KFAI can be heard at 106.7 FM in St. Paul, 90.1 in Minneapolis and via
live stream at www.kfai.org (click on "listen now!").

KFAI, or Fresh Air Radio, is a volunteer-based community radio station
that exists to broadcast information, arts and entertainment programming
for a Twin Cities audience of diverse racial, social and economic
backgrounds. By providing a voice for people ignored or misrepresented by
mainstream media, KFAI increases understanding between peoples and
communities, and fosters the values of democracy and social justice within
its listening area.


--------8 of 12--------

From: mclemore27 <mclemore27 [at] earthlink.net>
Subject: Community garden 7.18 6pm

I'm writing to request your support for Soo Line Community Garden, an
organic community garden located along the Greenway between Garfield and
Harriet in south Minneapolis (Whittier neighborhood--Dean Zimmermann's
ward).

Soo Line is one of the few remaining community gardens in Minneapolis:
it is among the largest (there are 100 gardeners), and at 15, it is also
among the oldest.

However, its survival as a community garden is now being threatened.

The Midtown Greenway Land Use Steering Committee is in the process of
preparing a land use plan and development guidelines for Phases I and II
of the Greenway:  Soo Line has been listed as one of several "development
opportunities" along the Greenway.  (The garden is sited on tax-forfeited
County land; we renew our lease with the County annually, at the end of
each growing season.)

As a Green Party member and a 14-year Soo Line Community Garden member,
I'm pleading for your support.  The value of "green" spaces in the Cities
should be well known to all of you.  But we need your help if Soo Line
Community Garden is to survive in its present form and location.

A series of community workshops is planned to help determine what will
happen to those "development opportunities."

The first workshop is scheduled for Monday July 18, 2005 from 6:00- 8:30pm
at Intermedia Arts auditorium (2822 Lyndale Avenue South).

I'm begging you to attend this workshop and express your unqualified
support for keeping Soo Line as a community garden (more than just "green"
or "open" space).

We cannot survive without the community's support.  Without your input, we
may lose the prairie garden, natural grasses, youth "staging" area, and
community plots that constitute Soo Line Community Garden.

I hope to see all of you at the meeting on July 18th. (you can attend any
time between 6 and 8:30).

Liz McLemore 5th. District Green, Soo Line Community Garden member, member
of Midtown Greenway Land Use Steering Committee

N.B.:
Soo Line pre-dates the increase in property values in Uptown, but the push
for high-density development is making available "open spaces"  like Soo
Line more attractive to developers looking for low-risk investment
opportunities.  (Many well-intentioned people would like to see more
"amenities"--coffee shops, bike shops, low-income housing, etc.--along the
Greenway.  Environmentalists know that those "amenities" also mean more
concrete.)

In short, PLEASE plan to attend this workshop and express your support for
our garden.

---
From: Dean Zimmermann <deanzimm [at] mn.rr.com>

Thank you Liz for contacting me about the Soo Line Garden and thank you
for alerting the Greens of the need to keep pressure on all who would cast
a covetous eye on this jewel on the Greenway.  As far as I am concerned,
the Soo Line Gardens are a permanent amenity along the Greenway.  The
Gardens do not, in my humble opinion, qualify as a developable space,
because they already have a very important function happening on this
spot.  It is my position that the Greenway should be an eclectic mix of
uses, industrial, commercial, housing, recreation, parks and gardens.
Part of the approval process for any development should be that said
development have a Greenway friendly front, providing access, eyes on the
Greenway, beauty and greenery.

I too, would like to urge Greens to show up at these hearing in order to
protect the garden and to urge the creation of more green space in the
Greenway.  Gail Dorfman is the Hennepin County Commissioner for this
area--a few emails to her would not hurt.  Peter McLaughlin is also a
Hennepin County Commissioner, and chair of the Hennepin County Rail
Authority, who, I believe is the owner of the Greenway and the Soo Line
Garden.  If you encounter Peter out campaigning for mayor, you should ask
him to make clear his position on the Gardens and urge him to take formal
action to make the Soo Line Garden a permanent part of our community.

Liz. If you have not yet, I would urge you to be in touch with Corry Zoll
of the Green Institute.  Corry heads up the Institute's Green Space
Partners program which works with community gardeners.

As many know, the present City Council is not exactly community garden
friendly.  I would suggest that people get City Council candidates to make
known their views on community gardens, and specifically, would they
support the selling of CPED (MCDA) lots for community gardens.

Dean Zimmermann Mpls City Council - Ward 6 deanzimm [at] mn.rr.com C:
612-388-1311 W: 612-673-2206 H: 612-724-3888 2200 Clinton Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55404


--------9 of 12--------

From: wamm <wamm [at] mtn.org>
Subject: Oil factor/film 7.18 6:30pm

Third Monday Movies FREE: "The Oil Factor: Behind the War on Terror"

Monday July 18, 6:30pm. St Joan of Arc Church, Upper Room Parish House,
4537 Third Avenue South, Minneapolis. Parking is close, free, and easy.

"The Oil Factor: Behind the War on Terror," a 93 minute documentary,
narrated by Ed Asner, produced by Gerard Ungerman and Audrey Brohy of
Free-Will Productions (the makers of "Hidden Wars of Desert Storm") looks
at both the human cost and the greater geostratigic picture of George
Bush's "War on Terror". Includes original footage shot on location.
Discussion follows. FFI: Call the WAMM office at 612-827-5364


--------10 of 12--------

The Renewing of Socialism: An Introduction     part 2 of 2
by John Bellamy Foster
Monthly Review

According to the Wall Street Journal (May 13, 2005): "A substantial body
of research finds that at least 45% of parents' advantage in income [in
the United States] is passed along to their children, and perhaps as much
as 60%. With the higher estimate, it's not only how much your parents have
that matters - even your great-great grandfather's wealth might give you a
noticeable edge today." As a New York Times (May 30, 2005) editorial put
it, "Class based on economic and social differences remains a powerful
force in American life and has come to play a greater, not lesser, role
over the last three decades. Those in the upper middle classes enjoy better
health and live longer than those in the middle classes, who live longer
and better than those on the bottom." In other words, the United States is
a deeply class-divided society, and polarization in terms of rich and poor
is rapidly increasing. Education, health, life-expectancy, and general
working and living conditions are all closely correlated with class. What
is increasingly true for the United States is also true for world
capitalism as a whole, with the greatest depths of oppression and
starvation occurring in the periphery, where revolutionary and resistance
movements inspired by socialism and by all forms of opposition to
capitalism and imperialism are reemerging.

The enveloping crisis of civilization that has developed over the last
three decades has resulted in a more naked capitalism, but also a more
naked imperialism. The imperialism of money has tightened its grip
everywhere in the attempt to extract greater profits in the context of a
sluggish world economy. But the turn of the new century has also seen
increasing recourse to the imperialism of guns.

Currently, the United States, which has experienced a long-run decline of
its economic hegemony but still remains the leading capitalist power, is
seeking to gain global dominance by military means on a scale that would
have been previously inconceivable. The fall of the Soviet Union left the
United States as the sole remaining superpower. Over the 1990s it began to
move militarily into areas that were formerly part of the Soviet sphere of
influence or that had been contested by the superpowers. Thus in the
decade and a half since the collapse of the Soviet bloc the United States
has fought wars or carried out military interventions in the Persian Gulf,
the horn of Africa, the Balkans, and Afghanistan.

Following the events of September 11, 2001, the United States invaded and
occupied Afghanistan, allowing it also to expand its geopolitical
influence in Central Asia and the Caspian Sea region with its natural gas
and oil reserves. Immediately thereafter it invaded Iraq in an attempt to
gain control over its oil (the second largest reserve in the world) and
that of the Persian Gulf as a whole. The result has been a war with no
visible end.

By threatening to seize control of world oil reserves through the exercise
of its military power the United States has sent shock waves through the
rest of the world, contributing to fear and insecurity throughout the
globe. Not only declaring its intention to dominate the globe militarily
in its National Security Strategy of the United States for 2002, it has
shown its willingness to put this into practice. The United States has
engaged in "preemptive" attacks against much smaller powers, has announced
its intention to maintain and "modernize" its vast, world-threatening
nuclear arsenal, and has increased its military spending to a level that
approximates that of all other nations in the world combined. The
destabilizing effect of such an unprecedented military build-up by the
world's most powerful and most interventionist state naturally contributed
to the breakdown of talks regarding the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
in May 2005.

The ecological crisis engendered by the capitalist world economy meanwhile
threatens the collapse of world civilization, and irreparable damage to
the entire biosphere from which human society and the planet as we know it
may never recover - if current trends are not reversed. The latest
scientific reports indicate that global warming is, if anything,
increasing faster than was previously thought, leading to fears of
unpredictable and cumulative effects and of abrupt climate change. The
rate of species extinction is at its highest level since the disappearance
of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago mainly due to the decimation of
ecosystems throughout the globe. The removal of environmental regulations
as a part of neoliberal economics has only served to heighten this
ecological crisis. The United States, the hegemonic power of the
capitalist world system and the headquarters of the new naked capitalism,
has adamantly refused to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol - the first small, if
entirely inadequate, step to address the problem of global warming.

The capitalist world system of today can therefore be seen as enveloped in
an all-encompassing crisis of the future of civilization. Not surprisingly
in this context, resistance to the system is growing more widespread, and
the renewal of socialism as a socio-political movement and challenger to
capitalism seems to be in the offing. In France the spirit of May 1968, in
which workers and students joined forces to demand that the impossible be
made possible, has not entirely disappeared; as witnessed by the 1995
Winter of Discontent in which public workers shut down much of the country
with popular support, and by the May 2005 rejection (followed by the Dutch
only days later) of the proposed constitution of the European Union with
its provisions that would have given neoliberal capitalism constitutional
status at a European-wide level. The enormous intensity of the protests in
Seattle in November 1999 helped to engender a worldwide antiglobalization
movement that is continuing to challenge the system. Worldwide outbursts
of dissent prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States were
the largest in history and point to a groundswell of global opposition to
imperialism. The fierce resistance to U.S. imperialism within Iraq itself,
while arising out of nationalistic and religious forces, has highlighted
the weakness of the American military machine.

Revolutions occurring along very different tracks in areas as far removed
as Nepal and Venezuela show that attempts to break with capitalism and
imperialism are part of the present as history. The Bolivarian Revolution
led by the democratically-elected Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has
demonstrated how rapidly social forces can alter conditions in a radical
direction if economic barriers are not an obstacle (given that Venezuela
is a major oil power) and if the military gives its allegiance to a
democratically-based process of revolutionary change. Chavez has repeatedly
called for a "Socialism for the 21st Century." In this he is clearly not
asking for the renewal of some pre-existing model, but a new global
alternative geared to twenty-first century needs and aimed as always at
the promotion of equality and cooperation. Venezuela, in alliance with
Cuba, is drawing upon and stimulating the discontent in other parts of
Latin America - in Brazil, Uruguay, Bolivia, Ecuador - where many people are
discouraged with the workings of the "Washington Consensus" and with the
way capitalism and imperialism function in their countries.

It is impossible to know what forms this new socialist renewal will take
since it is still in the making and will be subject to continuing
historical struggles. Yet it is not utopian to believe that present and
future attempts to build socialism will reflect critical historical
lessons derived from the past, as well as changing historical conditions
that define the present. It is therefore the purpose of this special issue
to consider the long history of socialism, its evolving role as an
alternative to a changing capitalist reality, and the possibilities buried
in the past that may provide hope for the future.

First and foremost among these lessons is the dismissal of an empty
fatalism that closes off the future and that claims that the socialist
alternative to capitalism is economically impracticable, doomed to
failure. The chief contention of the critics is that central planning
cannot work and that socialism is therefore inherently inefficient and
unworkable. Such arguments seek to turn the question of capitalism versus
socialism into a question of the regulatory mechanism of the economy:
market versus plan. Central planning of some kind (along with local and
regional planning initiatives) is certainly a necessity for socialism and
its greatest economic tool. In fact, planning, if emerging from the active
participation of the population, is probably the only effective means for
democratic participation in economic decisions and for the fulfillment of
genuine popular needs. It is the fulfillment of such needs and the active,
democratic involvement of the population in their fulfillment that are
most important. The capitalist economy, which puts the market in command,
completely closes off the possibility of the achievement of such universal
goals.

In a socialist economy markets will continue to play a role, but as a
servant rather than master. Although some progressive economists, often
inspired by recent Chinese history, have advocated a form of "market
socialism," in which the market would remain in charge while the ultimate
objectives would be socialist, the same Chinese experience suggests that
this leads inexorably back to capitalism.4 In all post-revolutionary
societies, the greatest danger, which must be guarded against through the
continual participation of the population in the revolutionary process, is
the reemergence of a new ruling class. Moreover, history suggests that any
post-revolutionary ruling class, once it emerges, will eventually attempt
to secure its position in society by returning the society to
capitalism - as the best way of enhancing and perpetuating its own power.

Socialism led by the associated producers must seek to turn the enormous
productivity of modern society to other ends than the accumulation of
capital. Exploitation in the labor process needs to be eliminated through
workers' own self-organization. Work hours need to be shortened and
leisure time increased. Wealth and resources should be redirected towards
those most in need. In a society that is socialist, i.e. committed to the
principle "the free development of each is the condition for the free
development of all" (Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto), everyone
must have access to the basic requirements of free existence: clean air
and water, safe food, decent housing, adequate health care, essential
means of transport, and worthwhile and rewarding employment.

Socialism cannot survive unless it transcends not only class divisions
that divide off those who run the society from those that are compelled to
work mainly on their behalf, but also all other major forms of oppression
that cripple human potential and prevent democratic, social alliances. If
any lesson was learned from the experiences of twentieth-century attempts
to create socialism it is that class struggle must be inseparable from the
struggles against gender, race, and national oppressions - and against other
forms of domination such as those directed against gays or against those
politically designated as "the disabled." Socialism also cannot make any
real headway unless it is ecological in the sense of promoting a
sustainable relation to the environment, since any other approach
threatens the well-being and even survival of the human species, along
with all other species with which we share the earth.

The various forms of non-class domination are so endemic to capitalist
society, so much a part of its strategy of divide and conquer, that no
progress can be made in overcoming class oppression without also fighting
- sometimes even in advance of the class struggle - these other social
divisions. If the political emancipation of bourgeois society constituted
one of the bases upon which a wider human emancipation could be built, a
major obstacle to the latter has been the fact that political emancipation
- the realm of so-called inalienable human rights - has remained
incomplete under capitalism. That obstacle must in all cases be overcome
as a necessary part of the struggle for a socialist society.

Rosa Luxemburg insisted in her critique of the Russian Revolution that,
"without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of the press and
assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every
public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the
bureaucracy remains as the active element." Hence, the requirement of
"socialist democracy," she insisted, "begins simultaneously with the
beginnings of the destruction of class rule and the construction of
socialism." The reason for this is not some abstract sense of justice but
a law of socialist revolution itself. Such a democracy - no longer formal
but filled with economic and social content - constitutes "the very living
source from which alone can come the correction of all the innate
shortcomings of social institutions.[it thus embodies] the active,
untrammeled, energetic political life of the broadest masses of the
people."5 Socialist democracy is not to be conceived as applying merely to
the political sphere, narrowly conceived, but would have to extend to all
aspects of public and private life: the factory, the check-out counter,
and the office as well, and even the home.

Daniel Singer wrote in these pages in May 1988: "We need a new manifesto.
Not a blueprint, not a detailed program. But a project, the vision of a
different society, the proof that history has not come to an end, that
there is a future beyond capitalism." That proof is being offered today
not by a new manifesto but by history itself. The legacy of socialism, as
the real-life alternative to capitalism, also points to the necessity of
its renewal in the present. In joining this new struggle we need to
clarify the project of an alternative society, while avoiding the mistakes
of the past - forever insisting that socialism is the making of a society of
equals or it is nothing at all.

* Sweezy's article "Socialism: Legacy and Renewal" can be regarded as a
classic refutation of the notion that the end of the Cold War spelled the
end of socialism. Much of the present argument is inspired by his article.

* The special developmental factors that induced the rapid growth of the
first quarter century following the Second World War have been detailed in
these pages many times. See for example: John Bellamy Foster, "The End of
Rational Capitalism," Monthly Review, March 2005.

Notes

1. Quoted in Daniel Singer, Whose Millennium?: Theirs or Ours? (New York:
Monthly Review Press, 1999), 234.

2. Fourier, Owen, and Saint-Simon's followers quoted in Frederick Engels,
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (New York: International Publishers,
1978), 39 and Leo Huberman, The Truth About Socialism (New York: Lear
Publishers, 1950), 157-58.

3. See Singer, Whose Millennium?, 24-26.

4. See Martin Hart-Landsberg and Paul Burkett, "China and Socialism:
Market Reforms and Class Struggle," Monthly Review 56, no. 3 (July-August
2004).

5. Rosa Luxemburg, The Rosa Luxemburg Reader (New York: Monthly Review
Press, 2004), 302-10.


--------11 of 12--------

What Is Socialist Feminism?
by Barbara Ehrenreich
Monthly Review

This article, which first appeared in WIN magazine on June 3, 1976, and is
reprinted here with the author's permission, is a classic of socialist
feminist thought. After decades of ongoing debate on these issues its
importance is, in our view, undiminished.-Eds.

At some level, perhaps not too well articulated, socialist feminism has
been around for a long time. You are a woman in a capitalist society. You
get pissed off: about the job, the bills, your husband (or ex), about the
kids' school, the housework, being pretty, not being pretty, being looked
at, not being look at (and either way, not listened to), etc. If you think
about all these things and how they fit together and what has to be
changed, and then you look around for some words to hold all these
thoughts together in abbreviated form, you'd almost have to come up with
"socialist feminism."

A lot of us came to socialist feminism in just that kind of way. We were
searching for a word/term/phrase which would begin to express all of our
concerns, all of our principles, in a way that neither "socialist" nor
"feminist" seemed to. I have to admit that most socialist feminists I know
are not too happy with the term "socialist feminist" either. On the one
hand it is too long (I have no hopes for a hyphenated mass movement); on
the other hand it is much too short for what is, after all, really
socialist internationalist antiracist, anti-heterosexist feminism.

The trouble with taking a new label of any kind is that it creates an
instant aura of sectarianism. "Socialist feminism" becomes a challenge, a
mystery, an issue in and of itself. We have speakers, conferences,
articles on "socialist feminism" - though we know perfectly well that both
"socialism" and "feminism" are too huge and too inclusive to be subjects
for any sensible speech, conference, article, etc. People, including
avowed socialist feminists, ask themselves anxiously, "What is socialist
feminism?" There is a kind of expectation that it is (or is about to be at
any moment, maybe in the next speech, conference, or article) a brilliant
synthesis of world historical proportions - an evolutionary leap beyond
Marx, Freud, and Wollstonecraft. Or that it will turn out to be a nothing,
a fad seized on by a few disgruntled feminists and female socialists, a
temporary distraction.

I want to try to cut through some of the mystery which has grown up around
socialist feminism. A logical way to start is to look at socialism and
feminism separately. How does a socialist, more precisely, a Marxist, look
at the world? How does a feminist? To begin with, Marxism and feminism
have an important thing in common: they are critical ways of looking at
the world. Both rip away popular mythology and "common sense" wisdom and
force us to look at experience in a new way. Both seek to understand the
world - not in terms of static balances, symmetries, etc. (as in
conventional social science) - but in terms of antagonisms. They lead to
conclusions which are jarring and disturbing at the same time that they
are liberating. There is no way to have a Marxist or feminist outlook and
remain a spectator. To understand the reality laid bare by these analyses
is to move into action to change it.

Marxism addresses itself to the class dynamics of capitalist society.
Every social scientist knows that capitalist societies are characterized
by more or less severe, systemic inequality. Marxism understands this
inequality to arise from processes which are intrinsic to capitalism as an
economic system. A minority of people (the capitalist class) own all the
factories/energy sources/resources, etc. which everyone else depends on in
order to live. The great majority (the working class) must work out of
sheer necessity, under conditions set by the capitalists, for the wages
the capitalists pay. Since the capitalists make their profits by paying
less in wages than the value of what the workers actually produce, the
relationship between the two classes is necessarily one of irreconcilable
antagonism. The capitalist class owes its very existence to the continued
exploitation of the working class. What maintains this system of class
rule is, in the last analysis, force. The capitalist class controls
(directly or indirectly) the means of organized violence represented by
the state-police, jails, etc. Only by waging a revolutionary struggle
aimed at the seizure of state power can the working class free itself,
and, ultimately, all people.

Feminism addresses itself to another familiar inequality. All human
societies are marked by some degree of inequality between the sexes. If we
survey human societies at a glance, sweeping through history and across
continents, we see that they have commonly been characterized by: the
subjugation of women to male authority, both within the family and in the
community in general; the objectification of women as a form of property;
a sexual division of labor in which women are confined to such activities
as child raising, performing personal services for adult males, and
specified (usually low prestige) forms of productive labor.

Feminists, struck by the near-universality of these things, have looked
for explanations in the biological "givens" which underlie all human
social existence. Men are physically stronger than women on the average,
especially compared to pregnant women or women who are nursing babies.
Furthermore, men have the power to make women pregnant. Thus, the forms
that sexual inequality take - however various they may be from culture to
culture - rest, in the last analysis, on what is clearly a physical
advantage males hold over females. That is to say, they rest ultimately on
violence, or the threat of violence.

The ancient, biological root of male supremacy - the fact of male
violence - is commonly obscured by the laws and conventions which regulate
the relations between the sexes in any particular culture. But it is
there, according to a feminist analysis. The possibility of male assault
stands as a constant warning to "bad" (rebellious, aggressive) women, and
drives "good'' women into complicity with male supremacy. The reward for
being "good'' ("pretty," submissive) is protection from random male
violence and, in some cases, economic security.

Marxism rips away the myths about "democracy" and its "pluralism" to
reveal a system of class rule that rests on forcible exploitation.
Feminism cuts through myths about "instinct" and romantic love to expose
male rule as a rule of force. Both analyses compel us to look at a
fundamental injustice. The choice is to reach for the comfort of the myths
or, as Marx put it, to work for a social order that does not require myths
to sustain it.

It is possible to add up Marxism and feminism and call the sum "socialist
feminism." In fact, this is probably how most socialist feminists see it
most of the time - as a kind of hybrid, pushing our feminism in socialist
circles, our socialism in feminist circles. One trouble with leaving
things like that, though, is that it keeps people wondering "Well, what is
she really?" or demanding of us "What is the principal contradiction."
These kinds of questions, which sound so compelling and authoritative,
often stop us in our tracks: "Make a choice!" "Be one or another!" But we
know that there is a political consistency to socialist feminism. We are
not hybrids or fencesitters.

To get to that political consistency we have to differentiate ourselves,
as feminists, from other kinds of feminists, and, as Marxists, from other
kinds of Marxists. We have to stake out a (pardon the terminology here)
socialist feminist kind of feminism and a socialist feminist kind of
socialism. Only then is there a possibility that things will "add up" to
something more than an uneasy juxtaposition.

I think that most radical feminists and socialist feminists would agree
with my capsule characterization of feminism as far as it goes. The
trouble with radical feminism, from a socialist feminist point of view, is
that it doesn't go any farther. It remains transfixed with the
universality of male supremacy - things have never really changed; all
social systems are patriarchies; imperialism, militarism, and capitalism
are all simply expressions of innate male aggressiveness. And so on.

The problem with this, from a socialist feminist point of view, is not
only that it leaves out men (and the possibility of reconciliation with
them on a truly human and egalitarian basis) but that it leaves out an
awful lot about women. For example, to discount a socialist country such
as China as a "patriarchy" - as I have heard radical feminists do - is to
ignore the real struggles and achievements of millions of women. Socialist
feminists, while agreeing that there is something timeless and universal
about women's oppression, have insisted that it takes different forms in
different settings and that the differences are of vital importance. There
is a difference between a society in which sexism is expressed in the form
of female infanticide and a society in which sexism takes the form of
unequal representation on the Central Committee. And the difference is
worth dying for.

One of the historical variations on the theme of sexism which ought to
concern all feminists is the set of changes that came with the transition
from an agrarian society to industrial capitalism. This is no academic
issue. The social system which industrial capitalism replaced was in fact
a patriarchal one, and I am using that term now in its original sense, to
mean a system in which production is centered in the household and is
presided over by the oldest male. The fact is that industrial capitalism
came along and tore the rug out from under patriarchy. Production went
into the factories and individuals broke off from the family to become
"free" wage earners. To say that capitalism disrupted the patriarchal
organization of production and family life is not, of course, to say that
capitalism abolished male supremacy! But it is to say that the particular
forms of sex oppression we experience today are, to a significant degree,
recent developments. A huge historical discontinuity lies between us and
true patriarchy. If we are to understand our experience as women today, we
must move to a consideration of capitalism as a system.

There are obviously other ways I could have gotten to the same point. I
could have simply said that, as feminists, we are most interested in the
most oppressed women - poor and working-class women, third world women,
etc. - and for that reason we are led to a need to comprehend and confront
capitalism. I could have said that we need to address ourselves to the
class system simply because women are members of classes. But I am trying
to bring out something else about our perspective as feminists: there is
no way to understand sexism as it acts on our lives without putting it in
the historical context of capitalism.

I think most socialist feminists would also agree with the capsule summary
of Marxist theory as far as it goes. And the trouble again is that there
are a lot of people (I'll call them "mechanical Marxists") who do not go
any further. To these people, the only "real'' and important things that
go on in capitalist society are those things that relate to the productive
process or the conventional political sphere. From such a point of view,
every other part of experience and social existence - things having to do
with education, sexuality, recreation, the family, art, music, housework
(you name it) - is peripheral to the central dynamics of social change; it
is part of the "superstructure" or "culture."

Socialist feminists are in a very different camp from what I am calling
"mechanical Marxists." We (along with many, many Marxists who are not
feminists) see capitalism as a social and cultural totality. We understand
that, in its search for markets, capitalism is driven to penetrate every
nook and cranny of social existence. Especially in the phase of monopoly
capitalism, the realm of consumption is every bit as important, just from
an economic point of view, as the realm of production. So we cannot
understand class struggle as something confined to issues of wages and
hours, or confined only to workplace issues. Class struggle occurs in
every arena where the interests of classes conflict, and that includes
education, health, art, music, etc. We aim to transform not only the
ownership of the means of production, but the totality of social
existence.

As Marxists, we come to feminism from a completely different place than
the mechanical Marxists. Because we see monopoly capitalism as a
political/economic/cultural totality, we have room within our Marxist
framework for feminist issues which have nothing ostensibly to do with
production or "politics," issues that have to do with the family, health
care, and "private" life.

Furthermore, in our brand of Marxism, there is no "woman question,"
because we never compartmentalized women off to the "superstructure" or
somewhere else in the first place. Marxists of a mechanical bent
continually ponder the issue of the unwaged woman (the housewife): Is she
really a member of the working class? That is, does she really produce
surplus value? We say, of course housewives are members of the working
class - not because we have some elaborate proof that they really do
produce surplus value - but because we understand a class as being
composed of people, and as having a social existence quite apart from the
capitalist-dominated realm of production. When we think of class in this
way, then we see that in fact the women who seemed most peripheral, the
housewives, are at the very heart of their class - raising children,
holding together families, maintaining the cultural and social networks of
the community.

We are coming out of a kind of feminism and a kind of Marxism whose
interests quite naturally flow together. I think we are in a position now
to see why it is that socialist feminism has been so mystified: The idea
of socialist feminism is a great mystery or paradox, so long as what you
mean by socialism is really what I have called "mechanical Marxism" and
what you mean by feminism is an ahistorical kind of radical feminism.
These things just don't add up; they have nothing in common.

But if you put together another kind of socialism and another kind of
feminism, as I have tried to define them, you do get some common ground
and that is one of the most important things about socialist feminism
today. It is a space - free from the constrictions of a truncated kind of
feminism and a truncated version of Marxism - in which we can develop the
kind of politics that addresses the political/economic/cultural totality
of monopoly capitalist society. We could only go so far with the available
kinds of feminism, the conventional kind of Marxism, and then we had to
break out to something that is not so restrictive and incomplete in its
view of the world. We had to take a new name, "socialist feminism," in
order to assert our determination to comprehend the whole of our
experience and to forge a politics that reflects the totality of that
comprehension.

However, I don't want to leave socialist feminist theory as a "space" or a
common ground. Things are beginning to grow in that "ground." We are
closer to a synthesis in our understanding of sex and class, capitalism
and male domination, than we were a few years ago. Here I will indicate
only very sketchily one such line of thinking:

1. The Marxist/feminist understanding that class and sex domination rest
ultimately on force is correct, and this remains the most devastating
critique of sexist/capitalist society. But there is a lot to that
"ultimately." In a day to day sense, most people acquiesce to sex and
class domination without being held in line by the threat of violence, and
often without even the threat of material deprivation.

2. It is very important, then, to figure out what it is, if not the direct
application of force, that keeps things going. In the case of class, a
great deal has been written already about why the U.S. working class lacks
militant class consciousness. Certainly ethnic divisions, especially the
black/white division, are a key part of the answer. But I would argue, in
addition to being divided, the working class has been socially atomized.
Working-class neighborhoods have been destroyed and are allowed to decay;
life has become increasingly privatized and inward-looking; skills once
possessed by the working class have been expropriated by the capitalist
class; and capitalist controlled "mass culture" has edged out almost all
indigenous working-class culture and institutions. Instead of collectivity
and self-reliance as a class, there is mutual isolation and collective
dependency on the capitalist class.

3. The subjugation of women, in the ways which are characteristic of late
capitalist society, has been key to this process of class atomization. To
put it another way, the forces which have atomized working-class life and
promoted cultural/material dependence on the capitalist class are the same
forces which have served to perpetuate the subjugation of women. It is
women who are most isolated in what has become an increasingly privatized
family existence (even when they work outside the home too). It is, in
many key instances, women's skills (productive skills, healing, midwifery,
etc.), which have been discredited or banned to make way for commodities.
It is, above all, women who are encouraged to be utterly
passive/uncritical/dependent (i.e., "feminine") in the face of the
pervasive capitalist penetration of private life. Historically, late
capitalist penetration of working-class life has singled out women as
prime targets of pacification/"feminization" - because women are the
culture-bearers of their class.

4. It follows that there is a fundamental interconnection between
women's struggle and what is traditionally conceived as class struggle.
Not all women's struggles have an inherently anticapitalist thrust
(particularly not those which seek only to advance the power and wealth of
special groups of women), but all those which build collectivity and
collective confidence among women are vitally important to the building of
class consciousness. Conversely, not all class struggles have an
inherently antisexist thrust (especially not those that cling to
preindustrial patriarchal values), but all those which seek to build the
social and cultural autonomy of the working class are necessarily linked
to the struggle for women's liberation.

This, in very rough outline, is one direction which socialist feminist
analysis is taking. No one is expecting a synthesis to emerge which will
collapse socialist and feminist struggle into the same thing. The capsule
summaries I gave earlier retain their "ultimate" truth: there are crucial
aspects of capitalist domination (such as racial oppression) which a
purely feminist perspective simply cannot account for or deal with -
without bizarre distortions, that is. There are crucial aspects of sex
oppression (such as male violence within the family) which socialist
thought has little insight into - again, not without a lot of stretching
and distortion. Hence the need to continue to be socialists and feminists.
But there is enough of a synthesis, both in what we think and what we do
for us to begin to have a self-confident identity as socialist feminists.

All material  copyright 2005 Monthly Review


--------12 of 12--------

 John Ciardi

 On Evolution

 Pithecanthropus erectus,
 could he see us, would reject us.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   - David Shove             shove001 [at] tc.umn.edu
   rhymes with clove         Progressive Calendar
                     over 2225 subscribers as of 12.19.02
              please send all messages in plain text no attachments