Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 11:36:37 EST From: Jim Esch To: Jim.Esch@lambada.oit.unc.edu Subject: SPARKS ISSUE #5 SPARKS ISSUE #5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CONTENTS Poems.................................................Stacy Tartar "Barney and Bill Juxtaposed: An Epic Rant"................Jim Esch Poems...................................................Jim Morris "Where All the Dramas Began".............................Lori Ewen "Not Just Macaroni"..................................Frank B. Ford "My Friend Clinton?: State Reform and Class Power".....Mort Allman ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SPARKS: A ZINE FOR CREATIVE PEOPLE Editors: Jim Esch and Stacy Tartar Copyright # 1994 by Jim Esch and Stacy Tartar All rights for each work contained herein revert back to the author(s) upon publication. We welcome and encourage your submissions. Snail-mail manuscripts will be considered and returned, provided you have included a self addressed stamped envelope. Send all correspondence to the address below. 232 North Kingshighway, #616 St. Louis, MO 63108-1248 PLEASE SEND ONLINE SUBMISSIONS TO Jim.Esch@launchpad.unc.edu ASCII text format preferred. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ POEMS by Stacy Tartar GUILTY Words are such fuck-ups. But they're so interesting. Guilty hangs in the back of my throat then shoots at my teeth like a firing squad. My tongue rolls back, dead. Resentment is a different kind of word. Resentment takes its time inspecting hidden teeth before it opens wide and snaps down. The feel at the end depends on whether or not you explode the final t. Forgiveness, too will do more than it says. OUR LEAVE-TAKING The heavens scream too as the earth pitches on violent waves of change. The sun, monstrously huge, swims into view before bleeding into black tidal waters. Or is it the sun? Now we cry our tears, but they melt into our faces as our faces and our bodies all melt away. The gate is burned. Time is shed. We lost. Names all melted, love and fear mere vapor, blown upon the winds. And the winds have buried us, shuffled us, like so many dunes in a shifting desert. HUMAN NATURE stoneaged rock that rises everything down spearthrowing savage raping collector of dreams slavedriving cavedweller fire dancing palace eater paradise stealer prophet making Godless and guilty machine your face glittering in a box of golden flowers frozen haunted deeply unaware mastered by the shining fixed by the image of your own two hands doublefisted daggers that leave dark scatterings of blood so high upon your brow angels wings dissolving in the sun you think you know what song the sea will sing you think you know everything ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BILL AND BARNEY JUXTAPOSED: an epic rant by Jim Esch i fuck you, you fuck me, let's all fuck ourselves let's pack it in kids, i'm tired of this shit the dancing, the sing sings why do ya need a purple dinah-shore when your presidents pitch the dirty work anyway? Barney says, listen to the will to power, the absolute control over your daily attention span, my Jurassic fist is your spotless freedom to choose uh...duh king dinosaur king bill, b.c. rex bill n barney funny house white house honey [cultural pause... oedipus was right only no one could see it dido was her own torch song end pause...] somebody fetch me an epic. Hey kids, Bill says make an epic oh america the beautiful dumb blonde of the west what's that up your dress? o say can you weed? by the lawns' early blight what so proudly we failed at the stoplight's last beaming whose broad hype and slight stars through the scurrilous tights oh the hand jobs we botched were so gallantly gleaming and the rocket's lead stare the bombs bursting in pairs gave proof to the right that our fags were still fair o thay does that fart spangled tanner still bathe oer the land of the thieves and the foam of depraved... wait o minute, Barney, Bill said EPIC as in make change your friend as in new covenant as in bring me your hired, your scores, your befuddled asses yearning to pay fees. uh-duh ok ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ POEMS by Jim Morris FLYING CONDITIONS [found poem from the Estes model rocketry safety code] the code of power with use the exhaust of the disconnected And carry them to the launch pad I pledge to you the model of my Recovery CREAM [found in a list in wallet] 1 whopper Forget Forget Large SMOKE Yes, I will be as you like And fog my face with your Smoke. JOURNAL ENTRY (10/1/80) The Wildman, Popcorn man invaded me today. The women with wiped mascara. Screaming for me reasons that are beyond myself. Why? It's only her fault. everything's everybody's own fault. Mankind is a crook. The thoughts of a man are only human malfunctions. 10 SECONDS BIGGER incense burns my other hand as I clutch your left thigh Don't move please don't I can smell the incense my body expands as my watch grows ten seconds bigger. All in good time All in good time UNTITLED Someone is swimming in the aftermath of us My shadow still smiles ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ WHERE ALL THE DRAMAS BEGAN by Lori Ewen She went out to the movies. She sat quietly in her seat as the film began and patiently waited for the previews to end and the main feature to begin. The screen flickered. Images arose, came and went, brightly shrouded actors and actresses, loud music, al so distant -- so unlike life. Yet like life, she thought. Magically as we watch a movie so does God watch our lives go by. He may predict the ending but perhaps it is still an ending by fate. Lights went on. Still she sat to watch the credits roll. Boy 1, Boy 2, even they got mention, though she didn't remember them much. Like the girls behind the sales counter in life. Not memorable, but nonetheless an integral part of any sales transaction. Just fly by night folks in life. Flashes. She got up to leave the theater. There were people around her and in front of her and behind her. Looking up she realized she was unrecognizable in the crowd. She enjoyed the anonymity. She thought she had enjoyed the film. It was entertaining. Now she had to go home. Home was where all the dramas began. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NOT JUST MACARONI by Frank B. Ford Couldn't see my house with all the satellite dishes, right? Whatayathink? Huh? Whatayathink? Huh? Whatayathink? Huh? Whatayathink? Yup yip sonabitch heyhigh! Screenbowl with five hundred little playing card screens. I watch all at once, all at once, all at once lots of times, but point anywhere, you! Click for Monster-Surrounda-Picture-Sound. Look! Chinaman talking Chinaman-talk see! Pores in his face like quarters. Big! TV dinners? Uh uh! See! I put up phone picture bigger than a man! Whatayathink? Huh? Point at phone and order. Yup yip sonabitch hey hey high! I don't know I don't know I don't know. I don't know what I want: chicken-beef-bread-icecream I don't know but send lots lots lots! Look at that! All football everybody running. Five hundred games! Run jerk run CENTURY OF EXCELLENCE. WE'RE NUMBER 1 MAKING CARS AND MAKING PROGRESS Yup yip sonabitch heyhigh! NOT JUST MACARONI PIES GREAT GRANDMOTHER MADE Bolly bolly wick wick. ACCORDING TO THE LATEST SURVEY Yup yip sonabitch heyhigh. Look out! Don't let them! WE ARE SOLVING THE TRASH CRISES WORLDWIDE hey hey hey bolly bolly wick wick. KILLING MAIMING RAPE EVERY MINUTE--DIGBY ALARMS COULD SAVE YOUR LIFE I got metal detectors I got everything. They're trying to kill you all the time. They can't get enough cops. Look! Break in every game: cops in Paris smashing students, white clubs, batons. Good! Yup yip sonabitch. Take all my money for jails take it all!I get the news from all the countries they're all trying to kill me. They all are! Yup yip sonabitch NOT JUST MACARONI white clubs. Hey highbolly bolly wick wick ACCORDING TO THE LATEST SURVEY bolly bolly wick wick, bolly bolly wick wick, bolly bolly wick wick wick wick wick wick. Baton, bat-awn bat-awnnnnnnnnnnnnn. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ MY FRIEND CLINTON? STATE REFORM AND CLASS POWER. by Mort Allman "[W]hen you see profound change and you want to preserve what is most important in your values, your family, your community, you have to find a way to make that change your friend. That is what this administration is dedicated to doing -- both in trying to change the rules of the economic game and in trying to open up a new era of time when Americans who work hard and play by the rules have a certain basic security." (Bill Clinton, October 3, 1993) "A democratic republic is the best possible political shell for capitalism, and, therefore, once capital has gained possession of this very best shell...it establishes its power so securely, so firmly, that no change of persons, institutions or parties in the bourgeois-democratic republic can shake it." (Lenin, THE STATE AND REVOLUTION) It doesn't take a policy wonk to notice the increased legislative activity in Washington this past year. Not since Reagan's first term has there been such a sense of political change. It seems as if Clinton is really trying to fulfill his promises to change the country's direction. We might be inclined to applaud such efforts. 'Good for Clinton,' we might say. 'He's trying to change the system. He's trying to bring down the deficit. He's trying to reform the health care system.' Yes, it seems as if Washington, like it or not, is dealing with one idealistic southern reformist. A forward-looking baby boomer Democrat. Hoo-ray! And yet, we still get this pervading sense that our government seems utterly intractable, unshakeable. We watch in silence as egotistic senators hold out for hand-outs from the White house. So-called "deficit reduction" strikes the skeptical eye as so much number-fudging and face-saving. We get the impression that there's an illusion of activism in Washington, not the real thing. What gives? After 12 years of divided government, we finally have a unified front. Both houses of congress are under Democratic control; at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue sits a Democratic president. Shouldn't the party be ramming through all that legislation that they just couldn't get past the veto power of republican presidents Bush and Reagan? Shouldn't we be witnessing a mud slide of progressive reform, long overdue? Why else would the electorate have turned Bush out of office, unless it was 'to see things change.'? To answer these questions we first have to understand the power base of our present administration and closely examine who it serves. Conventional political wisdom tells us that Clinton took power by means of a broad-based coalition so fed up with the inactivity and brazenness of the Bush/Reagan years that they settled on him as the most qualified candidate, or at least the lesser of three evils. Clinton's campaign correctly gauged popular unrest and successfully channeled it into votes. The public expected, even demanded that Clinton be more of an activist, reformist president. We were sick of nothing being done about the recession. We were tired of Bush's foreign policy visits while our infrastructure and economy faltered. We wanted a more responsive government. Labor, feminists, minority-blocs, progressives, radicals, gays/lesbians, liberals, "Reagan democrats", even socially-moderate suburbanites--we all tentatively climbed aboard Clinton's Magic Bus and turned him into office. In a textbook democratic state, you would expect the Clinton government to be responsive to the power-bloc that put him there. But beyond the rhetoric about things changing and 'putting people first,' how has Clinton's presidency helped our coalition? While retaining some very mild reformist tendencies (stroking the conscience of democrats who sincerely believe they are reinventing government, solving the health care crisis, getting the fiscal house in order, etc.), this "new" leadership in fact STILL acts largely in behalf of America's large property owners, the well-invested, those who own the means of production in the society, and those who have been entrusted with the management of the rest of us wage laborers. Clinton, the great salesman of reform, is really Clinton the sell-out artist. He is unable or unwilling to truly champion the needs of the body politic, aka. US. Clinton's Reformist Program Let's judge our present government based on its electoral mandate to change domestic policy. After all, that is why we elected a united government, wasn't it? To see the end of gridlock. To see that abstract term "change" made real. In the parlance of bourgeois democratic states, change equals reform. How can we characterize Bill Clinton's specific brand of reformism? In three ways: 1. Centrist Starting Point. Proposals are framed in mild, moderate terms, so that they will be palatable to conservatives and moneyed interests. Everyone must be pleased and placated. This won't hurt a bit. 2. Balancing act. Any progressive tendencies are balanced by right-leaning proposals, rhetoric and personnel. Reforms must almost be apologized for. Equivocation, backpedaling and floating trial balloons are typical political strategies. It might be apt to recall that Clinton hired Reagan-era media guru David Gergen to get his house in order last spring. Why? Ostensibly to achieve more "balance." To send the "right" signals. 3. The sell-out. Clinton is willing to sell-out his reforms to get a policy through congress or a directive through the military. Such spineless compromise is even more amazing given his initial centrist positions, and it leads to the conclusion that he has a fundamental lack of commitment to anything other than the appearance of activist government. A lot may be happening in Washington, but what does it amount to? Numerous cases can be called forth to depict these three points. One need only recall the withdrawal of the Lani Guinier nomination, the backpedaling and equivocation regarding gays in the military, the supreme court nomination of a moderate, Ruth Ginsburg, the collective might of presidents Clinton, Carter, Bush, and Ford throwing their weight behind NAFTA, the various wheeling, dealing, and fudging on the much contested budget agreement, the whittling down of the college service program, the deceptive cancellation of the Strategic Defense Initiative, the continuation of Bush policies in Somalia, the lack of resolve in Bosnia, and an inconsistent policy towards Haiti that seems to change weekly. The end result? Clinton's paper-thin reforms get picked apart and gutted till emptied of content. If they still resemble reforms, they are at best mild treatment for the symptoms of larger problems. At worst they are actually repressive laws masked as reform. We might have said the same thing of democratic presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter. When this presidency is caught in the act of reneging on promises or selling-out the interest of the people in favor the owners of capital, liberal pundits are apt to label such behavior as MEDIATION between conflicting interest groups, or government and business working in partnership (to be understood as ultimately good for the public of course). This is the optimistic, euphemistic spin foisted upon the public. Clinton will go down in the history books as the great compromiser, the great deal maker, the great coalition builder the great mediator. Of course, such interpretations are false. When Clinton 'mediates,' you should see it for what it really is. He is forced by systemic restraints (legislative pressure, market pressure, diplomatic pressure, corporate lobbyists) to curb any reform too extreme for the ruling class. For example, on August 13, 1993 in Denver Colorado, Mr. Clinton signed into law the Colorado Wilderness Act designating as he said, "a total of 612,000 acres, 19 separate areas in our national forests, as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System." Those of us who care about environmental protection might be applauding him at this point. But wait, "The Act also protects five areas totalling over 150,000 acres under management plans that are slightly less restrictive but still important." One wonders what "less restrictive" really means. But wait again, he hasn't finished yet... "At the same time as it protects these treasures, the Act releases about 115,000 acres of Forest Service lands in Colorado for other purposes balancing the goal of preserving our environment with the need to provide for a healthy economy for the people who live and work here." Whatever gains achieved in preserving wilderness are balanced or undermined by the "less restrictive" protection of 150,000 acres and the outright release of 115,000 acres for 'economic purposes.' One wonders what effect a 'healthy economy' will have on the health of the Colorado environment and the health of the Colorado wage earner. In fact, the Clinton administration, aside from being the very stuff of the ruling and managerial classes, has internalized ruling class values to the point that they often will not even propose meaningful reforms to begin with. This truly is government and business working in partnership. How can a democratically elected government act in behalf of a small minority of economic interests? Sociologist Ralph Miliband has attempted to account for such a paradox in his writings on State power vs. Class power. According to Miliband, in his essay "State Power and Class Interests" the state is held in-check by forces outside its immediate sphere--forces that make up the larger sphere of national and international capitalism, and its need for capital accumulation and fluidity. These constant needs result in organifrom capitalist interest groups like the World Bank, the IMF, multinational corporate lobbyists, the corporate controlled mass media, the stock markets, and even supra-governmental bodies like the G7, the U.N., and free trade groups. These forces combine to support 'free trade', government handouts to big business, government funding of private research and development, protection of private interests abroad, and so forth. And yet the bourgeois state has a degree of relative autonomy in relation to the ruling class, i.e. it can often act the way it wants to. It is an entity unto itself, a powerful force that pervades society. (Miliband 66) Look at the size of the federal and state bureaucracies, the impact of the federal deficit on the national economy, the pervasive presence of the military in daily life. The state has an existence of its own and interests of its own. Thse interests generally fall into two categories: self-preservation and the national interest. The impulse for self-preservation needs little explanation. Leaders will tend to pursue policies and methods that will keep them in power, sometimes even at the expense of the ruling class. The national interest is defined by the need to protect the social order and national integrity (e.g. isolationist tendencies that actually can run counter to capitalist demands); the need to finance its own existence (hence taxation policies that can disgruntle capitalist interests); and the need to respond to popular unrest by reforming and regulating government and business, something that insures a stable and peaceful labor force for capital, but which capital begrudges all the same (Miliband 69-72). Despite the occasional conflicts between business and government, what ultimately seals the bond between state power and ruling class interests is this conception of National Interest. Usually the state will identify the national interest with whatever will maximize profits for private industries. The national interest IS the interest of the ruling class. So the War in Iraq is waged in the national interest (i.e. in the interest of the oil companies). NAFTA is in the national interest. Managed competition in health care is in the national interest. Leasing wilderness land to business is in the national interest. For another example, we can cite Bob Rubin, assistant to the president for economic policy, who spoke on health care and the economy on October 6, 1993: Let me make one very brief comment myself, and my own is a very practical perspective. I remember during the transition we had a health care presentation, and afterwards I turned to Ira Magaziner. At that time he wasn't in charge of health care yet. I said, you know, it's a funny thing. Virtually every CEO that I've spoken to in recent years -- and I'd spoken to enormous numbers of them because I was in the financial service industry before I came here -- has said that escalating health care costs are one of the major problems of their company. Virtually every CEO that I had spoken to said, and as I said, I'd spoken to enormous numbers of them -- viewed the escalation of health care costs as a tremendous impediment with respect to international competitiveness and exports. And exports, as you know, are critical to economic growth -- have been in recent years and certainly will be in the years ahead So I had the feeling then, and I've had it evermore since then, that we simply have to get health care costs under control if we're going to have the kind of economic future we want to have. Secondly, there are non-quantifiable aspects of health care security and universal coverage which are of great importance economically. A healthy work force is a better work force. You have lower turnover, lower absenteeism. You can't quantify these things, but they're very important. And, finally, as Erskine Bowles will discuss, there's no question in my mind that when the small business sector focuses on health care reform and understands it, and understands how it relates to their long-term prospects, a great preponderance of small business-people will be in favor of health care reform." Mr. Rubin identifies the national interest with ruling class interests. The need for health care reform is dictated by the needs as expressed by corporate CEOs. There is no mention of the human suffering of poor people without insurance, of the populace being ravished by exploitive health care costs. No, it all boils down to profits; we need more productive workers! That's what reform is all about. The connections between state and class power lead Miliband to a model that describes their relationship as a partnership between separate but related forces. In a democratic state, the relationship is a semi-fluid one. In those aspects of the state subject to the will of the people (elections), there may well be room for representatives and executives from the left, and there may well be room for the passages of certain reforms in the context of a capitalist system, which can never be challenged. Yet to protect the existing societal structure from too much 'damage', there are forces of the state that are more conservative, more rigid, more blatantly protective of dominant class interests. They exist primarily to preserve order, which usually means protecting the rich and subjugating the lower classes by means of the military, the civil service, the police, the judiciary, and even the lawmakers themselves. These state powers almost always act in the interest of the dominant class. And they help to curb any extremes arising from the whims of the democratically elected wings of government. Such a model of the bourgeois democratic state helps us to understand the nature of the Clinton administration -- the character of its 'reforms' and the resistance to them. [1] Obviously an array of forces like this makes reform difficult. So how can any reforms be achieved? We know that part of the state's function is to maintain the capitalist order of society. At the same time, the bourgeois democratic state needs the ratification of popular support; without it, the government will be illegitimate, and disorder will ensue. Thus, various reforms become necessary from time to time to keep the lower classes at bay, to keep up our shaky confidence in the system; this is the ulterior motive of the reformist program, mere bones to busy the dogs. Such reformism, because it is watered-down, and because it is not sweeping, will ultimately fail to solve the very problems it sets out to fix. Let's examine a contested reform that finally made it into law, namely the Family Leave Act. The family leave bill was resisted by conservative elements who thought it would be bad business to let workers take emergency time off without the threat of losing their job. The state finally was able to legislate such a bill, albeit in a watered-down form compared to other industrialized countries. But even the liberal, reformist elements will justify their support in capitalist terms. One argument in favor of the reform was that a family leave bill would be good for business in the long run by insuring satisfied and thus more productive workers. And productivity is definitely in the interest of the ruling class. But assuming that such a reform as family leave might be perceived by right-wing ideologues as "extreme" or "contrary to ruling class interest," how does the state get away with this under the vigilant gaze of the business owners, the corporate execs, and mega-stock holders? They get away with it because they are not controlled by the ruling class per se. The state does function in part through a measure of democratic participation and popular support. As Miliband puts it, the state is an institution that acts in BEHALF of the ruling class more often than not, but it does not act at the BEHEST of the ruling class. The government is more of a guardian of ruling class interests and identifies its own interests with the ruling class. This is very different from the assertion that the government is a lackey for the ruling class. The distinction is important because it makes room for activist struggle within the system while realizing the limitations of that struggle. Despite the stated intentions, beliefs and goals of the present leadership, close examination of Clinton's hollow reforms will demonstrate their true function--keeping the popular masses subservient to the demands of global capitalism by way of minor adjustments to the system intended to diffuse popular unrest. What matters are not intentions of our leaders, but the real effects of their policies and laws. When it comes to health reform, Clinton will not even propose a single payer system with the government as sole insurer. That would endanger the insurance companies. And the insurance companies are our friends. It is in the national interest to have health insurance companies. Single payer systems are too extreme. No, it is better to have a muddled, messy combination of private insurance and public insurance, probably accompanied by regressive taxation and leaky efforts at cost control. The best we can hope for from Clinton's plan would be some minimum safety net to cover the presently uninsured. When it comes to NAFTA, Clinton negotiates feeble, unenforceable side agreements with Mexico in order to throw his weight behind a 'free-trade' agreement potentially disastrous for American labor, not to mention the environment or the Mexican worker. And yet in the same breath the government touts a high-growth, high wage economy. What's good for business will be good for you. When it comes to allowing gays in the military, Clinton caves-in to the generals and the Sam Nunns, and settles on a blatantly hypocritical policy of don't ask-don't tell-don't pursue. Why? Because the military essentially refused his original "extremist" position, which dared to acknowledge that homosexuals might want to serve in the armed forces and should have the right to do so. When it comes to the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars), Clinton cancels the program, gives it a new name, and increases the funding. Are these by any stretch of imagination great reforms? If we put ourselves as activists in the position of defending such two-faced policy wavering, such deception and ruinous doctrines, we place our own political integrity on the line. However, this is not to say we should necessarily oppose Clinton's reforms on principle. Each must be taken and evaluated on its own merits. If any improvement can be made in working conditions, privacy rights, environmental protection, class, race, and gender discrimination, we should lend our support. But let us dispel any illusions. This president is more of an enemy than friend. He will not change the rules of the game. Does Clinton Deserve Our Support? It should by now be clear that we cannot continue to allow the democrats to sponge left-wing support after selling-out the very principles we value again and again and again. A man like Clinton in the White House is not going to lastingly effect the unjust system underpinning the state. Such radical change is not in his nature. Don't be disappointed if he doesn't advocate it. If we only wage the struggle at the level of state power, we will fail more often than not, and our success will be hollow. But with respect to pending legislation and executive policy, we can and should remain active. Insist on the strongest reforms that can be possibly pried out of the system as we know it. Articulate strong positions and make them heard. As long as we have such a government in place, we need to press it to the wall, make it pay attention. We must always agitate against those who offer only band-aid solutions to systemic problems. But more importantly, we must also wage a broader struggle at the CLASS level. Everyday, the ruling class is waging war against you. You are being pressured to work longer for less pay, with a less secure future. Your unions are being gouged. Your families treated without respect. Your cities are imploding. Your savings are eroding. Your television hammers you with ruling class ideology day after day. It's time to draw our own line in the sand. Resist the state and the ruling class in everyday life. Challenge the media, agitate representatives and councilmen, act locally, and protest injustice. We must contribute in our daily lives to the raising of class consciousness. We must support with our dollars activist causes and alternative economic concerns. We must reach out to the disenfranchised and disgruntled. We must collectively resist wage exploitation. We cannot rely on the government as we know it to solve our problems for us; the structure and organs of government must be changed. Prescription For Radical Opposition If we could actually elect a true leftist government in America (and electoral mandate is probably our best hope for now, remote as that possibility seems), how might it actually try to wrest control of the state from the hands of the ruling class? According to Ralph Miliband, a new government must first make radical personnel changes in state institutions. We could contemplate a thorough house cleaning of the military and every cabinet division. This would neutralize much of the conservatism of the bureaucracy. (We might note here that Clinton was notoriously tardy at filling government posts with his own people, a serious but unsurprising political blunder, especially for an establishment politician.) At the same time, the government would need not merely to propose mild reformist laws, but direct its energy at smashing and replacing the institutions of government, aiming to democratize the state further -- to place the decision making power more in the hands of the people. [2] And further, the government would need to encourage the creation and development of political institutions parallel to state institutions, e.g. worker's committees, civic oversight committees, maybe even popular militias--in short, to create organs of class power distinguishable from state power (Miliband 104-106). The aim of such a government would be the radical transformation of state institutions, turning power into the hands of the people by means of real democratic organs. It is in this sense that a democratically elected government could smash the state. But without the help of organized, class-based institutions, such a government would be smashed itself by the forces of the ruling class. Such thoughts must unfortunately remain sketchy; it takes collective action to realize their full dimensions. BIBLIOGRAPHY Miliband, Ralph. Class Power & State Power: Political Essays. London: Verso, 1983. NOTES [1] Miliband also analyzes how the ruling class can exert pressure on the state to demand its way in the sphere of public policy. The first method is an unfocused but all out generalized struggle of every disgruntled member of the ruling class in daily life. It includes middle class 'housewives' demonstrating...;factory owners sabotaging production; merchants hoarding stocks; newspaper proprietors and their subordinates engaging in ceaseless campaigns against the government; landlords impeding land reform;...anything that influential, well-off, educated (or not so well-educated) people can do to impede a hated government....Nothing very dramatic is required; just an individual rejection in one's daily life and activity of the regime's legitimacy, which turns by itself into a vast collective enterprise in the production of disruption ( Miliband 86) The second method is what Miliband calls "external conservative intervention." This is outside influence by other countries, multinational corporations with global interests, the IMF, the World Bank, etc. The third method is the struggle waged by organized conservative political parties. Primarily in the United States, the Republican party most often represents the ruling class up and down the line. These political parties articulate the general unease expressed by the class in daily life and turn it into political willpower. The fourth method is extreme right-wing groups who can be allied with in cases of extreme emergencies when the going gets tough. We might include fascist groups, the KKK, and the religious right. The fifth method is the conservatism inherent in the civil service and judicial branches of government. They will generally resist extreme reform. And last but not least, there is always the military. The military can easily be called to arms to protect ruling class interest or to resist the radical left. All of these pressures can and will be brought to bear to resist any effort of the state to act "out of line." [2] Technological developments (computers, telecommunications) bring massive potential to put decision making power in the hands of the people. We can be sure that capital interests are and will continue to resist such potential. Thus we might expect a continuation of the present trend, namely, that the masses are given access to mass communication tools primarily as a means of "entertainment" or commerce (e.g. interactive entertainment, more TV channels, easier access to movies, games, bread, and circuses) and not as a means of empowerment. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SPARKS Jim.Esch@launchpad.unc.edu