My Reflections on the Syrian Nerve Gas Bombing of April 4th, 2017, the April 7th U.S. Bombing of the Syrian Airbase, and Possibilities for the Future! by Peter Bohmer, April 17, 2017.
“The evidence has continued to mount that the Syrian air force dropped Sarin gas on Khan Shaykhun in Idlib province in Syria on April 4th, 2017 killing at least 80 people and seriously wounding hundreds. Evidence includes eyewitness accounts, statements by doctors and other medical personnel in Turkey who treated the wounded, statements by various scientific organizations that it was Sarin gas dropped from the air, the past use of Sarin by the Assad regime in 2013 gas and the implausibility and obvious falsehoods of the Russians and Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad about the attack. It is disheartening that so many on the left deny that Syria did these horrific killings or say we have no idea who did it. Although there is close to but not 100% proof of the Syrian government carrying out this horrendous attack, I fear that those who deny or cast doubt on Syrian government responsibility would not accept any evidence that challenges their preconceived notions and ideology”…Syria Reflection, April 17, 2017, Reflection on Syria.
Format of talk 1) US Political Economy and why the Trump victory; 2) Trump agenda and what has happened; 3) Possibilities
Detailed Notes from my talk at Micropolis Social Center in Thessaloniki, Greece February, 20, 2017, The Political Economy of Trumpism revised
Here is a six minute interview of me by Luvva J Profresha. In this video interview, I discuss the Caravan Against Repression in Mexico of activists involved in many movements against oppression and repression. This caravan is on a national tour and I spoke to Luvva J, immediately after the visit of these inspiring activists from Mexico to the Evergreen State College in Olympia on Thursday October 27, 2016
by Peter Bohmer, October 20, 2016
I have watched the three presidential debates this year. Trump’s contempt for women, his anti-choice, anti-Mexican and anti-Muslim immigrant stance, his stereotyping of Black and Latinos, his proposed tax cuts for the wealthy and the corporations was disgusting. His toxic machismo and not so coded racism and white nationalism were on full display. Clinton, although not as bad never mentioned poor people, and called for and bragged about continued U.S. militarism. To Trump’s racist claims about electoral rigging and fraud in Black communities, his mentioning of Philadelphia, St. Louis and Chicago; Hillary Clinton could have but didn’t respond with the past and present actual racist voter suppression, especially by Republicans but also many Democrats in limiting voting by people with felonies, requiring multiple ID’s, making registration and voting difficult, especially in low income communities. Also these three debates were limited by no questions about one of the central issues of the day, climate change, and the excluding of the Green Party Presidential candidate, Jill Stein and the Libertarian Party candidate, Gary Johnson. … (see link above)
by Peter Bohmer, faculty in Political Economy, The Evergreen State College
September 29, 2016
Slightly revised version of my article in the Fall, 2016 Disorientation Manual
Students have played a major role as have student movements in struggles for reform and revolution in the United States and globally. Let me give a few examples, mainly from the 1960’s in the United States before I turn to Evergreen. I will also share a few conclusions based on many years of activism with student movements. …
by Peter Bohmer, August 7, 2016
note: This is a letter I sent to long-term friends, Michael Albert and Steven Shalom on July 31st, 2016. They printed their revised question and answer commentary on August 4, 2016, https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/thinking-about-the-election/ We still have some disagreements, although less in their final version of August 4, 2016 than in their earlier draft, the one my letter below refers to. Their published version of August 4th is an important contribution to an important discussion.
Dear Michael and Steve, July 31, 2016
I read your proposed Question and Answer analysis of the upcoming 2016 Presidential Election pamphlet and while I think the tone is more respectful of those on the left who feel they can’t vote for Clinton than earlier writing by Michael Albert, I still have problems with it.
1) I think maybe because you want to highlight Clinton’s differences with Trump, which are real and significant, you are less critical of her than I am, e.g., her strong support for fracking, the Trans Pacific Partner, the TPP (in the past) without now saying she was wrong, her close connections to AIPAC and her intense anti BDS position, her connections to Goldman-Sachs and Wall Street, her positions along with Obama on Latin America, e.g., Honduras and Venezuela, her public support for the 1996 “Welfare Deform Act” and the 1994, 1996 crime bills, etc. You should not demonize Clinton but show a little more outrage at her and most of the Democratic Party’s imperialism and militarism.
2) Note how Bernie Sanders, Michael Eric Dyson, etc., in coming out in support of Clinton and Kaine also feel compelled to praise them. While not a logical necessity, there is pressure both from the pro Clinton people and in order to justify one’s position and to make one’s support meaningful to downplay criticism and even faintly praise Clinton.
3) I think we are in a period of danger (Trump, growth of white supremacy connected to Trump’s candidacy, climate change, etc.) but also a period of renewed interest in activism and political engagement, socialism, Black Lives Matter, etc. This period of potential growth of activism and social movement growth may be very short-lived. Your strategy of asking people to vote strategically contributes unintentionally to demobilizing people who are beginning to become very engaged. For example, although I have been quite critical of the Green Party in the past for their lack of grassroots organizing and their whiteness, I think there is a real possibility now of a significant growth in membership, in building chapters, and in votes for Jill Stein. Saying the Greens should wait until after November is likely to miss the moment. For example in Olympia some younger activists just formed a second Green Party organization as an alternative to the existing one which has good people in it, but has not been all that active or grown.
4) There is a difference which you ignore between asking individuals to vote for the lesser of two evils in swing states and asking that organizations, social movements follow this rule. It makes a lot more sense for an individual to do that. However, I question this strategy far more for a radical organization like Black Lives Matter or the Green Party as it is likely to be seen as a compromise with a pro-corporate and neoliberal militarist, Hillary Clinton and the mainstream of the Democratic Party, and furthers the skepticism people have for political engagement and for a new and radical politics.
5) I originally wrote Michael Albert many months ago that my position and many people I know is that we should simultaneously strongly and totally oppose Trump while building organizations, social movements that deal with the key issues of the day–a two pronged strategy. With regards to Clinton and the November presidential elections, we should not focus on Hillary Clinton and her campaign but of course say, she and the Democrats are not as bad as Trump and the Republicans, and leave it up to people whether they vote for her or not. I also expressed this in a commentary I put on Znet about a month ago which I am including here. It stresses being respectful to those, especially people new to activism and younger people, who are into rejecting Clinton and the Democrats. You may want to skip the following if you already read it.
“July 14, 2016
What I find missing from my friend, Michael Albert’s commentary in the Left Unity section of Znet, https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/we-need-a-united-left/ is an acknowledgement and a validation of the moral outrage felt by many people, mainly but not only young people, that they are being told to choose between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Michael Albert is right that Hillary Clinton will do less harm than a Trump presidency but the harm of her militaristic, imperialist and neoliberal administration will be major to people inside the United States, and probably even worse for those living in other countries.
So I think people who say they cannot in good conscience vote for Hillary Clinton, even in contested states such as Florida, Ohio, etc. should not be criticized nor pressured to change their mind. I know many, many people in this category and when I ask them what they are likely to do in November, besides talking about their anger at the mainstream media promotion of Clinton and the marginalization of Bernie, and the daily and massive coverage of Trump; almost all of them also tell me they will either not vote or vote for Jill Stein and the Greens. I do not criticize this decision although if they ask me what I believe, I say that voting for Hillary Clinton in states where it is not clear who will win, also makes some sense and is defensible.
Reducing voting to a strategic decision leaves out the moral dilemma felt by so many newly politicized and radicalized people, who are a natural base for the growth of an anti-capitalist transformational politics. My point is not so much that I totally disagree with the analysis that Michael Albert and others put forward; I disagree with the way they are presenting it.. This is important because it makes building social movements and anti-capitalist organizations that include both those who are making a tactical decision to vote for Hillary Clinton in some states and those who absolutely refuse to vote for her, more difficult, now and after the November, 2016 elections.”
In solidarity, Peter Bohmer
Testimony by Peter Bohmer to Olympia City Council, July 12, 2016 in favor of Opportunity for Olympia Proposal!
Olympia has a chance to stand up and take a step towards the right to education for all, paid for by those who have benefited by the obscene growth of the inequality of income and wealth. Almost all of the gains in income since the supposed end of the great recession in 2009 have gone to the top 3%, approximately the percentage of households who would pay this tax.
In fall, 1987, I moved to Olympia to teach Economics and public administration at The Evergreen State College. Tuition and fees that year were $1272 for in-state students. For the coming year, 2016-2017, tuition and fees at Evergreen are $7500 a year, six times more than 1987. Tuition has risen many more times than wages. The minimum wage was $3.35/hr in 1987; in 2016 it is $9.47 an hour. The minimum wage has gone up by 180% since 1987while tuition has grown at almost three times the rate of the minimum wage. This increase in tuition is true for all of higher education. Students are being priced out of higher education. Passing this proposal will begin to reverse this growing lack of affordability.
The right to college is a necessity today, not a luxury. High school became a necessity for most jobs, 100 years ago, as college is today. Having more people being able to attend college is not only a question of fairness but will also increase their productivity and incomes which will decrease poverty and increase spending and employment here. Increasing access to higher education will also make for more informed citizens and a better Olympia. College education is a basic right today, as higher education became that in the past and was free.
The cost of this proposed tax to the top 3% of the income ladder is minimal Any household making up to $200,000 will not pay any additional taxes. For example, a household making $250,000 a year will pay a 1.5% income tax, only on their income above $200,000, or 1.5% of $50,000 = $750 a year. That is not much of a burden; much less than their gains in income over the last seven years.
I urge you to pass this modest proposal of a 1.5% tax on incomes over $200,000 to fund students going past high school. Rather than waiting for change at the federal or even state level, let us support this Opportunity for Olympia proposal, maybe with the small change of using federal income tax returns to measure income. We can and should take an important step here in Olympia for fairness and increased access to higher education. This will be leading by example, which is likely to spread to others places in Washington State and then nationally. We need this type of change at the national level but tactically, we are more likely to be successful by starting locally. Be courageous! It is urgent that you take a stand, a step towards education for all, paid for by a fairer tax system. Let us start with the Olympia City Council. Thank you!
Postscript-The Olympia City Council, taking the side of the wealthy, voted on July 12, 2016 against supporting this proposal or passing an alternative proposal that would have taxed higher income people to support students who want to go to college. Let us actively support this Opportunity for Olympia proposal and vote for it in the November 2016 election!