Prudish Socialists

Steadily making my way through Si Gerson’s books, I’m surprised (although I’m not sure why) by instances of prudishness of our revolutionary heroes. In his “History of the Three Internationals,” William Z. Foster spends a hundred pages after the end of the Third International to ruminate on then-contemporary issues. This material is all, essentially, Party-line, what with the impending crisis of capitalism (in 1954), the imperialist Social Democrats and so on. Within it, this passage manages to stand out as uniquely wrong-headed:

In the field of culture there is likewise a general retrogression throughout the capitalist world, above all in the United States, with its cultural mess of pragmatism, psychoanalysis, neo-Malthusianism…with its swamp of “comic” books, oceans of sex, crime and horror stories, printed and on the radio and television.

Foster was 73 when he wrote this, and he sounds like a nagging grandpa. But, sadly, this is Party line stuff and it is thinking like this that results in reigns of terror like the Cultural Revolution, that makes Beatles records contraband, etc. And let’s not forget, as David McReynolds reminds in an e-mail forum earlier today, the Soviet Union, like many Communist countries, outlawed homosexuality at one time as a “sexual deviation” brought on by capitalism.

Not that social democrats can’t be fuddy duddies too. Reading Norman Thomas’ “Socialism Re-examined,” I was struck by a similar passage:

I know modern novels mostly through their reviews, but if I thought they portrayed the true state of mankind, I should doubt our capability of achieving a social order worth saving…It is a sick humanity which revels in sexuality, on the screen, and in the books of Henry Miller, William Burroughs and that ilk.

All politicians, revolutionary and bourgeois, would do well to stay out of the field of literary criticism. With apologies to Emma Goldman, if I can’t read pulp novels, I don’t want your revolution!

John Turturro’s Queens Musical

It’s hard to imagine in this DVD age that John Turtuorro’s “Romance and Cigarettes” could languish in a studio vault, largely unseen by the public, for over two years. In many ways a valentine to Queens, particularly the areas down south by Kennedy airport, where things get weird, Turturro’s working class characters break into song and dance when feeling most dreary and desperate. It’s a familiar device to fans of Dennis Potter, but unlike “The Singing Detective” or “Pennies From Heaven,” “Romance and Cigarettes” neglect to weigh down its narrative with believable drama.

The family at the heart of the story are hard to take seriously, with Aida Turturro and Mary Louise Parker playing James Gandolfini’s daughters. The characters are probably supposed to be teenagers, or at least in their early twenties, if their living at home and playing in a backyard punk rock band is supposed to be believable rather than just weird. Steve Buscemi, as Gandolfini’s best friend, doesn’t so much participate in dialogue as throw out a lot of sexually graphic non-sequitors, while Kate Winslet is “a crude broad.” Don’t get me wrong. They’re all a hoot, but it doesn’t add up so much for a compelling drama as a series of hysterical vignettes.

A clear highlight is Christoper Walken, already verging on self-parody, breaking out into his “Weapon of Choice” dance for his rendition of Tom Jones’ “Delilah,” including a dance with the lover he has just knifed. Gandolfini’s theme song, Englerbert Humperdink’s “Man Without Love,” is presented as an adorable montage of the men (and boys) of Howard Beach lip-sinking its lovelorn lyrics while going about their daily routine.

“Romance and Cigarettes,” which is playing in a limited run at the Film Forum, will apparently be given a limited release in theaters shortly. It probably won’t come to a theater near you. But it would be worth a rental on DVD, if it ever gets released in such a format.

They Can’t Drive These Cars Themselves

Is the NYC cabdriver strike successful? It’s hard for me to say. The only time that I spend in Manhattan these days is a few minutes underground, switching from the Long Island Rail Road to New Jersey Transit on my way to Rutgers. The Taxi Workers Alliance, which called the strike over a city mandate that yellow cabs install credit card machines and GPS systems, claims that 80% of the city’s cab drivers stayed home. Mayor Bloomberg is pooh-poohing the extent of the job action. Strolling around Greenwich Village tonight, I saw exactly three cabs when I would normally see dozens more.

It’s easy to shake one’s head in confusion over the cause of the strike. What’s wrong with providing more consumer service, you may ask? Isn’t this fear of GPS a wee bit paranoid? Keep in mind the precarious position of most cabbies. They are not employees (and the Taxi Workers Alliance is not, in the strictly legal sense, a union). Through a bit of administrative sleight of hand, they are “independent contractors.” They pay the Boss (usually some company with enough capital to buy a fleet of cars and TLC medallions at tens of thousands each) for the privilege of “leasing” a cab. The cab companies are guaranteed their profits. The cabbies have to pay for gas and often repairs. When gas prices spike, cabbies take a pay cut. If a credit card reader breaks, the cost of repair will be tacked on by the Boss to the cabby’s “rent.” It’s a shitty, miserable existence that calls out for serious reform. In that light, the cabbie strike can be seen as a demonstration of frustration. If, indeed, 80% of the city’s cabs are off the streets for the next two days and work-a-day life in New York is upset enough to be remembered then, whatever the goals of the strike, the Mayor and TLC will give greater thought to the impact on cab drivers of their policies in the future.

More power to the cabbies, who have a pretty impressive organization, run by word of mouth and impromptu meetings at the taxi stands at the airports and train stations, and all places where cabbies gather, rest and refuel.

The strike reminds me of a story I’ve wanted to tell. Almost exactly three years ago, my dear friends and trusted co-workers at the union where we all worked formed a staff union, which was promptly busted. The whys and wherefores are not worth getting into now. These things happen. Shortly before the whole affair came to its inexorable conclusion, a few of us met (in Greenwich Village, actually) to try to figure out if there was any way we could salvage the situation. I was middle-management and excluded from the whole thing, so this had been the first time I had really spoken to two of my very good friends, Alan and Jacob, who were leaders of the staff union campaign, since the deal went down. We were joined by our beloved revolutionary sweetheart, Liz, who had actually quit the job and moved down to Washington, D.C. some months before and was in town for some reason or another.

Over sushi and Sapporo, we rehashed the series of decisions and events that brought us to the precipice of a complete staff meltdown (we still do this from time to time), and slowly a sense of fatalism fell over the whole depressing evening. Liz and I shared a cab back to Penn Station and the Long Island Rail Road. In the back seat, we commiserated over our disillusionment over how this organization, this labor union, that we loved and believed in could conduct a nasty union-busting campaign against its own employees that was so against our principles. As we talked, our cabbie held a conversation on the two-way radio. He had a thick Haitian accent and his voice was low, hushed and mellifluous – clearly intended to fade into the background and be unnoticed by his passengers. But here and there, Liz and I picked up on scattered words in between our own. “Power,” “money,” “the boss,” “the workers.” When he said, “They have all these cars but they can’t drive these cars themselves,” Liz and I looked at each other with a mix of terror and delight. We were overhearing an organizing conversation. The driver on the other end of the two-way radio conversation was getting cold feet about whatever job action they were planning, and our driver – the organizer! – was reassuring him and getting him back on the program.

“Of all the cabs we could have gotten into,” Liz grumbled. I took more pleasure in the experience and said something like, “The movement keeps rolling.” We sat in silence for the final five or six blocks and listened to our cabbie do his thing. At the MSG station entrance, we pooled our cash for the fare and a more-generous-than-usual tip. Liz handed the man his money and leaned over to say in an even, firm and warm tone, “You’re a very good organizer. Good luck.”

We got out of the cab and I said, “I’m going to write about this one day.” A sardonic smile crossed her face. “At least we got that out of it.”

The Human Being Inside Bill Foster

Still poring through Si Gerson’s books, I’m having fun playing labor historian, although I’m not sure who’s benefiting (a young comrade in another forum complained, “this post seems like a big name drop…I don’t really need to read the words of dead men to know how I think society ought to be structured.”). I came across a fascinating observation about William Z. Foster in Nat Hentoff’s lamentably brief biography of A.J. Muste.

Muste is best known as a pacifist, a leader of the Fellowship of Reconciliation and the War Resisters League, who mentored Bayard Rustin, David McReynolds and scores of other activists committed to nonviolent resistance and was a leading light of the opposition to nuclear armaments and the early stages of the Vietnam War (he died in 1967). He had quite the interesting biography before all that. A protestant minister who quit his congregation to resist the first World War, he became a labor activist and leader of the failed Amalgamated Textile Workers union following the second Lawrence strike, headed up the radical Brookwood Labor College in the 1920’s and became a leading Trotskyite in the 1930’s. Here is where the Muste story gets particularly juicy and weird. Apparently, in 1936 Muste set sail for Europe to meet with the exiled Russian revolutionary. When he returned, he spoke little of the meeting but was no longer a Trotskyite and instead had returned to Christian pacifism.

Hentoff unfortunately skims over the details of Muste’s labor activism. That’s a great disappointment because while I am familiar with Muste’s pacifist work, I was shocked to find venomous denunciation of “the Musteites” in so many Communist Party-related publication starting around the mid-1920’s while researching Michael J. Obermeier, Foster and others. That’s why this observation from Muste about Foster’s visit to Brookwood in 1923 is so tantalizing and frustrating:

“One of the questions in the minds of all labor activists at that time was whether Bill had joined the Communist Party. He sought to create the impression that he had not. I have carried with me all through the years a vivid recollection of that day nearly forty years ago. I have lived it over again at fairly frequent intervals since. It was a feeling of uneasiness, certainly not of hostility in the personal sense. I felt there was a human being inside him, but that it was under restraint, hidden somewhere. The element of straightforwardness was now lacking. There he was, over there, and here I was. It would remain so.”

William Z. Foster also had an interesting biography. He was a brilliant union organizer and tactician. It is on the one hand incredibly impressive and, on the other, terribly pathetic, that articles and plans that the man wrote in the 1910’s are still directly relevant and prescient today. Foster started out as a syndicalist who was expelled from the Socialist Party during the days of dynamite and gravitated towards the IWW. Sent by the Wobblies to European labor confabs, Foster witnessed firsthand huge and impressive union demonstrations in France and came to appreciate the C.G.T.’s policy of boring from within the traditional craft unions to turn them into revolutionary organizations and returned to the U.S. to advocate that the I.W.W. abandon its “dual unionism” and commit to transforming the American Federation of Labor into a militant and radical movement. His proposal was seriously considered and rejected, and Foster set out on his own.

Foster set out on his own to spearhead two huge organizing campaigns during the Great War under AFL auspices and his own, brilliant “amalgamated” formula (i.e. working through an umbrella organizing committee of the various craft unions). One, the Chicago stockyards, was an unqualified success. The other, the steel industry, was a fiasco of historical proportions. Following the October Revolution, Lenin endorsed Foster’s program of boring from within the conservative craft unions, and the free-thinking boy genius of the labor movement married his fortunes to the new Communist movement. At first, as Muste wrote, Foster kept his affiliation secret. By 1924, he was the presidential candidate of the party’s legal expression, the Workers Party. Shortly thereafter, he became the chairman of the Communist Party USA and pawn and apologist for Stalinism.

It was only years later, near death, that Foster allowed any hint of “human being inside him” to be glimpsed in his delightful memoir, “Pages From a Worker’s Life.” One wonders what would have become of the brilliant tactician if he hadn’t cast his lot in with the Communists. His biography and writings indicate that he was developing a pragmatic syndicalism that I’d like to think would have nudged labor in a more radical and independent direction. But we’ll never know. We can only lament what could have been, if Foster could have been the “human being inside” that summer at Brookwood.