Thursday, June 20, 2019

U.S. Role in Hong Kong Protests- IAC

U.S. Role in Hong Kong Protests

Tuesday, June 18, 2019

Anarchists Can Kiss My Ass

「Cartoon of stupid anarchists」的圖片搜尋結果
     Two "anarchist" sites had fools remind me they were such when I defended China against posts they had glorifying the violent demonstrations. Violent demonstrations against any state, impertialist or revolutionary, is not anarchistic; it is chaotic. I will never go against a state like China that was founded in socialist revolutionary ideals, no matter how they have changed from them under pressure from capitalist subterfuge. Unless it becomes like a Russia that folded and couldn't defend its USSR, my support for China will go on. China continues to respect its revolutionary fathers and support socialist nations around the world, indeed, rejects the U.S. policy in the Middle World and elsewhere.    

     One self-proclaimed anarchist threatened to ban me from their Facebook page and told me to follow the RNC or DNC instead. The Green Mountain John Brown Gun Club-Vermont is full of them. “Up until now," I wrote, "I thought I was following the right page. I am a Wobbly and see an end of workers' struggles with anarcho-syndicalism. I am not leaving my belief of ramping up workers unions to become ubiquitous into anarchism, but there is a road map to that place. If you throw me off, it is you that belongs in the RNC or DNC. There are steps on the road to the future.” 

     Some netizen commented, referring to my responses to the Vermont guru: “From another conversation it seems that you would consider putting out a tear gas grenade with water to be street violence causing chaos. To have respect [for] your position I would need to see you condemning the violence of the police and the state, I would need to see you RECOGNIZING the violence of the state,” 

     "I pick and choose the states I want to blame. As in any demonstration, some police take the law into their own hands, and there are agent provocateurs pushing for showdowns; I experienced this often in the U.S. In Brazil, I blame the govt. and am on the people's side, in most places the people rise up, they are justified, but not this time; not in Hong Kong. The interference from imperialist wants to keep Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan despite their being parts of China stolen by colonial U.S. and European thieves. The length of time the colonies are influenced by western style ruling class tactics means China must play the transition carefully. Any opportunity to divide China from from colonies will be seized upon. In this case, the extradition law is correct; there is a loophole where criminals and mudslingers can escape the law there, and China has the responsibility to close that loophole. The violence of a state against workers’ rights I condemn. This, in Hong Kong, was not that case." 

     It seemed we didn't know what each other was saying.

    She replied: "The main point of posting that video was to show a decent way to extinguish a tear gas grenade. So far i have only gotten hit with pepper spray - not by police but nazis (sic.). There were some wierd (sic.) smoke bombs being thrown. People were just tossing them back. Putting them out with water is a better, more responsible thing to do. (Speaking of Charlottesville)"

    Was she backing off, attacking, or not knowing what she was talking about? I gave her the benefit of the doubt. 

     After all this propaganda with anarchists on the side of the bourgeois ex-colonists, I realized China made a mistake with "one country two systems" in Hong Kong and Macao. They shouldn't make the same mistake in Taiwan. I am not worried that China will take away the freedoms of a bourgeois capitalist former colony. There is freedom in China that these colonies don't have; the freedom from surreptitious corporate and religious domination of a government, the freedom from the charade of two-party ruling class dominance making laws to enrich themselves and protect the interests of lobbying groups. 

     The mealy mouthed anarchist guru from Vermont can't understand the step by step march towards self-management in the context of a government, even a government with defenses against those that would never allow even minor socialist public services. The only freedom he has is to shoot off his mouth at any authoritarianism without taking sides. I take sides. When two million people swarm into Washington, I will be on their side. I will wear a yellow vest in France, but I will support Cuban, Venezuelan, and Bolivian governments from counter-revolutionaries and U.S, subversion. I will be on China's side in any battle against imperialist division.

     “Anarchists Can Kiss My Ass” is my taIWWan blog piece culminating two days of dispute with some of them over the anti-extradition demonstrations in Hong Kong. My only cohorts on Facebook are Mao Zedong Thought Discussion Group communists, Trotskyists from Workers World, and, of course, The People’s Daily.

    On the local level, in work places and, communities, I defend collective decision making and unionizing but in global power, I support China over the U.S., India, Australia, France, U.K., and other states giving free reign to religion and corporation and plunder of the earth. Anarchists have never been my friends, from back in the NYC GMB, but the very same anarchist thinkers were so stuck in the mud of thought that they couldn’t even do themselves well, forget about anybody else. Better an activist than an anarchist, a doer than a thinker.

     Enough of this! Their useless  anti-authoritarian crap. I left the group.  They can't decide which side one is on in this battle against imperialism, as long as it's against a nation, but by sitting on the fence against every government, one is bound to get a picket up one's ass. Those anarchist dreamers can kiss my ass.

Thursday, June 13, 2019

Hong Kong Protesters, Acting like Orwell's Molly


Chan Tung-kai in HK police custody (left), Chan and Poon (right) (HK police photo/ Facebook photo)
 Hong Kong, former British colony, now a part of China, is concerned about letting criminals from Taiwan fall through the cracks with no chance to prosecute and no place to extradite because Taiwan has no international status. The western media, meanwhile, doesn't want to lose its 'Trojan Horse' in HK to destabilize China, as Taiwan is used. Like Molly, the pampered horse in Animal Farm by George Orwell, she is allowed to wear ribbons to appease her; so has China let Hong Kong flaunt its bourgeois capitalism, to ease the transition back to the motherland and wean it from its colonial history. 
Last year, there was a murder case. A Hong Kong couple went to Taiwan where the boyfriend allegedly murdered the girlfriend and flew back to Hong Kong. Hong Kong will not extradite him back to Taiwan because Taiwan is part of China under international law. Hong Kong government has this major loophole; the suspected murderer is not able to face any charges and won’t face justice, but the separatists in Hong Kong don’t seem to mind. If this murderer can get away with it, other criminals in Hong Kong can too, and do on a regular basis, because China allowed it to appease Hong Kong for the sake of reunification in 1997.


Taiwan, meanwhile, is in deeper shit, without status, living like an orphan at the whim of the U.S. via Chiang Kai-shek’s KMT, handed the torch after Japan was defeated in WW II. The Taiwanese have a history of being marginalized by outsiders. We often hear of criminals flying off the island before they can be prosecuted. If Taiwan was part of China, this wouldn’t happen. There’s a schmuck in Pakistan that murdered his wife and in-laws and got away with it. There’s a rapist in Israel that got away with it, too, and a number of creeps thumbing their noses at Taiwan justice from the Japanese shores. There are dozens of drug dealers and schemers out of Taiwan’s reach. But if the Taiwanese criminals overseas are caught, they are sent back to China, officially the representative of Taiwan in the U.N. world body. But they’re safe in Hong Kong, thanks to that loophole.
It is okay to slander China in Chinese from Hong Kong, from Taiwan, from Singapore, in the name of freedom of speech; the same freedom of speech that U.S. and its lackeys in Taiwan have used to misinform and spread false news and fascism? What KMT demigods are worshiped for in Taiwan as a last hope for reunification? China can’t resist using it, either.  
Does Hong Kong still perpetuate the myth that there is more freedom of speech in the west?  The right to scream “fire” in a crowded theater? The right to say there is no global warming?
 There is no free speech anymore, anywhere, as U.S. dumbed-down mindsets spread like a virus around the world and criminals take refuge in the White House. In the name of the People’s Republic, China cannot let Chinese criminals and ‘freedom fighters’ take refuge in Hong Kong and Taiwan.  
Hong Kong: "The Pearl of Asia", acting like Orwell's Molly, the beautiful, vain, and spoiled white mare that drives Mr. Jones's carriage. Mollie wears beautiful ribbons and is regularly given sugar treats by Mr. Jones. After the revolution, she does not like the work on the farm or the hardships she faces there. Mollie; the bourgeoisie that did not participate in the rebellion instead using their prestige and to argue against communism. Mollie, the first of the beasts of Animal Farm to leave and desert the cause of animal supremacy.In a Chinese revolution that has gotten too far away from its mission. She might never be reformed, left too long  to re-educate.  
        Copyright © 2019 by David Barry Temple. All rights reserved.

Democracy Now: Historic Hong Kong Protests Against New Extradition Law

Logo for dark background

Authorities in Hong Kong have shut down government offices and postponed debate in the Legislative Council, one day after riot police fired tear gas, rubber bullets and pepper spray at tens of thousands of demonstrators who took to the streets to protest a bill that would allow the extradition of Hong Kong residents to mainland China. On Wednesday, demonstrators attempted to storm the Legislative Council Building, where lawmakers are debating the extradition bill. Human Rights Watch criticized Hong Kong authorities for using what it described as “excessive force” to suppress peaceful demonstrations. Protesters described police using indiscriminate force. We speak with Mary Hui, a Hong Kong-based writer and reporter for the news outlet Quartz. She has reported on the extradition bill and has been covering the protests.
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: We begin today’s show in Hong Kong, where authorities have shut down government offices and postponed debate in the Legislative Council, one day after riot police fired tear gas, rubber bullets and pepper spray at tens of thousands of demonstrators who took to the streets to protest a bill that would allow the extradition of Hong Kong residents to mainland China. On Wednesday, demonstrators attempted to storm the Legislative Council Building, where lawmakers are debating the extradition bill. Human Rights Watch criticized Hong Kong authorities for using what it described as “excessive force” to suppress peaceful demonstrations. Protesters described the police using indiscriminate force.
KATY LAM: The Hong Kong police actually fired tear gas towards the crowd, while no people are showing any symptoms of attacking. So, they’re just doing it. We think that they are trying to oppress our rights of expressing our opinion, and actually oppressing the freedom.
AMY GOODMAN: This came days after as many as a million protesters marched in Hong Kong against the extradition bill Sunday. The protests are some of the largest Hong Kong has seen since before Britain’s handover of Hong Kong in 1997. Since then, Hong Kong has operated under a different legal and political system as mainland China, a setup known as “one country, two systems.” Critics of the extradition bill say it would infringe on Hong Kong’s independence and the legal and human rights of Hong Kong residents, as well as the people visiting Hong Kong.
We go now to Hong Kong, where we’re joined by Mary Hui. She’s a Hong-Kong based writer, reporter for the news outlet Quartz. She has reported on the extradition bill and has been covering the mass protests.
Welcome to Democracy Now!, Mary. Can you start off by talking about the significance of this bill that was passed? Just explain it.
MARY HUI: Sure, and thank you for having me, Amy.
The significance of this bill, really, is that it will threaten Hong Kong’s prized judicial and legal independence. It is as Chris Patten, the former governor, has said: There needs to be a firewall between Hong Kong’s legal system and China’s. And with this bill, should it be passed, that firewall will be done away with. And it means that it is—it will mean the death of “one country, two systems,” because there will no longer be this firewall, and people will be—there is the possibility that people will be able to be extradited to China to face charges, where they face an uncertain fate as to whether they will face a fair trial or even have their human rights protected.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Mary Hui, could you outline what the key features of this proposed amendment is—are?
MARY HUI: Sure. So, as the law currently stands, Hong Kong has signed extradition treaties with 20 other jurisdictions, the U.S. being one of them. And what this law is trying to do is to work around that. And under the current law, the People’s Republic of China is actually explicitly ruled out as a place that people can be extradited to, and so there is no extradition at all to China under the current law.
And last year, there was a murder case. A young Hong Kong couple traveled to Taiwan. The boyfriend was accused of murdering the girlfriend and fled back to Hong Kong. And because China sees Taiwan as part of the People’s Republic of China, there is no extradition between Hong Kong and Taiwan. And so, the Hong Kong government has then come around and said, well, there is this major loophole in that this suspected murderer is not able to face any charges and won’t face justice.
And so they took this opportunity to say, “We have to reform and amend this bill to make sure that this person can—this suspected murderer can face charges and be brought to justice. And how do we do this? We plug this loophole”—in the language of the government—”by doing away with the restriction of the People’s Republic of China and saying that there can be one-off extradition agreements between Hong Kong and China.”
AMY GOODMAN: I want to read a recent tweet from the exiled Chinese writer Ma Jian, wrote, on Twitter, said, “At the Hong Kong literary festival in November, a friend accompanied me at all times, for fear I’d be secretly kidnapped and smuggled to China. If the extradition law passes, any critic of Xi’s regime could be legally, openly abducted. It would be the end of freedom in Hong Kong,” Ma Jian said. Your response, Mary Hui?
MARY HUI: I think that is a very, very reasonable fear. And people are afraid of that, not just writers of Chinese descent, but also foreigners. Hong Kong is a financial hub, an international media hub. There are lots of human rights advocacy groups here. And for them, if it means doing—if doing their work means angering China, then they will very likely be accused of committing a certain crime, and China will be able to find a way to have them extradited to face charges in China, in mainland China. And so, what this means is that China will be able to use this bill as retaliation against opponents, whether it’s Hong Kong Chinese or foreigners who are traveling to or based in Hong Kong.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Mary, could you explain who’s behind this proposed amendment? And why is it being proposed now?
MARY HUI: Yes. So, really, who’s behind it is the Hong Kong government, but who’s behind the Hong Kong government is the Beijing government. The Hong Kong government has insisted that this is their own initiative. Chief Executive Carrie Lam has repeatedly said that, that this is her making, the Hong Kong government’s making, there is no instruction from the Chinese government, though the top official based in Hong Kong, the top Chinese official, has made the unusual move of trying to persuade Hong Kong politicians to back the extradition bill. So, as to whether China really isn’t behind this bill is uncertain, and I’m doubtful of that.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Could you describe, Mary, the kinds of the protests that are taking place and the violent crackdown by the police in Hong Kong against the protesters?
MARY HUI: Mm-hmm. So, the protesters started gathering outside the central government offices on Tuesday night, local time here. And overnight, their numbers grew. And so, by the time I arrived at the protest scene, at about 9 a.m. during rush-hour traffic, tens of thousands of people had gathered and taken over just vast swaths of this highway outside of the central government offices.
And so, from the looks of it, it was calm, quiet for much of the morning. I was there until about 2 p.m. And really all I saw were protesters being very well organized. They had set up supply stations. They were collecting umbrellas to repel against pepper spray and tear gas that they were expecting to be fired at them. They were collecting water and medical supplies. They were erecting barriers around the protest site. They were handing out masks to passersby. People were insisting that I take their masks, as a journalist, because they expected tear gas to be fired. And so, people were—there was this sense of camaraderie. There wasn’t too much really going on at that point. At points, there was a sense of tension as police and the protesters just stood 10 meters away from each other, the frontline of the protesters, police in riot gear. But really not much happened.
And it was not until around 3:30, local time here, that clashes broke out. I should say that by that time I had actually left the protest site. I had gone back to the newsroom for the rest of the day, so I did not personally see the clashes. But from what I’ve seen online, from videos that I’ve been watching, it really does not seem like protesters were the ones starting any kind of confrontation with the police. The police were trying to disperse them and ended up aggravating the crowd.
AMY GOODMAN: According to The New York Times, it’s estimated one in seven Hong Kong residents took part in Sunday’s protests. And in The New York Times on Monday, Hong Kong’s commissioner to the United States, Eddie Mak, outlined his government’s position, writing, “The Hong Kong government’s proposed amendments to extradition ilaws seek to enable us to effectively combat serious crimes by sealing the legal vacuum in our existing mechanism for surrendering fugitive offenders. They do not pinpoint any particular jurisdiction, nor do they target common citizens or affect the legal rights and freedoms of individuals.” If you could respond to that and the fact that the—what the Chinese authorities have done in the past, for example, the abducting of Hong Kong residents, five Hong Kong booksellers in 2015?
MARY HUI: Yes. There really is no trust of the Chinese government. With the protesters I’ve spoken to, that’s the one thing, really, that they have all mentioned, when I asked them, “What about the Hong Kong government’s amendments and assurances that your freedoms won’t be trampled upon?” And time and time again, the protesters tell me, “We don’t trust the Chinese Communist Party, the Chinese government. It’s all a bunch of lies.” And so, any assurance that the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly, as they exist in Hong Kong now, will not be trampled upon, I don’t think those assurances hold any water.
AMY GOODMAN: And those booksellers?
MARY HUI: And the booksellers, of course, there is that precedent of Chinese government coming in and essentially launching this global campaign, not just in Hong Kong, but elsewhere, of state-sponsored kidnapping. And so, with the booksellers, I think people have looked at that and seen how the Chinese government will behave without an extradition bill legalizing and legitimizing their behavior. And so, with the bill, I think what we’ll see is just this legitimizing of state-sponsored kidnapping, as some people have called it.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Mary, before we conclude, what do you expect to happen next? Will this amendment pass? And do you expect the protests to continue?
MARY HUI: Mm-hmm. So, the debate over the bill in the Legislature has been postponed until next week. It’s unsure whether protesters will come out again, though my gut feeling is that if the debate is to continue and a vote is taken—and if a vote is taken, it will very likely pass, given that the Legislature is stacked with pro-Beijing, pro-China parties and politicians. Should it pass, I’m sure the anger will boil over, the popular anger will boil over, and protesters will be out again to stand for their freedoms.
AMY GOODMAN: Mary Hui, I want to thank you for being with us, Hong-Kong based writer and reporter for the news outlet Quartz, reported on the extradition bill, has been covering the protests. We’ll continue, of course, to cover all.
        Copyright © 2019 by David Barry Temple. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, June 12, 2019

Bob Dylan and the Communist Party

「Pete Seeger with Bob Dylan」的圖片搜尋結果


Socialism Today           Socialist Party magazine

Socialism Today 144 - December/January 2010/11

We live in a political world
Bob Dylan and the Communist Party

This autumn saw the death of Irwin Silber who, as a member of the American Young Communist League and editor of the US folk-music magazine Sing Out! in the 1960s, arguably began the campaign against Bob Dylan for allegedly ‘betraying’ the radical movements of that decade. FRANK RILEY, a former Labour deputy leader of West Lancashire council, looks at the relationship between Dylan and the Communist Party.

SELDOM HAS A popular artist received such venomous attacks and opprobrium than Bob Dylan on his appearance at Newport Folk Festival in May 1965 and after when he ‘went electric’. Indeed, this continued for years, and even has echoes today. Dylan’s performance at Newport had tremendous repercussions, not only in the folk music world, but throughout popular music based on American traditions, especially rock music.

Dylan brought the use of meaningful lyrics back into the popular song. More than that, he sparked poetic lyrics and was, for good or ill, the progenitor of a myriad of singer-songwriters. Even the Beatles said that they got away from teeny-bop words under the influence of Dylan. But the role of the ‘Communist’ Party (CP) – in the US and, later, Britain – in, first, building him up, and then trying to knock him down, has not been explained adequately. The Communist parties were allied to the bureaucratic regime in the Soviet Union, supported the totalitarian state as genuine socialism and, invariably, justified every twist and turn of Soviet policy.

When Dylan turned up on stage in Newport with an electric rock band and burst into the song Maggie’s Farm, a rewrite of an old folk song, Penny’s Farm, there was uproar among the folk traditionalists. Pete Seeger, the then (and now) veteran ‘leader’ of the American folk scene, who had suffered blacklisting during the McCarthy era, went apoplectic. There are many legends told about that day: such as, that Seeger tried to cut the electric cable with an axe, and that his and Dylan’s manager, Albert Grossman, wrestled in the mud.

Seeger did admit to saying: "If I had an axe I’d cut the cable", and there were rows going on between the organisers and ‘Dylan’s people’ behind the scenes. What is certain is that Dylan was booed by a substantial part of the crowd. Order had to be restored and, eventually, Dylan came back on stage with an acoustic guitar and sang some of his more ‘acceptable’ songs.

To what extent the Newport outburst was organised heckling no one really knows, although there certainly seemed to be organisation behind the booing that he received at all his concerts on his ensuing world tour. His ‘going electric’, however, should not have come as a great surprise. Dylan’s album, Bringing It All Back Home, acoustic on one side, electric on the other, and which included Maggie’s Farm, had been on sale for months.

In fact, Dylan had started out playing rock and roll when at school, and had even played piano at a couple of gigs with Bobby Vee, very much a bubblegum pop star. In his school yearbook, where students write down what they intend to do next, even though he was going to Minnesota University, he wrote: "Gone to join Little Richard". If anything, therefore, his ‘treachery’ was merely a return to type. And he was to switch codes many times during his long career, often delighting, bemusing and irritating fans, colleagues and critics in equal measure.

The young Robert Allen Zimmerman who became Bob Dylan, from Hibbing, a Minnesota mining town, rapidly rose to fame in 1962-63 on the back of a couple of ‘protest’ songs he had written in the folk tradition, notably Blowin’ in the Wind and The Times they are A-Changin’. Since then, Dylan has written and performed all forms of American popular songs from diverse traditions – folk, rock, blues, country, gospel, even jazz – becoming, probably, the most influential songwriter and performer in the post-war era. Although he was originally held up as some sort of political Messiah, and carefully groomed by the American CP, against his wishes and knowledge, he suddenly became a ‘traitor’ for moving on.

A new Woody Guthrie?
DYLAN HAD ARRIVED in New York in 1961 aged 19, a musical devotee of folk singer Woody Guthrie, whom he visited before he died in a New Jersey hospital. Guthrie was a close associate of the CP. His colleagues, led by Pete Seeger, were reviving what they regarded as ‘the people’s’ songs as part of their political activity. Although Guthrie probably never formally joined the CP, he accepted the party line just as much as his card-carrying colleagues. He had for a time a column in the CP newspaper, People’s Daily World. He also wrote and sang peace songs between 1939-41, during the time of the Stalin-Hitler pact, when the Communist parties in Britain and the US opposed the war.

Indeed, according to Seeger, it was Guthrie who first changed the line when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. Seeger said: "Woody had a smile on his face. He said: ‘Well I guess we won’t be singin’ any more peace songs’. I said: ‘What? You mean we’re gonna support Churchill?’ He said: ‘Yup, Churchill’s flip-flopped. We got to flip-flop’. He was right". (Interview with Phil Sutcliffe, Mojo issue 193, December 2009) It is interesting that they did not say that it was Stalin, but Churchill, who had been forced to flip-flop!

Guthrie had become famous in the US mostly through his song This Land is Your Land, which he conceived as a radical alternative ‘anthem’ to Irving Berlin’s God Bless America. However, the feeling of the song owes more to the American Dream than a demand for public ownership of the land. He was co-opted by Roosevelt government agencies to promote the New Deal, being paid to sing in depressed towns and villages about to be destroyed to make way for hydro-electric schemes, including the Grand Coulee Dam, honoured in his song of that name.

Dylan gravitated to the working class-cum-bohemian Greenwich Village, New York. A precocious talent, he was nurtured by the much older artists around Seeger and became romantically involved with Suze Rotolo, a 19-year-old artist who worked in the civil rights movement. (She was on the cover of his second album, Freewheelin’.) Rotolo was what she calls a ‘red diaper baby’, her parents having been working-class CP activists. She had grown up in this milieu.

CP members, Seeger and Irwin Silber, publisher of Sing Out! a magazine that put out new ‘topical’ songs, were constantly in touch with Rotolo, making sure she kept their protégée onside, although it seems that she was not wholly aware of what they were up to. As far as she was concerned she was just helping Bobby. They were hoping Dylan would become the new Woody Guthrie and help spread their version of socialism while becoming the big star of the folk world.

Dylan openly admits that he ran his political songs past Rotolo before release. "She’ll tell you how many nights I stayed up and wrote songs and showed them to her and asked her ‘Is this right?’. Because I knew her father and mother were associated with unions and she was into this equality-freedom thing long before I was. I checked the songs out with her". (Robert Shelton, No Direction Home: The Life and Music of Bob Dylan) He later said that he did not know that they were communists, and would not have cared even if he had. Dave von Ronk, folk singer and self-styled ‘Trotskyist mayor of McDougall Street’ (Greenwich Village), also befriended Dylan, and soon discovered he was apolitical.

A ‘musical expeditionary’
THIS DOES NOT mean that Dylan was not sincere in his civil rights songs and actions. His love of music with African-American roots, and his Jewish upbringing, made him a natural anti-racist. Black artists also had a great rapport with Dylan – he was never regarded as a white liberal salving his conscience. American black artists, from gospel singers, the Staples family, through Stevie Wonder to Jimi Hendrix, recorded Dylan songs. Bobby Seale dedicates a chapter of his book, Seize the Time, to a discussion with Huey P Newton, leader of the Black Panthers, of the Dylan song Ballad of a Thin Man. Ironically, while the CP was attacking this song and others, Columbia records almost did not release it on the grounds that it was ‘communistic’!

Harry Belafonte, a black singer who had been successful in the mainstream, dedicated much of his time and money promoting new black artists. Nevertheless, he gave Dylan his first recording experience: playing harmonica on the Belafonte album Midnight Special. Dylan still occasionally reverts to political comment in his songs. As recently as 2006, Workingman’s Blues #2 contains the lines: "The buyin’ power of the proletariat’s gone down/Money’s gettin’ shallow and weak".

Dylan was greatly underestimated by those who sought to exploit him, including the CP. Far from being the country hick from Hibbing, Dylan was a ruthless user of everyone who could further his career. His fellow students and musicians at St Paul’s and Minneapolis had discovered this. He soaked up everything that could be used later, nicknamed the ‘sponge’ for his merciless theft of anything he could use musically: ideas, songs and arrangements. He still attempts to justify this by saying he was a "musical expeditionary".

What the folkies around Seeger really objected to most in 1965 was not the switch to electric instruments but Dylan’s refusal to write any more "finger-pointin’" (as Dylan called protest) songs. They accused him of being ‘introspective’ and, therefore, it was implied, reactionary. This was an echo, in fact, of the sterile ‘socialist realism’ and ‘proletarian culture’ espoused by Stalinism and which manifested itself in the folkies’ insistence on musical ‘purity’.

Britain’s folk scene
IN BRITAIN, A similar development had occurred in the folk music world. In 1951, the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) published a pamphlet, The American Threat to British Culture. The perceived threat to ‘British’ music was taken up in earnest by party members Bert Lloyd (well known as folklorist A L Lloyd) and folk singer Ewan MacColl (real name Jimmy Miller), writer of the popular song Dirty Old Town, about his home town of Salford.

MacColl had started out in radical drama (his first wife was Joan Littlewood). After meeting American folklorist and CP member Alan Lomax, whose secretary happened to be Carla Rotolo, sister of Suze, he switched his attention to folk music. MacColl and Lloyd set out, successfully, to launch a folk revival in Britain. There was much cross-fertilisation between Britain and the US. Indeed, there is some evidence that Pete Seeger, whose folk singer sister Peggy later became MacColl’s partner, modelled his folk revival in the US on the work of Lloyd and MacColl.

This was also the year that produced the CPGB programme, The British Road to Socialism, a completely reformist affirmation of the Stalinist theory of ‘socialism in one country’. MacColl’s theories on music flowed directly from this. A debate about ‘purity’ and ‘workers’ songs’ raged in the British folk world, with MacColl being a leading protagonist. He eventually reached the absurd position that if a singer was from England the song had to be English; if American, the song had to be American, and so on. There were also detailed definitions of ‘traditional’, ‘commercial’, ‘ethnic’, ‘amateur’, etc. This was adopted as policy in those folk clubs (a majority) where MacColl and his supporters held sway.

Enter Bob Dylan into this minefield. In 1962, Dylan came to Britain. After some difficulty getting into the Singer’s Club, based in the Pindar of Wakefield pub in London, he was allowed to sing three songs, two of them his own. Contemporary accounts say that MacColl and Peggy Seeger, who ran the club, were hostile. As Dylan was little-known, one interpretation could be that Alan Lomax had talked to them about him. Dylan did not get on well with Carla Rotolo – a relationship immortalised in Dylan’s Ballad in Plain D: "For her parasite sister I had no respect" – so this may explain it. Or it may be that they did not regard his self-written songs ‘valid’ folk. Later, when Dylan was pronounced anathema by the CP, MacColl went one step further and announced that all Dylan’s previous work in the folk idiom had not been true folk music.

Civil rights campaigning
DYLAN ONLY RARELY got involved in public political action. He went to the southern states of the US with Pete Seeger to support the black voter registration campaign. He also sang, with Joan Baez, next to Martin Luther King on the platform on the March on Washington – the occasion of the ‘I have a dream’ speech. (Baez’s political activity stemmed from a Quaker peace movement background: her father was an eminent physicist who refused to work on weapon-related projects and her hardcore traditional folk songs came from her Scottish-American mother.)

When he was with Seeger in the south, Dylan sang a new song, Only a Pawn in Their Game, about the recent murder of civil rights leader, Medgar Evers. Everyone knew that redneck Ku Klux Klan member, Byron De La Beckwith, did it. But it took 30 years (1994) to find a Mississippi jury prepared to convict him. In the song, Dylan lays the blame firmly on capitalism, pointing out that the poor whites are used to split the working class as pawns in the ruling class’s game. The line: "The poor white man’s used in the hands of them all like a tool", sums up the message of the song.

Seeger says he found this an "interesting new slant" on the issue. (No Direction Home, film documentary by Martin Scorsese, 2005). This exposes the CP’s liberal position: seeing racism simply as a black-and-white issue. Dylan’s words, on the other hand, reflect a certain class consciousness.

The ‘Judas’ protest
ONE MONTH AFTER the Newport debacle, on 28 August 1965, Dylan played Forest Hills with a newly formed rock group based on The Hawks, later to be called The Band. A crowd of 14,000 applauded his opening 45 minutes acoustic set and then booed throughout the second half of the concert when the band came on. On 24 September 1965 in Austin, Texas, Dylan began a tour across America and then the world which would last a full year. The pattern of Forest Hills was to repeat itself everywhere. Never before had anyone known people buy tickets to go to a concert to express vociferous dissatisfaction. Levon Helm, the drummer, gave up in disgust before they even left America and was replaced.

By the time the tour reached Britain in May 1966, the pattern was set. In Edinburgh, the Young Communist League had a debate and decided to stage a walk-out when the electric instruments were brought on stage. Similar events occurred in Dublin and Bristol. There was little press coverage of this, except for the Melody Maker which carried the headline on 14 May, The Night of the Big Boo, so the suspicion of covert organisation remains. Prior to the concert in Manchester the University Folk Society had a meeting which voted to boycott, though not disrupt, it.

This was the background to the extraordinary scene at Manchester Free Trade Hall on 17 May 1966 (See CP Lee, Like the Night, Helter Skelter publishing, 1998). The concert had the usual trouble-free first half. Then, three songs into the second set – ironically, immediately after the ‘communistic’ Ballad of a Thin Man – slow-hand clapping began, then individual heckles. A girl went up to Dylan and gave him a piece of paper which, it later transpired, said: "Tell the band to go home".

Then, in a moment of silence between songs there rang out loud and clear the now infamous protest call: ‘Judas!’ Dylan was audibly angry and shaken – the concert is now on official CD release after years of availability as a bootleg (misnamed the Albert Hall Concert). Although this is generally regarded as the peak of this bizarre period, things became much more serious in Glasgow, where a ‘fan’ tried to get into Dylan’s hotel room armed with a knife. No one can seriously blame the Communist Party for this last event, but there is little doubt that some of its members were cheerleaders in the extraordinary events of the 1965-66 tour, based on a twisted Stalinist interpretation of ‘proletarian culture’ dashed with an unhealthy dose of nationalism.

Note:

We live in a political world is the first line of the song, Political World, which opens the 1989 Bob Dylan album, O Mercy.

        Copyright © 2019 by David Barry Temple. All rights reserved.