Blog

  • Nicaragua: Hunger, Malnutrition, and the Fight to End Them

         School began this week for children all over Nicaragua, but even before children entered the classroom the Nicaraguan government had begun supplying its School Feeding Program as the Ministry of Education transferred food from warehouses to 10,000 schools in 153 municipalities. For many Nicaraguan children, the School Feeding Program is essential to preventing hunger and malnutrition.

         The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) recently recognized that Nicaragua has achieved more in the area of meeting its people's need for food than any other nation in the Caribbean or Latin America in the period between 1990 and 2010. Fernando Soto, spokesman for the FAO, reported that 55% of the population was malnourished in 1990-1992, but by 2010-2012, that percentage had dropped to 20%, “one of the most notable advances in the [Latin American] region.” While acknowledging that this was still a high percentage of malnourishment, he said progress was being made and that the FAO would continue to help. Nicaragua, said Soto, “has the terrain covered” with multi-sector policies, appropriate laws, good governance, and efforts to coordinate local governments and their communities. The FAO, he said, will work with the Ministry of Family Economics on the Healthy Yard Program which this year will provide 120,500 families with seeds for vegetables, fruit, and medicinal plants in an effort to strengthen food security and better diet through family gardening in all the departments of the country. Government studies also show significant progress in reducing hunger, especially in young children. Without a doubt Nicaraguans have much, much more food available than they did in the 1980s during the Contra war when there was hardly anything on the store shelves and many commodities were rationed.

         Yet, driving around Managua on the first day of school and throughout the week, at every major intersection I saw many school age children, youngsters between eight and 16, either begging or working washing windows. They’re out in the dangerous intersections working and begging because they’re hungry. Unfortunately, they will not benefit from the snack being provided at the schools. They work because they’ve given up on school or because they must also help provide for a younger brother or sister.

         Despite the efforts of the government and non-governmental organizations, hunger remains a serious issue for many in this nation of 5.8 million people. Nicaragua was the second poorest country in Latin America and the Caribbean in 2012, second only to Haiti, according to the World Bank. The gross national income (GNI) per capita, based on dividing the national income by the total population, was US$1,100 in 2010, but of course this is a nation of tremendous economic inequality, and many live on much less. The World Bank estimated that in 2012 48% of the population lived on less than a US$1 a day (US$365 a year) and 76% on less US$2 daily (US$730). According to the Nicaraguan government, the minimum needed for food and clothing in 2012 was 12,053 córdobas, 1,208.45 córdobas for clothing and 10,844.84 for food, or US$502 altogether. (24 córdobas = US$1.00) With incomes so low, hunger is a persistent, chronic problem, despite the government’s school nutrition plan.

         In addition to the government’s school food program, some of the Catholic base communities informed by the Theology of Liberation also provide food through the Olla de Soya or Soy Crockpot. Community activists from the Catholic base communities organize volunteer mothers from various neighborhoods to feed children under the age of six whose weight is below normal. The Ollas de Soya project in several Managua neighborhoods provides soy-based milk and food for these children every day during the school year. The project attempts to win parents and children to eating soy products, which are cheaper and more nutritious than their usual diet, while at the same time providing pre-school education and socialization to the mostly five-year-olds.

         Not only is there malnutrition in Nicaragua, but there is also what we might call misnutrition, which is the adoption of less healthy eating habits. Traditionally Nicaraguans ate rice and beans, often mixed together in the national dish known as gallo pinto together with corn tortillas as well as yucca, potatoes and a variety of vegetables. Many Nicaraguans also ate a lot of meat since both beef and pork were plentiful and relatively cheap. The revolution, the Contra war, and the U.S. embargo that brought so much hunger and suffering to the country in the 1980s were followed by the conservative governments of the 1990s that turned their attention to enriching the wealthy while neglecting the poor. The Sandinista Front, which returned to power in 2006, though fundamentally adopting pro-business policies, also took measures to improve health, education and the basic welfare of Nicaraguans, the combination of conservative economic policies and somewhat progressive social policies that we have come to call “social liberalism.”

         The dramatic urbanization of Nicaragua in the 1980s and 1990s lead to a decline in the consumption of pork as people began to eat more chicken and vegetables. Meanwhile, the opening of Nicaragua to foreign trade after the signing of the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement meant that local food stores began to carry more processed foods and junk foods, so that every pulpería, the ma-and-pa corner stores one finds in every barrio and town, now invariably stock not only soda pop made with corn syrup but also fried corn chips laced with salt, artificial flavors, and chemical preservatives. With changing food habits has come a rise in obesity throughout Latin America and quite notably in Nicaragua. Public health workers at the Aldo Chavarria National Rehabilitation Hospital in Managua report that more obesity has meant more diabetes and consequently more amputations.

         The kids out in the intersections begging and working on the first day of school may take their córdabas to go to a little restaurant and buy gallo pinto, but there’s perhaps a better chance that they will go to the pulperías and buy Coke and chips. Government efforts to get them back into school where they would be fed at least one more healthy meal a day will run up against the poverty of their families.

     

    Michael Kelly is an American writer living in Nicaragua. This is the fourth of an occasional series of Nicaragua Notes.

  • The Rosa Choir, South Africa

         Our correspondent and contributor in South Africa, Andre Marais, sent us the link to this recording of the Rosa Choir, a diverse group that sings in traditional songs in Afrikaans, Xhosa and English.

     

  • Nicaragua: Contentious Debate Over Social Security Reform

         Nicaragua is in the midst of a contentious debate that could become a serious social struggle over the reform of the nation’s Social Security system. President Daniel Ortega’s Sandinista government has proposed to increase the retirement age, the number of years one has to work, and the number of required contributions. Under his plan, the retirement age will increase from 60 to 65 years, the minimum number of years worked will increase from 15 to 30, and the number of weekly contributions required in order for a worker to retire will increase from 750 to 1,500.

         The proposed social security reform will exacerbate the contradictions of the Sandinista government that calls itself the party of the people, especially the working people and the poor, while it attempts to implement changes that will aggravate and antagonize both public and private sector workers. The Sandinista’s populist rhetoric here comes into open conflict with the neoliberal character of the reform intended to force workers to pay more and to work longer in order to be able to retire one day. Many complain that should the reform pass, they would have little time left to enjoy their retirement. Average life expectancy in Nicaragua is 72 years, though most men live to 70 while women live to 76.

         The Nicaraguan Institute of Social Security (INSS) now covers 600,000 workers who would be affected by these changes, as well as other workers who will be affected in the future. Under the current system, workers pay 2.25% of their salary and the employer pays 6%. After making contributions for two months, workers have the right to medical care and surgical operations, and they are entitled to time off if they have some problem working because of illness, for which they receive 60% of their salary for up to a year. Most are now able to retire at 60 years of age, though teachers may retire after working to age 55.

         The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have been pressuring the Nicaraguan government to reform the INSS pension system for several years. Speaking back in 2010 when the matter first became public knowledge, Manuel Israel Ruiz Arias, an authority on pension systems, stated,

    “The IMF is demanding reform because it has calculated that without it, the State will have to assume huge costs within 10 to 15 years that will destabilize the economy. And it’s right to be worried. It’s insisting on reform but not privatization. And it’s not saying what sort of reform either. It and the World Bank are only demanding 'social security reform' to defend INSS’ financial capacity. But neither of them is saying what model to implement or what needs reforming.”

         While the IMF argues that its concern is solvency of the system, under this reform the system will be made solvent not by raising contributions from the corporations or by increasing the revenue base by expanding coverage to other groups, but rather by forcing workers to work longer and retire later.

         Today, the Sandinista government is complying with the IMF and the World Bank, but according to a recent poll 68 percent of all Nicaraguans disagree with the proposed changes. The poll also indicated that many of those who reject the proposed changes consider themselves to be members or supporters of the Sandinista party. One older worker who works in the private sector for a computer company said he was completely opposed to the reform. And he is not alone.

         Some of the nation’s union federations, the National Council of Workers (CNT) and the Sandinista Confederation of Workers (CST), reject the proposed reform and say that they have collected more than 10,000 petition signatures. They are also demanding that the social security pension system be extended to workers who are not now covered.

         Arsenio Vivas, a leader of the Nicaraguan Teachers Union, argues that the proposed law would violate an existing law covering career teachers which gives them the right to retire after age 55. Vivas is a member of the Teachers Union Group (Unidad Sindical Magisterial) that filed a complaint with the Permanent Human Rights commission (CPDH) demanding that the existing law covering teachers be respected. Vivas explained that elementary school teachers make 4,500 córdobas (US$187.50) per month, while secondary teachers make 4,800 córdobas (US$200). Teachers reject the idea that they should have to work ten years more before they can retire.

         Other unions have come up with their own Social Security reform proposals. The Nicaraguan Union Movement (MSN), the Sandinista Workers Center (CST-JBE), and the General Confederation of Independent Workers have each made their own proposals, but all insist that the 60 year retirement age and the 750 weekly payments be maintained.

         Most Nicaraguan workers, however, are not covered by the Social Security pension system. Nicaragua has two million workers, but 1.4 million of them, about 70 percent, work in the informal sector where workers have no social security coverage of any sort. These informal workers make about US$1.88 per day.

     

    Michael Kelly is an American writer living in Nicaragua. This is the third of an occasional series of Nicaragua Notes.

  • What Happened to the Nicaraguan Revolution?: A View from the Rank and File

    When the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) led the Nicaraguan people to victory over the dictatorship of Anastasio Samoza in 1979, Wilmer (not his real name) was only 14 years old. Having come from a family of modest means, he identified with the revolution that ended the long repressive rule of the Samoza family that with U.S. backing had for 43 years run, ransacked and ultimately ruined Nicaragua. A few years later, Wilmer became a leader of a Sandinista Youth Brigade and led his group of idealistic teenagers to help bring in the coffee harvest in Matagalpa. With the outbreak of the Contra War in the early 1980s, the Sandinista government created a military draft in 1983, and Wilmer was conscripted and fought for two years in the Sandinista People’s Army (ESP) in the Matagalpa area where he had previously picked coffee.

    A child of the revolution, Wilmer is now married with three children, one in college and two in private schools. Self-employed, he makes a modest living.. Wilmer has lived through not only the Revolution of 1979 and the first Sandinista government that followed, but also the two conservative governments of Violeta Chamorro and Arnoldo Alemán, the “Constitutional Liberal” government of Enrique Bolaños, and then the election victory of the Sandinistas in 2006 and again in 2011. Proud of the Nicaraguan revolution, Wilmer still holds his leftist convictions, but, in his soft-spoken way, he is highly critical of the Sandinista government, which, he says, has become a corrupt political group with its own financial interests. “When I see how the government works now,” says Wilmer, “I believe that the lives given in the revolution and the war against the Contras were in vain.”

    As we drive around Managua in a taxi, Wilmer points out the Sandinistas’ business interests. See that hotel, he says, pointing at the modern four-story, block-square building. President Daniel Ortega—one of the comandantes who led the revolution, became the country’s president from 1985-1990, and was reelected president in 2006 and in 2011—now owns the four-star Seminole Hotel. Another comandante, says Wilmer, Bayardo Arce, used his political position and control of government resources to build his own economic empire, most important his Agri-Corp and its subsidiaries which produce rice and other agricultural products.

    Wilmer points out that Carlos Pellas, one of Nicaragua’s richest men who owns a variety of plantations, corporations and banks, and former revolutionary leader President Daniel Ortega have become allies. Ortega’s government paves the way for Pellas’s various projects, such as his new hotel development on Nicaragua’s Pacific Coast, and Pellas supports Ortega politically. But it’s not only Pellas, says Wilmer; Ortega and the Sandinista government now work hand-in-glove with COSEP, the Superior Council of Private Enterprise that brings together all of the country’s major business interests. As Wilmer sees it, the Sandinistas who once talked about improving the lives of working people and the poor now help the rich get richer.

    Daniel Ortega and Carlos Pellas

    Daniel Ortega & Carlos Pellas

    The former Sandinista soldier is also critical of the way the government uses the enormous sums of money from oil-rich Venezuela that President Hugo Chávez has given to Ortega. They amount now to about to about two-and-a-half billion dollars. While not denying that Chávez’s generous gift to Ortega has helped provide housing and food for his fellow Nicaraguans, Wilmer is highly critical of the lack of transparency and accountability. The Venezuelan money, Wilmer explains to me, comes into Nicaragua through ALBA, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Latin America, a trade and development alliance of left-wing governments in Latin America originally created by Cuba and Venezuela. ALBANISA, Alba’s principal holding company, acts as a conduit for the Venezuelan loans to Nicaragua which will have to be repaid in 25 years. Beyond that, not much is known about how the money is distributed and used.

    The money given by Venezuela to Ortega, says Wilmer, is not part of the national budget and is not controlled by Congress. Ortega himself determines how the money is used. Ortega, says Wilmer, distributes much of the money to private companies owned by Sandinistas to carry out various construction and food programs. These views are not unique to Wilmer, and the controversy surrounding the Venezuelan money has been widely debated in the Venezuelan and foreign press. Wilmer and others also complain that Ortega used Venezuelan money to finance his election campaigns in 2006 and 2011.

    Perhaps what most disgusts Wilmer is that Ortega and the other Sandinista leaders act with complete impunity, there being no power in the country able to challenge their policies. He mentions the notorious case of Daniel Ortega’s step-daughter, Zoilamérica Narváez, who accused her step-father of having sexually abused her from 1979 to 1990. Ortega’s political immunity and the five-year statute of limitations kept the case from ever coming to court. The Inter-American Human Rights Commission accepted the case and recommended a friendly settlement, after which Narváez dropped her suit against Nicaragua and her step-father. When Nicaraguan feminists expressed outrage at the way the matter was handled, Ortega’s wife Rosario Murillo derided the country’s feminists as having women’s bodies but not a woman’s heart.

    Wilmer is no longer a Sandinista supporter, and hasn’t been for a long while, but he has never given up his leftist ideals. . There are many others like him in Nicaragua, people of his generation, over 40, who remember the Revolution and the Contra War and continue to hold on to the idealism of their youth. For today’s young people it is a different story. But we will take that up in a subsequent Nicaragua Note.

     

    Michael Kelly is an American writer living in Nicaragua. This is the second of an occasional series of Nicaragua Notes.

  • HP and the Occupation

    Image     In December 2009, the Israeli Knesset passed a law allowing for the creation of a biometric database of the inhabitants of Israel. As of January 2013, the program is in its initial testing stage.

         On December 1, 2008, the American corporation Hewlett-Packard won the contract for the development and dispersal of 5 million biometric identification cards as well as the creation and maintenance of the biometric database, a year before the law was passed. The contract was worth 270 million New Israeli Shekels (NIS), or $72 million. In that same month, an HP subsidiary, Electronic Data Systems (EDS), won a yearly 8 million NIS contract for the systemization of biometric data and the installation of the biometric data system in government offices that would issue the ID cards.

         The political and philosophical implications of the creation of such a thorough biometric database for a nation’s citizenry are complex and worthy of exhaustive discussion, but the implications of the creation of the same system for a population that has been militarily occupied for over 40 years and has no say in its occupier’s government deserves international outcry.

         There already is a biometric database for the Palestinians, the use of which is oppressive and a serious concern for whatever hope of peace that remains.

    Biometrics and Restrictions on Palestinian Movement: The Basel System

         Israeli officials contend that the separation wall, which snakes through the occupied West Bank dissecting agricultural lands from their owners, and the arduous, congested checkpoints that serve as the only permeable entry points for Palestinians laboring in Israel, are necessary and simply intended for security. Since the construction of the aforementioned wall, human rights organizations, church bodies, the international community and the International Court of Justice (save one US judge) have all expressed condemnation of the wall’s effect on Palestinian livelihood.

          In order to soften the international perception of the wall and checkpoints, a new system designed to reduce “friction” was implemented at many checkpoints. Here “friction” can be defined as “contact between Israeli soldiers and Palestinians.” The Basel system, as it came to be called, has been in use since 2005 and it requires that all Palestinians hoping to enter Israel carry a magnetic identification card on which biometric data is stored.

         Unlike the biometric data stored in passports issued by the United States and the European Union, these cards hold information on facial dimensions, hand geometry and other biometric templates, as well as personal and security data. Upon entering any checkpoint equipped with this system, such as that separating the occupied Palestinian territory from its presumptive capital, East Jerusalem, Palestinians are subjected to a particularly clinical and dehumanizing process.

         The identification procedure occurs in a hallway which contains several small rooms whose walls are made of unidirectional glass. In the first room, a voice comes over the speakers and tells the subject to leave his or her personal belongings and step outside. Once outside, the room is locked and security officials enter to examine the subject’s effects. When the examination is complete, the voice returns to tell the subject to collect their things, continue to the next room and place their magnetic ID card in a bowl. The card is then passed through a small window to the computerized screening station. One must remember that the only people subject to these checks are Palestinian.

         The Basel system is not limited to checkpoints separating the Palestinian territories from Israel. Several of these checkpoints are located deep within the West Bank and have contributed to the moratorium on travel for intellectuals, medical complications and even death resulting from their placement between villages and hospitals. Such severe restrictions on freedom of movement, even during childbirth, exhibit complete disregard for internationally-accepted standards of human rights.

    The Palestinian Biometric Database

         In order to deal with the disparate populations residing within its borders, Israel developed a color-coded system of identification. A blue ID is issued to all Israeli citizens (Jews and Palestinians) and permanent residents. The latter include the 253,000 Palestinians who found themselves inside Israel's "borders" when East Jerusalem was annexed after the 1967 war. The vast majority of these have neither de facto nor de jure citizenship. They are permitted to apply for citizenship if they swear allegiance to Israel and meet certain other conditions, but most have not done so because they view their application as a validation of Israel’s sovereignty over their annexed capital. Several thousand have applied for and been granted citizenship in the past decade, but in the last two years the Ministry of the Interior has slowed down approvals.

         On the surface it would seem that the inclusion of these Palestinians defeats the idea of stratified citizenship, but until 2003 the “nationality” of the cardholder (Jewish, Druze, Palestinian, Bedouin,) was explicitly listed. After 2003, it was replaced with asterisks.

         Though no longer named outright, the “nationality” of the cardholder is easily gleaned by taking note of the identification number’s prefix (the cardholder’s ethnicity is stored in the population registry) and whether or not the surname of the paternal grandfather is included.

         Israeli policy concerning East Jerusalem has been discriminatory since the inception of the occupation. If a Palestinian fled Jerusalem due to the war and was unable to return for their original Israeli census, their right to reside in their home was annulled. If a Palestinian has been away from Jerusalem for 7 years or more, their citizenship is revoked. Over 1,360 Palestinians fell victim to this policy in 2006 alone. A newborn is awarded this non-citizenship blue ID only if both of its parents hold the blue East Jerusalem ID.

         The residents of the rest of the occupied territory were originally given orange IDs, but their color was later changed to green. These cards go as far as to list religion, but do not mention citizenship of any kind.

         Any holder of a green ID that should wish to enter Israel must apply for a permit, and since 2005 they must also attain the same magnetized biometric identification cards dropped in the bowl at every Basel system checkpoint. This requirement has led to nearly every person over 16 years of age in the occupied Palestinian territories being listed in a biometric database in which their facial dimensions, hand geometry, iris scans and fingerprints are maintained.

         In 2008, Hewlett-Packard acquired EDS, the main developer of both the Palestinian database and the Basel checkpoints. Since then, HP and its subsidiary have been responsible for the upkeep of this system of biometric oppression.

    Hewlett-Packard contra American Foreign Policy: An Occupation Catalogued

         In any conceivable 2-state solution, the Palestinian government will face a tall order. Substantial unemployment figures, over 350,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank, settlements the size of cities, annexed East Jerusalem and the Palestinian Right of Return. The question of a military force is not among these concerns; under most 2-state proposals, a Palestine in charge of its own external defense is prohibited, leaving the duty to the Israelis Defense Force (IDF). Many Palestinians are concerned about the IDF’s continued presence further undermining civil society in their future state.

         There is marked cooperation that strengthens this concern, as shown by the blind eye turned by the Palestinian Authority to the December 11, 2012 Israeli raids on the prisoner support organization Addammeer, the Union of Palestinian Women’s Committee and the Palestinian Nongovernmental Organizations Network.

         Palestinians fear that their future state will be more of the same, more violations of their sovereignty masquerading as the responsibility of defense.

         Domestic and international voices have taken note of these apprehensions and many now claim that a 1-state solution is the only feasible answer to this tiresome dispute.

         The complete biometric cataloguing of the Palestinian populace is yet another grievance to address, another blow to the increasingly invalid 2-state solution.

         Though there is no parallel to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a few passable comparisons may be drawn. Would the international community have been so forgiving of Serbia holding a comprehensive database of the citizenry of Bosnia and Herzegovina after its withdrawal from the hills surrounding Sarajevo? If Turkey currently knew the address of every Greek Cypriot; as well as their religious and marital status, would this not be seen as a threat to the island republic’s independence?

    Further Infractions

         America’s expressed foreign policy concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a 2-state solution based on the 1967 borders with mutually-agreed land swaps. The actions of HP and EDS are in direct opposition to this policy. The Orwellian reservoir of biometric data at the disposal of the Israeli government is perhaps the most significant, but one cannot discount the many contracts HP with various branches of the occupation.

         HP supplies all computers to the Israeli army, including those used at checkpoints. The company also won a contract for the outsourcing of the Navy’s intelligence technology infrastructure, including the management and operation of its computer and communications centers, information security, and user support.

         This is the same Navy that in the wake of a ceasefire tells the fishermen of Gaza, who may or may not have voted for Hamas, that their new boundary has been augmented by 3 nautical miles to a paltry 6 in total, only to attack and arrest them when they dare to venture out.

         Many of these men were the sole breadwinners for large families. With their boats impounded and destroyed, they are left with no recourse to provide for their loved ones.

         Even if the Israeli Navy allowed the fishermen free movement within the newly delineated boundaries, it would still be flying in the face of international standards, which set the minimum at 12 miles. Under the Oslo accords, the fishermen of Gaza were afforded a full 20 nautical miles.

         A computerized storage system provided by HP sits in the illegal settlement of Ariel, which houses the school recently awarded university status, and will reportedly always be under the sovereignty of Israel.

         Ariel is located almost halfway into the occupied West Bank between Ramallah and Nablus and the notion that it should always remain under Israeli control elucidates the hopelessness of the 2-state solution.

    Hewlett-Packard contra the Rhetoric of the Right

         "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."

         Since President Reagan uttered those epitomical words during his inaugural address on January 20, 1981, the American Right has framed political discourse in the United States as a battle between government and personal freedom.

         In their worldview, government feeds on personal liberty, and any regulation placed on big business serves as seasoning for government’s meal of choice.

         While this rhetorical hat-trick has resonated with the workers and voters of the United States (so much so that American organized labor seems to be on its last leg), one only needs to look to the actions of largely unregulated transnational corporations to see the error in this line of thinking. Indifference and contempt for workers and the environment abound, but the American Right seems to be unfazed by these transgressions.

         Oddly, when debating this philosophy, Orwell’s 1984 is cited nearly as much as any work by Ayn Rand. Orwell was a self-professed socialist who despised reactionary policy, something largely lost on the proponents of his critique of “Big Government”.

         Perhaps the role of HP in creating these databases, and thereby helping the Israeli Ministry of the Interior inch ever closer to the role of the deplorable Ministry of Love, could serve as sufficient cause for alarm and reflection concerning boundless Big Business.

         After all, it is our principle ally in the Middle East, the region’s “only democracy”, who is subjecting not only its own citizens but those under the purview of the occupation, those who have no right to vote, to this Orwellian reality.

         In the case of the Israeli Biometric Database, Big Government and Big Business have come together to further the suffering of the occupied, limit the freedom of the occupiers and deal yet another blow to the moribund 2-state solution.

         Any person, regardless of political inclination, can easily find something to hate, including the founders of HP, Bill Hewlett and David Packard, who came up with guidelines to govern their company known as the “HP Way.” One of the tenets asserts that their employees “. . . at every level are expected to adhere to the highest standards of business ethics and must understand that anything less is unacceptable.”

         While commonly accepted standards of business ethics have effectively been forgotten in the globalized economy, one cannot help but contrast the original philosophy of HP's founders with the corporation's profiting from illegal settlements, population-wide restrictions on movement, military occupations and vulgar indifference towards the announced foreign policy of the United States and to common decency.

     

    Creede Newton is an American journalist based in Israel and Palestine. He works as a correspondent for Egypt based Bikya News. His writing has been published by BikyaNews.com, Fair Observer, Alternative Information Center, and elsewhere.

  • Letter of Support and Solidarity to Greek Transport Workers

    The following open letter was issued yesterday.

    January 26, 2013

    Letter of Support and Solidarity to Greek Transport Workers

         We have read about your strike against threatened pay cuts and the Greek government’s emergency decree and use of riot police to force you back to work. We are horrified by the attempt to toss your contracts aside; your pay is already not adequate to maintain a decent standard of living.

         We stand with you and all in Greece who are resisting the barbaric austerity regime, and we hope for a new government in Greece that can defend the interests of ordinary people ¬ sooner rather than later. We write this in solidarity with your struggle, in the full understanding that it is not only your living standards that are at stake (though that would be reason enough to write), but also that the Greek extreme neoliberal “experiment” will be imposed on the rest of us if it is allowed to succeed.

         Our best wishes for your success!

    Joanne Landy and Thomas Harrison
    Co-Directors
    Campaign for Peace and Democracy
    New York City

    For more information on Greece, see the Campaign for Peace and Democracy website.

     

  • The Sandinista Government has Failed the Women of Nicaragua: Solis

    Image     Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and the Sandinista government have failed the country's women. That was the message delivered by Azahalea Solís, an attorney and a member of Nicaragua's Autonomous Women's Movement, speaking at the Ben Lindner Center in Managua on January 17 to an audience of Nicaraguans and American students from various universities. In a systematic presentation that touched upon politics, economic, employment, migration, and education, Solís presented a devastating critique of the government's policies.

         "I studied law," said Solís, "thinking that law could be useful in the class struggle, and later saw that law could also be useful in the fight for women's rights." The problem is, Solís said, that the government doesn't enforce the law and the people don't care about the law because, they say, the law doesn't feed us. "The ones who pay for disrespecting the law are women," declared Solís.

         If one looked at women in political and governmental positions, one might think that Nicaraguan women were doing well, said Solís. After the Sandinistas returned to power in 2006, women were appointed to many cabinet positions, including ministers of Health, Natural Resources, Culture, and Interior, the head of the nation's police forces. But, said Solís, women are not free to speak their minds. She gave the example of the former director of the Nicaraguan Cultural Institute (INC), Margine Gutiérrez, who was removed from office after she criticized President Ortega for his illegal and unconstitutional gift in 2007 of a manuscript dealing with Simón Bolívar written by the national poet Rubén Darío to President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela. For daring to criticize the President, she was immediately removed.

         Solís suggested that women in high positions in the Sandinista Front and in the government have no freedom of expression, but have to toe the party line. "Women who hold government positions can't talk about their work, they can't speak to the media, and they can only speak when they are told to," she said. "So they can't really express themselves."

         And, added Solís, the Constitution requires that all ministers and ambassadors be appointed by the president and confirmed by the National Assembly, but none of them have received parliamentary confirmation. Legally, she said, all of the ministers and vice-ministers are illegal.

         The system of taxation in Nicaragua also has a negative impact on women, Solís explained. Carlos Pellas, one of Nicaragua's richest men, has built the $250 million Guacalito de la Isla Hotel on Nicaragua's "Emerald Coast." The hotel was built with a loan from a government bank and pays no taxes, Solís told the audience. "Yet workers have to pay a tax of 10 percent and another value added tax of 35 percent. "The very rich are exempt from taxes, while the working class has to pay ever more taxes. And this is done without consulting the working class. The government only talks to the rich," Solís said.

         High unemployment has led many men and women to migrate abroad in search of work, either to the United States or to Spain or Italy. Nicaragua's official unemployment rate has fallen from 8.2 percent in 2010 to 6.3 percent today, while an estimated two-thirds of Nicaraguans work in the informal sector.

         "During the last few years, more and more women have emigrated to other countries to seek work," said Solís. "What does this mean? One has to leave one's family and one's country to go to countries where xenophobia or discrimination may exist. One may have to learn a new language. And women sometimes face problems of sexual violence. Most don't want to emigrate, but they do it out of necessity."

         It's all about jobs. "Formal employment has not increased. Those who have formal sector jobs have regular employment and social security, but those in the informal sector have neither. Informal work has increased, meaning no steady work and no guarantees of benefits. Most women work in the informal sector."

         Solís put the employment problem in the broader economic context. "The government says exports have increased, but that's not true. We have the same quantity of exports, though at better prices. Meat and coffee have been selling at good prices. We have been selling the same goods at higher prices and this hides a terrible reality, because now the prices of those products are starting to fall."

         There are other economic problems as well. "Many coffee plantations have been affected by blight, so there will be less product and lower prices."

         Even where production has risen, productivity has not, says Solís. "Many Nicaraguans work in the cattle industry and do so as we have for 200 years. We have an extensive form of cattle production, meaning that trees are cut down to create new pastures. Now entire forests are being affected."

         "We really have two problems," said Solís, "anachronistic forms of production and thousands of uneducated workers."

          "This government is spending less on education than previous governments have. Yet we know that no society will make progress in the twenty-first century without education. The Free Trade Zones in our country which use unskilled labor correspond to our low level of education.

         While Nicaragua has lower levels of domestic violence than Honduras or Guatemala, the situation for Nicaraguan women is worsening, Solís believes. "We are having more cases of domestic violence every year, and women are being affected at increasingly younger ages."

         "The situation has led some women to talk about 'state terrorism,' and you might think that this term is inappropriate," said Solís. "But according to human rights workers, the government is responsible for not taking measures to protect women."

         "In Nicaragua, most criminals are not punished. Impunity is a constant throughout the country, and this affects the rights of women. We have a very notorious rape case here in Nicaragua where a man accused of aggravated rape was given eight years in prison, when the possible penalty was twelve years. He appealed and the penalty was reduced to four years. He then appealed to the Supreme Court which once again reduced the penalty arguing that the victim had collaborated with the rapist and that there were mitigating circumstances because the rapist was drunk. The idea of being drunk as an extenuating circumstance thus became a precedent. We protested vigorously against this." Few crimes against women go to court, said Solís, and guilty verdicts represent only 10 percent of all decisions.

         When asked by one of the American students present what should be done, Solís said that the most important thing was to raise consciousness, to make the Nicaraguan people more aware of their rights. Touching on the broader question of the nature of the Nicaraguan government today Solis said that the Samozas had a personal dictatorship, while the Sandinistas had an "institutional dictatorship," and while there were not the kinds of assassinations and massacres that occurred under Samoza, the government had found mechanisms to dominate politics and control society.

    Michael Kelly is an American writer living in Nicaragua. This is the first of a series of Nicaragua Notes.

  • One response to austerity

    The Austerity Allstars explain their political program.

    May it catch on widely!

  • Free Russian Political Prisoners!

             We the undersigned call for the liberation of the Russian political prisoners, both those already condemned, and sent to the new Gulag, like the two feminist activists of the Pussy Riot group, and those in jail awaiting trial – some 20 activists, socialists and anti-fascists, in connection with the demonstrations against Putin on May 6th. We endorse the call of the Russian Left organizations — Russian Socialist Movement (RSD), Autonomous Action, Left Front — to organize Days of Solidarity Against Political Repression in Russia between 29 November and 2 December, in front of the Russian Federation Embassy or any other representative institutions of the Russian government in our countries, demanding the immediate release of the illegally arrested or condemned and the immediate end of procedures based on torture and forgeries.

    Gilbert Achcar, political scientist, Athena Athanassiou, philosopher, Jean Batou, historian, Etienne Balibar, philosopher, Olivier Besancenot, former presidential candidate, Alex Callinicos, political scientist , Noam Chomsky, linguist, Samuel Farber, historian, Nancy Holmstrom, philosopher, Rada Ivekovic, philosopher, Isabelle Garo, philosopher, Joanne Landy, historian, Michael Löwy, sociologist, Stéphanie Prezioso, historian, Catherine Samary, economist, Jeanne Singer, sociologist, Enzo Traverso, historian, Eleni Varikas, political scientist.

  • Aaron Swartz: What We Know So Far, What We Need to Know

    Image     The reaction to Aaron Swartz's suicide has quickly reached a level of intensity which may have surprised those who will eventually need to respond to it.

         Much of this anger is directed at Assistant Prosecutor Stephen Heymann who, according to reports, pushed for Swartz's prosecution, refusing to negotiate any reduction in sentence without Swartz pleading guilty to all thirteen charges. Next in line is Heymann's boss, States' Attorney Carmen Ortiz, who may have recognized in Swartz's prosecution an opportunity to advance herself by claiming a highly coveted scalp: Swartz successfully organized the public against the passage of SOPA legislation (the "Stop Online Piracy Act"), to the great displeasure of the Washington establishment.

         At first, Ortiz's strategy seemed to be working—she was mentioned by Obama friend, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, as his possible successor. But by now, it has surely backfired.

         Petitions targeting Heymann and Ortiz are on file with the White House and are attracting thousands of signatures.

         Their receiving even a mild sanction, would, of course, constitute a major victory for Swartz's supporters. But, in the unlikely event this occurs, it needs to be understood that they will be taking the fall for higher-ups who bear more responsibility.

         Included within this latter group is one figure whose name has been conspicuously absent from much of the discussion of the case: former MIT President Susan Hockfield. It was Hockfield who, it appears, signed off on moving forward with the prosecution when JSTOR, the digital database that was the primary victim of Swartz's alleged theft, was more than willing to drop charges. Furthermore, according to press reports, "MIT administrators" scuttled a plea bargain arranged with the prosecutor, JSTOR, and Swartz's attorney under which Swartz would serve no jail time.

         In pursuing a harsh punishment for Swartz, Hockfield placed herself in the vanguard of a new generation of college administrators who have actively sought confrontations with activist elements on their campuses.

         Others in this group are University of California chancellors Robert J. Birgeneau and Linda Katehi, whose militarized response to non-violent protest on the Berkeley and Davis campuses resulted in breaking the ribs of former U.C. Poet Laureate Robert Haas and a million dollar settlement against the university for pepper spraying of Occupy Wall Street demonstrators.

         Remarkably, each of these figures has ties to Hockfield: Birgeneau is a former MIT Professor of Physics and Dean of Science who has served with Hockfield on numerous panels and boards. Katehi serves with Hockfield on the National Security Higher Education Advisory Board, founded by the FBI for the purpose of "discussing . . . the promotion of strategic national security partnerships with academia."

         It appears that these "discussions" have reached the same conclusion reached by Ortiz: the promotion of national security requires "getting tough," meaning the routine violent crackdown on campus protest and the aggressive prosecution of those who would previously have been dealt with internally with a slap on the wrist, at most.

         Finally, the ultimate responsibility resides with the Obama Justice Department and Obama himself, whose successful marketing as a liberal and civil libertarian has enabled the movement of the conventional wisdom on such matters as indefinite detention, extra judicial execution, habeas corpus, and torture to a rightward point on the spectrum, which even extreme conservatives could not have dreamed of only a few years ago.

         University presidents cannot be expected to challenge elite consensus, least of all MIT presidents, who are, after all, reliant on the federal government for roughly half of their operating budget.

         But while Hockfield is not to be judged by the standards set by such great MIT dissidents as Norbert Wiener, Salvatore Luria, and Noam Chomsky, what MIT should expect is an administration willing to act with tolerance and forbearance.

         Indeed, MIT administrations going back many years have a long tradition of doing just that.

         According to one faculty member, Hockfield—described by him as a union busting import from Yale—is widely seen as having broken with this tradition by instituting "a 'rules is rules' mentality that was cold and bureaucratic towards students and anyone else who got out of line."

         In contrast, Hockfield's successor, Rafael Reif, is viewed very favorably, his appointment of Hal Abelson to investigate MIT's role widely hailed by the MIT community and Swartz's supporters.

         The best possible result of Abelson's investigation would be the public release of all communications between MIT and the Justice Department. Should these materialize, they will almost certainly show both the MIT and Obama Justice Department in a highly unflattering light. The latter surely deserves to have its shameful record of prosecutorial dishonesty, bullying, and abuse exposed to the light of day.

         It is of course a foregone conclusion that they will fight the release of these documents. The faculty and students at MIT and all of us who admired Aaron Swartz should recognize that exposing these is the best and most fitting commemoration of his life and work.

     

    John Halle is Director of Studies in Music Theory and Practice at Bard College.

  • Of the People, By the People

    Robin Hahnel's Of the People, By the People: The case for a participatory economy (Soapbox Press, 2012, distributed by AK press, www.akpress.org) is the latest and most accessible presentation of his argument that a new economy—based on equality, participation, solidarity, and self-management—is both desirable and possible. Originally formulated by Hahnel and Michael Albert more than two decades ago, the model has been continually refined and improved, addressing problems raised by critics. This is precisely the way vision for the future should be developed: through an ongoing process of criticism and revision.

    In this new book, Hahnel offers two revisions to his previous exposition. In previous versions, the planning process—participatory planning—made no distinction between the current annual plan and more long-term plans. Here Hahnel acknowledges that the latter involve some special complications that need to be addressed. In particular, our estimates of opportunity and social costs become less reliable the further off into the future we are projecting, and therefore long-range planning will have to rely more on discussion and debate among delegates to federations of consumer and worker councils. This will require finding means of maintaining popular involvement in the long-run planning process in the face of less direct participation.

    The second revision involves the annual consumption requests. How can people know what they want for an entire year, many critics asked? They can't, Hahnel says. But if their beginning-of-year guesses—which might just be "same as last year"—turn out to be wrong, then mid-year corrections can be made. There is no assurance, of course, that everybody can get whatever they want and are entitled to exactly when they want it, but not even a market system can guarantee that.

    This new book doesn't end the cycle of critique and revision, and in that spirit, I posed a number of questions to Robin Hahnel that came to me as I read Of the People, By the People. My questions and his responses follow.

    Shalom: Let me start on this question of the annual consumption requests of individuals. Submitting a "same as last year" request certainly simplifies matters. But there are still reasons to think this wouldn't be an easily manageable process. Seth Ackerman, notes, for example, that there are more than two million prod¬ucts in Amazon.com's 'kitchen and dining' category alone. [Seth Ackerman, "The Red and the Black," The Jacobin, no. 9, Winter 2013, p. 39.] Not all products are consumed within a year (so last year, for example, I bought an electric razor; I don't want "same as last year" for that). The sneakers that I bought two years ago have worn out; so I'd need to amend last year's request. And what about products that change over time? I had avoided a snack food last year because it had too much salt, but this year there's a low-salt version. And of course books, music, movies, video games, software—I don't want the same as last year.

    Hahnel: The two million products in the Amazon.com "kitchen and dining" section is a wonderful example of how consumers can become aware of the tremendous variety of products that will be available in a participatory economy. Just as Amazon.com can list millions of products—providing pictures and details about their characteristics—consumer federations can provide this service to consumers in a participatory economy for any who wish to shop online. And for those who prefer what some of my students once told me were "the pleasures of malling it" in person, consumer federations can host shopping malls where anyone who wishes can go, see what is available, and walk away with whatever strikes their fancy. Information about product improvements can be provided in these ways as well.

    If you remember that the sneakers you bought two years ago have now worn out you will add a pair of sneakers to your consumption request this year that were not on your consumption list last year. You will also not request an electric razor this year. Since I will not remember I need new sneakers but do not need another electric razor, and I would not bother submitting a revised request even if I did, my initial consumption request will be the same as last year and not include a pair of sneakers but will include an electric razor. Moreover, when my neighborhood consumption council sends me the revised indicative prices in the second round of the planning procedure and asks me if I want to revise my consumption proposal I will not respond again, whereas you may choose to modify some of your requests in response to updated indicative prices—perhaps requesting two pair of sneakers if their indicative price has fallen, or postponing your replacement sneakers another year if their indicative price rose significantly.

    The important thing is that no matter what you or I choose to do individually there will be an initial consumption proposal for the entire neighborhood submitted by our consumer council, and there will be revised neighborhood consumption proposals submitted in every subsequent round as well. And that is all that matters as far as how the planning procedure "works." What will happen when I discover during the year that I want a new pair of sneakers I didn't order but don't need the electric razor I did order? I will order a pair that looks suitable online, or pick up a pair at a distribution center or mall run by a consumer federation, and be charged the same indicative price you are for the item you ordered in advance and I neglected to order. I will not pick up an electric razor and therefore I will not be charged for one.

    It's important to distinguish between what we need to accomplish and what we do NOT need to accomplish in the annual participatory planning process. When the year starts worker councils need to know what they are expected to produce and what inputs they have been authorized to use to do that. If they know these two things they can get started producing when the year begins, so that is all the participatory planning process must accomplish. Before it can begin production on January 1, does a shoe making company in a capitalist economy know how many size 9 vs. size 11 shoes to make? How many brown vs. black shoes to make? How many high quality vs. low quality shoes to make? It has no way of knowing the answers to these "how much of each slightly different product should I make" questions, nor does it need to. Based entirely on its own guesses and research about trends in consumer demands, a capitalist shoe making company starts to produce shoes in January at a faster or slower pace than last year and then adjusts to unanticipated changes in the overall demand for its shoes, and shifts in demand for different sizes, colors, and qualities, on the fly as new information arrives. Shoemakers in a participatory economy will do this as well, except the annual plan provides them on January 1 with much better information about what to expect.

    It's important also to be clear about how workers and consumers are credited and charged for what they do. The planning procedure "approves" the behavior agreed to in the plan—for both worker and consumer councils. However, worker councils are credited for the outputs they actually produce and charged for the inputs they actually use during the year.[1] So if their approved production plan had a SB/SC ratio of 1.09 but their actual ratio at year's end turns out to be 1.03 the cap on average effort ratings for workers in the council next year is 1.03 not 1.09. Similarly, consumers, and consumer councils and federations are charged for what they actually consume during the year, not what was approved for them in the plan. Any differences are recorded as increases or decreases in the debt or savings of individual consumers, neighborhood councils, and consumer federations.

    We need to distinguish between how to adjust to unforeseen changes as the year proceeds and how to formulate the annual production plan in the first place. These are two different issues in all planned economies. The first issue is how to formulate the plan in the first place. And that is what advocates of participatory planning have written about—a way to arrive at an annual production/consumption plan that is qualitatively different from authoritarian, or central planning, and also quite different from most notions of how to go about democratic economic planning. But no matter how the annual production plan is formulated, any planned economy must come up with some way to make adjustments during the year. I have written very little about adjustments because the unique proposal we have made has to do with how to formulate the plan in the first place. What I have said about making adjustments during the year is: (1) Imagine people swiping debit cards at cash registers (or online), and being asked if they want to announce a change in their approved consumption plan when the pace of their actual consumption deviates by say 20% from what they ordered. (2) Remember that computerized inventory management systems linked to cash registers and "real time" supply changes are already features of the global economy. (3) Envision consumer federations as clearing houses for consumption just as regional Federal Reserve Banks clear checks for private banks operating in their region. (4) When changes in consumption among all consumers do not cancel then consumer federations will have to negotiate with industry federations for changes in production during the year. Which leaves one question to answer: Will indicative prices, which are the basis for crediting producers and charging consumers, also be changed during the year whenever desired changes in production cannot be made, or cannot be made in full? I can think of arguments for and against.

    If we want consumers to influence the annual plan we need input from consumers during the planning process. If we want worker councils to have a better idea of what to produce than firms in market economies this must come from the annual plan. In a participatory economy consumers influence production decisions primarily through the "self-activity" proposals of consumer councils and federations during the planning procedure. Consumer councils and federations respond to estimates of the social costs of producing different final goods and services by indicating how much they want, knowing they will be charged according to the prices "indicating" what it costs society to provide them. As those estimates of social costs are adjusted during the planning procedure by the IFB, presumably consumer councils and federations will change the amounts of different things they request when they submit revised consumption proposals.

    Shalom: Say there are 100 workplaces that produce product X. In the planning procedure it is determined that there is only demand for the output of 90 workplaces. (Assume it is determined that this represents a long-term trend, not just a one-time drop in demand for which it might make sense to keep 10 unneeded workplaces going to minimize transaction costs.) Assume that the workers all want to continue producing X (they enjoy doing so more than they do producing Y, a product with excess demand; or they don't want to incur the disruptions of having to be retrained; etc.). Which 10 workplaces will be closed or converted? Is this a matter of some objective measure (e.g., the social benefit to cost ratio, SB/SC) or of democratic vote? If the former, won't there be pressure on workers to "exploit themselves" in order to increase their ratio (just as under capitalism, bosses will try to increase the exploitation of workers in a competitive industry)? I don't mean that workers will feel pressure to increase a ratio that is less than 1 to a ratio that is greater than 1—that of course makes sense—but to go from 1.31 to 1.33 in order to beat out the workplace with a 1.32 ratio.

    Hahnel: There are a lot of issues contained in this one question, so let me break it up into pieces.

    You write: "Say there are 100 workplaces that produce product X. In the planning procedure it is determined that there is only demand for the output of 90 workplaces. (Assume it is determined that this represents a long-term trend, not just a one-time drop in demand for which it might make sense to keep 10 unneeded workplaces going to minimize transaction costs.)"

    That is not exactly how it would become apparent that roughly 10% of those working to produce X should no longer be doing so. Suppose each of the existing 100 workplaces making X submit initial proposals to make as much as they did last year, requesting the same inputs including different kinds of labor they currently employ. At the end of the first round of the planning process it turns out that there is only demand for 90% of the output that the X industry has proposed to supply. In the next round of the planning procedure the indicative price of X will be lowered by the Iteration Facilitation Board (IFB). To keep it simple, suppose it is lowered by 10%. This will change the incentives for both those offering to produce or supply X, and for those asking to consume or demand X. In the next round of proposals, because the estimate of the social cost of producing X is now lower, the aggregate demand for X should increase—presumably not as much as 10%, but some. So the excess supply will no longer be as great as 10%. But there will most likely still be excess supply, let's say 8%. However, each worker council proposing to supply X now only receives "credit" for increasing social benefits by 90% of what they used to for every unit of X they propose to supply. So if they persist in making the same proposal in the second round as they did in the first round the social benefits in their social benefit to social cost ratio will now be 10% lower than they were before, and their proposal would be even less likely to meet with approval. This "pressure" to reduce production of X, and/or switch over to producing Y, will fall heaviest on the worker councils with the lowest SB/SC ratios in the first place. Presumably, these are the least efficient X producers and they will be the ones most likely to reduce their production of X in subsequent rounds. So there is what we might call a "natural" process of selection among the 100 workplaces regarding who is going to drop out of X production.

    You write: "Assume that the workers all want to continue producing X (they enjoy doing so more than they do producing Y, a product with excess demand; or they don't want to incur the disruptions of having to be retrained; etc.). Which 10 workplaces will be closed or converted? Is this a matter of some objective measure (e.g., the social benefit to cost ratio) or of democratic vote. If the former, won't there be pressure on workers to 'exploit themselves' in order to increase their ratio (just as under capitalism, bosses will try to increase the exploitation of workers in a competitive industry)?"

    So my answer, above, is that this would normally be taken care of by what you are calling "some objective measure" rather than "a democratic vote"—by which I assume you mean of all workers in the X industry.

    About what you call "self-exploitation": In capitalism "self-exploitation" is not really self-exploitation at all. It is exploitation of workers by their employers. Employers go to their employees and say if you don't accept wage and/or benefit cuts or increases in work intensity I will lay off some of you, or shut down the plant altogether and move to where employees are more compliant. A better analogy would be a worker-owned cooperative producing X in a predominantly capitalist economy. If the members of this coop really liked making X more than Y or, if they really didn't want to have to change jobs—which can be personally costly since no capitalism other than Scandinavian capitalism has ever tried to minimize the transition costs of moving people from one job to another and socialize the costs of doing so—they could opt for a higher level of what you call "self-exploitation" to remain in business. I suppose the same holds in a participatory economy, which would allow a worker council producing X to continue to do so if they were willing to accept a lower than average SB/SC ratio, and any lower average consumption allowance that went along with it. Do I think this would happen often? Perhaps in the case of craft production. But if the transition costs of moving to a new workplace are minimized and socialized—as they would be in a participatory economy—I don't see why workers would want to "self-exploit" when they don't have to, unless they were very much attached to producing a particular product. After all, what the iterative, social planning procedure is signaling them is that product Y benefits society more than X. Why would workers reject this signal at their own expense? Craft, performance art… perhaps. In which case, I see nothing wrong with it. It is similar to allowing people to make their own "effort/sacrifice" vs. "consumption" choice. As long as you are being socially responsible—in this case working harder and/or accepting a lower effort rating and therefore consumption allowance in exchange for producing a particular product that society does not find to be as socially valuable as others, go for it!

    You write:"I don't mean that workers will feel pressure to increase a ratio that is less than 1 to a ratio that is greater than 1—that of course makes sense—but to go from 1.31 to 1.33 in order to beat out the workplace with a 1.32 ratio."

    It is SB/SC ratios less than 1 that are generally socially irresponsible and unlikely to be approved by others. Even in that case a group of workers could truthfully report so many people-years of welding labor, etc. to produce so many units of good X and get the SB/SC ratio up to 1 by planning on exerting above average effort on the job, and therefore be able to stay in business. That would be what you call "self-exploitation." Any councils with SB/SC ratios in ANY industry in the 1.30, 1.31, 1.32, 1.33 range ARE behaving in a socially responsible way and WILL have their proposals approved by others, so that is not a concern. But in the spirit of your question, a worker council deciding to exert above average effort/intensity to boost their SB/SC ratio from 0.98 to 1.00 to stay in business, while a worker council with a ratio of 0.99 who do not choose to "self-exploit" is the one that must switch to Y or shut down so its members have to find new jobs, is free to do so. And I don't think there is a problem with that.

    Shalom: You say (p. 76) that people hired as members of worker councils get full and equal rights from the moment they arrive. Does this preclude any sort of trial period? If so, won't this mean (a) more hiring errors, and (b) more reluctance to "take chances" in hiring?

    Hahnel: I did not mean to exclude the possibility of trial periods for new members—which is a common practice in many worker-owned cooperatives, and even in worker-owned enterprises self-consciously practicing all the norms of participatory economics, such as the Mondragon collectives in Winnipeg, Canada. But there cannot be second-class citizens in workplaces. A participatory economy does not tolerate this, though regrettably it is a practice in some cooperatives today, where there are members—with full voice, vote, and profit shares—who then hire others as their employees. That is what I intended to say was forbidden.

    Shalom: One of the interesting observations in your book The ABCs of Political Economy: A Modern Approach (London: Pluto Press, 2002, p. 70) is that small amounts of unequal sacrifice become permanent inequalities because the capital accrued from the extra work makes subsequent labor more productive. Is this a problem in a participatory economy? That is, might small differences in effort or small differences in interest-bearing savings (p. 83) lead via this same mechanism to income inequalities that will grow exponentially?

    Hahnel: I certainly hope not. But fortunately I don't believe this would be a problem. In the models you mention any extra sacrifice in an early time period is transformed into more capital to work with in the future—which is not bad in and of itself since more tools as well as better tools makes us more socially productive as time goes on. In the models you mention the most egregious case of turning this good thing into a bad thing arises when the additional capital that comes from an early extra sacrifice is used to hire an employee whose greater productivity when working with the additional capital is appropriated as profits by her employer, or when the additional capital is loaned to someone whose greater productivity when working with the additional capital is captured as interest by the lender. In these cases I think the term "exploitation" is appropriate. As you mention, in these cases inequality that quickly exceeds the amount required to compensate for an initial extra sacrifice increases "exponentially" over time. However, in the models you mention even in the case when there is no labor or credit market, if the person who made the extra early sacrifice in week 1 uses it to work with more capital than others have to work with, after a certain number of weeks they will have benefited far more compared to others than can be justified by their one-time, early sacrifice. In this case the unequal outcome each week stays the same (i.e. does not increase exponentially), but as the weeks march on the cumulative injustice increases. In this last case, since there is no unequal social relationship that creates the unjust outcome I think it is contrary to common usage to call the outcome "exploitative," but it is unfair nonetheless.

    What happens in a participatory economy?

    In a participatory economy any increase in the capital stock during a year—which is the result of the investment plan—is added to society's stock of productive capital for the following year. And once it is there it belongs no more to one group of workers than to another. Every year all worker councils "propose" which parts of society's capital stock they wish to use, and the decision regarding who finally gets to use what is made when worker and consumer councils approve proposals. Ultimately, one worker council may well end up with more or better parts of society's capital stock than another. However, (1) this will be because they demonstrated an ability to make better use of it, and (2) they will be "charged" for the extra quantity or quality of capital stock used according to the estimates of the opportunity cost of those inputs as generated by the participatory planning procedure. Any worker council with more or better "capital" will have a higher SC in the denominator of their SB/SC ratio than a worker council with less or worse capital, which will require them to generate a higher SB to warrant being allowed to use it. So the expected value of the SB/SC ratio for a worker council that has more or better capital should be no higher than the expected value of the SB/SC ratio for a worker council with less or worse capital. And therefore differences in quantity and quality of capital used in different worker councils should not generate any differences in consumption rights for people in a participatory economy. This is not true in economies with labor and/or credit markets. It is not even true in economies where everybody is completely self-sufficient and where those who make more sacrifices early on are allowed to keep the extra capital that results as their own to work with in the future—as the models you cite in the ABCs of Political Economy demonstrate.

    There can be no increase in society's capital stocks for next year unless society produces investment goods rather than only consumption goods this year. How much, and what kind of investment goods to produce, and therefore how much not to consume, but "save" this year, is decided through the investment planning procedure in a participatory economy. In other words, this means that society's tradeoff between consumption now and in the future is determined by the investment plan.

    Every year individual consumers—and federations of consumers—have the choice of whether or not to save, borrow, or consume exactly the amount of income they are allotted in a participatory economy. But every year they do this in the context of whatever amounts of consumption goods will be produced that year. If the investment plan calls for 40% investment this year and only 60% consumption, there will be fewer consumption goods for consumers to bid on than if the investment plan called for only 10% investment leaving 90% for consumption. This means that the higher the rate of investment the higher the indicative prices for consumption goods will be that year. That is the context in which individual consumers are free to decide if they want to save or borrow in any given year.

    What about interest? Should consumers who save be paid a rate of interest and consumers who borrow be charged a rate of interest? And if so, what should this rate of interest be? Notice that whatever rate of interest is chosen can have no effect on the division of production between investment goods and consumption goods since that is determined by the investment planning process. So all that the rate of interest does is re-distribute income among consumers. Society does not require a high rate of interest to stimulate investment. The simple choice is to make the rate of interest zero. In this case the answer to your question is that nobody could increase their consumption rights over time by saving—saving is simple deferral. However, one could also make an argument for setting the rate of interest equal to the expected rate of increase in overall economic well-being per capita. In this case an individual could increase her total consumption rights by using less of them early in life since saving earns deferral plus interest. However, this in no way increases her expected income in future years since that is determined every year according to whatever sacrifices or effort she makes when working. In sum, even if a frugal Calvinist saved a great deal of her consumption rights during the first 20 years of her work life, and even if her savings were not merely deferred but were paid a rate of interest, and therefore grew "exponentially," all she would be able to do is consume more in her later years. I suppose she could also retire earlier than others. If those who borrowed early in life were charged interest it would simply reduce the amount they could consume later in life more than it would have had the rate of interest been zero.

    Shalom: When a particular workplace is inefficient and must be disbanded, you say (p. 110) that the annual produc¬tion plan provides for full employment, so there will be jobs for these workers in more successful worker councils. You add that "their expected income working elsewhere should be as high, or higher than it was in the coun¬cil that was disbanded." I don't understand this. If they're working at the same effort level as they were before, why won't their incomes always be exactly the same?

    Hahnel: Because a participatory economy is a planned economy there will be jobs for everyone in the workforce in the annual plan every year. That is something no market economy can guarantee. That was what I meant when I said that there would always be new jobs for any workers who lose their jobs. If the participatory economy chooses to stipulate that the average effort rating in all worker councils must be the same, then you are correct that everyone's expected income remains the same when they move from one worker council to another. On the other hand, if the participatory economy decides to set the average effort rating in a worker council equal to the council's SB/SC ratio, then workers' expected income is equal to the council's SB/SC ratio. The planning procedure will generally shift resources—in this case workers—from workplaces with lower SB/SC ratios to ones with higher ratios. This is what I meant when I said that laid off workers might even expect their incomes to rise from their change in employment.

    Shalom: You say (p. 111): "In a participatory economy new worker councils bid for the -resources they need to get started in the participatory planning process. If they submit a proposal that is accepted, they're good to go. Otherwise not." Is there any preference given to existing worker councils? That is, if the demand for widgets is being precisely met and a new worker council proposes to make widgets (more efficiently, they claim), will their proposal be accepted, replacing an existing worker council? Imagine if every worker in the US today were under constant threat of being replaced by a marginally more effective worker. Fear of disruption and sabotage might prevent this, but in a participatory economy shouldn't there be a certain deference paid to continuity?

    Hahnel: These are matters that people living and working in a participatory economy would have to decide for themselves. After all, whatever any of us write about these choices today is nothing more than a recommendation based on some argument. You have presented the case for a preference for existing worker councils over new entrants. On the other hand, discriminating against new entrants too severely, even if it means that some existing worker councils must shed employees, or be shut down altogether, could be a recipe for discouraging productive innovation. In chapter 15 practical issues regarding the birth and death of worker councils are briefly discussed. I argued there that industry federations who monitor changes in industry production would have to review applications from new groups of workers who want to enter an industry to make sure that they are "credible" in any case. That would be the appropriate place for applying "scrutiny."

    Shalom: When discussing the challenges of doing long-term investment and development planning, you point out the problem of not having accurate data on opportunity and social costs for the future. In a footnote you comment that:

    "This is not a problem unique to participatory planning. Authoritarian planning and market systems face the same dilemma but in effect, simply pretend the problem does not exist. Nobody knows what future costs and prices will be. So people look at present costs and prices, and make adjustments using more or less complicated forecasting methodologies. But in the end these are simply more or less accurate guesses." [p. 116n1]

    But how do you reply to the following pro-market argument? In a market system, no one knows the future and therefore everyone just has to make guesses. But the system rewards those who make the best guesses over time, so the system selects for good guessers, making them the ones most likely to make guesses in the future. Apple has gotten amazingly rich making good guesses. So the market has enabled them (rather than, say, the maker of the Edsel) to make future guesses.

    Hahnel: I was referring to a particular area—investment and long-term development planning—where there was a particular problem: estimates of social rates of return will involve more guesswork than estimating opportunity costs during participatory annual planning. But in this situation why can't WE, THE PEOPLE, when WE engage in OUR long-term investment and development planning, keep track of who among the experts who advise us regarding estimates of social rates of return prove to be more prescient and who prove to be less so? And why can't WE take their track records into account when we evaluate their opinions? I know the present system rewards failure at high levels with promotions more often than not, but WE needn't do so.

    More generally, your question has to do with the proper role for expertise and whether ordinary people can make wise decisions, or whether we are better off allowing some "superior" elite to make our decisions for us. I argue in chapter 11 that there is a role for expertise in a participatory economy. But that role is to advise about the predictable consequences of different choices when those predictions are complicated and require expertise we cannot all have. Once WE have heard expert opinion—including dissenting opinions among experts—I believe WE, THE PEOPLE, not only have the right to make our own decisions, but WE are the best "experts" to judge how WE feel about the consequences experts can help us estimate.

    Besides, as you point out, in capitalism there have been Edsels as well as Apples. In other words, we can look at the track record of the captains of industry—and more importantly the admirals of finance these days—and ask how well they have done making decisions for us. I think more and more of us are realizing that the track record of our ruling capitalist elites is checkered, to say the least. Have the Wizards of Wall Street channeled the savings of the world into investments that make our economies more productive and sustainable, or instead steered savings into one destructive asset bubble after another over the past 30 years?

    Shalom: In discussing who is affected by some environmental pollutant, your examples (pp. 124-26) are essentially concentric circles. When just the innermost circle, Ward 2 of Washington DC, is affected, you say let the Ward 2 council consider the cost-benefit trade-offs. If the next circle, all of Washington DC, is affected, then you say let the Washington DC council consider the trade-offs. And if it's the next circle, the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed region, that is affected, then you say let the Chesapeake Bay council decide. But what if the pollution affects just Ward 2 and Ward 3? There's no separate federation for those two wards alone. But if the Washington DC council makes the decision, most of those voting are not affected. In other words, the impact of a pollutant need not coincide with the boundaries of a federation. So doesn't it seem that some means is needed for allowing two ward-level councils to make a decision that does not affect all the other wards (and not just for environmental issues)?

    Hahnel: You are correct. In an article under review at the Eastern Economic Journal, "Wanted: A Pollution Damage Revealing Mechanism," I treat this issue at greater length. There I argue that it will be necessary to determine what I call the "community of affected parties" (CAP) for different pollutants. I explain why these CAPs may not always coincide with neighborhood consumer councils and federations, which is inconvenient. And I point out that we should not expect the definition of CAPs to always be easy. Which of many possible concentric circles is the most appropriate for each pollutant may be contentious for exactly the reason you point out. I conclude:

    "Since membership in a CAP entitles one to extra consumption rights people might well claim to be adversely affected and deserve membership in a CAP even though they are not. This means the process of defining CAPs—deciding who should, and who should not be included—must be carefully monitored. It might even be necessary to create a formal 'judicial' system for settling disputes over membership in CAPs. Presumably expert testimony of scientists and medical personnel would be relevant, along with testimony on the part of individuals petitioning for membership, as well as testimony from current members contesting their claims."

    Shalom: Apart from the concentric circle issue, the procedures you describe for dealing with environmental questions seem to have a further problem. You seem to assume (pp. 124-26) that everyone is either affected by a pollutant or not, but no consideration is given to different degrees of being affected. So if a pollutant affects only Ward 2, they decide alone. But if there's the slightest effect as well on other Washington DC wards, then all the wards together get to decide even though residents of Ward 2 are overwhelmingly more affected. Moreover, the residents of the other wards who are just barely affected have an incentive to allow the pollution (since they get a boost in their consumption allowance, the same boost as the folks in Ward 2 who are gravely affected).

    Hahnel: Again, you are correct. However, in this case it turns out there are better remedies: Again, quoting at greater length from the same article:

    "Even after membership is settled, might there not be a perverse incentive for members of a CAP to exaggerate the degree to which they are adversely affected by a pollutant? This depends on how CAPs decide to distribute their extra consumption rights among members. If extra consumption takes the form of more collective consumption of some kind by CAP members there is no incentive for individual members to exaggerate damages. Or, if extra individual consumption rights are distributed equally to all members of a CAP, there is no incentive for anyone to exaggerate damages. Only if a CAP tried to distribute more individual consumption rights to members who were presumed to be more adversely affected is it possible that individuals would seek to take advantage by exaggerating their damages. Conventional wisdom in public economics long held that there was no way around this perverse incentive to 'report untruthfully.' However, path breaking work by Clark, Groves, Ledyard and others in the 1970s revealed that, surprisingly, this turns out not to be the case. The key is to break the link between an individual's reported damage and how much she receives by using a formula to assign compensation based not on her own declared damages, but instead on the damages reported by others in the CAP. For example, an individual's payment could be set equal to the average payment minus the sum total damages reported by all others in the CAP. In this way: (1) An individual cannot affect the size of her own payment by her own reported damages because her reported damages do not appear in the formula for calculating her compensation. (2) By misreporting damages an individual would only cause the total amount of emissions to deviate farther from what she would truly prefer. (3) Yet an individual reporting more damages than others would receive a higher payment since what is subtracted for her is lower than what is subtracted for others since what is subtracted for others includes her higher damages; while an individual reporting less damages than others would receive a lower payment since what is subtracted in her case is higher than what is subtracted for others since what is subtracted for others includes her lower damages. In any case, a CAP that wished to award more consumption rights to members who are more damaged could avoid creating perverse incentive to exaggerate claims by using any of a half dozen incentive compatible mechanisms now available."

    Shalom: You say (p. 127) that councils and federations have incentives to truthfully reveal the extent to which they are damaged by pollution. By why isn't there an incentive to overstate pollution damage? When you know others want to pollute because they will benefit from it, it is in your interest to exaggerate the degree to which you are harmed by the pollution because you will be compensated for it.

    Hahnel: Again, you have a point. It turns out that if CAPs have enough information about the demand for permission to pollute and if CAPs behave strategically we may end up with sub-optimal levels of pollution. But while economists are likely to rue this "inefficiency" environmentalists may well feel otherwise! Again, quoting from the same article:

    "If both enterprises asking for rights to emit pollutants and communities of affected parties granting emission rights behave as 'price takers' in the participatory planning procedure—as all worker and consumer councils, federations, and CAPs are directed to do when submitting proposals during the participatory planning process—neither will misrepresent how they are affected by emissions and the procedure will settle on the efficient level of emissions. So the issue reduces to whether or not either polluters or CAPs are likely to violate the directive to treat indicative prices quoted during a round of the planning procedure as 'parametric,' and if so, what the consequences would be. In most cases there will be many different enterprises asking to emit a pollutant in an area, none of which is likely to have information about how much the members of the CAP supplying the emission rights are truly affected. So not only would polluters lack information about the supply curve for emission rights necessary for strategic maneuvering, their status as one among many seeking emission rights would prevent them from taking advantage of any such information even if they had it, unless they were able to form a 'polluters cartel.' On the other hand, in a participatory economy there is a single supplier of emission rights for any pollutant—the community of affected parties. If a CAP knew what the aggregate demand curve for emission rights looked like, instead of treating the indicative price quoted by the IFB as a given it might be tempted to behave like a monopolist in a market where the monopolist knows the market demand curve. In this case the CAP would supply fewer emission rights than are socially optimal to gain what is traditionally called 'monopoly profits,' even though this means the loss of some of what is traditionally called 'producer surplus' due to failure to grant permission to emit additional units for which the CAP would have been paid more than the damage they caused its members. Therefore, if a CAP is willing to ignore the directive to behave as a price taker, and if a CAP knows what the aggregate demand for emission rights looks like, a CAP might restrict emissions below the optimal level. While this would be undesirable, one must admit that at least it would be an interesting new problem to contend with—an economic system with a potential tendency to pollute too little."

    Shalom: There is a lot of philosophical debate about what we owe to future generations and, as you discuss (pp. 129-31), this is an issue in a participatory economy as in any other. What do you think about giving extra votes to those with minor children? (Note that when we apportion representation in the United States today, it is based on population—not voting age population—even though the representation is put into the hands only of those of voting age.) Might this be a reasonable approximation to a method for factoring in the concerns of future generations? (Each person would be counted only once, and we would be counting only those actually alive, not the as-yet unborn future generations. In a participatory economy, parents already submit consumption requests for themselves and their children—at least in nuclearish households.) This might also be a neat way to deal with the current problem in some towns, where whenever there's a vote on a school budget, those with school-age kids are more likely to be in favor than are those without, and when the latter are numerous, the school budget is often rejected.

    Hahnel: While true that those with school age children are often more likely to vote "yes" on school bond referenda than the childless, no political system that I am aware of has decided to give some people more votes than others on this issue. Of course that doesn't mean we should not do so. After all, if we went according to custom very little proposed in the vision of a participatory economy would be done! On the other hand, why not give grandparents more votes as well? Perhaps on environmental issues we should give every person as many votes as they have children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren in grand total—although that would be a lot of votes for some of us who are now closer to the end than the beginning of our own lives. Instead of suggesting giving people a different number of votes what I pointed out is that this potential problem demonstrates that there remains a role for committed environmentalists and environmental organizations in participatory economies, precisely to speak up, like the Lorax, for the interests of future generations and the natural environment itself—shaming their peers should they be tempted to behave selfishly when the living deliberate democratically. The difference is that in a participatory economy the information that reveals intergenerational injustice is right in front of people when they make long run investment, development, and environmental plans.

    I would like to thank you and New Politics for this opportunity to further explore how we can best organize our economic affairs once we have shed the albatross of capitalism that hangs ever more heavily around our necks. In some cases I feel there are very sound answers to questions you pose. In other cases my answers are more tentative. Hopefully, if not us, our children and grandchildren will have the opportunity to find out what does truly work best.

    Note

    1To be more exact, they are credited for production that is accepted as meeting specification. Consumers who find products faulty return them to consumer federations. If the consumer federation agrees with the consumer it refuses to credit the producer for the delivery. Through its industry federation a worker council can protest this decision if it wishes, leaving the matter to be settled between the industry and consumer federations.

  • Beyond "lean production" – Changing teaching to "contract labor"

    Will Johnson has an interesting piece in The Jacobin about what’s happening to teachers’ work. He makes the (correct) argument that what we’re seeing in school models “lean production” in the private sector.  Civil service, contractual, and legal protections (think seniority and tenure) have almost vanished.  Teaching has become de-professionalized in schools serving the students who most need quality education to get a crack at the shrinking number of well-paying jobs and escape from poverty. But here’s a “Yoohoo!” comrades.  It’s important to realize that what has been done to schools and teaching in the US is part of a global project. We need to take off the imperial blinders.  The elites and the “researchers” serving them at the World Bank, IMF, and alas, UNESCO, as you’ll see in this synthesis report want teaching to be reduced to contract labor (yes they use that term). They advocate the very results Will Johnson laments. In one report after another, economists doing these studies of educational achievement (measured by standardized test scores),  say that the results are “mixed.” That’s good enough for them to forge ahead in dismantling public education and the teaching profession. Of course, the economists doing this research make sure that THEIR kids go to schools with teachers who have lots of formal education, small classes, and well-equipped classrooms. “Mixed” results aren’t good enough for THEIR kids.Obama, Duncan, Bloomberg, ALEC are all pushing policies imposed on  the global south.  To understand what is happening in NYC schools, read about what was done to/in West Africa and Cambodia, to name just two countries mentioned in this UNESCO report.  That’s what they intend to do here.

  • An Ascending Trajectory?: Ten of the Most Important Social Conflicts in the United States in 2012

         [This article was written for a foreign audience, so I have spelled out some things that might otherwise be taken for granted when writing for an American reading public.]

         The most important American social conflict of 2012—the Chicago Teachers Union strike—suggests that the rising trajectory of social struggle in the United States that began at the beginning of 2011 may be continuing to ascend. While the United States has a much lower level of class struggle and social struggle than virtually any other industrial nation—few American workers are unionized (only 11.8%) and unionized workers engage in few strikes and those involve a very small numbers of workers—still, the economic crisis and the demand for austerity by both major political parties, Republican and Democrat, has led to increased economic and political activity and resistance by labor unions, particularly in the public sector.[1]

         The crisis has also created an atmosphere in which political and verbal racist attacks on immigrants by rightwing politicians and racist organizations have increased, leading to increased mobilization in those communities. In this climate, the same sorts of rightwing groups also often scapegoat women or lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. Women have responded politically, mobilizing to defend women's reproductive rights in particular and the LGBT community has taken action to promote and defend equal marriage rights. Finally, the economic crisis has had its most significant impact upon the African American and Latino communities, both of which in addition to the longstanding patterns of racial segregation and discrimination continue to deal with the continuing effects of the crisis of 2008 that brought exceptionally high rates of unemployment. These conditions have led both Latinos and Blacks to respond with defensive and sometimes proactive mobilizations.

         Almost all of the significant social mobilizations of 2012 have been by labor unions, ethnic minorities, the LGBT community and women, and by liberals and groups on the left, with few rightwing organizations having mobilized their memberships to engage in social protest. Unlike the period from 2009-10 when the rightwing Tea Party movement mobilized thousands of its supporters in opposition to President Barack Obama's health care reform bill, the right has not engaged in popular mobilizations in 2012. This may be because the Tea Party was focused on campaigns for its many candidates who ran successfully in the primaries but were then clobbered in the elections. Nevertheless, the Republicans still control the House of Representatives and many governorships and state legislatures, political power which they have used to promote a conservative agenda on the state level in particular.[2] In any case, virtually all social mobilization and social conflict has been by the traditional forces of the left defending various sectors of society from conservative legislation and governmental action.

    The Legacy of the 2011 Upheavals

         The large and militant struggles of 2011—the Wisconsin public employees' strikes accompanied by demonstrations of as many as 100,000 people, together with the occupation of the state capitol building in Madison by thousands, and then the Occupy Wall Street movement, which spread to hundreds of sites across the United States, and especially its two shut-downs of the Port of Oakland—had a powerful impact on the society. The Occupy movement in particular, which began in late 2011 but continued into 2012, affected the national discourse, raising questions not only about the financial bailout but also the enormous gap between rich and poor and the inordinate role of corporate money in politics. During 2011 and 2012, Occupy set tens of thousands in motion around the country, and though they did actually begin to challenge the economic and political system they, unfortunately, did not have the organization, focus, numbers or political clarity to carry through.

         At the same time, there have been significant struggles in virtually every other sector of American society, particularly by African Americans and Latinos, but also by other social groups including environmentalists, immigrants, LGBT people, and women. An account of the major and characteristic social struggles of 2012 paints a fascinating picture of American society with its assets and liabilities and of the social movements with their own strengths and weaknesses. Some of the events are militant and angry responses to tragic events, while others are humorous protests that ridicule the bigotry and hypocrisy of those who in the name of Evangelical Christianity, Republican conservative values, or sometimes in the name of Democratic liberalism would deny workers' rights and lower their standard of living, or take away the rights of immigrants, women, gays and lesbians. Whether with raised fists on the strike picket lines, exchanging gay and lesbian kisses, or disguised as giant vaginas, Americans protested to defend their rights, their working conditions, and their standard of living, in some cases with concern for the well-being of the society as a whole.

         While none of these social conflicts reached huge proportions, several were national in scope, attained significant renown, and achieved limited victories. In the United States, where there has never been a mass national labor party, where there has not been a significant socialist party since 1916, where there has never been a nationwide general strike, and where the left only achieved a significant presence in the 1930s and again in the 1960s-70s, labor union actions and social movement protests tend to appear as sporadic and isolated events around specific issues, rather than contributing to the building of a left wing movement. Or, as frequently happens, the Democratic Party succeeds in coopting labor and social movements and smothering them in its bosom.

         That being said, what do the movements of 2012 tell us? The election of Barack Obama to a second term as president, the defeat of several Republican anti-labor initiatives, and the slight improvement in the economic situation in the United States suggest that there could be even more militant social struggle in 2013. The question is: Will working people and society's discontented feel that now is the time to act? Or will they prefer to leave it to Obama and the Democrats to do the job for them, as seemed to happen during his first term? It will be tragic if the latter road is taken: in the absence of a strong political and programmatic alternative, today’ s “ debate ” between mainstream Democrats and the Republicans over how much to cut entitlements will prove to be only an introduction to more radical and brutal austerity measures down the road.

         What follows are descriptions of 10 social protests in the United States presented in chronological order. Of course, there many other important progressive social struggles in the United States in 2012, not all of which could be included here. These have been chosen not only for their size, but also for their broader social significance, and in order to represent the diversity of social protests and conflicts in America in 2012.

    The Chicago Teachers Union Strike—October 2012

         The Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) strike represented a response to the continuing attack on public employees, especially on teachers. Since the opening of the new millennium, conservative political groups had increased their propaganda, organizing, and legislative initiatives intended to break or weaken teachers unions, among the most well-organized of public sector workers. The assault began much earlier. Beginning in the 1980s, conservatives pushed for the creation of charter schools (publicly funded schools only loosely accountable to the public and often without union contracts) and vouchers (giving parents public funds to send their children to private schools, including religious schools). Starting in the 1990s, states passed charter school laws and in 2001 President George W. Bush promoted and the U.S. Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Law, which established what is called standards-based educational reform using high-stakes standardized testing and test preparation to drive school policy.

         Beginning in 2010, Education Secretary Arnie Duncan pushed for more charter schools and the use of standardized testing to evaluate teachers. The ideological assault on public education and teachers continued with the prize-winning and popular film "Waiting for 'Superman,'" which blamed teachers unions for the problems of public education. At the same time wealthy individuals, foundations, the money managers who invest in charter schools, and advocacy organizations such as Stand for Children also tended to blame teachers unions.[3] The CTU strike of 2012 pitted teachers against Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Obama's former chief of staff. But what made the strike so significant was that it was clearly directed as well against the corporate and political forces behind the attack on teachers.

         In 2010 the Congress of Rank-and-File Educators (CORE), a caucus within the CTU, put forward Karen Lewis for president and a new executive board running on a program opposing privatization, demanding the restitution of art, music, and physical education classes and calling for improvements in teachers' wages and benefits as well as protection from layoffs. Lewis and CORE won the election, pressed their demands on the city in the 2012 contract negotiations, and when no agreement could be reached, the CTU's 29,000 teachers walked out. The CTU advocated not only for teachers’ demands, but also for wrap-around services for children, parents and the community, a model of social unionism. Teachers, with strikingly broad support from the community, parents and older students, struck from Sept. 10 to 18 when they finally reached an agreement with the city. While the CTU was only partially successful in winning its demands in the final contract, the union had stood up and fought back in the new period of crisis and austerity. In that sense, many saw the CTU strike as the first American labor union victory in a long time.[4]

         Having looked at this most important event of the year, let us now turn to look chronologically at significant labor and social movements of 2012.

    Occupy Wall StreetJanuary-May, 2012

         Occupy Wall Street, which began in New York in September 2011, spread quickly across the country as Occupy tent cities sprang from North to South and from coast to coast. Occupy represented the largest and most important radical social movement in the United States since the 1970s. It inspired tens of thousands to participate in protests demonstrations, marches, and most important in the occupation of public spaces. The Occupy movement joined labor demonstrations over wages and conditions, community protests over foreclosures and evictions, and organized its own protests against the banks. At least for the moment, Occupy changed the national discussion in the media from tax cuts and eliminating the federal deficit through drastic cuts to social spending to social inequality and the inordinate power of money in politics. Occupy 2011 and 2012 represented one of those few moments in American history when a social movement appears that implicitly challenged the system as a whole and suggested that another more just and more fair economic, social and political system was needed. Without a doubt, in many ways, Occupy represented the high point of recent social conflict in the United States.[5]

         The most significant development was Occupy's interaction with the labor unions in New York City and particularly on the West Coast where Occupy's radicalism challenged the labor union bureaucracy with its two successful, partial shutdowns of the Port of Oakland. By November of 2011 cold weather was beginning to test the Occupy movement, and by January 2012 police repression had swept Occupy from most public spaces. Altogether there were 7,719 arrests in 122 cities in the United States between September 2011 and December 2012, one of the highest levels of repression in U.S. history.[6] Nevertheless, Occupy as a movement persevered in the larger cities engaging in May Day actions, though after that its vital signs faded and the movement became moribund, only to leap to life again in New York with Hurricane Sandy in October 2012. (See below.)

    Trayvon Martin Protests—April / May 2012

         On February 26, 2012, Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old African American boy, was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old Neighborhood Watch coordinator of a gated community in Sanford, Florida. Zimmerman, though police dispatchers had advised him to the contrary, followed Martin, who was on an errand, informing the police that Martin appeared to be suspicious. Zimmerman then became involved in an altercation with the boy, and shot him once, killing him. Zimmerman claimed that he fired in self-defense. With public criticism of judicial inaction growing, the authorities appointed a special prosecutor who charged him with second degree murder. He currently remains free on a $1 million bond, awaiting trial in June 2013. African Americans and others as well saw Zimmerman's killing of Martin as an unprovoked assault by a white vigilante on an unarmed black teenager. Many believed that Zimmerman had followed, implicitly threatened, provoked, and finally killed Martin. Many felt that Martin had been killed simply because he was a black boy wearing a hooded sweatshirt, the "hoody" so popular among young people. Many African American youths believed this was simply murder. Controversy swirled around the possibility that Zimmerman might invoke the state's "stand your ground" law, which permits a person facing an unlawful but nonlethal threat to stand his ground and use his firearm in self-defense. The initial failure of the authorities to take any legal action against Zimmerman, as reported by the media and discussed on TV and radio over more than a month, led to simmering anger among African Americans and finally boiled over in public protests in April and May.

         African American youth, joined by older black Americans, and often by people of other races organized protests not only in Florida where Martin had been killed, but in cities from New York to Los Angeles. Tens of thousands of people participated in the demonstrations, most wearing hoodies and often carrying signs that read, "I am Trayvon." A Change.org petition initiated by Trayvon's mother received 2.2 million signatures, a record number. The demonstrations, petition and widespread public anger finally succeeded in pressuring the authorities to indict Zimmerman on second degree murder charges.

    Dreamers Protest at Obama Offices—June 2012

         In June of 2012, a group known as "the Dreamers"—young immigrants, most of them Latino and many of them undocumented—began occupying the campaign offices of President Barack Obama in Denver, Detroit and other cities in an attempt to focus attention on the need for immigration reform and particularly seeking the passage of the Dream Act. The United States, which is estimated to have some 12 million undocumented immigrants, had seen no significant immigration reform act since the passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986. The great immigrant demonstrations of millions in 2006—the largest social protests in U.S. history—failed to win immigration reform. Attempts to pass a Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act supported by President George W. Bush and by leading members of both the Republican and Democratic Parties failed in Congress in 2007. Pro-immigration reform groups then began to focus on the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act first introduced in Congress by Dick Durbin (D) and Orin Hatch (R). The Dream Act would have permitted undocumented minors who had been in the country for five years to achieve temporary residence for six years if they either completed two years of military service or four years of college. They would then have been able to pursue permanent residence and U.S. citizenship.

         Young, mostly Latino immigrants supporting the DREAM Act and immigration reform generally became known in the media as the Dreamers, resonating with both the notion of the "American dream," and Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech. The Dreamers movement, while never large, spread to states throughout the country, from Illinois to Georgia to California and others, and became more militant. Dreamers, taking a page from the LGBT movement, began to "come out" as undocumented immigrants during demonstrations and protests, in effect challenging Federal authorities to arrest and deport them. The startling tactic of risking arrest and deportation to demand rights for immigrants garnered them support from the large immigrant communities and from the public more generally.

         When he first campaigned for the White House, President Obama promised to push immigration reform through Congress, yet after holding office for three-and-a-half years, he had done virtually nothing for immigration reform. Moreover, his administration, had by the summer of 2012 deported 1.4 undocumented million immigrants. That was a sum one and a half times more than under the George W. Bush administration's eight years in office. Not surprisingly, the large Latino immigrant population had doubts about the president's commitment to them. With Obama campaigning for a second term, the Dreamers, now taking a cue from the Occupy movement, began to occupy the Obama campaign offices, challenging the campaign to call the police to have them removed, which would have surely led to arrests and deportations, and perhaps then putting the Latino vote in jeopardy.[7]

         Under the pressure of the militant immigrant youth movement, and hoping to secure the Latino vote, in mid-June 2012 President Obama issued an executive order providing that the Department of Homeland Security would no longer initiate the deportation of illegal immigrants under the age of thirty and with no serious criminal records who came to the United States before age 16, had lived in the United States for at least five years, and who were in school, were high school graduates or were military veterans in good standing.[8] The Dreamers had contributed to pressuring the president to take the first significant action toward improving the status of immigrants in 25 years. A small number of immigrant youth had through their militant and highly strategic protests forced the U.S. government to carry out a major policy shift.

    Anti-Fracking Protests—June 2012

         Hydraulic fracturing or "fracking," a process by which chemical fluids are pumped into layers of rock in order to produce fractures that can serve as conduits for the extraction of petroleum or natural gas, was first developed in the 1860s, but the modern methods were only perfected in 1947, and the whole business only became economically feasible in 1998. The spread of fracking in several U.S. states in the new century began to raise various environmental concerns: ground water and soil contamination, air pollution, the rise to the surface of chemicals, petroleum and gas, the handling of waste products and other issues. Fracking can cause methane leaks affecting air quality, uses large amounts of water and may contaminate the water it uses, and leaves chemical waste, some of which is toxic or carcinogenic. Workers may be exposed to silica dust. The process may also cause seismicity and small earthquakes.

         All of these hazards naturally raised concerns about the health and well-being of workers, local communities, and the populations of entire regions that might be affected. Moreover, the extraction of yet more petroleum and gas for automobiles, home and business heating and industrial uses would exacerbate already high levels of atmospheric CO2, contributing to global warming and climate change.[9] These ecological and public health issues led the environmental movement to initiate educational campaigns and social protests in the early 2000s. The spread of fracking, as oil industry "land men" brought up rights to frack on private property, was so rapid that environmental educators, lobbyists, and organizers could hardly keep up with it.

         Environmental activism against fracking grew first in those states where the process was being developed on a large scale—New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland and Texas—shaping up as a classic confrontation between the powerful petroleum industry and the environmental movement. Environmental organizers began to carry out protests involving small groups, sometimes hundreds accompanied by citizen lobbying and more traditional lobbying in several states. In 2010 Josh Fox's documentary film "Gasland"—based in part on his own family's experience of being offered $100,000 to permit an oil company to frack for gas on their land in Pennsylvania—provided the movement with a powerful educational tool.[10]

         In early 2012, the environmental group 350.org joined Fox and a number of community groups in announcing plans to carry out several days of anti-fracking education and protest in Columbus, the state capital of Ohio.[11] At about the same time, Ohio Governor John Kasich signed into law new fracking regulations that deprived the public of the right to appeal the issuing of drilling permits and did not require the industry to reveal the toxic chemicals drillers add to fracking fluids on the grounds they are considered trade secrets. The mid-June environmental school and protests culminated in a march through the city's center and the occupation of the Ohio State Capitol on Sunday, June 17.[12] The successful school and large public protest in Ohio's capital represented a significant step in the development of the national anti-fracking movement.

    Stop-and-frisk Protests—June 2012

         Thousands of demonstrators, predominantly young African Americans and Latinos, conducted a silent march down Fifth Avenue in New York City on Father's Day, Sunday, June 17, 2012, to protest the city's "stop-and-frisk" policies. In New York City police had stopped and frisked over 700,000 people in 2011, ostensibly to search for illegal weapons, and the use of the policy was clearly increasing. The New York Times reported that, "In 2012, the number of street stops in New York from January through March 2012 rose to 203,500 from 183,326 during the same quarter of 2011." African American and Latino men, most of them between 14 and 24 years of age, made up 87 percent of those subjected to stop-and-frisk. The American Civil Liberties Union reported that during the 10 years of the Bloomberg administration, the police had performed 4,356,927 stops.[13] In May 2012 a federal judge found that the city's own records showed that many of the stops did not meet constitutional standards for searches.[14]

         The stop-and-frisk policy, which had been strongly criticized by African American and Hispanic civil rights organizations and by others, was deeply resented and strongly opposed by those communities. During 2011 and 2012, national and state organizations as well as local community groups began to organize against stop-and-frisk, leading to the June 17 silent march. Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and Local 1199 of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) were the principal national organizations involved in convoking the march.[15] The march was endorsed by some 300 organizations, including labor unions, religious groups and Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Arab, and Jewish associations. The New York Times reported, "The turnout reflected the growing alliance between civil rights groups and gay and lesbian activists, who in past years have often kept each other at arm's length." The NAACP's endorsement of a same-sex marriage bill may have played a role in motivating some 28 LGBT groups to endorse the stop-and-frisk march.[16] The stop-and-frisk protest march represented a significant mobilization of African American and Latino youth and of others around an issue of enormous importance to the black and Hispanic communities.

    LGBT Chick-fil-A "Kiss Day" Protest—August 2012

         During his first term, Obama had only responded partially to the LGBT agenda. In July of 2011 President Obama had ended the military's "don't ask, don't tell policy" under which gay and lesbian service men and women had to keep their sexual preference secret.[17] Yet after more than three years in office, he had declined to take a stand on equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians. With the election approaching, in May 2012, Obama finally announced that he believed that gay marriage should be legal, his own change of mind coinciding with and propelled by an alteration in the opinion of the majority of the American electorate, which had come to that conclusion about a year before.[18] LGBT rights have clearly made great progress in the United States in recent years. Nevertheless LGBT rights remained a major area of contention between social liberals and conservatives, with the right particularly opposed to gay marriage rights.

         The LGBT issue flared up in the summer of 2012 when Daniel Truett Cathy, a member of the family that owns the popular fast-food Chick-fil-A restaurant, made a strong statement against gay marriage. Cathy takes pride in what he calls his Christian values, for example by closing his approximately 1,675 restaurants in 38 states on Sundays. His family also funds the WinShape Foundation which supports a group of Southern Baptist ministries and which made millions of dollars in donations to political organizations that oppose LGBT rights. In a statement on a radio talk show and another published in a religious magazine, Dan Cathy came out strongly for the "Biblical definition of marriage" and against gay marriage in 2012.

         Even before Cathy's 2012 statements, LGBT student groups had succeeded in making the Chick-fil-A restaurant franchise an issue on college campuses and there were attempts by LGBT groups to get toy makers to withdraw from competing for contracts in the company's kids' meals promotions. When gay rights activists launched a boycott of Chick-fil-A, Arkansas Governor and former Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee initiated a Chick-fil-A appreciation day on Facebook to which more than 600,000 people responded positively. The company's sales broke all previous records, increasing by 30 percent. At about the same time, to promote the boycott, gay rights activists organized a nationwide "kiss day" at Chick-fil-A franchises, with gay and lesbian couples kissing in front of the fast-food restaurants and then posting their smooches on YouTube. Almost 14,000 people expressed their support for the "kiss day."[19]

         The Chick-fil-A "kiss day" and boycott, though their numbers were smaller than the company's supporters, proved effective. In September 2012, the Civil Rights Agenda (TCRA), which monitors LGBT rights issues, announced that Chick-fil-A had “ceased donating to organizations that promote discrimination, specifically against LGBT civil rights.” The group reported that a company internal memo titled "Chick-fil-A: Who We Are," states that the company will "treat every person with honor, dignity and respect—regardless of their beliefs, race, creed, sexual orientation and gender."[20] Not long afterwards, in the national elections of November 2012, gay rights activists succeed in convincing the public to pass marriage equality laws in three states, Maine, Maryland, and Washington, and defeat an anti-same-sex marriage amendment in Minnesota—a major jump in public acceptance of gay marriage.

    Women's Vagina Protest at the Republican Convention—August 2012

         Since the 1970s, women have made greater economic, social and political gains than perhaps any group in our society, overcoming customs, laws, and practices that had made them second class citizens and dramatically improving their general situation, and particularly that of middle class women, that is, the upper echelons of the working class, white collar workers, and professionals. Not least of their gains were achievements in the area of reproductive rights including the right to sex education, contraception and abortion.

         Yet conservatives, particularly Evangelical Christians and the rightwing of the Republican Party, have never ceased their attempt to turn back the clock and strip women of those reproductive rights and these attempts have accelerated in recent times. NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, which tracks women's reproductive rights, found that in 2011 states enacted 67 anti-choice measures, the highest number since the organization began tracking such laws in 1995.[21] Groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood and feminist authors and journalists rightly accused the Republican Party of carrying out a "war on women" intended to take away their economic independence, to curb their political power, and above all to strip them of their reproductive rights.[22]

         While much of the struggle over women's reproductive rights took the form of lobbying and support for pro-choice Democratic Party candidates who would support funding for Planned Parenthood and defend women's right to abortions, a small group of women protested at the Republican Convention. Members of Code Pink: Women for Peace, dressed in costumes as giant vaginas, marched and demonstrated outside the Republican Convention.[23] They were motivated to do this in part because of the remarks of Rep. Todd Akin, who regarding the question of abortion in the case of rape had remarked, "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." Akin's remarks reflected the thought of some fundamentalist Christians whose reactionary theology and pseudo-science leads them to distinguish between "legitimate" and "illegitimate rape" and to aruge that the female body will reject a rapist's sperm.[24] He was immediately supported by former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, though other Republicans such as presidential and vice-presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan attempted to distance themselves from his remarks. Ryan himself, however, a practicing Catholic, also agreed that women who had suffered rape should not have the legal right to an abortion.

         The Code Pink protestors carried banners reading, “Can't Say It, Don't Legislate It,” a reference to a Michigan legislator who was barred from speaking because she had used the word vagina in a debate over reproductive rights in that state.[25] While the number of women involved was small, the Code Pink vagina protest dramatized women's anger over the war against them, captivated the national imagination, and made news, highlighting women's resistance to the attempt to strip them of their reproductive rights.

    Occupy Sandy—October / November 2012

         Hurricane Sandy, the largest Atlantic hurricane on record and one of the worst storms in U.S. history, swept up from the Caribbean through the Mid-Atlantic region and then pummeled and thrashed the Northeastern United States, devastating parts of New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. Houses, businesses, and other property worth approximately $35 billion were destroyed in New Jersey, as many were left homeless by the enormous and powerful storm. Similarly in New York State damage and clean-up were estimated at $50 billion. Damage to New York City alone was estimated at $20 billion. Tens of thousands were left homeless and 34 died. Some parts of Queens, especially Far Rockaway, and Staten Island suffered devastating damage, while throughout many parts of the city, and especially in its high-rise buildings residents—some infirm, elderly, handicapped or pregnant, and families with small children—were left without light, heat, hot water and in some cases without any water at all for as much as two weeks..

         With their neighborhoods shattered by the storm, some had no way to get food from either grocery stores or restaurants. With power lines down and transportation systems limited for days, many workers found themselves either temporarily unemployed or unable to get to work. Things were more difficult for those, many of them African American or Latino, who had fewer economic resources and consequently did not have the money to leave their apartments and seek shelter in hotels or with relatives. Trapped in their apartments, they waited for help from the private power companies and from the authorities both of which were overwhelmed by the enormity of the disaster.

         Occupy Wall Street, which had mobilized thousands in late 2011 and early 2012, now revived and reemerged as Occupy Sandy and sprang into action. Occupy Sandy created two bases of operation in churches in Brooklyn, established an Occupy Sandy website, created the Occupy motor pool, and dispatched Occupy Sandy volunteers with food, water, flashlights and other supplies, offering assistance to many of the city's hardest hit neighborhoods. Occupy Sandy's construction team helped residents carry out emergency repairs, while its medical teams offered assistance to those in need because of injuries or ill health. Occupy also used the Amazon.com wedding registry as a vehicle for receiving donations from people around the world, raising more than $100,000. Occupy Sandy's coordinators and volunteers found themselves working with the Federal Emergency Management Authority (FEMA), with the National Guard, and with Mayor Bloomberg's office—this from the same mayor who had earlier driven Occupy Wall Street out of public spaces in New York City. Occupy Wall Street's Occupy Sandy showed that the radical protestors who had challenged the system were also capable of building structures and mobilizing volunteers in ways that were as effective, or sometimes more effective, than those of the state. Occupy Sandy became another demonstration that another world—one based on cooperation and humanism—is possible.[26] Moreover, Occupy Sandy has now taken an active role in working with residents in areas distressed by Hurricane Sandy to demand that government do much more to relieve people in need—a political stance most traditional aid organizations are typically unwilling to adopt.

    The Chicago Teachers Union Strike—October 2012 [See above.]

    Walmart Worker Protests—November 2012

         Walmart had become by 2012 the world's third largest corporation according to the Fortune Global 500 list, with profits of $16 billion. With 8,500 stores in 15 countries, it is the world's largest retailer, employing two million workers.[27] Walmart is a notorious low-wage employer, typically paying its cashiers and overnight stockers less than $9.00 per hour and its department managers only about $11.50 per hour.[28] Staunchly anti-union, Walmart went so far as to close a store in Quebec, Canada, in the spring of 2005 in order to prevent an imminently successful unionization.[29] While its allegedly widespread bribery of officials in Mexico and the horrific fire in Bangladesh, which took the lives of 112 workers in a garment factory supplying Walmart stores, made the company notorious internationally, it was also accused in the United States of engaging in unsafe practices that put its employees in harm's way.

         In 2005, the United Food and Commercial Workers created Wake Up Walmart and then more recently the Organization United for Respect or Our Walmart, bringing together some of the "associates," as Walmart calls workers, who make up the great majority of the stores' employees.[30] In 2012, Walmart workers at stores and warehouses and supporters of Walmart workers engaged in a number of actions around the country. In June, Mexican guestworkers employed at CJ's Seafood in Breaux Bridge, Louisiana, a company that supplies Sam's Club, a Walmart subsidiary, walked out over abusive treatment. Then in October, Walmart workers struck two key Walmart warehouses, one in Illinois and one in California.[31] And on Black Friday, November 23, about fifty current and former Walmart workers, joined thousands of supporters on picket lines at 1,000 Walmart stores around the United States.

         While the job actions of 2012 involved only a few hundred of the company's workers at most, the walkouts and picket lines represented a significant step forward in both building worker confidence, publicizing Walmart’s extreme exploitation of its employees, and winning support among the public for the long-term and difficult job of forcing Walmart to improve workers' wages, conditions and benefits and to recognize unions and engage in collective bargaining.

    Conclusion

         The ten events described above represent significant and characteristic responses to social problems facing workers, African Americans and Latinos, women and LGBT people, immigrants and others. They do not, however, constitute any sort of unified social movement. The protests were largely sectorial and distinct. People who joined one of the protests discussed here seldom joined another. A Venn diagram would show little overlap between these activists, though there is some, and as mentioned in the case of the stop-and-frisk protest, it is growing. Lamentably, these largely isolated labor and social protests do not cohere into a social movement, have not stimulated the growth of a left party, and do not represent a focused challenge to America's capitalist system and conservative politics as a whole. Only the Occupy movement of 2011-12 suggested that the entire system needed changing.

         What we do seem to see, however, particularly in the area of workers and labor unions, is a rising trajectory of defensive social struggle as workers fight to keep employers, political parties and the government from dismantling their unions and taking away the wages, conditions and benefits they won over decades. And they fight to keep the business class , from reducing their political power as expressed through the Democratic Party, principally by weakening their unions. We will have to see next year whether labor is able to defend itself, and perhaps begin to take the first steps toward offensive action, or whether labor will continue its ragged retreat or perhaps be routed from the field. And beyond the labor movement, but ultimately tied to its revival, is the question of whether a broader left can pose an independent alternative to the politics of the deteriorating status quo in America.

    Notes

    1. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Union Membership"; "Work stoppages involving 1,000 or more workers, 1947-2011."
    2. Jennifer Manning, "Membership of the 112th Congress: A Profile," Congressional Research Service.
    3. Lois Weiner, "Teacher Unionism Reborn," New Politics, Winter 2012.
    4. Rob Bartlett, "Chicago Teachers Strike Back," Against the Current, Nov.-Dec. 2012, no. 161.
    5. Dan La Botz, Bob Brenner, Joel Jordan, "The Significance of Occupy," Solidarity Webzine.
    6. Occupy Arrests.
    7. Julienne Hing, "DREAMers Stage Sit-ins at Obama Office to Force Deportation Standoff," Colorlines.
    8. Julia Preston and John H. Cushman, Jr., "Obama to Permit Young Migrants to Remain in U.S.," New York Times.
    9. "Hydraulic Fracturing," Wikipedia.
    10. For a synopsis of the film see: "Gasland," Wikipedia.
    11. Daniel Kessler, "350.org, Josh Fox and Friends Announce Don't Frack OH Action."
    12. Mike Ludwig, "Hundreds Protest Fracking in Ohio as Drilling Expands," Truthout.
    13. New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), "Stop-and-Frisk 2011 – NYCLU Briefing."
    14. "Stop-and-frisk Policy – New York City Police Department," New York Times.
    15. Verena Dobnik, 'Stop-and-frisk Protest: Thousands In New York Hold Silent March Against NYPD Tactics," Huffington Post.
    16. John Leland and Colin Moynihan, "Thousands March Silently to Protest Stop-and-Frisk Policies," New York Times.
    17. Elisabeth Bumiller, "Obama Ends 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy," New York Times.
    18. Jackie Calmes and Peter Baker, "Obama Says Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal," New York Times; Tom Curry, "Obama's change on same-sex marriage comes after voters reach turning point," CNN.
    19. "Gay rights activists to hold kiss protests at Chick-fil-A restaurants," CNN.
    20. Cecilia Hanley, "Chick-fil-A will no longer give money to anti-gay groups," Fox News.
    21. StatesNARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, "Who Decides? The Status of Women's Reproductive Rights in the United States."
    22. "Proof of the GOP War on Women," PoliticusUSA.
    23. "Code Pink Protests as Giant Vaginas at RNC: 'Can't Say It, Don't Legislate It!Common Dreams.
    24. Jessica Wilt, "Women Protest At Republican National Convention: 'Hands Off My Vagina'Huffington Post.
    25. "Mich. lawmaker barred for 'vagina' comment in abortion debate," CBS News.
    26. Rebecca Davis and Meena Hart Duerson, "Occupy Sandy relief effort puts Occupy Wall Street activists in the spotlight again a year after Zuccotti Park," New York Daily News.
    27. "Global 500," Fortune Magazine.
    28. "Walmart Salaries," Glass Door.
    29. Katherine Griffiths, "Wal-Mart Crushes Union by Closing Store," The Independent (UK).
    30. Organization United for Respect or OUR Walmart.
    31. Micah Uetricht, "Strike Supporters Shutdown Illinois Warehouse," Labor Notes; Alexandra Bradbury, "Walmart Warehouse Strikers Return to Work with Full Back Pay," Labor Notes; Steven Greenhouse, "Walmart Workers Stage a Walkout in California," New York Times.

     

  • Scrooge Accepts Nobel Peace Prize

         Brussels, Chrismas Eve, 2012. (From our Special Correspondent). Reactions were sharply divided here in Euroland to Stockholm's award of the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union (EU) in recognition of its efforts to promote the moral values of fiscal discipline and responsibility through the Euro.

         Receiving the award on behalf of the Euro was Dr. Ebineezer von Scrooge of the Bundesbank, whose acceptance speech stressed the importance of prompt and complete payment of debts as the central moral value on which European society is based. Dr. von Scrooge delivered a timely admonition to those Spaniards and Greeks who reportedly were still planning to exchange holiday gifts this season: "What's Christmas time to you but a time for paying bills without money; a time for finding yourself a year older, but not an hour richer?"

         Informed that "many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts," as the result of the EU's austerity policies, Dr. von Scrooge replied: "Are there no prisons, no workhouses, no deportation centers? I help to support the establishments I have mentioned—they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."—"Many can't go there; and many would rather die," critics objected. "If they would rather die," replied Dr. von Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

         Although financial markets reacted positively to the Nobel Committee's quasi-religious sanctification of the European common currency as a universal moral standard, housewives in Thessalanika, Greece, reportedly rent their garments and poured ashes on their heads in stunned disbelief. On the other hand, the news of the EU Peace Prize drove European armament and aero-space stocks sharply upward on the Paris Bourse (the EU is the largest arms exporter after the US and Russia) despite some indignant grumbling about Nobel's original intentions by the usual boring pacifists. Some Euroland analysts speculated that increased arms production might raise employment figures and help reduce what Dr. Scrooge infelicitously termed 'the surplus population.'

         One thing is clear, however: the Nobel's sanctification of the Euro cemented the essential moral pillar of the European political class: THE DEBT MUST BE PAID or the world will come to an end, as predicted by the Mayan calendar. This is an article of faith as sacred in Euroland as is the U.S. Fiscal Cliff, at the foot of which Americans must dutifully bow down and relinquish their Social Security checks to a High Power. But what if these millennial fears had no firmer basis than those of the ancient Mayans?

    What is Debt?

         What exactly IS this holy 'Debt' for which we must sacrifice? And why is such a fetish being made of it at this time? The answer is simple. The debt consists of accumulated interest. That is to say accumulated bank profits. And if the bankers, the media and their political accomplices in Stockholm didn't make a fetish of it, reasonable people would at some point be tempted to renegotiate it or even walk away from it in times of economic hardship.

         The 'national debt' (which Marx quipped was the only part of the nation the common people actually owned) consists mostly of accumulated interest to be paid to banks from which the government has at one time borrowed money. Often (as in the case of Greece) the taxpayer is paying interest on outstanding interest of previously unpaid loans, that is to say quite simply bankers' profits piled on top of bankers' profits far exceeding the original face value of the loan. (In Canada, for example, accumulated interest represents 90% of the total debt.)

         In any case, there is no reason on earth for the government, which 'prints' money by lending it to banks at near-zero interest, should ever need to borrow money at interest from these same banks. In other words, the real purpose of the Debt is to keep re-inflating the 'too-big-to-fail' banks. This is the message 12-year-old Victoria Grant delivered to the Public Banking in America Conference, and her video went viral. Her 10-minute presentation demonstrates that the Debt is a conspiracy between government and the banking industry to defraud the public. No adult economists have succeeded in answering her.

  • Building a Better World

         Forty-three years ago, I belonged to The Hawaii Resistance. It was an anti-draft group, believing in non-violent revolution. Then I saw a whole row of benches slammed into the ribcage of one of my friends, with whom I was blocking the path for the 29th Brigade of the Hawaii National Guard to get on the airplane for Vietnam. I was horrified to see that happen, to hear him cry out in pain. I got to thinking, suppose hundreds of thousands of us sat down on Pennsylvania Avenue and Wall Street, attempting to bring an end to "business as usual"? Wouldn't the cops just keep raising and lowering their truncheons till we were a bloody mass of broken skulls? Wouldn't the Army also be apt to use their bayonets and guns on us? I thought about it. I agonized over it, because I am not a violent person. I don't want to see anyone hurt, least of all do that hurting myself. Yet I did not at all want to see my sisters and brothers in the Movement, people whom I had grown to love, getting their heads smashed or their guts stabbed or shot.

         I spent a few sleepless nights at the beautiful (because of the stars above it and the palm fronds surrounding it) Andrews Amphitheater on the University of Hawaii's Manoa Campus. I kept turning the question of violence vs. non-violence over and over in my mind. Then, because I did not want to see some of the best people I'd ever met slaughtered or otherwise brutalized, I left The Hawaii Resistance and joined SDS. I studied Marxism-Leninism. I began to advocate for a workers' revolution, once I had learned more about it. I wrote many an article and penned many a leaflet with that goal in mind.

         Flash forward many years to the Fall of Communism. I was cast into a deep depression to see the future become the recent past. What happened to all our hopes and dreams, that they could disappear, just like that? I commenced to do a great deal of reading, thinking, writing, and listening to music that helped clarify my thinking.

         I came to the conclusion that, as demonstrated by actual practice—concrete things which happened in the real world, not in some textbook—the Leninist vanguard party was at the very least partly to blame. Its mechanism, democratic centralism, had in practice way too much centralism and way too little democracy. I also concluded that an armed struggle for power—a violent revolution—brought out the worst in people, because, after all, they're people, who had seen their loved ones and their closest comrades blown away in fierce fighting. So a dictatorship of the proletariat gets established, which is really a dictatorship of the Party elite. Way too much power gets concentrated in way too few hands, leading inevitably to obscene levels of corruption and gross abuses of power, real crimes.

         I thought the world had seen quite enough of that sort of thing. What was the answer? I didn't know, but I thought it might dwell in coalitions of alternative parties getting themselves elected into power, having organized in the armed forces well enough, and for long enough, so that any attempted military coup would be foiled by the rank-and-file of the armed forces. If they really "turned those guns around," they might not have to use them.

         Was this just as much a delusion as the end justifying the means and violence thus being used to bring about its opposite? If the means justify the end, and we then "live the future now," can we avoid all the hatred and carnage? Maybe so, maybe not.

         Every time, which is lately nearly every day, that I read about the slaughter of innocents, whether in Peshawar or Newtown, Aurora or Gaza, I become more convinced that it's worth giving non-violence and the ballot box a try, rather than piling dead bodies upon stacks of more dead bodies.

         We have to help more of our brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, comrades, workmates, and neighbors come to the realization that life is precious. Death means you're never going to see that person again or hear them laugh. Raising our voices a little is so much better than raising our fists or reaching for anything deadly.

         We can revitalize the trade union movement. We can build alternative parties. We can organize in the armed forces. We can educate, train and provide jobs for our youths, so they don't feel the only way to "make it" is to join gangs, sell drugs and defend turf. We can provide far better mental health counseling and medications. We can do all these things in a gentle, loving way that appeals to people's best instincts, not their worst. Let's stop more Newtowns, Auroras, Peshawars or Gazas before they happen again. Let's build a better world, one brick of kindness and decency at a time.

     

    Greg King is a labor activist and city worker in Boston, Mass.

  • Who Carries the Brief for Black America?

         As an African American currently residing in one of the poorest counties in South Carolina, I have become increasingly troubled by the absence of our voice in an increasing number of conversations involving public policies which directly impact the health and future development of African American political, social and economic interests. Since the historic election of President Obama we seem to have drifted in the direction of focusing on the interests and success of the proverbial few rather than press for the development of an agenda designed to improve the opportunity structure for the masses of our people. We seem to act as if the vast majority of African Americans have become immune to the lingering effects of historic racial discrimination and the political marginalization which inevitably follows. The leadership of the Congressional Black Caucus is credited with publicly saying that in the first term of President Obama he was given something akin to a pass on a range of issues effecting Black people. Our traditional civil rights organizations have lost their will to wage a sustained campaign against injustice and now seem to have settled on appearances at "must show events" and campaigns to solicit funds for the implementation of a non- specific agenda for a kind of change that we can believe in.

         At a time when women rightfully celebrate the presence of 21 female members of the United State Senate, Blacks who earned the right to vote approximately one half century earlier can only list six African Americans who ever had the honor of knowing such distinction. At a time when too many public schools are continuing to fail and our prison industrial complex is still being profitably maintained on the backs of our youth and communities of color, the African American voice somehow manages to become even more muted. As an untold number of African Americans slipped into poverty and the clutches of economic jeopardy during the recent fiscal crisis and home mortgage debacle, we are miraculously able to cling to the delusion that we are making responsible progress as a people. With more African American elected officials, agency heads, executives and college graduates swelling our ranks than at any previous time in history, we seem to have lost all reasonable understanding of how the democratic process is designed to work. Our focus seems to now be on individual success, ours and the success of others for whom we hold some special favor. We display very little, if any, regard for policy positions and public stances which reflect African American collective interests. We have no political agenda and seem to evidence very little regard for the development of one. I suggest that from the "collective perspective" our political IQ scores are now being reported at an all-time low. Our public political behavior seems to give more credence to the old adage that "good can often prove to be the enemy of better" than our conduct gives credence to any collective commitment that we have to the least among us. How can we, perhaps as the most privileged in the ranks of African Americans, legitimately fail to identify a sense of urgency to address in some direct fashion the immediate needs of the majority of our people who look to us and place their hope and confidence in our leadership? Dr. King was quoted as saying that "it is always the right time to do the right thing." If we believe that statement, then we must recognize that the right time is now.

         The recent tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, which should in no way be minimized, has spawned a frenzy of activity and thought regarding the production of remedies and counter-measures to eliminate the increasing number of incidents of violent and irrational behavior in American society. There is for the moment at least, a quest for clarity and understanding regarding these tragic demonstrations of incivility. This event has also produced a heightened sense of fear and insecurity in "mainstream America." The under story behind the patent hideousness of the Newtown experience is the stark reminder of the extent and degree to which we are all vulnerable. The Newtown tragedy has said to America that even in a model community that is not very ethnically diverse, where the economic profiles are quite excellent as are the schools and the latest security systems are in place and public employees are extremely competent and dedicated… even such a near perfect community is incapable of protecting itself from itself.

         Without engaging in an assessment of comparative misery or suffering, while we mourn the death of the twenty seven persons who tragically and in some cases heroically lost their lives, we must not become insensitive to the routine loss and systematic destruction of life occurring in Black and poor communities across this great land. We must always be mindful of the thousands of Black and poor students attending our public schools who are unfairly pigeon-holed and labeled for failure, marginalization and prison on an annual basis. We must remember as well the innocent lives and injuries that are occasioned by the now nearly normalized "drive by shooting." Neither can we fail to recognize the difference in the public attitude and public response to these kinds of tragic events nor can we fail to understand and address the reasons for those differences. In part and sadly because of the tragedy in Newtown, African American leadership is presented with an opportunity and an obligation to take a leadership role in framing the public discourse on this subject.

         What all of us who dare to embrace this task must resist is the risk of under-analyzing the problem and thusly adopting overly simplistic remedies as solutions to conditions that are complex, ingrained and possibly even politically difficult to discuss. Herein one finds a unique opportunity for the African American voice to inform the national discussion on the special factors existing in African American and poor communities. Factors which guarantee the maintenance of a culture of violence and community underdevelopment. The culture of violence in Newtown may be created out of the violence in video games, Hollywood movies, television programming, unauthorized access to legally purchased guns and school yard bullying. Those however, are not the factors which insure the existence of the culture of violence in African American and poor communities in this country. Gun control legislation alone is a very incomplete solution. Any serious attempt to address the culture of violence in Black and poor communities will require a more comprehensive analysis of the problem. We must identify the major factors such as: the intergenerational effects of failing public schools, a failed and poorly executed war on drugs, unemployment and underemployment (particularly among Black youth), continued racism in America, low wages and in too many cases police complicity in the maintenance of oppressive environments and underground economies. There is no attempt here to have African Americans disclaim responsibility for African American communities. It must, however, be understood that communities, independent of their persuasion, cannot survive as prosperous entities when they are constantly subjected to the negative impacts of government policies, benign neglect and at times direct governmental assaults.

         If President Obama truly wants to be the President for all of the people, then he must examine the Newtown tragedy in a context that exposes the larger culture of violence as a force that destroys families and dreams long before they die. This is a culture of violence which systematically drains the resources and stifles the development of poor communities without regard to their ethnic stripe or political persuasion. If President Obama can cry for the twenty seven, he must at least save a tear or two for the multitudes who for like reasons and with equal innocence fall unheralded and go un-recorded by time. The time is now. The right time is always now. The question that remains unanswered, however; is who will carry the brief to the table for Black America?

     

    Dr. William Small, Jr., is a retired educator and conflict resolution specialist. He currently resides in Hampton County, South Carolina, and serves as the Vice Chairman of the Area Commission for the Technical College of the Lowcountry. The views expressed in this article are his alone and should not be credited to any other professional organization, entity or individual.

  • Mexican Congress Approves Education "Reform"

         The Mexican Congress has in near record time approved a new law on education called for by the new president Enrique Peña Nieto intended to reassert government control over the country's education system, break the power of the Mexican Teachers Union bureaucracy, and improve the quality of education. At the heart of the new law is a regular teacher evaluation with increased emphasis on merit.

         The proposed "reform" received support from the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), the conservative National Action party (PAN), and most of the left-of-center Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), but not the Mexican Teachers Union (el SNTE), the country's largest and most powerful union. The law is also opposed by the new Party of National Regeneration (Morena).

         Elba Esther Gordillo, president of the Mexican Teachers Union (el SNTE), says her union will challenge the law in the courts and carry out a legal, peaceful resistance campaign against it. The law threatens her and the powerful and notoriously corrupt political machine that she has constructed.

         The National Coordinating Committee of the Teachers Union (la CNTE), representing progressive rank-and-file teachers, also opposes the new law though for quite different reasons, fearing that it will reduce teachers power and open the door to the privatization of education.

         In presenting his legislative proposal, Peña Nieto said that he wanted to reestablish the Mexican government's role as the leader and director of the country's education system. He would create, he indicated, a system based on genuine merit. His plan would take teacher hiring out of the hands of the union which now often plays a strong role in hiring decisions.

    The Un-Named Target

         While her name was never mentioned and the union only alluded to, everyone was aware that when Peña Nieto talked about the government retaking control of the schools he meant taking them back from Gordillo, head of the Teachers Union and a powerful figure in national politics for thirty years. Virtually every major group in the country from government officials to business leaders, politicians left, right and center, and including the leftwing National Coordinating Committee of the Teachers Union as well as many other rank-and-file teachers agree that her power and the power of the corrupt bureaucracy that she commands must be broken.

         Many of the organizations mentioned have criticized and condemned the involvement of the Teachers Union in the affairs of the Secretary of Public Education (SEP), a relationship that involves intimate collusion and rampant corruption in the running of the schools. Most believe that Gordillo and the Teachers Union usually have the upper hand, exerting the union's power to provide management positions and control teaching jobs for Gordillo loyalists. Yet, while so many groups in society are interested in breaking her powerful grip on the union, there is little agreement about how to go about it. Peña Nieto appears to have decided structural and procedural changes in the union will be necessary.

    Would Modify the Constitution

         The reform would modify Article 3 of the Mexican Constitution, one of the three virtually sacrosanct articles that arose from the demands of the Mexican Revolution of 1910-1920, leading to the establishment of free, public, lay education. (The other two articles are Article 123 recognizing workers' right to organize labor unions and Article 27 providing for redistribution of land to indigenous and peasant communities in the form of ejidos and giving Mexico ownership of the country's subsoil. In 1992, President Carlos Salinas de Gortari's government amended Article 27 to permit peasant communities to sell their land.)

         At the center of the education reform is the establishment of a national teacher evaluation. The new Secretary of Public Education, Emilio Chuayffet, told the press that the examination will be obligatory and that failure to administer or take the exam will be subject to "legal consequences." The new law would affect teachers' job security, wages, and opportunities for promotion. Other important elements of the reform are a census of schools, teachers, and students and the standardization of the responsibilities and salaries of school principals and other supervisors.

    Supporters and Opponents

         Several years ago, Mexico decentralized its national education system, giving somewhat greater latitude to state governments, which means that Peña Nieto must win their support, a task he has already succeeded in carrying out. The state secretaries of education of all 32 federal entities—the 31 states and the Federal Districts—have endorsed the educational reform proposal after being lobbied by Secretary of Education Chuayfett.

         Juan Díaz de la Torre, general secretary of the Mexican Teachers Union (el SNTE), initially said that his union would support the reform, while at the same time expressing his concern that business interests "see an opportunity to push toward privatization of education." Yet the next day his boss, Gordillo, head of the union, said that el SNTE rejected the educational reform because it was contrary to the interests of teachers. She was reacting to Secretary Chuayffet's statement that any teacher who failed the exam would be fired. Gordillo—whose opposition could be decisive—has not yet made clear what sort of deal she is seeking, though she surely will and soon.

         The National Coordinating Committee of the Teacher Union (la CNTE), an opposition caucus within the teachers union, opposed the education reform proposal. Rubén Núñez Ginés of SNTE Local 22 in Oaxaca told the press that the "reform will not pass" in Oaxaca or in other areas where the CNTE is strong. "We consider the educational reform, and especially any changes to Article 3 of the Constitution, to be an attack on the Mexican people." It was also, he added, treason to the Mexican Revolution.

         Núñez Ginés said the reform was driven by rightwing business interests. "The project hides its real objective: the labor issue. It is an attempt to do away with collective bargaining in education and to institute instead individual contracts based on evaluations with a punitive character in order to justify firings." He objected to the notion of a "universal evaluation" given the diverse character of Mexico, with states such as Oaxaca having many different indigenous cultures.

         Not content with merely criticizing the reform project, the CNTE has also begun to organize protest demonstrations, beginning with a demonstration against the reform in mid-December by three thousand teachers in Morelia, Michoacan. The CNTE has also gone to court to seek an injunction against the national teacher evaluation.

    La Jornada's Editorial

         The leftwing Mexico City daily La Jornada responded to Peña Nieto's education reform with a strong editorial criticizing the proposal. "Perhaps the most objectionable part of the reform is that it insists on presenting the teachers as the ones ultimately and almost exclusively responsible for the existing deficiencies in the government educational system . . . ." Those proposing the reform failed to take into account other significant factors such as "corruption, inequity and lagging social groups, budgetary neglect, and the involvement of the powers-that-be—particularly the mass media—and the complex relation in recent years between the federal authorities and the corrupt and bureaucratic leadership that controls the teachers union."

         La Jornada suggested to its readers that it was the United States which was pursuing these sorts of reforms based on teacher evaluation, which it has become clear is driven by the business class and its politicians who are attacking public education and encouraging an "educational market place." It will be a disaster, concluded the editorial, if educational reform becomes a vehicle for attacking public education.

    Dissident Voices in the PRD and other Critics

         While the PRD leadership is supporting the educational reform, not all PRD members are in agreement. PRD Congressman Alejandro Sánchez Camacho, for example, opposes the reform because he believes it is part of an attempt to privatize public education.

         Martí Batres, president of the new left party Morena, also opposes the plan because, he says, it is an attack on teachers' job security. The proposed education reform makes scapegoats of the teachers, he said.

         [This article relies heavily on information from stories on the educational reform in recent issues of La Jornada.]

  • Istanbul Mayor Bans Freedom and Solidarity Party Campaign

         While in Istanbul last week I participated in a march and demonstration by the Freedom and Solidarity Party (ODP) on Dec. 9 to launch a campaign to link grassroots community organizations to a broader program for social and political change in Turkey. The march of hundreds of ODP members of all ages, some of them families with children, was a peaceful event though the chants were militant. "Let us live like human beings. Take the government's hands off the people," was one. And periodically the marchers shouted, "Revolt!"

         When the marchers had assembled in one of the city's many squares, ODP Co-Chair Alper Taş spoke, explaining the campaign. Taş talked about the need to end the rule of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) and to create a genuinely democratic Turkey. This would be done, he said, through the campaign to build grassroots organizations in local communities throughout the country. The community organizations would take up local issues, and the party would link them to the broader agenda of democracy and socialism. (To understand more about the ODP's motivation in launching its most recent campaign see the concluding declaration of the Charter Congress held in October.)

         The crowd took up the campaign slogan: "Let's Demolish AKP Order and Build a New Turkey." The ODP hopes to "demolish" the AKP regime of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan which has been in power for eleven years by building a democratic mass movement for socialism. The Freedom and Solidarity Party (Özgürlük ve Dayanişma Partisi—ODP) is a mass, socialist party  that places itself in the tradition of Devrimci Yol (Revolutionary Path), an earlier Marxist party that rejected both the Soviet and Chinese Communist models. That party was crushed after the military coup of September 12, 1980. More than 30,000 were jailed and many subjected to torture. The ODP has approximately 20,000 members with a periphery of 100,000. It received 250,000 votes in the general elections of 1999 representing 0.8% of the total. They were barred from participation in the last elections in 2011. The ODP publishes a daily newspaper, BirGün with a circulation of 6,000.

         The ODP is committed to fighting for democracy and socialism, including workers control, full civil liberties, full religious freedom and the total separation of church and state, full equality for Kurds and other ethnic groups, the rights of women and of gays and lesbians. (See the party's program in brief.)

    Campaign Banned

         The campaign had hardly been launched when Istanbul Mayor Hüseyin Avni Mutlu banned the ODP campaign. This included a ban on all meetings, banners, and ODP posters associated with the campaign. The ODP is now organizing protests against the ban with the slogan, "You have your bans, we have the streets."

         The Istanbul ODP Provincial Organization had applied to the mayor's office for permission for the campaign "Let's Demolish AKP Order and Build a New Turkey" on the 4th of December but the Mayor informed the Party that the Party campaign wasn't found appropriate and the main poster of the campaign was banned.

         Provincial Chairperson of the Party, Avni Gündoğan said: "We won't give up the campaign that will be held all over Turkey including Istanbul between 9th December and 9th June. We are eager to pursue this campaign with the slogan of 'Let's Demolish AKP Order and Build a New Turkey.' We made a call, as ODP, to develop and organize a resistance against AKP in order to make the voice of the oppressed and the working class heard all over the country against this terrible regime. We are reiterating our call once again today. We won't take a step back."

    Typical of Turkish Politics

         The Istanbul mayor's ban on the ODP is typical of the ADP government and unfortunately of politics in Turkey throughout its modern history. Turkey's prisons are full of journalists, students, and Kurdish activists. Just a week ago the Committee to Protect Journalists announced that there are 232 journalists in jail around the world, with Turkey the leading violator of journalists' rights, having imprisoned 49 of them.

         In August the Turkish press reported that there were then 2,824 high school and college students languishing in Turkish prisons. Deputy Özgür Özel of the main opposition party, the conservative Republican People's Party (CHP), said at the time, "This is even more than we had thought. Even the students unfurling banners about free education are charged with [crimes related to] the armed terrorist organizations. The prosecutors trying to create criminals seemed to have achieved that," Özel said.

         Many Kurds are also held in Turkish prisons on charges of terrorism. In November, Turkey's government admitted that at least 682 inmates were participating in a hunger strike in at least 67 prisons across the country. The hunger strike ended on November 21 because of health risks to the participants.

         As Human Rights Watch stated in its World Report for 2012, the Turkish government "has not prioritized human rights reforms since 2005, and freedom of expression and association have both been damaged by the ongoing prosecution and incarceration of journalists, writers, and hundreds of Kurdish political activists." In November, Amnesty International condemned the Turkish authorities for the killing of two civilians.

         The ODP pledges to continue the struggle against repression and for democracy in Turkey.

  • Teachers unions' response on teacher evaluation

    What’s important for teacher unionists internationally to be considering? Mary Compton asks me some hard questions in this interview.  One issue Mary and I didn’t discuss is teacher evaluation, which has emerged in the past year as the most dangerous issue many teachers unions navigate.  But I think the response teachers unions should take flows from the reasoning in this interview. Neoliberal groups that masquerade as putting “students first” are pushing for “employment at will” contracts to replace tenure. The question is, of course, whose will?  What’s the process for insuring that voices of all the stakeholders are heard, including teachers as a group? NYU professor Gary Anderson exposes Deborah Kenny’s deceptive rhetoric about giving teachers respect and trust – by firing them at will.  Her touchy-feely stuff strikes a responsive chord in many people, and we need to face this danger head-on.   Advice I give in my book about reaching out to parents and students is key in this contest.  To win public support in our struggle against “pay for performance” plans, most of which use these bogus “value-added” formulas, we have to break out of the box of the contract. So here’s my advice, put very strongly: Teachers unions have to demand parent and student input on what good teaching looks like. No contract settlements without  consultation with parents, students, and citizens, please! If the board of education won’t call those meetings and hearings, the union should!

  • Toward a Positive Socialist/Left Electoral Movement and Program

         We on the socialist left really do need to build a broad-as-possible socialist/left/progressive electoral movement. I know this will be anathema to many of the self-styled "revolutionary left," or, if advanced and advocated, only paid lip service. It is, however, the only way to establish a positive socialist and honestly progressive political presence in the United States today. Moreover, it is crucial because, for all serious political activists, the electoral road which certainly dominates our political discourse every four years in the Presidential elections, is the dominant road traveled. Further, a serious movement that combines meaningful (not merely symbolic) electoral activity with grassroots mobilization and organizing is the only way to break the stranglehold on "progressive" politics in the U.S. held by the Democratic Party. At this time in the U.S., where the franchise is widely available and utilized, it can also effectively bring about needed social change. Only where voting is largely discredited is the electoral road not worth pursuing. Even such an all-out "revolutionist" as Che Guevara admitted this; he wrote in Guerilla Warfare (Monthly Review Press, 1961, p. 16):

    "Where a government has come into power through some form of popular vote, fraudulent or not, and maintains at least an appearance of constitutional legality, the guerilla [or other revolutionary or insurrectionary—GF] outbreak cannot be promoted, since the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not yet been exhausted."

         Further, the workers and progressive sectors of the U.S. population themselves, and their leading organizations such as unions, are themselves firmly committed in their vast majority to the electoral road. Even among the 90 million people eligible to vote who did not plan on voting in 2012—because they felt powerless or that their vote didn't count—were by no means committed to some insurrectionary alternative. Historically, ever since the Chartist Movement in England through the struggles for women's suffrage and for empowering African Americans to be able to exercise their (theoretically) legal right to vote, the struggles for extending the franchise have always been major advances for emancipation from the yoke of property, capital and aristocratic privilege. Further, it has been integral to the fight for political democracy and social equality. As Scott Gordon wrote trenchantly in his Controlling the State: Constitutionalism from Ancient Athens to Today (Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 296), after noting that the United States did not have a hereditary nobility:

    "But if the criterion of 'democracy' is that all adult citizens have the right to vote and to stand for election to office, then America was not a democracy, and did not become so, even in law, for two centuries thereafter. Slaves and women were excluded, as were white males who could not meet the prescribed requirements. [Usually property ownership—GF]"

    Gordon further pointed out that universal white male suffrage did not occur until 1825 (p. 296, n. 18). (In my state of residence, Indiana, the state Constitution that was in effect in 1852 contained the following provision: "No Negro or Mulatto shall have the right of suffrage." No "Hindoo" or "Chinaman" either.)

         It should further give pause to those "revolutionaries" who discount the usefulness of electoral struggle that the mass movements against austerity in Europe today, very notably Syriza in Greece, all have strong electoral components, and the workers utilized the recent elections there to express their dissatisfaction. Also, while France has had 11 general strikes since 1936, of which at least two of them, in 1968 and 1995, could have toppled the established government and formed a new government of the workers themselves, the French workers did not do so, but settled only for reforms within the established governmental framework. These are but some of the reasons why the "revolutionary" left in the West has been waiting for the paradigm Workers' Revolution to come about longer than the protagonists of Samuel Beckett's famous play have been waiting for Godot! Electoral struggle in the Western capitalist democracies isn't even close to being played out; and no serious socialist can honestly say it is, or that electoral results are irrelevant. Lois Weiner's recent blog on New Politics online bears this out, where she notes the "fear" that governed the 2012 Presidential election; "fear" of who wins the Presidency is not something that dominates an "irrelevant" electoral process—nor does the great relief so many of us justifiably felt when Romney/Ryan was defeated! (Which is not cause to celebrate, in and of itself, the re-election of Obama/Biden.)

         So, a deliberate move to adopting a strong left-wing social-democratic approach in the U.S. is not only necessary, but a bearer of many more positive fruits to come. Otherwise, the left will cede that the Democratic Party is the only real alternative to the Republican/Tea Party right, as left third-parties are doomed permanently to ineffectiveness and marginality, expressing "protest" only, with no discernible effect on government legislation and policies. The Democrats will continue to do as they wish, or are able to do in the face of Republican opposition, and take the "progressive" vote for granted.

         Perhaps revitalizing the Green Party is the best vehicle for achieving this new electoral movement. Jill Stein was on the 2012 ballot in all states except Oklahoma (and only as a write in in Indiana and Georgia), though they are not an active presence in all states. But such a movement must also reach out to include those elements of the Justice Party and the Peace and Freedom Party who fell out with the Greens, and be as broad-based and unified as possible. It would also be nice to bring in those elements of the Socialist Party willing to work in a broader electoral forum. It is most unfortunate, as was noted by Michael Rubin and Linda Thompson in Against the Current 160, that both Roseanne Barr and Rocky Anderson had fallings-out with the Greens, and chose to run rival Presidential campaigns. The Greens have the best organization so far of the various left third parties (which isn't saying much), but maybe what is needed is a new organization that can bring all these rival formations together, or at least significant portions of them, and could also appeal to others on the left, such as elements of DSA and Solidarity, and also attract many from the disgruntled non-affiliated. Such a movement would also need to be able to attract those who voted for Obama reluctantly, given that the alternative of a Romney Presidency was seen as much, much worse. In any case, the broader the better; and we on the left had better learn to understand those who could be attracted to such a third-party formation, but hang on to the Democrats as being "realistic" and "relevant," because they do have a valid point: "American exceptionalism."

         Simply put, while "American exceptionalism" is a bad word on the left, it is a reality. In many ways the U.S. is different from Europe, and nowhere does that difference show up more than in the political systems. Unlike European (and Canadian and Israeli) parliamentary systems, there is no coalition building in U.S. politics—it's winner-take-all, and losers or also-rans are just not recognized; in fact, they can be ignored when convenient, even if they represent 49% of the vote. Also, thanks to the "genius" of the Founding Fathers, who feared direct democracy, there is the Electoral College to consider, because the Electoral College is the one who actually elects the President, not the voting public. The Bush-Gore contest of 2000 made this abundantly clear. And, as we know from his record in office, George W. Bush paid no mind to the 48.38% of the electorate that wanted Gore instead of him; and certainly not to the 2,882,955 voters, or 2.74% of the electorate, who voted for Ralph Nader, showing clearly that they wanted neither Bush nor Gore. That's the nice thing about winner-take-all for the winner—you can absolutely ignore your opposition and essentially do whatever you can get away with, and smirk at those who protest, "Tough beanies, losers!"

         Ralph Nader, of course, was sullied as a "spoiler," and not just by Gore-supporting Democrats and liberals, but by elements of the left also. They claimed that the Nader vote put Bush in office because, had it not been for Nader, the 2.74% of the electorate that voted for him would've voted for Gore, thus clearly giving Gore the Electoral College votes he needed. Of course this ignores that at least some of those who voted for Nader might not have voted at all in 2000, but rationalizations and recriminations have no room for logical subtleties.

         No third party or independent Presidential electoral challenge since early in the 20th Century has ever broken through the magic 3% barrier, i.e., getting 3% or more of the total national vote; most of the time it's been less than 2% and often less than 1%. In 2012, the total third-party vote was only 1.7% of the total vote cast, and included in that total is not only votes for left-wing third-parties, but also right-wing third parties such as the Libertarians and the Constitution Party.

         Failure to break through the 3% barrier was true not only of Nader in 2000, but even for the actively-organized and widely-publicized run of Henry Wallace as the Progressive Party's Presidential candidate in 1948, which garnered 2.4% of the vote—same percentage of the vote as the segregationist States Rights Party Presidential candidate, Strom Thurmond, garnered that year, but with fewer votes than the States Rights Party. The last third party to become a major party in the U.S. was the Republican Party in 1860, but only because the two major opposition parties in the traditionally two-party American system, the Whigs and the Democrats, had either disintegrated (Whigs) or split (Democrats, with one Presidential candidate in the North, and another in the South), due to the highly divisive issue of slavery. This is another aspect of that much-maligned on the left, but factually true, "American exceptionalism."

         That is why, if we are really serious about establishing an effective third party of the left, we should begin by building electoral movements at the local level that run candidates for local public office as well as for local school boards. Local offices are not necessarily powerless—they are the ones who implement state and federal laws and policies at the local level, and in the case of school boards, can even override principals and administrators. Such an electoral movement must not confine itself solely to electoral activities, but must also organize grassroots movements and coalitions to pressure politicians, call for certain legislative initiatives, and agitate for changes in certain laws. We must be about effectiveness as much as protest. And many of the changes the left wishes can be achieved at present only through the legislative process, by enacting or rescinding legislation. This is intimately related to the electoral process and is part and parcel of the hoary "punish and reward" political process—for effective politics will mean pressuring politicians to do what we'd like them to do, and it will only be in rare cases at the present that we will actually be able to elect people to office. That means we will have to reach out to and win over vast numbers of non-socialists as well as be willing to work with Democratic politicians without being subsumed into the Democratic Party—much in the way the independent socialist Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, works with progressive Democrats and participates in the Senate Progressive Caucus (and who received 71% of the state's popular vote in his bid for re-election in 2012).

         We will need to do this at the local level, the state level, and at the national level. But we will be most effective if, from a strong local base, we can move then to a statewide base, and then concentrate on establishing a base at the national level; though we need to work on all three simultaneously. I see this as a process much akin to the successful building of the broad-based anti-Vietnam War movement of the 1960s and early 1970s, which brought together many disparate forces in a working unity that was noteworthy and effective; but was consistently attacked by ultraleftists as "Popular Front," "right opportunism" and "sellout." (The most colorful of these ultraleft broadsides was the Progressive Labor Party's labeling of the mass antiwar movement as the "TLRB Alliance," where "TLRB" stood for "Trotskyite-Revisionist-Liberal-Pacifist"!)

         Certainly, things that can only be addressed legislatively at the state and national level are:

    • Rescind both Right-to-Work and Work at Will laws at the state level, as well as state cuts in unemployment benefits. (All three of these prevail in my present home state of Indiana.)
    • Guarantee by law the right of state and local government employees the right to collectively bargain, especially since this is vigorously under attack in many states, and is outlawed in some, including Indiana.
    • Change the highly restrictive laws on ballot access to third parties that prevail in many states. Once again, my home state of Indiana has one of the most restrictive laws in the nation on this, which is why Jill Stein was only able to run as a write-in—there simply was no way to garner the over 30,000 county-clerk-validated signatures from registered voters to actually put her name on the ballot.
    • Even though we on the left would broadly agree that Obamacare is too limited, we must demand that all the state governors and legislatures accept and implement the provision of Obamacare that Medicaid be available to all persons with incomes below 133% of the federal poverty level. Once again, Indiana is a "leader" in stinginess, allowing Medicaid eligibility (aside from a few special cases for those who qualify for federal disability payments) only to those whose annual income is under 24% of the federal poverty level!
    • At the national level, we must support the demand for a new WPA to put the unemployed to work rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, and other needed works programs.
    • Also, abolish the anachronistic and undemocratic Electoral College and have the President elected by the majority of the popular vote.
    • Put into practice a new stimulus program that puts people to work and enhances consumption, such as called for by leading progressive economists such as Nobel Laureates Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, as well as Dean Baker, Robert Reich, and Jared Bernstein.
    • Demand that there be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.
    • Heavily tax the rich while not raising taxes on ordinary middle-class and working-class persons, enact a financial transactions tax, and regulate the presently ill-regulated financial sector whose unregulated recklessness was the proximate cause of the recession we've had since 2008.

    Other demands certainly can be raised, and this programmatic list is by no means exhaustive. But I say it's a significant start, a constructive one, and a good place to begin.

         Certainly New Politics readers have no Obamillusions, though that certainly can't be said across the board of all who would consider themselves leftists, progressives, or liberals. I need not dwell on all the flip-flops, rotten compromises, broken promises, and even dangerous moves Obama has made since he became President—just pointing out his support of NDAA, use of lethal drones in Pakistan, compiling a "hit list" of persons targeted for assassination, advancing no serious jobs or economic recovery program, and the refusal to even consider single-payer in the healthcare debate will suffice. As has now long been pointed out, Obama, far from being even a liberal, is a pro-business centrist who clearly supports Pax Americana and regards the Wall Street crooks and big business CEOs as "savvy businessmen" (as he once stated) whom he wants on his team; and of course, surrounding himself with Wall Street types, Clintonites and Democratic Party flacks as advisors, key aides, and cabinet members while driving out, or forcing out, all those of a more progressive bent who originally came on board. But on the positive side, such as it is, he is ending active U.S. military presence in Iraq and has set a deadline for U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. And though there is strong and concerted opposition to Obama's policies from the left, the overwhelming opposition comes from the right, especially from the hard right, and has often been overtly racist in character. His re-election gives us on the left an opening that would not have existed had Romney won; instead what would've happened was what happened after the election and then re-election of George W. Bush: not increased militancy, but demoralization, fear and passivity borne of this fear. (That is one reason why I think Occupy Wall Street occurred during Obama's first term instead of during George W. Bush's tenure.)

         Simply put, while Obama and almost all Democrats are bad, very bad, the Republicans are worse, even much, much worse. And while it is true that there is little difference of substance between the Democrats and Republicans, it is sheer hyperbole to say there is no difference, especially given the open support of the Tea Party and corporate money for the Republicans; and it is accurate to say that, on issues of concern to the left, while the Democrats usually waffle and often strongly disappoint, the Republicans advance a clear far right political and social agenda on all these issues, from civil liberties to foreign policy, economic and jobs issues to gay and women's rights, that we on the left can consider truly dangerous, especially if enacted. Moreover, too many of the anti-Obama left not only cavalierly dismissed the threat of Romney and the Tea Party-backed Republicans, they actually portrayed Obama as somehow worse than Romney, a greater danger to the left and to meaningful progressive social change than Romney. This smacks me as indulging in a blind ultraleftism reminiscent of Germany in 1932, when the Communist Party denounced the Social-Democrats as "social fascists" worse than the Nazis, were openly dismissive of Hitler and the Nazis as a mere flash in the pan, and advanced as their chief political slogan, "After Hitler, our turn!"

         This was brought home personally for me when I stated that I might hold my nose and vote for Obama, or I might vote for Jill Stein as a write-in. (How I voted would've made no difference in Indiana anyway, as the state was a shoo-in for Romney; but as it was, I voted for Jill Stein on November 6.) For this I was excoriated by one Ed Griffith of the New Progressive Alliance, a pro-third party of the left group that did consider Obama a greater threat than Romney and talks openly of the Democratic and Republican "uniparty."

         This is a concrete example of how ultraleftism can derail a movement more than "right opportunism," and how ultraleftism will keep people in the Democratic Party, wed them to Democratic Party politicians as automatic "lesser evils," and lead them to completely tune out the left. This will continue to render the left ineffective and marginal, as we have now been for more than three decades. After all, if everyone to our right is our enemy, who but ourselves will we have to talk to? And how will we get anything done except wait for a millenarian Workers' Revolution to solve it all, much as fundamentalist Christians wait for the Second Coming of Christ?

         In short, a good part of our immediate task is to pressure Obama, not simply to ignore him and then say, "I told you so!"

         Aside from all I've written above, I would urge in building this electoral movement that the left use humor as well as earnestness and seriousness in making our appeals to the great mass of people out there. And while we should certainly utilize Facebook and other social media, we need to also use "old-fashioned" means of reaching out such as writing and distributing flyers; writing newspaper articles, letters to the editor, and setting up our own online and hard-copy newspapers; and sponsoring public demonstrations and rallies. Above all, we should follow the advice of the civil rights song, "Keep your eye on the prize, hold on." And not be satisfied to talk only to ourselves, but reach out beyond the circles of the already-converted. And not be afraid to compromise on tactics, and be willing to mute our left rhetoric while not compromising our principles.

         The 2012 election clearly showed how debased our U.S. political dialogue can be, and how much our fellow citizens are prepared to accept uncritically. Part of our task will be to raise that level of dialogue—but of course we can't do that if we only talk to ourselves. That's why politics, even left politics, is the art of compromise as well as the clear articulation of principles. Go where the people are, talk to them (but not at them!) where they're at politically, and win them over. Electoral politics is the best way now to do that. Seriously. With seriousness.

     

    George Fish is a socialist writer and poet in Indianapolis who has published extensively in the left and alternative presses, and is a regular contributor to New Politics. He is also a Lenny Bruce/George Carlin-style satirical stand-up comic and a precariously employed temp worker. He can be contacted at georgefish666@yahoo.com.

  • Repression in Mexico – an urgent appeal

    Students are fighting for their dreams and are being met by violent repression.  Chilean youth have mounted the largest demonstrations since Pinochet’s murderous regime took power. Yet, they continue their struggles for jobs and educational opportunity. The latest chapter in this story is being written in Mexico. Protestors have been “disappeared.” We know what that likely means if international protests are not mounted.The US chapter of the Trinational Coalition in Defense of Public Education has received an urgent appeal from our members in Mexico, asking for our support.  Below you will find a translation of their declaration, explaining what has occurred.You can send your letters of support and protest of this violent repression to María de la Luz Arriaga Lemus at mariluzarriaga@gmail.com.  COALICIÓN TRINACIONAL EN DEFENSA DE LA EDUCACION PÚBLICASECCIÓN MEXICANA In December 1 the people of Mexico made legitimate use of their constitutional right to protest, to demonstrate and to change the political regime. Tens of thousands of workers, youth, women, and the people in general, poured into the streets throughout the country to reject the buying of votes, and the use of the proceeds of crime by the PRI to seize control of the government in order to maintain the privileges of big international financial capital and the parasitic businesses that profit from the public coffer.  In a concerted action, Peña Nieto (de facto President, from the PRI party), Calderón (outgoing President, PAN) and Ebrard (Mayor of Mexico Federal District, PRD), supended individual rights, kidnapped the legislatura, and walled off more than 8 kilometres of the historic centre of the city since November 25. The military and police arrogance in the heart of national politics could not prevent the December 1st demonstrations that rejected the electoral fraud and labour code “reforms.” In the face of this, the commercial TV networks set up a montage of “institutional Normality, beside constant repetition of images of provocateurs, trying to pass them off as members of YoSoy#132 in order to justify the mass acts of violence carried out against citizens who protested peacefully.  We energetically reject the strategy orchestrated by the federal government and the government of Mexico City, the police brutality, the government provocations (photos of provocateurs committing acts of destruction and later hanging out behind police lines can be seen on the IDEA facebook site at <idea-network-red-sepa>) and the television smear campaign that attempts to obscure the social protest against electoral fraud and the imposition of neoliberal reforms. The federal and local state violence has taken the life of a demonstrator (who is in a coma), destroyed the eye of a 20-year old youth, wounded dozens more, and has resulted in more than 100 people arbitrarily arrested, who are now being arraigned in turbid and unjust ways. Meanwhile, the provocateurs, protected by the riot police, federales, and presidential guard, are free. It is important to point out that in the face of their failure at San Lázaro (congress), (the police) carried out attacks and arrests in Pino Suárez, Regina, Madero, and the Eje Central, as far as  2 kilometers from the clashes at San Lázaro, where the police carried out wide-scale provocations, smashing windows and store displays along Juarez Ave in order to justify the illegal arrests, including of members of MORENA along Insurgentes Ave and Reforma. Those responsible for the police brutality should be punished. An inquiry should be launched of the Secretary of the Interior, the head of Public Security and the Federal Police, the Minister of the Interior and the Attorney General of the Federal District. A political case should be launched against Marcelo Ebrard (Federal District Mayor) for his participation in this operation, hiding his hand behind a call for investigations in to the provocateurs while rushing to “indemnise the businesspeople” who seek to profit form thioer smashed windows with one billion pesos. In Mexico there is no democracy. The militarized change of government took place in the midst of an unprecedented wave of state violence. The democratic transition has failed, electoral fraud, criminalization of social struggles and the militarization of the country has prevented the establishment of civil and democratic liberties that the national oligarchy at the service of transnational capital attempts cynically to feign. The demonstrations of rejection of vote-buying, state violence and the economic model show the failure of the spectacle that they try to present with the transition of powers. At the international level, it is very clear the climate of violence and the distancing of the government form the people. We demand the immediate and unconditional release of those who were arrested last December 1, and of all the political prisoners that resulted from the events of December 1. We also demand that those who were disappeared (during the police operation), be presented alive. We will struggle energetically until every last one has been freed. We demand an in-depth and transparent investigation into the provocations and government violence. This will require that the Secretaries of the Interior (Miguel Angel Osorio Chong) and of Public Security ( Manuel Mondragón) step down from their posts, because of their possible connections to the repressionWe demand an immediate explication from the National and the Federal District Human Rights Commission regarding the violations of constitutional guarantees and police brutality.We demand adequate medical attention for the victims of the repression. This is something the Red Cross has been unable to offer.We call on the forces of democracy and the left to launch the broadest information campaign possible to promote mobilizations against state violence, respect for popular sovereignty, and rejection of neoliberal policies, and for participation a huge demonstration on December 10, the International Day of Human Rights.