X Is A Candidate Too; 106; Peter Camejo

**cricketsішenden gl back in the background cuz they were my favorite game song these days... окip ... ... ... ... I hope now you guys like it. Thank you... So, The Socialist Workers' Party's nominee is Peter Kameo. He is 36, comes from New York, and he is an author and a political activist. And in the 1976 presidential election, Peter Kameo is a candidate too. Tonight, Mr. Kameo talks about his candidacy with correspondent Paul Duke.

Mr. Kameo, exactly what is the Socialist Workers' Party? Socialist Workers' Party is a political party that wants to see a basic change in this country, where we would put human needs before profits, where we would have a democratically organized economy, and where racism and sexism and pollution and unemployment, these problems which the Democrats and Republicans are creating for us would not exist. And we're trying to bring people together to work for this. How many party members do you have? We have about 2,500, what you would call people who are active on a week-to-week basis, maybe 5 or 10,000 more participating to some extent, and our vote in 1974 was just over 400,000. How do you differ from the Communist Party? Well, we support the Equal Rights Amendment, and they don't. They support Democrats, and we think Democratic and Republican Party are representing the corporations, and not really the interests of working people or blacks or Chicano, so we disagree with them on that.

And we disagree over the question of the Soviet Union. We feel there's a totalitarian regime there. They don't. They support it. The invasion of Czechoslovakia. But I'd like to say before I finish on the question of the Communist Party that we defend their right to be heard, and we defend their right to be on the ballot. And I think that ideas have to be answered with ideas, and that what the government in this country has done to the Communist Party and done to us also. But more to the Communist Party than probably any other group. It's really been to deny the American people a chance to hear an idea and to deal with that idea. And this I disagree with. Does that idea, as far as your party is concerned, include a recommendation for the violent overthrow of the United States government? Well, we're opposed to violence, and we're a perfectly legal party. What we saw the Democrats and Republicans doing Vietnam was to, by forcing violence, attempt to impose a government against the will of the people, and we saw them do this in Chile, the CIA.

We see the United States supporting today the fascists in Spain. It just gave them $1 billion, $10 billion to the Shah of Iran. So Democrats and Republicans, though they criticize totalitarianism in Russia, I think are hypocrites because they go around supporting it all over the world. In the case of ourselves, we support civil liberties, whether it be in the Soviet Union, Spain, or in this country. Well, right here, while I'm talking to Paul, there's 66 FBI agents inside my campaign committee. Well, I'm a completely legal party. This is something Ford can't say, considering the fact that he's president because you know our system works. If the president turns out to be a criminal, he gets to pick the next one. So that's how we got Ford. And the FBI harasses us because of our point of view. That is because we're an opposition party. We're not part of the two ruling parties. And we think this should be ended, and not only against us, but it was used against Martin Luther King, the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement. And Carter and Ford will make any statement on this. And I've asked Carter, and I've asked

for it to take a position against the harassment of our party. And they won't say one word, which I think tells you where they really stand on the question of civil liberties. But let me repeat my original question. Do you favor the violent overthrow of the United States government? No, I said before that we're opposed to violence, and that we would like to see all change peaceful. Now, if the majority in this country should want a social change and a minority should want to impose by force and violence their will, if the Rockefeller's the do-pons of Morgan's the Kennedys of the people in this country vote that we should plan our economy, that we should run it democratically, and they try by force and violence using the FBI or the military or whatever to stop us. I think we do have the right to defend ourselves. I'm for the revolution of 1776. Majority people in this country felt one way, Paul, and the King felt the other. And he tried to impose by force and violence his point of view against the majority will. So what we are for is the right of self-defense. But we are opposed to any concept of any minority in opposing their will. We do not use violence. After 38 years of investigating us, the FBI had a set in the Senate. They set it right in front of me in Congress,

I was there before the PI committee, that we have never violated the law. You have written a pamphlet called how to make a revolution in the United States. How do you make a revolution? Well, the only way you can make a revolution is by winning over the majority of the people. In this country right now, we've got 8 million unemployed, 26 million living in poverty. Our wages are down 6%. And we produce one third of the wealth of the world. And we have only 5.5% of the population in the world. So it's obviously something's basically wrong. I think we do need a revolution. A social, fundamental change. We're putting profits before human needs. That's what Carter and Ford are doing. That's what the Democrats and Republicans are doing. I think we need a new labor party in this country that would challenge that. One of your party officials also said recently, we're at the beginning of the radicalization of the American working class. Now, where is the evidence for that statement? Well, I think one of the most important evidence is the fantastic campaign that is suddenly arisen in the Steelworkers' union. The Ed Salowski campaign. Ed Salowski is a 15-year, he's been working in the mills

for 15 years. He's a son of a steel worker. And he started a movement to try to put that union back in the hands of the rank and file workers. Now, Ed Salowski is not a member of the Socialist Workers Party and he's not a socialist. But he represents a sign of the type of new thinking, of wanting democracy in the unions, which I think can open up a whole new period for the union movement and the labor movement in this country. We see the same thing in the AFT. We have now a committee in the AFT working for integration against the policies that Shankar has imposed against busing. We favor busing. We're defending it all over the country. Carter and Ford are both against busing. Carter and Ford were both against labor. Carter has a non-union shop. He pays $2.30 an hour. And then some people try to tell us these for labor. In fact, he even pays white workers more for the same work that he pays black workers. So neither Carter, Ford, represent the interests of working people. And there is a new rise, and workers are turning their backs in the Democrats and Republicans. They're starting to vote for people like Ed Salowski. But does that mean that they will vote for people

like Peter Camello, that they will suddenly become socialists, that they will favor radical changes in the American government? I think so. In Seattle, in the last election, 26% of the people voted for the Socialist Workers Party. And this came as a surprise to everybody, including ourselves, and this, what this indicates to me is that people are not afraid to vote socialists, if they think the proposal socialists are making are reasonable. And I might point out, Paul, that on many of the major questions, we represent the majority point of view in this country. Carter and Ford are both against the right of abortion of a woman. We defend the right of women to choose. I'm the only candidate running in this campaign that is clearly stating that I'm for busing for the right of abortion, for the equal rights amendment. I'm for an escalator clause, so that is prices go up. We just go up. And I'm for the formation of a labor party. I think there's millions of people who agree with these things. And I think that they will begin to express it by voting socialists. It is starting to happen. You are on the ballot, I believe, in 28 states. What kind of vote, what kind of turnout

will there be for your candidacy? Well, first, let me say that usually, people ask me, well, you're going to win. Well, there's less Democrats and less Republicans every day, and there's more and more socialists every day. So I think we're winning. We got 100,000 votes in 72. We got over 400,000 and 74. And our vote is rising. But what's more important is that people are more and more considering the proposals we're making after the debate on domestic issues that Carter and Fort had. One could see that for an hour and a half they talked, they never mentioned blacks. They didn't exist. Blacks are making 56% the income of whites. They're down 5%. Women are making 54% the income of men. They're down 5% in the last six years. The gap is opening. Now, there's a lot of blacks and a lot of women in a lot of Chicanos in this country are very mad. Over the conditions they're suffering and the discrimination they're suffering, Democrats and Republicans never run a woman for President of Vice President of Black or Chicanos. They always take it from a minority of the population. Rich, white, and mailed. So I think our vote is going to start going up. And I think you're going to see it right in this election in 76.

You think a lot of those people are going to vote for Peter Camillo? Is that what you're saying? Yes, I think a lot of people will. I think that the majority people will express their cynicism with the Democrats and Republicans by not voting. That's what happened in the primary. 80% of the people did not vote at all in the primaries. For instance, the European countries have their elections about 90% of the people vote. In this country, they're admitting that more than half of the people are not going to vote. In the primaries, Carter got 4.2% of the American people voted for. Ford got 3.4. Combined, Paul, they didn't even get 8%. So I don't see where they get off calling themselves majority parties. All right, let's assume for assumptions that we move in this country toward a socialistic government at some future point, what would that mean for the United States? What kind of government would it be? Well, first of all, we would institute democracy. We would have, in every factory, elected democratic council to decide what should be done in the factory. I have workers control over. There would be no corporate management. Well, we would have, naturally, we'd have to have people coordinating things,

but it would not be on the basis of, like, when Nelson Rockefeller was born, he just inherited money. I mean, you know, when he was born, his mother didn't say, I wonder if he'll get ahead. I mean, the man was already ahead. He didn't work for it. We have, in my opinion, a lead by birth that's running this country. Yes, we would end that. Everyone would have to work. We would have jobs for people like Rockefeller, so he'd have to work to earn a living. Would there be any unemployment? Of course not. We have this country so wealthy, we can provide everybody a decent job. We could do that tomorrow. Carter and Ford had their debate. The only proposal they talked about would provide 300,000 jobs. We have 8 million people unemployed. What about inflation? Well, inflation is because they raise prices and raise prices trying to maximize profits. The fact is that as we, our technology goes up and we can produce something with less labor, prices should be coming down. They're going up because that's a profit-oriented, like oil. And the prices we're paying up for energy are the prices people are paying for electricity. Our taxes are going up. Everything's going up in our standard living's going down when we can produce more than ever before. Would all major industries be nationalized?

No, the word nationalized is very confusing. It means different things to different people. I think it's much better to say that we would administer things democratically. What do you mean by that? Well, I mean by it is that no one would own. Not that the government would own, which is what a lot of people think socialism is. That's a wrong concept is. Who owns the coal in the ground? Who owns the oil that's under the ground? Well, we should all own it or better put no one owns it. We use it for rational sharing on the basis of human needs. But we need to do this right now. By the way, I am for nationalizing. I don't understand me. I'm for nationalizing the energy industry immediately. The majority of American people, I think, favor that. And to use it rationally. So we stopped being ripped off by the energy corporation. You have mentioned some of the groups that you look to for support. But what about young people in this country? There is no indication that I find that young people are interested in socialism. Well, you know, when the Wormfield non began, and people like Carter and Ford were supporting it,

we were just a handful of people. And people said to me, Mr. cameo, I don't see anybody supporting you and your opposition Wormfield now, and I said, well, you watch, because the truth will change people around. We won, first we won the young people, then they went out and won the rest of the country. Right now, you could come kaying with me, Paul. And you'd be very amazed how many young people in this country are absolutely totally hostile to the Democrats and Republicans. In fact, if you look at registration figures, you can see this. Young people are not registering Democrat or Republican. Many are just not registering at all. And those who are registering large, very large numbers are registering independent. So I think people are turning their backs on Carter and Ford and the Democrats and Republicans. They're looking for an alternative. They're looking, they're open. They're listening. And I think the Socialist Workers' Party has become the largest organization now on the left and is starting to get a very large response. Partially due to our suit against the FBI and government harassment, we've become very well known. But also because of our role in the anti-war movement. I mean, while Carter and Ford were cheering for the warm Vietnam and getting thousands of us killed there and killing hundreds of thousands of Vietnam,

the Socialist Workers' Party was up front fighting to end that war, organizing people to end that war. Now, they'll talk about how they're for peace all over the world. But what I see them doing all over the world is we're now spending giving $10 billion in arms this year. Six years ago, we only sold one billion. Now, we used to give 18 million tons of food to the people around the world. Now, we give five million. So we're giving less and less help of any sort of food to people and more and more arms. And you say, well, can we win the young people? Look what happened in Vietnam. Look at the women's movement. Look what's happening in terms of people now reacting in the unions, like supporting us a lot. So all the young workers are supporting. Yes, the youth are changing. And the young people are playing a major role in this change. And in our movement, the Socialist Movement is growing and it's made up of young people, yes. You've cited several times the harassment by the FBI. Why has the government been investigating your party? Well, that's the question we've been asking. Why? Well, it turns out there's only one reason. We're not for the status quo.

We happen to want to use our First Amendment right of a association to try to change society. They have watched us for 38 years. They've never found us to do anything illegal. They've continued to arouse us. They arouse us under the Kennedy administration, under the Eisenhower administration, Lyndon Baines Johnson, doesn't matter who's in the White House. They've been arousing and not just us, everybody. Everybody, Paul. Everybody who descends in this country. That is, the Bill of Rights is there on paper. But it has no meaning unless it's for people who descend. And yet, we find FBI agents not only inside our campaign committees, we found some of them running. They were our candidates. We found out two of them. So, and we just caught one. What did they do? Well, in one case, they won. In one case, they lost. Tim Redfern, who just recently burglarized our office in Denver, was recently indicted. And that's the first indictment that has ever happened by these FBI agents. But the crimes they've committed is beyond belief. And people who want to know about this, I would suggest they write to us. Because we have a great deal of information about it. And there's no time here to cover it, Paul.

But our address is 14 Charles Lane in New York City. And people write to us. We can send you a list of information. You can actually see the actual FBI documents. We have published a book on this, which has the actual documents. The people can read for themselves to show you how they burglarized our headquarters, how they got people fired from their jobs, how they sent false information to the media to try to create prejudice against us. They sent infiltrators into our parties to try to destroy it. They went so far, Paul, as to actually working with the police department Chicago, hire people to physically attack us. And yet, these people have not been brought up on charges. Did you convert any of the infiltrators? No, I don't know of any. And the harassment goes on today? Yes, it's right happening right now. And as I stayed, and I stayed here publicly before the public of the United States, I challenged Carter and Ford to publicly declare that they will stop harassing my campaign, that they will withdraw these agents, that they favor that. Of course, both remain silent. Mr. Carter originally agreed to debate me. This was one of the issues I wanted to raise with him.

He wrote me a letter in February agreeing to debate. We had a long exchange of he agreed to debate me before Ford, though he's tried to keep that off a quiet. And we've had a long exchange, but he never lies. If you ask him, he'll tell you that. In fact, if you don't ask him, he'll tell you that. But the man hasn't lived up to his word. And I'm still waiting for an answer for Mr. Carter, whether he's going to remove these 66 agents or not. And he still won't make a statement. And Ford's got him in there. I mean, if Ford put one in Carter's campaign, why everybody be raising hell about it, even you, Paul, but they got 66 in our campaign. And all these Democrats and Republicans haven't got anything to say. Well, you have more FBI protection than Carter and Ford have secret service protection. Well, I don't call it protection. But in any event, Peter cameo is hardly a household name in this country. And the winner of the election, quite clearly, is going to be either Mr. Ford or Mr. Carter. And of those two, which would be your choice? Well, against both, both of them are for the death penalty.

We're about to start executing people again. Carter signed in the death penalty. Both of them supported Nixon and Watergate. Carter went so far as to support Agnew. I don't know of any other governor that did that. They both supported the war in Vietnam. They're both against the right of women abortion. Right now, while we're talking, the rights of women are being taken away now in this country. And I think we need to organize mass demonstrations, again, like we did the end of the 60s and early 70s to defend the right of abortion. Now, Carter and Ford are going to do everything possible to stop. They're going to do everything possible to deny women their rights. So how can I pick one or the other? It would be like saying, which one do you think will be less evil? Hitler or Mussolini? I think it's an absurd question. Carter and Ford are basically for the same thing. They're going to maintain. Blacks will still be making 56% of what whites, whether it's Carter Ford, we're still going to have unemployment. We're still going to have the Democrats control Congress. Republicans control the White House. They blame each other. And we're the ones who pay the price. It's about time we realize that both of these parties represent the corporations, not working people.

Let's go down to more practical realities, though, and discuss some of the issues. Now, both Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter have advocated streamlining the government and balancing the budget. What do you think are their proposals? Do you support anything like this? As of now, before we reach the stage of a socialist panacea? Well, first of all, we're fighting, as I mentioned, before on the specific questions that confront people now, the question of unemployment. We have to stop spending $115 billion in war. That's the most inflation everything in the budget. Now, in their first debate, where they discussed domestic issues, they never mentioned the largest two things in the budget, the interest payments to the rich, $40 billion a year, and the war budget, $115 billion. I would use these funds to create an emergency public works program to put everybody back to work, a decent pay, to build law-caused housing, mass transportation, other things we need, Paul. This is what should be done. And I believe- This is what a lot of Democrats have been advocating in Congress. They're the Congress that passed $150 billion for war. Now, what they say with one with their mouths and vote with their hands are two opposite things.

Well, what would you do about the defense budget? Would you dismantle the Pentagon? Would you not have any kind of defense program? We spent $200 billion in Vietnam, Paul. Not one penny of that was to defend this country. If we didn't have the Pentagon, there'd be 50,000 Americans still walking alive in this country, 100,000 of Vietnamese, I don't believe we have a defense budget. I believe we have a war budget. Now, the people who founded this country were opposed to a barracks army. But do you favor any kind of defense budget? I'm saying that. I'm answering your question. I'm sorry. I mean to interrupt you. See, what I believe we should do is have what was originally intended. If we feel, if the American people feel that we need to defend this country, then let's have a popular militia organized in the factories, places of work, democratically elected officers, trained as highly technical as necessary, a kind of national guard, a kind of national militia. People's militia that cannot be used to break strikes, that cannot be used to attack other people in Vietnam, which would be for the purpose of defense, that the American people that working people in this country

would run. But we say the press and budget, like I said, we're giving $10 billion to the dictator, the Shah of Iran. We must defend this country. That's to maintain corporate interests in Iran. Would you have an air force? Would you have missiles that could fire across the ocean and strike targets in Russia, or elsewhere? We have 38 missiles pointed at every city in Russia. That's not defending us. That's a myth. What would you do about those missiles? I would disarm. I think we have to begin to disarm the Russians. We offered the Russians a program of limiting ICBMs in 1975. You would unilaterally disarm this country. Well, let me answer this question. The United States government made an offer to the Russians. They accepted it, and then we withdrew our own offer. The fact is, I don't think that the Russia, or China, or Vietnam are about to invade the United States. I don't believe it. I certainly don't believe Vietnam is about to invade the United States, and we just went over there for 10 years and killed them. And right now, we have troop station in Cuba. Cuba isn't about to invade the United States. I think we ought to withdraw our troops from Spain from Cuba. We ought to give the Panama Canal back to Panama, which would give Puerto Rico its independence.

And I think the war danger in this country comes from the United States, and you see it right now in South Africa. We're the number one regime that's in complicity with the South African regime. There goes Kissinger over. They're talking about majority rule. Why wasn't he from a majority rule two years ago? He doesn't mean majority rule. He means he wants that chrome. He wants a chrome for the American corporations. That's what he's going around there in Africa. Do you see Russia as any threat to this country? I don't know. I don't think the Russians system, they have a planned economy there, that they need to have colonies. They don't own any factories in Latin America, Asia, Africa, like we do. And I think that the Russians have offered over and over again to begin processes of disarmament in its United States that refuses. I don't agree with the system in Russia. I believe it's totalitarian. I disagree with the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia or Hungary. But I still hold that if you make an objective study of what's happened in this world and what is happening, what's happened in the last 10 years, that the problem of war and peace in this world is coming out of the Pentagon and out of Washington. The United States invaded Vietnam. The United States is the one that has troop

station on every continent. The United States overthrew the government of Chile. The United States has got Lockheed and the others buying governments and selling and maneuvering everywhere. And we're intervening against the interests of people in this world. And you feel that if we unilaterally disarm, if we pull back from everywhere, if we pull all of our forces home, that everything is going to be rosy, and there will be no more wars. No, well, you're making a caricature in my position. I do believe that if the United States stopped its policies of imperialistic aggressions, like Vietnam and stuff, well, you don't let me finish, please. You see, if we stopped, we said we had a policy. If we had socialism in this country, we produced for human needs. And we did not have a policy of aggression of corporate interests. I think this would be the fastest way to help the Russian people and the bureaucracy to exist there. I think the underground fighting today in Russia, the best way we could support them, would be to fight for democracy and socialism in this country. Would you do seem to put all of the blame on the United States? I am saying, I live in the United States. I'm a citizen of this country, and I believe that we have a problem to change.

It's the United States that created the War of Vietnam. It's the United States that's aggressing throughout the world and arming people all over the world. We're spending $10 billion in armed. But anyway, this question is a complex question. I'd like to urge people who want to understand our full policy on this to do what I said earlier. And that's the right to us. We can send you campaign material about this. Our address is 14 Charles Lane, and please send us donations. We need it for our campaign anyway. But the reason I say send us money, as much money as you can, is that we will send you our campaign weekly for any donation of over a dollar. And you can follow and get a full answer on this question. We also published a great deal of material. We'll send you a catalog. Because these type of questions, you can't answer in four or five minutes in terms of what the world situation is. I'd simply repeat our position. The United States, what it didn't Vietnam, is an example of what its policy is. It uses force and violence in the United States army, not to protect the American people or anybody else, but to maintain corporate interest throughout the world. Mr. Camillo, how did you become a socialist? Well, I became a socialist because I was active

in the early civil rights movement in this country, where blacks were denied even the right to vote by the Democrats and Republicans. And then I was very active in the anti-war movement, and I've helped Latin American political prison. In fact, one of the great tragedies we're having in this country now is treating Latinos like cattle being deported, because when the bosses here want them, they bring them in, make them work for low minimum wage, and then throw them out. This is what made me a socialist. Being the first person of Latin American descent to run for president, I saw the conditions in Latin America. I saw what the United States was doing to Latin America, and this made me realize we really have to change this country and begin to make it in the interest of the American people, not in the interest just of the rich. But hasn't there been an evolutionary change in this country? You keep citing Vietnam as one example, and yet we did leave Vietnam. You've cited the applied of the blocks, and yet we have had great progress in the civil rights area during the past 20 years. That's wrong, Paul. At the end of the Second World War, blacks were making 57% the income of whites, now they're making 56. After 31 years, they're down 1%.

Where's your gain? Where's your gain? The fact is that what gains have been made in this country have been made because the mass of the people went into the streets to fight the Democrats and Republicans, the anti-war movement, the civil rights movement, the labor movement of the 30s, the women's movement. These are the things that have brought about social change, so that where there's been progress is not due to the people running the government, or the Democrats, Republicans, or Carter or Ford. They've opposed every one of these mass movements. It's been the mass movement. It's when the socialist built the unions in this country, and joined with other people and built the anti-war movement in this country. It's the Martin Luther King's, the Malcolm X's, that have made progress in this country by winning concessions. It hasn't come from the top down. It's not a problem for this. If what you say is true, why hasn't the socialist movement caught on in America? Well, we've had three waves. The first wave was the EBDebs, when the small farmers forced into the factory, and that was ended with the First World War and the prosperity that came after. We had the 30s, the Second World War, and now we have a new world economic crisis, and we have the beginnings of a new wave. And I think it will catch on.

I think it is catching on. And I think that if we could have the equal time like the laws supposed to require of exposure in this campaign, that I didn't think so until I saw the first debate between Carter and Ford, now I think I would win. But it is very clear that millions of people favor what we're standing for, and are merging these people to vote socialist in 76, because by doing so, they will be sending a message to the tens of millions who are beginning to think like the raising the points that I'm raising here that we really need to have a new party in this country, party of labor. Do you feel that one day we will have a socialist government in the United States? I believe one day we will have a society that puts human needs before profits, and that's what I call socialism, yes, definitely. And that we will have a government that is really democratically run by the people, both economically and politically. Yes, I think that will definitely happen, and I think it could happen very easily in our lifetime. I don't, the only way this country's been able to get out of its economic crisis is war, and the people in this country can, we cannot have another war. We'll destroy the world. We just cannot have another war.

And the people in this country are going to are recognizing more and more that this is true and they're recognizing that we need a social change. And I think that they will see that what socialism is very different from what they've been taught it is. Socialism just means more democracy, economic, politically, and socially. And just one final question. What role do you see for yourself in the future? Well, I'm just one person of the, we're a movement of the mass of the people. That is, we want to build a movement of millions of working people throughout this country. I'm just one other person. We don't have this concept like Carter and Ford get up and say, I will solve your problem. I don't believe anybody who says to you that they will solve your problem. Trust them is lying. Because we, the people of this country can only solve our problems through mass movement, mass participation by the people. And so I want to end by saying, if you want to find out what that program is, that's offering this alternative right to our headquarters, 14 Charles Lane, New York City. Thank you, Mr. Cameo. I'm Paul Duke, good night from Washington. This has been a conversation with Peter Cameo, the 1976 presidential candidate of the Socialist Workers Party.

This interview is part of a public broadcasting series on third party candidates. This program was produced by WTG Washington and WN 18 New York which are solely responsible for its content. It was made possible by a grant from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.