Views in brief

A path to more capitalism

ROBERT POLLIN'S response to Alan Maass' article "Socialism in a new era" is disingenuous to say the least ("Socialism, utopian and realistic").

Pollin claims that he is merely making the uncontroversial point that socialists need a "clear-eyed understanding of where the world is today, and how we can realistically move from where we are today to where we want to be in the future."

But what Pollin regards as realism is so cautious that it is hard to see how it could play any role in moving us closer to socialism. For example, he pooh-poohs nationalizing the banks and proposes regulating the private financial system instead. And he advocates "large government incentives for private businesses to profit from clean energy investments" to address the environmental crisis.

These proposals don't represent a realistic path to socialism but a program for continuing to prop up capitalism at vast public expense.
Phil Gasper, Madison, Wis.

Don't apologize for Lovelle Mixon

THE ARTICLE "Two standards of grief" is right to point out that there are serious economic and historical issues that shape the relationship between the Oakland Police Department and people of color in Oakland.

It is also right to point out that there is a broken justice system and a broken economic system that exacerbates these relationships. Finally, there is no question that race and socioeconomic status, among other social markers, shape the way that people interact with one another in the United States. The Oscar Grant killing is certainly a tragic (yet not isolated) example of this.

As a historian, I am quick to examine how race, for instance, shapes contemporary relationships, socioeconomic status and geographies. Similarly, I am sensitive to the ways that various groups respond to oppression.

I am, however, repulsed by certain aspects of this article. It comes extraordinarily close to apologizing for the actions that Lovelle Mixon took. The man did not want to go back to prison? I cannot blame him. It is a broken system that likely shaped him for the worse. But did that give him the right to kill two cops who stopped him?

There is unquestionably a long history of law enforcement (and the public) mistreating "fugitives," especially people of color. Surely he was terrified while he was hiding in his sister's apartment. But did that history give Mixon the right to use an assault rifle on the Oakland SWAT team?

While I am sympathetic to the factors that shaped Mixon's life--and frankly, I think he bears responsibility, just as our larger society does--his personal history does not make his actions right. While I agree that the community needs to stand up against police brutality, I do not support deadly violence as a reasonable response.

I should mention that Dan Sakai, one of the SWAT officers killed that Saturday, was one of my close college friends. I mourn for him. I attended the service for him, and I must say that the service was anything but an effort to detract attention from wider problems with the Oakland police force or the Oscar Grant killing. Rather, for most of us, it was a solemn and grief-filled afternoon of goodbyes to our friend and loved one. Please don't mistake it for anything else. Please don't cheapen his death by calling the service a "spectacle."

Finally, I was not at the town hall meeting during which unnamed "Black ministers" suggested that the cops killed by Lovelle Mixon were "racist." But I would caution against applying that word indiscriminately. Having known Dan Sakai for nearly 20 years, "racist" is the last label anyone would apply to him.

I support the return of humanity to Oakland. But Lovelle Mixon is not the model of humanity that we should invoke.
Lauren Cole, Los Angeles

Taking a stand against charters

I WAS glad to read about teacher activism in New York City ("Defending public schools in NYC).

Thankfully, Waukegan, Ill., public schools recently turned down a charter school scheme, which is pretty amazing since these charter corporations deliberately target poorer communities as part of their "experimentation" with public education.

Unfortunately, the charter company is likely to create a referendum, putting the issue to a vote. As is usually the case, the language is peppered with civil rights talk when charters have nothing to do with civil rights or democracy, only elitism and plutocracy.

Public charters are able to deny admission to students, even though they receive public funds. They cannot demonstrate that they have exceeded public school performance--national research shows they either perform as well as or worse than public schools--and this is using the government's own data! Recent events at an Aspira charter school where a student was strip-searched show a lack of oversight should this model of "education" spread.

Charters are part of union-busting--witness the demolition of the public schools in New Orleans, starting with the mass firing of unionized teachers. High-stakes testing is a mechanism used to divide teachers and schools. In New Orleans, the starved public schools are given meager funds, the kids with the most needs and low-paid teachers, many of whom have fled since the union-busting. The charter schools get grant money on top of public funding and can select which kids get to enroll, turning many away.

Test scores from both New Orleans public school types will be compared. Guess what the results will be.
Faith Agostinone, Waukegan, Ill.

Change at the local level

REGARDING "HOW do anarchists see change happening?": I agree that the concentration of capital is not localized, but intricately shaped globally. But at the same time, don't you think the following statement is rather utopian?: "Only after the capitalist state is confronted and defeated can we begin to reorganize society and allow local communities to flourish."

How exactly does one do this? Does one just smash the state apparatus through some kind of fetishized revolutionary "event of mass Thermidorian working-class movements"? I'm not sure what to infer from your statement, though I could be reading it wrongly. But it appears as if the author believes socialism will appear magically out of some magical hat. Where's the strategy and where are the tactics? Not enough of this is even being remotely talked about in the leftist media. Most of the strategies and tactics seem outmoded and outdated.

The closest to something of this sort that I have seen, concretely trying to address and revolve certain tactics around a form of revolutionary democracy, is David Harvey's championing of the "right to city" movements. He argues that so much of capital's movement centers around urban areas, and this distribution has enabled and propelled so much class composition.

Championing municipal democracy and local politics seems incredibly important. As Amiri Baraka puts it, most leftists talk about revolution, smashing the state, destroying the bourgeoisie, etc., but they can't even get someone elected to the local school board. They won't even engage in electoral politics at the local level. They won't even try and smash through and flood the state apparatus locally. They hardly try and form local movements to make the tactical steps for revolutionary process to even occur. Instead, all they have is petty moralizing. And it's very disappointing.

David Harvey makes the same point in a recent Red Pepper article. The best leftists can do is say, "We told you so!" Great! Most of us get it already--and you're usually preaching to the choir in your media. But it's hardly helpful.

Please try and help us; we need a dynamic leftist movement capable of broadly understanding the various tactics and tools necessary for all involved in the various sites of class struggle.
George M., from the Internet

Making our food safe

PRESIDENT OBAMA wants to do something about food safety. Having better food labels would be a good start. I don't have much of a problem with consumers buying food that has been cloned, genetically altered or irradiated, but I think that people who are against these products should know whether or not they are eating something that has been altered.

Food that has been genetically engineered, cloned, irradiated or altered by nanotechnology should be labeled and better regulated by the government.
Chuck Mann, Greensboro, N.C.