Welcome to Sidney’s new website!

Dear Colleagues,

Thank you for visiting Sidney’s new site.

When I first began working with Sidney in July, I was immediately introduced to his email mailing list, through which he has been sharing his point of view with his friends, colleagues, and associates for many years. This blog will eventually collect his past years of emails, and going forward, will offer him a broader platform for expression.

Sidney is 96 years old and, as anyone who has met him surely knows well, is a man of many virtuous talents. It’s my pleasure to help him to present his wisdom, ideas, arguments, theories, and intellectual contributions to the broader world.

 

In solidarity,

Tim Fitzgerald
Assistant to Sidney J. Gluck

Pressure Obama!

Dear Colleagues,

I am kind of fed up with Obama’s penchant to compromise and wind up falling further behind in taking care of his obligation to the hardworking people in our country, trying to get the culprits represented by the right wing to compromise and finding himself stuck in the mud.  He is doing an address tomorrow and, as a member of his (probably) thousands of correspondents in a kind of kitchen cabinet over the years since he ran for the nomination, I took the liberty of sending him a very sharp letter today before he makes his speech tomorrow. I am sending you a copy of this letter.  I am not sure that it will even reach him, but we have to try, although organizing the masses to do the same is our responsibility.

Sincerely,

Sidney J. Gluck

 

Dear President,

In response to your letter recalling the promise of your victory with the support of the average working member of the vast coalition that elected you, your letter sounds hollow.

Our problem is your desire to make comprises that seems to be your conception of ruling.  What you do not see is that you cannot compromise with the far right of the Republican Party unless you expose their connection with the billionaires who are, in fact, shaping the direction of our country.

I am apprehensive about your speech tomorrow as I sense you have tried to find a middle ground, where you have been stuck with few real accomplishments to help the average person in our country.

The only way out of our economic crisis is not the bailout of big money but the reconstruction of our economy in three directions. First, create jobs by executive orders and establish a Works Progress Administration to rebuild our infrastructure. The second thing is to help industry grow with federal money since finance capital and the banks refuse to loan money our own industries. At the same time, welcome foreign capital, including from China, to build industries and various forms of exchange that will grow the economy and create jobs.  The third thing is: get out of the wars! The people in our country are not gaining anything by it.  Our expenditure on the military budget is not only unwise but also unnecessary because, as you very well know, China is developing as an economic power not as a military power and is part of the world development of underdeveloped countries.  Look at the relationship between India and China, the two largest developing countries, who still have a long way to go to reach our level of development.  And even if China reaches the same productivity as we do, they still have three to four times as many people to take care of and is hardly something that should trouble us.

Peace, peace, and take care of the people! I know that this means a fight on your part, but that is what we elected you to do.  You owe it to the majority in the country.  I hope you can shape your remarks beyond compromise.

Sincerely,

Sidney J. Gluck

On Racism and Self-Criticism

From: “Sidney J. Gluck” <sjgluck@aol.com>
Sent 8/10/2010 2:30:02 PM
To: cxxxxxxx@aol.com, members@lists.cc-ds.org
Subject: Re: [CCDS Members] on racism & self-criticism

Dear friends and colleagues,

This is a bit late to join in the debate on racism and self-criticism.  I do agree with George Fish’s position for the record.

I was really pleasantly surprised to see his reference to Angela Davis and her quotation from the 1995 Dialogue and Initiative.  It reminded me of 1950 when Communist Party leaders were indicted under the Smith Act and slapped with a $50,000 bail while criminals and bootleggers had to put up only $10,000.  At the time, I had my offices at the Empire State Building and told a few business people who joined me to challenge the decision in court.

I had brought some US BONDS that would cover up to $20,000. As spokesman for the bailout group, I presented our complaint at the egregious unfairness of the court. The judge expressed willingness to consider lowering the bail and finally agreed to $15,000 (epitomizing national politics since he was obviously defending his position from criticism by still treating the Communists harshly).

When I offered him the US BONDS, he refused to accept them, answering me, after I challenged his reasoning, that I would be earning interest while bailing out a Communist. He agreed to a recess giving me an opportunity to cash the BONDS and resumed in the afternoon. At the resumption of proceedings that afternoon, all of the indicted Communist Party leaders gained their freedom.

Sincerely,

Sidney Gluck

The Economist and the Rising Power of China’s Workers

Dear colleagues,

We received a response to our distribution of The Economist’s statement on Chinese workers’ rising power. We would like to share it and our response and open further possible discussion.

 

Sincerely,

Sidney Gluck

—–Original Message—–

From: Sidney J. Gluck <sjgluck@aol.com>
To: txxxxxxxxxx@yahoo.com
Sent: Fri, Aug 6, 2010 12:33 pm
Subject: Re: The Economist and The Rising Power of China’s Workers

Dear Jay,

Thanks for your comments.

I have been making efforts to reach the Chinese authorities with a proposal to immortalize the 9 suicide youth who gave their lives and put the problems of exploitation of labor conditions and remuneration in the forefront.  Though there had been many demonstrations before, the remonstrations of laborers even against the local political leaders, has taken on a new dimension that will affect national development.

As I indicated in my note, the basic reason why labor movement development had lagged was due to the regional domination of state power and the corruption of regional leaders of the Communist Party to their personal gain.  The Hu government had created laws for the development of a strong, national trade union movement in 2005. Despite this, the development of a coordinated, national trade union movement had dragged because national leadership of a trade union movement was not being promoted by regional leaders. Hence the workers themselves, in the regions, expressed their antipathy for the failure of trade union leadership development in a negative manner when the national union leaders did become involved in the Honda strike. The conflict reached a pugnacious stage, but after cooling down, a national leader’s statement projected federal state leadership resulting in progress and opening the way for continued development of a national movement.

One must bear these two things in mind as impediments to socialist state direction under conditions of private and social ownership, where policies for progress, determined federally, must succeed in breaking through the regional barriers.

I tell you this because I do not want to argue about specific questions of working class development.  For one reason, to take experience in other countries as the basis of critical assessment does not correspond to the specific conditions of Chinese industrial and political development, which in the last analysis is a basis for socialism with its own forms of democracy.

That will take a lot more time, but one has to see the turn this year.  I recommend that you follow carefully the proceeding of the November National Conference of the CCP, which has as its main subject the elimination of corruption in the Party, since this is a main barrier to breaking down the regional distortions of national policy.

Sincerely,

Sidney Gluck

 

 

 

—–Original Message—–

From: Jay Janson <txxxxxxxxx@yahoo.com>
To: Sidney J. Gluck <sjgluck@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 6, 2010 9:29 am
Subject: Re: The Economist and The Rising Power of China’s Workers

Sid,

You know better than I that Marx, Veblen, Guevara all spoke of the commodification of the worker. How much money the government manages to negotiate in wages from Taiwanese and other capital investors, the human degradation will continue until the workers as Sid hopes will come organize, come to power and be able to control the government above instead of the top down manipulation.

Elena Kagan Nomination

I would like to share with you a letter we just sent to President Barack Obama in the hopes that you will take similar action.

I firmly believe that if the right wing succeeds in knocking out Elena Kagan, it’s going to be reflected immediately in the elections of this year. While I’m not very happy with Obama and with the ways things have been operating, it would be much worse if the Democrats lose their shaking majority in the Congress. I’m sure you agree and hope we can get the president to talk up.

Sincerely,
Sidney Gluck

 

Subject: Elena Kagan Nomination
To: President Barack Obama
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact
Date: 6/28/10

From: SJGluck@aol.com

Dear President Obama,

It is urgent TODAY that you express a STRONG defense of your nominee, Elena Kagan, for the Supreme Court. She is under vicious attack from every right-wing source really directed at you and the Congress. You are absolutely right to change the balance in the Supreme Court with a voice that will limit the rightist trap established by the former Bush regimes. The New York Times article of June 27th rang the bell; YOU know this very well.

I urge your strong, public expression challenging all questions raised about her character that in fact reflects a strong, wide knowledge of the judiciary in her education and in her practice upholding equality in the eyes of the law. She is much more liberal than any of the present members of the Court.

If you do not take a stand NOW, AT THIS MOMENT confronting the current debate, you are RISKING the possibility of LOSING Democratic votes in an electoral defeat that will lead to an unending catastrophe in our country.

Sincerely,

Sidney Gluck