NEW JERSEY, January 29 — There’s more than meets the eye in the public exposé and slapdown of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie over his closing lanes on the George Washington Bridge to create chaos as payback to local politicians who opposed his re-election. And the “more” is not just the continuing revelations of withholding Sandy aid funds and other dirty tricks.
It would be easy for workers and students who have been on the receiving end of Christie’s budget hatchet, or his disgusting thuggery towards anyone who seriously challenges him, to simply be thankful that “what goes around comes around” or even to be gleeful over his troubles. But communists and others who fight the capitalist system that Christie and all other politicians serve owe the working class more than this superficial response.
First, the media, including the liberals who are denouncing him now, has built up Christie big time. He has been portrayed as a voice of sanity in a party heavily influenced by Tea Party extremists. The Star-Ledger, biggest Democratic newspaper in the state, endorsed him in the 2013 election. After Hurricane Sandy, and Christie’s appearance with Obama during the clean-up, national TV gave Christie a major platform, and helped promote his presidential candidacy.
Until now, this has assured his reputation as a (sometimes over-the-top but) tough negotiator, who ultimately “gets things done” by working with the Democrats. But what has he “gotten done?” The Democrats have given Christie 90 percent of the cuts he demanded. Christie himself has especially lauded his ability to “reach across the aisle,” getting the Democrats to join his vicious attacks on teachers and other unionized workers in 2010 and 2011.
Second, although he may be more “in your face,”, Christie certainly didn’t invent retaliatory and vindictive politics in New Jersey or anywhere else. Democratic leaders such as Steve Adubato, Donald Norcross, Steve Sweeney and Sheila Oliver are masters of it. Most recently, these power-brokers stabbed their own 2013 Democratic gubernatorial candidate Barbara Buono in the back after she portrayed herself as independent of them.
Of course, Buono would not have been “bueno” for the working class. Although portrayed as “left-wing” or “progressive,” even her own platform proposed very little for workers, including a measly $1-an-hour increase in the minimum wage. Under capitalism, any NJ politician elected has to answer to Prudential Insurance Co. and the other big New Jersey bosses.
But the real significance is not local. The most powerful section of the U.S. ruling class is trying to ensure that the key candidates in the next presidential election will work in a “bi-partisan” way. The dysfunctional state of Congress and the presidency hurts their reputation as the “world’s only superpower” while they can’t get on with the massive repair and upgrading of infrastructure that they need to prepare for the next big war. Their plans to project U.S. military power to counteract China’s growing economic and political influence in South Asia and the Pacific are stalled.
The last thing they need is a major presidential candidate who doesn’t go along with the program, or whose dirty tricks go too far. A major slap-down of Christie’s well-known arrogance and egotism was also in order. Not necessarily to push him out, but to keep him “within limits.” Christie’s public “apology” is his attempt to reassure the rulers behind the “Bridgegate” media frenzy that he can still be a team player for capitalist class interests. Whether they take him at his word, or decide to drive him from the national scene is not for us to predict.
Workers can be sure that the Progressive Labor Party will not be fooled by “lesser evil” politicians or bosses who portray themselves as friends of the working class. The lesson of Bridgegate is this: workers need to keep our eye on the bigger picture of imperialist rivalry, war preparation, growing fascism and the fear of rebellion and revolution that drive the rulers’ political moves. No politicians, but only communist revolution can change that.

CHICAGO, January 15 — On December 6, nine of the last 17 protestors, who tried to save the Whittier Elementary School field house — endearingly called La Casita — were found not guilty of trespassing charges instituted by the Chicago Public Schools (CPS). Applause rang out in the normally quiet West Side courtroom after the charges were dismissed.
These community fighters and Chicago Public School teachers were charged with misdemeanor criminal trespass after they formed a human chain outside the field house last August 17 trying to stop its demolition. The protestors made sure the moms were not arrested that day.
Cook County Associate Judge Clarence Burch agreed that the prosecutor didn’t prove that the field house — a separate building next to the school — was operated and funded by the government. Interestingly, neither the witnesses for CPS called to testify nor the prosecutor had seen a copy of the so-called “demolition” work order handed to them by the defense lawyers. It turned out to be a “construction” work order. The judge asked, where was the “construction” in all this when the building was being demolished?
One defendant, a former Whittier School teacher and teachers union organizer, felt that the verdict was “a real victory for people who want to stand up for the rights of children.” Another protestor, however, felt it didn’t bring back the field house which served as a community center and library. “I know how much La Casita meant to the community. They need a new place.”
A playground, a turf field for soccer and two basketball courts replaced the razed field house. According to the school director, these new courts will be lent out to other schools, with revenues going to Whittier School. The question still remains as to who will benefit from this new renovation, the Whittier school kids, the existing community, a new charter school or Cristo Rey High School.
A CPS work order to demolish La Casita was found online, and it turned out that Ward Alderman Danny Solis had approved TIF money (a city fund created with property taxes for “blighted” areas) to be given to Cristo Rey Jesuit High School, (a school having only one Jesuit priest) across from Whittier. Discovering that public monies were to be used for a private high school while Whittier had no library fueled the 2010 sit-in to save the La Casita field house, already being used as a community center BUT also to included a library the kids desperately needed.
Whittier Elementary School was not one of the Chicago public schools targeted for closing this past school year. But the massive anti-racist fightback of the Whittier parents and supporters made such an impact on every school and community in the city and beyond that the CPS, Mayor Rahm Emmanuel and Solis were temporarily held back.
But the fact remains that this land grab in a predominantly Latino neighborhood was a racist attack on all of us. The Chicago banks and real estate developers have grander schemes as the lower east side of the Pilsen neighborhood as well as other areas continue to be gentrified. Orders to demolish La Casita came from CPS, with ward alderman Solis (who had ordered the gas shut-off to La Casita some years back) giving the go-ahead. Neither CPS nor the cops felt they needed a “valid” demolition permit.
Neither CPS, the cops nor the judge (continuously smiling throughout the hearing) exist to serve the working class. Not under capitalism. So why were they found not guilty? Viewing the court proceedings, one would have thought the prosecutor bungled the job. But did CPS lose? In the long run, they accomplished what they were after. The parents and supporters using La Casita for meetings and workshops up to the day of the demolition nor the protestors were no longer seen as a threat.
This victory was short-term. There still exists a small group of parents and supporters wanting to fight CPS and the city for a new community center and library. They fear that Whittier School, sooner or later, will be turned into a charter school or an appendage of Cristo Rey High School. Without a community center to reach out to its residents and push for unity, the community is left to fend for itself.
Property taxes are rising and working-class families are losing their homes. The Pilsen area is becoming more “blighted” but no TIF monies are being used to save it. Instead, three large corporations have taken millions from the Pilsen TIF. Between 2001 and 2005, Chicago International Produce Market ($9.5 million), the Steiner Corporation ($3.5 million) and Target ($5.3 million and not part of east Pilsen) benefited from the east Pilsen residents’ tax dollars.
By 2004, no TIF funds had been used to support school improvements at any of the three schools in the Pilsen area. In 2008, Developers were reimbursed $14.4 million (25% of the total TIF) and given $22.1 million in forgivable loans. Between developers and project costs, the City gave more than half (65%) of the Pilsen TIF money to private developers!
So, under capitalism who wins? The previous Local School Committee (LSC) group of 2010 and the supporters that led the sit-in three years ago no longer exist. Because of financial troubles and low morale, many involved parents dropped out of the struggle before the demolition occurred. Others have become cynical over the loss of La Casita.
Three Whittier moms, steadfastly involved in the 49-day sit-in, are now part of the present-day Whittier School LSC. Two of the moms, and most of the other members, publicly approve of CPS’s demolition of La Casita and of the newly constructed soccer field, two basketball courts and the new playground. One mom, who had joined the Party during the sit-in, is now LSC president and a true parliamentarian. She chairs the meetings and makes sure that parent speakers don’t go over the allotted time, especially if the topic is one which criticizes the LSC or CPS. The other mom who was very active doesn’t attend the LSC meetings anymore or the La Casita parent group. She may be taken off for lack of attendance. The remaining LSC members include the school director (a very close friend of the ward alderman) and the assistant to Ward Alderman Solis. Therefore, none of the three moms have defended the existing La Casita parents’ group when they’ve brought up the fight for a new community center and library at the LSC meetings.
As much as a community center and library are drastically needed, the fightback needs much more. This writer, also a member of the small La Casita parent group, will struggle to win her friends to join a PLP study group and the Party.
One Whittier/LaCasita mom and friend of the Party has written opinion letters and submitted them for CHALLENGE. She is a staunch, outspoken fighter for her class here in Chicago and in Mexico. She has fought cynicism and subjectivity involving some Whittier moms. She is disliked for her critical comments regarding CPS. She works hard cleaning homes and streets, makes jewelry and knitting apparel to help her family and send money to her needy family and friends in Mexico.
Our group will continue to fight for a new “La Casita,” raise money and send clothes that are very much needed in Mexico and beyond. But if we really want to win, we must fight for keeps. That means building a mass PLP and becoming communists. That means struggling with each other to continue the fight, helping each other despite obstacles the capitalists throw at us. Onward in the fight for a communist world!

January 21 was the 90th anniversary of the death of Vladimir Lenin.
Lenin was his revolutionary name. His birth name was Vladimir Il’ich Ulyanov. Lenin was perhaps the greatest revolutionary who has ever lived. We still have a great deal to learn from him. Certainly he is one of the giants, along with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, pioneers of communist thought. They exposed the basic contradictions between capitalism and the working class.
Other great revolutionaries have come from the working class; Stalin was one. Lenin came from the petty bourgeoisie. They showed that, in the last analysis, what counts for every individual is his or her ideology, and what he or she decides to dedicate their lives to.
Like Marx and Engels, his great teachers and models, Lenin dedicated his life to the exploited and oppressed of the world, the working class first of all, but also the peasantry and those super-exploited by colonialism and racism.
We should study Lenin’s works — critically, of course. But respectfully too, since we have much to learn. Hard to do: be both critical and respectful. It’s something we have to learn to do better.
Lenin represented a whole movement, and an entire historical epoch. He did nothing “by himself.” At the same time, he pushed the working-class struggle for communism ahead by his tireless efforts.
We, and class-conscious workers, intellectuals, students, and others everywhere, owe him an immense debt. The best way to acknowledge that debt is by working for communist revolution the best we can.

Syrian workers have suffered from tyrannical oppression long before the current war between opposing capitalist, nationalist forces. For centuries they have been exploited by colonial and imperialist masters, or by homegrown dictators controlled by external powers. But like other workers in the Middle East, working class in Syria has yet to build a revolutionary movement that could lead them to a better life. Time and again, it has been manipulated by local and international rulers — from Turkey and France to Russia, Iran, and China today. As a result, the history of Syria is one of religious and ethnic divisions, with workers fighting workers against their own best interests.
For four centuries, from 1516–1918, Syria was
a province of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. During World War I (1914-18), the British and French were anxious to wrest control of the Middle East from Turkey as a counter to Russian influence and also to protect newly discovered oil reserves. They encouraged Arab nationalism, on the rise since the late 1800s, and enlisted Arab armies by promising them independence after the war. In October 1918, Arab troops within the British Army were the first to reach Damascus. They declared a Syrian Arab state to be ruled by Emir Faisal. The new state’s territory was to include Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine.
British, French Imperialists Divide Spoils
The victorious troops were unaware, however, that the British and French had already signed a secret agreement, the Sykes-Picot treaty, to divide the Arab world between them after the war. In the Balfour Agreement, ratified by the League of Nations in 1920, Britain also promised the Zionist movement a Jewish state in Palestine. Syria and Lebanon were declared under French control, with the British taking Palestine, Jordan and Iraq. This effectively ended the Arab nationalists’ dream of incorporating Palestine into Greater Syria. It also created substantial anti-Zionist sentiment.
The Arab leader King Faisal, who had signed off on the Balfour Agreement in the hope that a Jewish state would dilute French control of the region, was removed by the French from Damascus after a series of small failed rebellions. The following year, in 1921, he was installed by the British as ruler of the newly created country of Iraq. Meanwhile, Syria and Lebanon were administratively separated by the French, with separate nationalist movements growing in each territory.
The French were harsh colonial masters in Syria. Political activity, civil rights, and news media were suppressed. The urban elites were favored and harsh treatment meted out in the rural areas. In 1925, the Great Syrian Revolt became the largest and longest-lasting anti-colonial insurgency in the inter-war Arab East. Mobilizing peasants, workers, and army veterans, rather than urban elites and intellectuals, it was the first mass movement against colonial rule in the Middle East. Unfortunately, it was based on nationalist rather than class ideology. The French maintained military and economic dominance of Syria until 1946, when they left the country under pressure from the United Nations, a body controlled by the U.S. and the Soviet Union (USSR).
In the aftermath of World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union emerged as the two strongest competitors for power and influence around the globe. The Middle East, a vital source of oil, was of strategic importance to both camps. In 1948, in an attempt to reduce British influence in the area, the USSR supported the creation of the state of Israel. Arms from Czechoslovakia, a Soviet ally, were instrumental in the Israeli victory in the Arab-Israeli War of 1948.  But as Israel became a firm Western ally, the USSR switched sides and condemned Zionism. Seeking a stronger foothold in the energy-rich region, the Soviets allied with nationalist regimes in Syria, Egypt, Libya and Iraq.
In 1955, Moscow invited Syria and Egypt to join a pro-Soviet pact. Turkey, a U.S. ally, attempted to dissuade Syria by mobilizing troops along their common border. When the USSR threatened to respond with military force, however, Turkey backed down. Over the next five years, the USSR provided Syria with more than $200 million in military aid to cement the alliance and counter U.S. influence. The Soviet bloc was countered by a U.S. bloc of pro-Western governments: Israel, Iran (prior to the 1979 Islamic Revolution), Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.
In 1958, Syria joined Egypt in the United Arab Republic (UAR), a pan-Arab union dominated by Egyptian President Gamal Nasser. It withdrew three years later because of Egyptian domination. After another period of instability, the secular and nationalist Baath Party took power in Syria just one month after doing the same in Iraq.
In 1967, when Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt were defeated in war with Israel, Syria lost the Golan Heights to the Zionists. Although Moscow didn’t back its allies militarily, the Soviets pledged $2.5 billion in aid to Syria and severed diplomatic ties with Israel. In 1971, the Soviets established a naval base in the Syrian port city of Tartus. One year later, Syria and the USSR signed a peace and security pact that paved the way for more than $135 million in Soviet arms deliveries to Damascus. By then, a Baathist minister of defense named Hafez al-Assad had seized power in a bloodless coup.
Threaten Nuclear War?
In October 1973, Syria and Egypt launched another war against Israel. Initially taken by surprise, the Israelis battled back and even crossed the Suez Canal into Egypt. When Israel gained the upper hand, the Soviets panicked. Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev threatened to send Soviet troops into the theater of war. A Soviet naval vessel allegedly bearing nuclear arms awaited his instructions in the Egyptian port of Alexandria. In response, U.S. President Richard Nixon reportedly increased the national security warning to DEFCON 3 and placed the U.S. Navy’s Sixth Fleet on high alert in the Mediterranean Sea. With U.S. assistance, Israel emerged victorious. To maintain leverage in the region, Moscow agreed to compensate the defeated Arab states with new long-range missiles and high-tech aircraft. In return, Syria pledged not to turn to the U.S. for assistance.
The 1975 civil war in Lebanon strained the Soviet-Syrian relationship. With Christians, Sunnis, Shiites, Druze and Palestinians all fighting one another, Assad sent troops to protect the Christians. Fearing a victory by anti-Baathist Muslim fundamentalists, the Syrian leadership made a temporary alliance with Israel. The Soviets supported the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and other Muslim groups, hoping their victory would transform Lebanon into a friendly state. A ceasefire imposed by the Arab League in 1976 left the Syrian Army as a large “peacekeeping” (read: occupying) force in Lebanon. When Israel invaded its northern neighbor, Lebanon, in 1982, hoping to drive out the PLO and gain more territory, Iranian-backed Hezbollah fighters were the main force that eventually defeated Israel. Although Iran depended on Syria to cross fighters and weapons into Lebanon, the superior military prowess of Iran’s proxy forces essentially left Iran in control there.
Soviet opposition to the Syrian presence in Lebanon grew with the ascension of Mikhail Gorbachev in 1985. He wished for a diplomatic resolution of the Israeli-Arab conflict and opposed Syria’s desire to become a military equal with Israel. Soviet arms shipments and advisors to Syria were cut in half by 1989. As Russian influence in Syria waned, the U.S. made peace overtures to Assad. But he rejected the offers and continued to support Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian resistance, Iran and the Iraqi insurgency.
With Vladimir Putin and Assad’s son, Bashar al-Assad, both coming to power in 2000, Russia and Syria grew close once again. By 2012, Russia accounted for 78 percent of Syrian arms purchases. Putin’s commitment to increasing Russian naval power has heightened the significance of its only naval base outside its own territory — in Tartus, Syria. Within the China-Russia-Iran axis fighting for control over Middle Eastern resources, Russia faces significant competition from China, now Syria’s third-largest importer.
‘Communist’ Party Not Too Communist
A communist party was founded in Syria in the 1920s. Like other communist parties in the region, it was closely tied to Moscow. The “socialist” Baath Party, representing Syria’s national ruling class, fell in line with the Soviets’ goal to promote local anti-Western nationalism; the Syrian Communist Party (SCP) was ordered to ally with the Baathists in the 1950s.
Today the SCP supports Assad in his fight against Western imperialist interests. These phony communists offer little criticism of Assad’s anti-worker, neoliberal economic policies, or of the corruption and cruelty of a regime that has impoverished millions of Syrians. But as CHALLENGE has pointed out, the “rebel” forces are no better. Some of them represent Islamic fundamentalism tied to Sunni Muslim states like Saudi Arabia or Qatar. Others are aligned with Al Qaeda or with secular nationalists aligned with Western interests. None of the leading rebel forces represent the working class in Syria.
For centuries, religious and nationalist hatreds in the Middle East have served successive sets of rulers in their effort to weaken potential opposition to their grab for power and resources. Workers in Syria — like workers in Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Palestine, Jorda
n and Lebanon — can flourish only when they overcome the divisions built by religion and nationalism. They will thrive only when a new communist movement based on class solidarity is built without capitalist borders. Our Progressive Labor Party group in Israel/Palestine, which unites Jewish, Arab, and migrant workers, is a small but vital step in this direction.