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.
Blog
-
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 Street—January-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
- U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Union Membership"; "Work stoppages involving 1,000 or more workers, 1947-2011."
- Jennifer Manning, "Membership of the 112th Congress: A Profile," Congressional Research Service.
- Lois Weiner, "Teacher Unionism Reborn," New Politics, Winter 2012.
- Rob Bartlett, "Chicago Teachers Strike Back," Against the Current, Nov.-Dec. 2012, no. 161.
- Dan La Botz, Bob Brenner, Joel Jordan, "The Significance of Occupy," Solidarity Webzine.
- Occupy Arrests.
- Julienne Hing, "DREAMers Stage Sit-ins at Obama Office to Force Deportation Standoff," Colorlines.
- Julia Preston and John H. Cushman, Jr., "Obama to Permit Young Migrants to Remain in U.S.," New York Times.
- "Hydraulic Fracturing," Wikipedia.
- For a synopsis of the film see: "Gasland," Wikipedia.
- Daniel Kessler, "350.org, Josh Fox and Friends Announce Don't Frack OH Action."
- Mike Ludwig, "Hundreds Protest Fracking in Ohio as Drilling Expands," Truthout.
- New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), "Stop-and-Frisk 2011 – NYCLU Briefing."
- "Stop-and-frisk Policy – New York City Police Department," New York Times.
- Verena Dobnik, 'Stop-and-frisk Protest: Thousands In New York Hold Silent March Against NYPD Tactics," Huffington Post.
- John Leland and Colin Moynihan, "Thousands March Silently to Protest Stop-and-Frisk Policies," New York Times.
- Elisabeth Bumiller, "Obama Ends 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy," New York Times.
- 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.
- "Gay rights activists to hold kiss protests at Chick-fil-A restaurants," CNN.
- Cecilia Hanley, "Chick-fil-A will no longer give money to anti-gay groups," Fox News.
- StatesNARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, "Who Decides? The Status of Women's Reproductive Rights in the United States."
- "Proof of the GOP War on Women," PoliticusUSA.
- "Code Pink Protests as Giant Vaginas at RNC: 'Can't Say It, Don't Legislate It!"Common Dreams.
- Jessica Wilt, "Women Protest At Republican National Convention: 'Hands Off My Vagina'" Huffington Post.
- "Mich. lawmaker barred for 'vagina' comment in abortion debate," CBS News.
- 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.
- "Global 500," Fortune Magazine.
- "Walmart Salaries," Glass Door.
- Katherine Griffiths, "Wal-Mart Crushes Union by Closing Store," The Independent (UK).
- Organization United for Respect or OUR Walmart.
- 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.
-
Mexico's Opposition Parties Sign "Pact for Mexico," Left in Disarray, Radical Youth in Violent Rebellion
Enrique Peña Nieto of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), Mexico's new president who took office on December 1, carried out a shrewd political maneuver the very next day, convincing the opposition parties to join him in signing a "Pact for Mexico," calling for the completion of the neoliberal transformation begun in the 1980s. Leaders of the conservative National Action Party (PAN) and the left-of-center Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) agreed to join with the president in carrying out "reforms" of telecommunications, education, and state and municipal finances.
Representatives of the Mexican Ecological Green Party (PVEM), a satellite of the PRI, were also present at the signing as observers. The president also called upon employers and labor unions, academics and the media, and the society in general to join together "so that this will be a pact for Mexico." In the past, such national unity pacts have only been agreed to in times of national emergency, such as during World War II. The pact shocked and infuriated many on the Mexican left, who felt betrayed by the PRD's complicity with Peña Nieto.
Youth Engage in Violent Protests
While President Peña Nieto was taking the oath of office in the Congress the day before, youths responding to the call of the #IAm132 student movement and the National Convention against Imposition (that is, the imposition of Peña Nieto and the PRI) engaged in small but violent protests outside, where they fought police with clubs, stones, and Molotov cocktails. The young protestors, many dressed in black, some painted with the letter "A," wearing ski masks and bandannas to hide their identity, broke shop windows, trashed at least one automobile, and destroyed cash machines. Some labor union members and #IAm132 members, who broke off from the protests when they turned violent, reportedly attempted to assist the injured.
The protests resulted in over 100 injuries, some of them requiring hospitalization; one person was critically injured. Police arrested and charged 69 for involvement in the riot, though lawyers for some of the accused say that they were either involved in peaceful protests or were simply innocent bystanders. The small, violent protests this year stood in stark contrast to the hundreds of thousands who protested peacefully for weeks six years ago. They also suggest serious problems in the #IAm132 movement which issued a call for protests but was unprepared for the violence that ensued.
Not far away, hundreds of teachers from the National Coordinating Committee of the Teachers Union (la CNTE) were contained by police on a street downtown and kept from joining labor demonstrations. The labor organizations, angry about the recent passage of a pro-business labor reform, had organized peaceful protests.
Inside, Peña Nieto delivered an address in which he promised to restore peace to the beleaguered nation, establish the bases for economic growth, overcome the country's social backwardness, raise the standard of living, and create a middle class nation.
Reaction to Peña Nieto's Political Maneuver
Remarkably, Peña Nieto, whose election had been challenged as corrupt and fraudulent by the left, succeeded in convincing Jesús Zambrano, leader of the PRD, to join in signing his national unity pact. The result has been an immediate uproar in the PRD, leading two of its Congressional deputies. congressmen, Gerardo Villanueva and Rodrigo Chávez, to resign from the party, becoming independent representatives for the moment, though they apparently plan to join the Movement for National Regeneration (MORENA) led by Andrés Manuel López Obrador.
Leaders of other factions of the PRD, such as René Bejarano Martínez, accused Zambrano of having entered into the pact without consulting the party leadership. Many speculate that the PRD will be shattered by these developments, though the party's ballot status and organizational resources make that unlikely.
-
Joining Forces to be Stronger
When, shortly after the occupation of Zuccotti Park (Sep. 17, 2011), I started organizing disabled people to join in the new Occupy Wall Street movement, which seemed to be growing at the speed of light, I was criticized by leaders in the disability rights movement, including my good friend Bob Kafka, a national leader of ADAPT.
ADAPT is a grassroots organization of people with disabilities. Founded in 1983, ADAPT fought first for access to public transportation. At the time ADAPT stood for "American Disabled for Accessible Public Transit." After passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the focus shifted to freeing disabled people from institutions and making it possible for those with even the most significant disabilities to live in their own homes in the community, with all the necessary services and supports. ADAPT, then, came to stand for "American Disabled for Attendant Programs Today." Currently, ADAPT simply stands for ADAPT, it's no longer an acronym.
The services and supports for which ADAPT has been fighting are or would be funded by Medicaid, the health care program for the poor. Since, outside of self-pay or costly private insurance, only Medicaid covers long term care, disabled people are often forced into poverty and forced to stay poor. Thus, ADAPT is fighting not for the Larry Flints and Christopher Reeves, but for the neediest and the poorest.
ADAPT makes very effective use of civil disobedience. At national actions, 100 to 200 people, most if not all disabled, get arrested. Getting arrested is proof of our commitment and is an empowering act for those who have been powerless. ADAPT activists are very proud when they get arrested, though it's always an ordeal, especially for those with significant disabilities. I've been arrested with ADAPT more times than I can remember.
Since ADAPT is known as the radical arm of the disability rights movement, I didn't expect an ADAPT leader to disapprove of our involvement in Occupy. Yet, Bob Kafka wrote: "At a time when our people across the country are being threatened with cuts to basic services, States are slashing Medicaid budgets, workers with disabilities are being targeted [and laid off], sheltered employment pays sub-minimum wages, we need to use our scarce organizing energies and resources carefully, and not be dazzled by a movement that hardly recognizes our issues." And he added: "Personally I'm tired of educating 'progressives' on our issues 38 years after 504 [the Section of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability in all programs receiving federal funding] and 21 years after the ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act]."
Bob's message exemplifies a widely held attitude in the disability rights movement, that of seeing our issues as ours and ours alone.
All of us who fight for social justice know very well that it's always the poorest and the neediest who pay for the sins of the rich. In times of plenty, poor people are thrown some crumbs. And those crumbs often are enough to pacify us and render us passive. In times of economic crisis, of course, poor people are the ones who are made to bear the heaviest burden.
Because we have always had the highest unemployment rates, even in times of economic boom, and because so many of our people have always depended on social programs, there is no question that the disability community was hit as hard as could be during the latest economic crisis. A crisis that was caused by Wall Street, by the big banks, by our government's commitment to the "free market," and the idea that an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, that no matter how much social damage it may cause, it will ultimately benefit everyone. That commitment was unshaken by the economic crisis. In fact, what was the remedy? The big banks that caused the crisis got bailed out. "Banks got bailed out, we got sold out."
Though the disability community was hit very hard, others suffered as well. Nondisabled people were also hurt by those Medicaid budget cuts, as well as by unemployment, by cuts to public school budgets, to senior programs, to homeless assistance, to all social programs.
Why was Bob Kafka telling me to focus on "our" issues? Why was he accusing me of spreading myself thin, when all I was doing was joining forces in order to be stronger? Of course, I didn't follow Bob's advice and went on to start the Disability Caucus of Occupy Wall Street. On the West Coast, in Chicago, and in other cities disabled people were also organizing and joining the Occupy movement.
To try to explain the puzzling attitude of many disability rights activists, I'd like to take a closer look at the relationship our movement has had through the years with other movements fighting for social justice and in general with the "left."
As an aside, I must confess that, being born and raised in Italy, I never thought there was much of a "left" in the United States. But I am now starting to feel more hopeful.
The disability rights movement was born out of other movements, in a time of great uprising—a time very similar to our own. We have always followed the example of other movements, certainly of the civil rights movement. For 40 years we have demanded our "civil rights." From the very start we called ourselves "a minority." In fact, in the US, the "minority model" is probably more recognized and better understood than the "social model."
Disabled In Action was founded (in 1970) by Judy Heumann and others, who all had strong connections with progressive, "leftist" groups. In subsequent years, we would bring the DIA banner to every anti-war rally (too many of those to count), every women's rights' march, anti-nuke protest, environmental demonstration, and every gay pride parade.
On the west coast, the affiliation of the budding disability movement with the left was just as strong. When, in 1977, the San Francisco disability rights activists sat-in for 25 days in the Health, Education and Welfare offices in order to get the regulations to Section 504 of the Rehab Act signed, they had the full support of the very progressive East Bay community. The Black Panthers brought them food, and the Butterfly Brigade (a gay group) provided them with walkie-talkies. The sit-in started what at the time we thought would be a tradition of solidarity between disability rights and other movements also fighting against oppression.
Yet, through the years, while individual disability rights activists have aligned themselves with various other social justice groups, on the whole, the disability rights movement has insulated itself from other movements. Those national organizations that supposedly represent us have in general put their trust in the liberal democrats, as being better than the republicans.
Why has this happened? If you ask around what you'll hear is: "They don't want us." And, indeed, leftist groups are notorious for holding events and meetings without giving any thought to access—wheelchair accessibility, materials in alternate format, sign language interpreters. What you may also hear is: "The left doesn't get it."
In October of 1986, ADAPT was fighting for wheelchair lifts on buses, and was in Detroit to hassle the American Public Transit Association, which was holding its convention there. Since Rosa Parks lived in Detroit, ADAPT invited her to attend their press conference and lead their march. In the fight to get on the bus, ADAPT activists had been using Rosa Parks as their icon—often appearing at protests with name tags reading "My name is Rosa Parks"—trying to make the public connect our movement with the civil rights movement. An often-quoted sound bite from ADAPT in those days was: "A civil rights movement was born when people refused to ride at the back of the bus. We can't even get on the bus."
Rosa Parks failed to appear at the ADAPT's press conference and march. Instead, what ADAPT got was a letter from her. She cited as her reason for refusing the invitation "the traumatic manner in which you [ADAPT] choose to dramatize disabled Americans' lack of access to public transit." She said she didn't want to "embarrass the city's guests and cripple the city's present transportation system."
It was a heavy blow. I don't want to elaborate. We realized—and this would be confirmed repeatedly in the future—that while we tried to show the similarity of our movement to other social justice movements, those other movements were not so interested in our commonalities. Even when "our issues" were the same as "their issues," they preferred to see them as "special." And they saw us—disabled activists—as "special," and "inspirational;" they kindly offered support but not true solidarity which only comes when you can "identify" with each other.
The most respected community organizers and activists treated us the same way as everyone else did. The wall of "ableism" stood between us. Ableism is the belief that an able body is the "norm" in society, and that people who have disabilities must strive to get as close as they can to that norm—something we cannot always do nor do we necessarily want to do. It's the belief that disability is, inherently, a "bad" thing, a tragedy, rather than a simple consequence of being human and another example of human diversity, akin to race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Ableism is prejudice and we encounter it every day and we fight against it every day.
I must say, that in times of economic crisis, we have often managed to join forces with others fighting oppression. Certainly, Disabled In Action always has. I remember us joining the Same Boat Coalition in the early 90s. In 1993, when we organized the Disability Independence Day March, an event that drew close to 3000 people, we managed to bring together not only all the different segments of our community—people with all types of disabilities—but we had marching with us labor representatives and activists from different social justice groups.
When the occupation of Zuccotti Park began, my life partner and I, as well as some of our disabled friends, eagerly headed downtown. Was this the revolution we had been waiting for all our lives? Especially at first, the reception we got from the many people congregating around the park, whether they were organizers, "leftists" or simply curious visitors, was the same patronizing one we always get—the usual "pat on the head" and the usual comments: "How inspirational you are for coming here! How hard it must be to get here in your condition!"
Yet, when we ventured into the quickly growing encampment, we were "welcomed" by the occupiers. Of course, they were not immediately aware of our various needs for access. But I remember how readily and enthusiastically they moved cartons full of clothes and folding tables to make room for our wheelchairs, how tolerant and understanding they were when we rudely awakened them by accidentally hitting sleeping bags with our chairs, how joyfully they shared food with us. As we sat amidst the jumble of paraphernalia and listened to mic checks, we felt not only welcomed but "embraced." Literally, hugs were freely and generously distributed.
We realized soon enough that many of the people camping in Zuccotti Park had experienced real oppression, and also that many of them were "disabled." Some, whose disabilities were hidden, chose to "come out," reveal their disabilities to us, and ask for advice in dealing with a hostile system. We felt not only wanted but needed.
So, though I never spent a night at Zuccotti Park, I was at home there.
Then on Nov. 15th the park was raided, what had been lovingly built was destroyed, the people were driven away, pepper sprayed, beaten, arrested.
Two days later, I was arrested in the attempt by Occupy Wall Street to block the Stock Exchange. Following my arrest, Disabled In Action and Krips Occupy Wall Street, who had been regularly lining up on the Broadway sidewalk in front of Zuccotti Park with protest signs, decided to formalize our presence in the Occupy movement. We became the "Disability Caucus of Occupy Wall Street."
We have taken part in many OWS events and actions, and have organized our own. On Aug. 8, we protested in front of Gracie Mansion in opposition to the mayor's 1% policies which marginalize New Yorkers of all backgrounds. Having shown nothing but contempt for the disability community, stomped on our rights and used our law against us in court, he was throwing a party for the ADA, trying "to buy us off with a hamburger and a pat on the head." There were eight arrests. We had another four arrests on September 17, when on the anniversary of the first occupation, wheelchair users blocked Broadway in front of Zuccotti Park. The Disability Caucus has earned the respect of the whole Occupy movement in NYC.
A great deal has changed since the days of the original occupation. The media reports that the movement has dwindled. In a way that's true, since Occupy Wall Street as we knew it has fewer people. What we have today is a loose conglomeration of different groups working on different issues all using the language and ideology of Occupy; the latest initiative is Occupy Sandy Relief, which impressively sprang into action a few weeks after our October 4th forum. Some groups were in existence long before OWS, some are old left, others are new. There are protests every single day, sometimes two or three a day. And I've seen many of the same faces at different protests. This tells me the Occupy movement has evolved. It has brought various groups fighting for social justice together. I'm proud to say that we are there, too, and our presence is felt. Had Occupy allowed itself to be pressured limiting itself to one or two specific demands, this coming together of diverse groups would not be happening.
What Occupy has also done is embolden all of us. You will hear previously timid people say words out loud with pride. Words like "revolution." You'll hear "I'm a socialist," a democratic socialist or whatever kind of socialist, or a communist or an anarchist.
This is the time for the disability movement to be bold. For decades, the strategy of the power elite has been to throw us those crumbs and then threaten to take them away. They keep us fighting to hold on to those crumbs, so we do not demand what should be rightfully ours.
ADAPT has been fighting for years to make a small change in the Medicaid program: eliminate the institutional bias which mandates states to provide services in institutions and not in one's home. ADAPT's work is extremely important. Our people die of neglect in nursing homes, they serve life sentences for the crime of having a disability.
It is imperative that we "free our people." But why have we never questioned the existence of a separate program for the poor? Medicaid is inherently discriminatory. It is medical apartheid. In communities of people of color, the outcry against disparities in health care is getting louder. Statistically, people with cancer who rely on Medicaid are almost as likely to die as the uninsured. Yet, the disability community puts all its energy into preserving Medicaid as is, for fear of losing Medicaid funded long term care.
Why hasn't the disability movement joined the movement for a national health care program? We need a strong health care program that includes long term care, so that people don't have to impoverish themselves, and be forced to stay poor in order to get services that should be ours by right.
That's just one example. It is time we move "beyond ramps"—that's the title of a book my friend Marta Russell wrote back in '97. It is even time to move beyond fighting for equality. And fight to change the system that creates and fosters inequality.
My ADAPT t-shirt says "Free Our people." But I know "our people" will not truly be free unless we all join together and fight for all oppressed people to be free.
Nadina LaSpina is an activist for social justice and in particular for disability rights. She has been arrested countless times for civil disobedience and is an organizer for American Disabled for Attendant Programs Today (ADAPT), Not Dead Yet and the Disability Caucus of Occupy Wall Street.
-
Beyond the Americans with Disabilities Act
Hi. I'm Paula Wolff. In the Summer 2012 issue of New Politics Betty Reid Mandell has an article called "Means Testing Shredding the Safety Net." I wrote an article with a similar title called "Welfare Reform, Shredding the Safety Net" which appeared in ABLE News shortly after July 26,1996 when, under the guise of national welfare reform, immigrant workers who were ill or disabled or became ill or disabled after working here in the United States at some of the poorest paid jobs with some of the worst working conditions trying to support themselves and their families, could no longer qualify for income support and health insurance even if they met the incredibly restrictive income levels required. This was a disgrace! But the federal government did nothing and a major advocacy agency for the elderly, AARP, also did nothing. As a civil and disability rights activist and social worker I found this a disgrace!
I was asked to speak tonight about the disability rights movement, and I will try to do so. Like any movement, we've had some stars over the past 40 or so years. But the disability rights movement didn't start in a vacuum. It started as a result of other civil rights struggles and what we learned from them. We witnessed the civil rights struggles of Black people in the south to integrate schools and public facilities like restaurants, and to sit anywhere they choose on a public bus. In fact, the disability rights movement fought for many of the same things: the right to have access to public facilities like restaurants, schools, and to public transportation when we fought for the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which banned discrimination against persons with disabilities in places that receive federal funds. And there were 28 days of sit-ins in California for this. We fought to have this right expanded and not limited to places receiving federal funds and it was when we fought for and got with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) signed into law on July 26 of 1990.
Although the passage of the ADA was a huge victory, and many people think of it as a kind of Declaration of Independence for Persons with Disabilities this is actually not the case. Although it is an important civil rights law trying to end or at least diminish discrimination faced by persons with all types of disabilities and those perceived as having a disability or a record of such an impairment, the ADA falls extremely short of reaching its intended goal. Why? For one thing, it is a law without teeth and is only enforced if those who feel their rights have been violated under this law choose to sue. It is also an unfunded mandate. Also, since the ADA passed, there have been many attempts to weaken it. In addition, our rights, such as the right of a person who uses a wheelchair to enter an older building, are dependent upon the cost of making the entrance accessible and whether the building with access issues requests a waiver due to financial hardship. So, our rights to access, to accommodation in the workplace, etc. are not guaranteed as civil and human rights even with the Americans with Disabilities Act. They are still dependent upon cost and the "good will" of the particular program, building, or workplace. That is not equality!
We've also learned from the struggles of the women's movement and by the struggles of gay, lesbian and transgendered people, who share many of the issues we still fight for—the right to work, the right to marry (since the need to qualify for government health programs forces many persons with disabilities to remain officially single, unable to marry out life partners), the right to housing, and the right to equality in healthcare access and education, and to an end to discrimination.
I've been involved in civil and disability rights for about 35 years and presently serve as president of Disabled in Action, a civil rights group for persons with disabilities and others who share our goals. DIA was started about 40 years ago by Judy Heuman. Ms. Heuman was a wheelchair user who had completed teacher training and wanted to get a license to teach in the New York City schools. Although she had completed all the requirements, at that time a person with a disability had to go for a "Special Competency Test." Basically they placed you in a school and asked you to do whatever would be difficult because of your disability.
I'm happy to say that I was the last person with a disability going for a license to teach in the New York City schools who had to take that "Special Test." I was already working as a Special Education Teacher in a private school in New Jersey, and, no, that principal writing a letter that I was doing really good work and managing all teaching duties was Not good enough. As a teacher who was legally blind (I was not yet in the wheelchair) they asked me to lead all the students in the school in an assembly, describe what was on the walls in a large room (I had asked one of the teachers what was on the walls before they came), and when they handed me a newspaper and told me to read it I read them a headline. I showed them large print recordkeeping charts and they watched me work with students. I got the teaching licenses. That was back in 1984.
There have certainly been some changes in the past 35 years. We have civil rights laws. New construction is usually required to be accessible. We fought for and now have lifts on the city buses (myself and many other wheelchair users threw ourselves onto the lifts hundreds of times waiting for a bus) and a limited number of subway stations (yes, I know the gaps are a problem.) We will soon see accessible long distance buses. We often see wheelchair access seating at public events, and assistive listening devices at many public places such as movie theaters.
Do we have an end to employment discrimination? With an unemployment rate of around 70%, of course not. Do we have equality of access to education or healthcare? No again. Do we have to fight to maintain the gains we've made, and to work for more? Of course! Occupy gives those of us in the disability community a unique opportunity to join coalitions fighting for social justice. We've been able to help Occupiers see that as victims of oppression and poverty we are part of the 99%. Thank you.
Paula Wolff is President of Disabled in Action and active in Occupy Wall Street. She has participated in the disability rights movement for more than 35 years. She is a social worker and direct services supervisor at the Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York.
-
Theories of Disablement
In the United States and in other OECD countries, the majority of disabled people live in poverty. Disabled people also tend to be outside the labor market, and have attained fewer educational credentials than their non-disabled counterparts.[1] The social model of disability stands for the proposition that it is structural barriers that lie at the root of most of the problems faced by disabled people: a lack of wheelchair ramps, lack of accessible technology that would enable blind people and others such as those with learning disabilities to work efficiently, a lack of sign language interpretation that would enable communication, and a lack of appropriate attendant services that would provide assistance with activities of daily living such as bathing, dressing and toileting, inflexible work schedules and rules that make many jobs impossible for disabled people.
The focus of the social model is on removing barriers.[2] It is embodied in the vibrant but largely ignored social movements from below, such as militants in ADAPT who fought first for accessible public transportation and more recently for effective attendant services. The social model is also embodied to some degree in legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and its equivalents in many other countries which require a duty to accommodate disabled people up to the point of undue hardship. A powerful overview of these social movements is provided in the late Frieda Zames and Doris Zames Fleischer’s excellent The Disability Rights Movement. The second edition of this book is available from Temple University Press.[3]
The social model sharply contrasts with the medical model, which focuses almost exclusively on ameliorating impairment through a cure, medical intervention, and raising money through degrading telethons, such as the notorious Jerry Lewis telethon, that have been repeatedly protested by many in the disability rights community.[4] Early work such as Erving Goffman’s Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity drew attention to the problems faced by disabled people in social interactions, famously observing "there is only one complete unblushing male in America, a young married, white, urban, northern, heterosexual Protestant father of college education, of good complexion, weight and height and a recent record in sports"[5] even as Goffman wrongly assumed that disability inevitably spoils identity.[6]
The focus of my presentation will be on the impact of neoliberalism on disabled people. What do I mean by neoliberalism? The drastic reduction of welfare, the expansion of workfare, and changing the nature of work away from well-paying full-time—or what some might call Fordist—jobs to the flexible labor market where precarious jobs are much more common: part-time or temporary post-Fordist jobs, often without decent benefits.[7] There is also the expansion of overtime work without overtime pay, which is oppressive to everyone, but may be particularly challenging for many disabled people. There has been a drastic paradigm shift to the notion that a person outside the labor market should accept any job regardless of working conditions, hours or salary.[8] This marks a sharp departure from the Keynesian welfare state consensus which, for what the French called les trente annees glorieux—thirty glorious years after the end of the Second World War—one saw full employment, strong unions and the widespread availability of full-time well paid jobs, for many even if not all.[9] Even then, however, the majority of disabled people across the OECD countries already tended to be outside the labor market. And, as Chris J. Ford observed in his New Politics article on neoliberalism and disability rights, as the welfare state is slashed in Britain and other countries there has been an increase in disability harassment: disabled people are increasingly being blamed as malingerers.[10] Ford eloquently describes how Peter Greener, a man with multiple sclerosis in Hebburn, was falsely the subject of abuse on a benefit hotline by a neighbour.
Across Europe, as the economic crisis deepens, these incidents are likely to become more severe.[11] This does not mark a disappearance of the state as in some Randian fantasy; the state is very much with us, but is focused on a different set of priorities: not regulation of wealth redistribution as in Keynesian times of progressive taxation but reregulation of labor markets to maximize profitability. The state is to act as an enabler of the capitalist class by enforcing property and contract laws.[12]
So how did we get here, neoliberal America in 2012? The British scholar Colin Barnes and earlier the American academic Deborah Stone have observed that with industrialization and urbanization, one saw the conflation of work with paid employment. Whereas some disabled people were able to make contributions in feudal times when labor time and the pace of work were less relevant, with the rise of commodification of labor and factories, disabled people were classified into two categories: those who were able to work and those who were not.[13] Those who were not, after the passage of the English Poor Laws including the amendments in 1834, increasingly were regarded as a burden on the economy, a perception that persists to this very day.[14] This was by no means a stable category; who was classified as disabled varied depending on the state of the economy, the state of the labor movement and the state of the class struggle.[15] The huge growth of heavy capital industries such as iron, steel and the railways in the late nineteenth century resulted in a much higher level of physical fitness and dexterity as a prerequisite for employment and a concomitant increase in the institutionalization of those now deemed unable to work.[16]
Eugenics, influenced by thinkers such as Galton, sought to classify disabled people and had systemic biases against disabled people of colour and gays and lesbians in particular.[17] Many disabled people were placed in institutional settings where physical and sexual abuse, including sterilization abuse, was widespread.[18] Hence the notorious US Supreme Court case, Buck v. Bell in which Justice Holmes notoriously remarked "three generations of imbeciles is enough," and found that the state of Virginia did not act improperly in sterilizing the purportedly "feebleminded" woman, Carrie Buck.[19] Sterilization laws were on the books in many states, in two Canadian provinces, and beyond, leading to the disgraceful sterilization of many tens of thousands of people, disproportionately working class and racialized.[20]
Immigration policies typically excluded people with disabilities; in fact, the disabled are prohibited from immigrating to Canada to this very day.[21] Yet the classification system which became commonplace in areas such as workers compensation schemes, was entirely arbitrary. As Deborah Stone recounts, "even a defender of the idea of objective measurement of impairment as Kessler stated: 'To summarize, it is important to understand that the entire pension scheme and disability rating scheme are pure fiction if we feel that the rating table expresses in a scientific way the economic, or psychological or physical effects of these express in a scientific way the economic, or psychological or physical effects of these injuries.'"[22]
The 1960s sparked many social movements that challenged the status quo including the African American civil rights movements, movements for Latinos, women, gays and lesbians, the student movement and many others. It is not surprising, then, that disability rights found the 1960s to be a congenial time and that the Rolling Quads, a group of disabled college students, emerged in Berkeley to mobilize for rights and independent living through political activism,[23] a movement that grew rapidly with the return of radicalized disabled veterans from Vietnam.[24]
The high point of the 1970s resurgence of disability liberation politics was the remarkable San Francisco occupation that occurred in conjunction with protests aimed at forcing the release of regulations pursuant to s. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The regulations were to outline how it was illegal for federal agencies, contractors, or public universities to discriminate on the basis of handicap. They had been delayed by previous administrations, but there had been an expectation that the incoming Carter Administration would fulfill its promise to issue the regulations. When it became obvious that the Democratic Party policy makers were stalling and wanted to substantially modify the regulations to permit continued segregation in education and other areas of public life, disability rights activists mobilized in nine cities across the United States. In Washington, 300 demonstrators occupied the offices of the Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) Secretary for some 28 hours despite the cutting of the office's telephone lines by authorities and the refusal to permit food to get through to the protestors. While most of the demonstrations ended fairly quickly, in San Francisco, the movement took on a truly extraordinary trajectory. There, disability rights activists occupied the HEW federal building for 25 days, culminating in total victory: the issuing of the regulations without any amendments.[25]
Shifting to the postfordist world of today, one pressing problem, as first Karen Soldatic and Helen Meekosha have cogently noted is the fact that the state often coopts radical social movements, including disability rights movements, through funding and "partnerships," where the radicalism is thereby defused.[26] This highlights the importance of autonomous disability rights movements from below are not beholden to anyone except their own members. This is particularly important for racialized disabled people and disabled women who are much more likely to face labor market barriers.
A second problem is that "individual responsibility" has become the governing morality and this mantra blames those who are marginalized for their own poverty, even though their poverty is due to structural barriers in the labor market.[27] Vocational training programs or volunteering as a way of making contacts put the onus on the disabled person; moreover, there is often no position available at the end of the training.[28] Vocational training only makes sense in a context where employment opportunities are tangible. This is accompanied by the monitoring of disabled people by caseworkers authorized to sanction them, which can lead to people losing their benefits for minor and technical breaches of regulations.[29] This issue received considerable coverage recently during the Paralympic Games in England, where a French multinational company called Atos, which was a sponsor of the Games, sparked protests because it was also shamefully administering "fitness to work" tests to disabled people receiving benefits. Atos had a100 million pounds a year contract to complete this task. This is at a time when some 500,000 disabled people in Britain are scheduled to have their disability benefits cut.[30]
A third issue is how does one effectively assure accommodations in a world where many individuals are in short term contracts, and employers in the service sector and elsewhere are increasingly focused on minute by minute profitability, and turnover is high—with a large pool of replacement labor readily available.[31] A short rest break that might have once been a feasible accommodation now becomes undue hardship. In the United States, the first 18 years of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which concerns employment, was marred by an unreasonably narrow definition of disability by the courts. This meant that millions of Americans who clearly had disabilities were not covered. This did not change until Congress amended the law in 2008 to provide a broader definition of disability.[32]
Technical doctrines such as the "mitigating measures" doctrine prevented the coverage of disabled people who took medications for high blood pressure, epilepsy, diabetes, or severe hearing loss. They were not necessarily regarded as disabled; they had to be evaluated for eligibility after they applied mitigating measures such as assistive devices or medication. Courts in the United States have found all kinds of people with disabilities to not qualify as disabled under this narrow jurisprudence, often ignoring the EEOC guidelines in their rulings. [33] Even countries such as Canada, which have always had a broad definition of disability, have not seen a big jump in labor market participation by disabled people. The vast majority of ADA employment complaints prior to 2008 failed, giving ADA Title I plaintiffs one of the least successful records in the federal courts.[34]
This history points to real problems in relying exclusively on law as a tool for social transformation, which is the focus of some activists. Samuel Bagenstos, the former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the United States, has pointed out that the backers of the Americans with Disabilities Act employed a kind of individualist libertarian argument in favor of the ADA, thus encouraging Republican lawmakers to frame the issue of disability rights as one of removing people from the welfare rolls through employment: "In official reports, in congressional hearings, on the floor of Congress, and in the popular press, supporters of the proposed ADA argued that the statute was necessary to reduce the high societal cost of dependency: that people with disabilities were drawing public assistance instead of working, and that a regime of "reasonable accommodations" could move people with disabilities off of the public assistance rolls and into the workforce in a way that would ultimately save the nation money. This argument was asserted by individuals with disabilities who urged passage of the ADA, by the bill’s major sponsors, and by President George H.W. Bush himself.
In short, the ADA was sold to a significant extent as a means of welfare reform."[35] Samuel Bagenstos correctly suggests that this lies in the fact that the notion of Independent Living which has been one of the core concepts of the disability rights movement has a libertarian tinge. Instead, we need to challenge the notion of "independence," a motif that runs very deep in US history, to argue for a more balanced conception of interdependence.
So how do we draw a balance sheet for the ADA as a tool for social transformation? It is important for those of us on the left not to sneer too much. It is evident that a rights-based approach may be able to secure gains in physical access to services. The emergence of a vibrant disability pride or what some are increasingly referring to as disability culture, speaking of the experiences and barriers faced by disabled people and usually coated with a heavy dose of postmodern philosophy, may enrich the American social fabric.[36] However, for leftists, it is clear that a disability rights movement that takes a class analysis seriously must grapple with the intense unemployment and poverty experienced by a majority of disabled people. A strong case can be made that this challenge ultimately strengthens the socialist case for a radical democratization of the economy.
The full inclusion of disabled people into society would shatter the link between self-worth and full-time employment that has been predominant in capitalist societies since the Industrial Revolution. It would also open the door to the possibility of coalition-building with others such as single mothers and welfare recipients who also are punished by the arbitrary value placed on working a standard job and might ultimately permit a greater understanding of how labor is commodified under capitalism; this understanding can strengthen working class consciousness and mobilization as a whole. Others, such as Sunny Taylor, author of "The Right Not to Work," in Monthly Review in 2004, have begun to question the politics of valuing people by their work.[37]
Nevertheless, leftists who focus exclusively on transformation in the economic sphere would do well to remember that wheelchair access to government offices, public schools, universities and private businesses is clearly far superior in the United States than in Canada, many social democratic European countries, or Australia, despite the broadly retrograde character of U.S. economic life. Still, one can hope for far more and for that one has to look at building social movements and grassroots organizing.
On a closing note, I want to mention that one often unexplored area is the vast number of leftists who have had disabilities, but whose disabilities have been almost totally ignored. An egregious example is the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, whom Anne Finger discusses in the New Politics symposium;[38] it includes the anti-war American socialist Randoph Bourne of the early 20th century[39] as well as E.T. Kingsley (1856-1929), a double amputee who ran twice for the House of Representatives for the DeLeonist Socialist Labor Party in California before moving permanently to Canada in 1902, where he went on to edit the Western Clarion and became a leader of the Socialist Party of Canada. I am writing, with Benjamin Isitt, a biography of Kingsley under contract for University of British Columbia Press. Attention to disabled leftists of the past can deepen our understanding of disability rights struggles today.
Notes
- See Armantine M. Smith, "Persons with Disabilities as a Social and Economic Underclass" (2002-2003) 12 Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy 13 at 21 for a summary of the data in the 2000 NOD/Harris Survey and the 2000 CPS. More recent statistics paint a similar picture. See "Poverty in the United States: A Snapshot", available online (accessed October 10, 2012).
- For canonical accounts of the social model, see Michael Oliver, The Politics of Disablement (London: Macmillan, 1990) Colin Barnes, Mike Oliver & Len Barton, eds., Disability Studies Today (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002); and Gary L. Albrecht, Katherine D. Seelman & Michael Bury, eds., Handbook of Disability Studies (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, 2001).
- Doris Z. Fleischer & Frieda Zames, The Disability Rights Movement: From Charity to Confrontation, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2011).
- For a critique of telethons, see Paul K. Longmore,"Conspicuous Contribution and American Cultural Dilemmas: Telethon Rituals of Cleansing and Renewal" in David Mitchell & Sharon Snyder, eds., The Body and Physical Difference: Discourses of Disability (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1997).
- Erving Goffman, Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1963), 128.
- See ibid., ch. 2. Disability theorists, in contrast, would see disability as having at least the potential to make a positive contribution to identity.
- See Alan Roulstone, "Disabling Pasts, Enabling Futures? How Does the Changing Nature of Capitalism Impact on the Disabled Worker and Jobseeker?" (2002) 17 Disability & Society 627 at 629.
- Karen Soldatic and Helen Meekosha, "Disability and Neoliberal State Formations" in Nick Watson, Alan Roulstone and Carol Thomas, eds., Routledge Handbook of Disability Studies (London: Routledge, 2012), 195 at 200.
- For a good overview, see Luc Boltanski and Eve Chiapello, The New Spirit of Capitalism trans. Gregory Elliott (London: Verso, 2005).
- See Ford, supra note 7.
- Ibid.
- Judy Fudge and Brenda Cossman, "Introduction: Privatization, Law and the Challenge to Feminism" in Brenda Cossman and Judy Fudge, eds., Privatization, Law and the Challenge to Feminism (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002) 3 at 19.
- Colin Barnes, Disabled people in Britain and Discrimination: A Case for Anti-discrimination Legislation (London: Hurst & Co.) at 15; Deborah A. Stone, The Disabled State (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1984) at 24.
- Soldatic and Meekosha, supra note 12 at 199.
- Barnes, supra note 17 at 15.
- Ibid. at 18.
- For a good account, see Beth A. Ferri and David Connor, Reading Resistance: Discourses of Exclusion in Desegregation and Inclusion Debates (New York: Peter Lang, 2006).
- Joseph P. Shapiro, No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement (New York: Random House, 1993) at 237-39; Dick Sobsey, Violence and Abuse in the Lives of People with Disabilities: The End of Silence Acceptance? (Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., 1994) at 94-96.
- Buck v. Bell 274 U.S. 200 (1927).
- For an American account, see Marta Russell, Beyond Ramps: Disability at the End of the Social Contract (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1998) at 46-47, 61. For the Canadian policies on sterilization, see Timothy Caulfield and Gerald Robertson, "Eugenic Policies in Alberta: From the Systematic to the Systemic?" (1996) 35 Alberta Law Review 59; Dianne Pothier, "Appendix: Legal Developments in the Supreme Court of Canada Regarding Disability" in Dianne Pothier and Richard Devlin, eds., Critical Disability Theory: Essays in Philosophy, Politics, Policy and Law (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2006) 305 at 307.
- See Fiona A. Miller, "Making Citizens, Banishing Immigrants: The Discipline of Deportation Investigations, 1908-1913" (2000) 7:1 Left History 62 at 67, 83
- Stone, supra note 17 at 116.
- James I. Charlton, Nothing About Us Without Us: Disability Oppression and Empowerment (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), pp. 131-136.
- Shapiro, supra note 22 at 57-58.
- Ibid. at pp. 64-69.
- Soldatic and Meekosha, supra note 12 at 197.
- Ibid. at 198.
- Alan Roulstone, "Disabled People, Work and Employment: A Global Perspective" in Watson, Roulstone, and Thomas, supra note 12, 211 at 213-14.
- Soldatic and Meekosha, supra note 12 at 203.
- Esther Addley, "Paralympic Sponsor Atos Hit by Protests" (August 31, 2012), The Guardian (accessed October 11, 2012); Patrick Butler, "Benefit Cuts: Atos in the Frame to Deliver New Disability Tests" (April 23, 2012), The Guardian (accessed October 11, 2012).
- Robert Wilton, "Working at the Margins: Disabled People and the Growth of Precarious Employment" in Pothier and Devlin, supra note 24, 129.
- Jeannette Cox, "Crossroads and Signposts: The ADA Amendments Act of 2008" (2010) 85 Indiana Law Journal 187 at 199-202.
- Ibid. at 200-02.
- Ruth Colker, "The Americans with Disabilities Act: A Windfall for Defendants" (1999) 34 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 99 at 99-100.
- Samuel R. Bagenstos, "The Americans with Disabilities Act as Welfare Reform" (2003) 44 William and Mary Law Review 921 at 926-27.
- See, e.g., Tobin Siebers, Disability Aesthetics (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2010).
- Sunny Taylor, "The Right Not to Work: Power and Disability" (2004) 55 Monthly Review 30 at 30-44.
- Finger, supra note 8.
- Christopher Phelps, "The Radicalism of Randolph Bourne" (2007) 21 Socialism & Democracy (accessed October 11, 2012).
Ravi Malhotra is a disability rights advocate, a sponsor of New Politics, and Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, at the University of Ottawa in Ottawa, Canada. He has published widely on disability rights and serves on the human rights committee of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities.
-
The Unpaid Labor of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities in Institutional and Community-based Disability Services
Drawing on the work of scholars, advocates, and historians, I wrote this article (based on my October 4 talk at the disability rights forum) to examine the unpaid labor of persons with intellectual disabilities in institutional and community settings. In general, my PhD research, and this piece, are aimed at contributing to the literature that examine intellectual disability and work. I am hopeful this will contribute to collective efforts to challenge the exploitation of persons with intellectual disabilities and make visible what has historically remained invisible — the tremendous capacity and contributions of persons with intellectual disabilities in the world of informal and unpaid labor.
The work experience of persons with intellectual disabilities remains overlooked in much of the literature. In part, this is because of an emphasis on paid work. As persons with intellectual disabilities have historically experienced low rates of employment, their place within labor studies and their contributions in the world of work are often overlooked. Furthermore, because of their absence from paid employment there is a misconception that persons with intellectual disabilities cannot or do not work. However, as I will illustrate, while this notion has been reinforced over time through exclusionary and exploitive social policies presented as rehabilitation and training, "work" is in fact central to the history of disability policy and programs for persons with intellectual disabilities. A closer examination of programs within institutions and the community reveal the legacy of unpaid, exploitive, and invisible labor that directly challenges these misconceptions.
While I speak about labor in institutional and community settings, I am doing so with the understanding that persons with intellectual disabilities remain institutionalized and incarcerated in some Canadian provinces and U.S. states. My goal in examining labor in these spaces is not to suggest that "deinstitutionalization" has been realized and that institutions are no more. Rather, I want to illustrate the legacy of economic exploitation, which has, and continues to thrive in both segregated and community settings, in order to illuminate the problematic nature of current disability policy where issues of "work" are concerned.
The Institution
Much of what I draw on is based on scholarly work and narratives that have emerged from the Rome State School, which was an institution located in Oneida County in central New York. Many of those incarcerated within these institutions were believed to pose a threat in large part because of their perceived "idleness." Yet, the literature and emerging narratives speak to a rhythm of institutional life that reflected anything but idleness. Indeed, within the institution, unpaid labor consisted of two important functions: education and training, both of which in fact served to alleviate administrative pressures.
By the 1920's most institutions had "prevocational" and "vocational" training for kindergarten-aged inmates whereby young children where encouraged to integrate tools into their play. [1] This mean that by the age of six, these young inmates would have been learning to hammer nails, wash rages, and punch holes in leather. [2]
It is important to note the gendered nature of work and training within the institution. For example, male inmates were often tasked with more physical labor (agriculture, maintenance etc.) while female inmates tended to be assigned housekeeping and care related chores. Some patient narratives which have emerged reflect the use of "working boys" and "working girls," classifications which also reflect the role of perceived ability in work assignments.
Patients deemed as "higher-functioning" would provide care to those with greater needs.[3] Working-aged inmates would assist in feeding other inmates (sometimes as many as three to four other inmates), cleanup after meals, bathing other inmates, laundry services, cleaning duties, and general supervision.[4] Historians have noted that in the Rome State School, chores like making the beds, mopping and providing attendant care to other inmates were referred to as "domestic training."[5] In addition to these tasks, agriculture programs, where many inmates labored, provided produce that fed those within the institution.[6]
Inmate labor served a cost-saving function, and this unpaid labor enabled the institution to accommodate growing populations.[7] The line between paid and unpaid work within the institution was often fuzzy at best. Indeed, it was not unusual for inmates to perform the very same tasks as paid attendants. For example, one inmate within an Illinois asylum who labored for eight years was hired back as a paid attendant after he left the institution.[8] Another inmate, who had been assigned to the laundry, carried out tasks that were indistinguishable for the non-disabled paid staff. Although he lost his arm in 1907 because of a workplace incident, nothing materialized from the subsequent investigation as lawmakers appreciated the role of this labor in keeping down institutional costs.[9]
As one historian has noted, inmate labor had direct impact on the internal economy of institutions as it reduced direct costs associated with paid care.[10] There is also evidence to suggest "good working patients" were transferred between various institutions as they were viewed as valuable resources to site administrators.[11]
The often-indistinguishable nature of inmate labor from the labor of paid staff, coupled with the necessity of this labor for the effective and efficient functioning of these sites, reveals the exploitive nature of inmate labor embedded within early forms of disability services.
While there were some shifts in terms of the justification for this labor, the exploitation remained central. For example, early on this unpaid labor was unabashedly presented as integral to the economical running of the institution. Later shifts saw work framed as a therapeutic activity to keep inmates occupied.[12] In the final years of some institutions, "workshops" emerged, with some even operating outside of the institution, as a belief emerged that inmates needed to learn an occupation, and that work and home life should be physically separated.[13]
The Community
While there are important spaces within the community in which persons with intellectual disabilities labor without pay, in this piece I will focus on sheltered workshops. This focus is important, as I believe the current economic climate is creating conditions in which this exploitation is being reframed not just through policy discourses, but also publicly as a form of corporate goodwill.
In these segregated and non-competitive work sites participants earn significantly less than stipulated minimum wages, their pay is often classified as a "gratuity," and participants are likely to be classified as beneficiaries, trainees, or clients rather than as employees.[14] These classification help workshops avoid existing labor laws.
In terms of policy rhetoric, workshops are often justified through arguments around social integration, occupational integration, and rehabilitation.[15] While these programs theoretically exist to support and prepare individual to enter or re-enter the labor force, in reality they typically "service" individuals deemed unemployable,[16] which leaves persons with intellectual disabilities heavily represented in workshops.[17]
Within the workshops there is a clear emphasis on tedious and labor-intensive tasks, which include shredding, collating, sorting, assembling, and repetitive and monotonous tasks like stuffing envelopes. The website of one of the workshops I researched actually advertises that persons with disabilities can reduce the employers' costs for time-consuming and tedious tasks. In those workshops included in my own research, government and corporate clients are heavily represented. Additionally, many of the tasks within workshops are actually quite intricate and reflect skilled labor that would otherwise demand higher pay (i.e. wood working, furniture building etc.).
A recent report by the National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) outlines the problematic nature of these sites, noting their violation of existing policies, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, their reinforcement of segregation, poverty that is tied to participants receiving below minimum wage, and an emphasis on non-transferable skills.[18]
By operating both as a human service agency and as a business,[19] these sites avoid traditional labor costs because of their human service function, while at the same time fulfilling very real business purposes. This enables businesses that contract their services out to sheltered workshops to take advantage of their cheap labor, and thus exploit the social and economic vulnerability of those with intellectual disabilities.[20]
Conclusion
There is a wealth of research that illustrates how alternative employment models are better suited to helping individuals with intellectual disabilities find real and meaningful employment. Yet despite data that illustrate the benefits of open rather than sheltered employment, workshops remain positioned to succeed because of their access to a cheap and marginalized pool of labor. In today's economic climate, this gives clear incentives to maintaining these sites, which creates the urgent need for advocates to integrate the experience of persons with intellectual disabilities into mainstream equity and labor rights debates and movements.
Notes
- J.W. Trent, Inventing the Feeble Mind: A History of Mental Retardation in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994.
- Ibid., p. 109.
- K. Johnson & R. Traustadottir, Deinstitutionalization and People with Intellectual Disabilities: In and Out of Institutions, Part 1—Living Inside, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2005.
- Ibid.
- Douglass 1914 as cited in Trent, p. 109.
- Trent.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- G. Reaume, Remembrance of Patients Past, Oxford, 2000, Chapter 5 "Patients Labour," pp. 133-180.
- Ibid.
- Johnson & Traustadottir.
- Ibid.
- L. Visier, "Sheltered employment for persons with disabilities," International Labour Review, 137(3), 1998: 347-365.
- Ibid.
- G. Reaume, "No Profits, Just a Pittance: Work, Compensation, and People Defined as Mentally Disabled in Ontario, 1964-1990," in S. Noll & J. Trent, J. (eds.) Mental Retardation in America, New York: New York University Press, 2004, pp. 466- 493.
- P. Thornton & N. Lunt, Employment Policies For Disabled People in Eighteen Countries: A Review, 1997.
- National Disability Rights Network, "Segregated & Exploited: The failure of the Disability Services System to Provide Quality Work," January 2011.
- G. Albrecht The Disability Business: Rehabilitation in America, London: Sage Publications, 1992.
- Reaume (2004).
Jihan Abbas is a Vanier Canada Graduate scholar and PhD candidate at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. Her research interests include disability and the labor market, social policy, and inclusion.
-
Treating schools like "pop up" stores and kids like bubble gum trading cards
You have to really give these guys who are carrying out the destruction of public education credit, though I’m not sure what award we should give them. Is it for worst effects of social engineering? They can’t win that – yet. The competition is too stiff – just consider all the brutal dictatorships in the past four decades.Am I being too strident? Too tough on these neoliberals who are making students “come first” by treating schools like “pop up” stores? Fixing schools by closing them down? Even the charter schools they created just a few years ago, the schools that were going to save the world of education, are on the chopping block. They shuffle poor kids of color around like they are the baseball trading cards that used to come in bubble gum (do they still?).New Orleans is a stunning example of their disgraceful project, which they masquerade as a success. They are now doing to whole states what they did in New Orleans, coming after poor black kids in the cities, fast. Black folks are talking about this – and not just Glen Ford. Readers of “Ebony” are seeing that this is an attack on the gains of the civil rights movement, a return to “Jim Crow” and worse. White folks too, but not enough. Take Dana Goldstein, education reporter at The Nation. She’s dozing when compared to information and analyses the Chicago Teachers Union and Pauline Lipman put forward. When a film reviewer at the New Yorker asks the right questions and The Nation doesn’t, that says a lot about the abusive relationship liberals have with Obama, as Ellen Willis described in a great NP article.The Obama administration has just named as a finalist in coveted federal funding for schools (Race to the Top) a private educational authority in Michigan with no track record of school improvement. A coaltion of education activists is protesting the possibility of allowing a virtually unproven entity to run the lowest performing schools in the state. Why do this? I have so much to say I could write a book or two about that. (Ok, that’s a shameless plug.) Please, enough of the argument that Obama means well and is just misguided. The best we can say is that he’s captive of his own ideology, as have been so many of the “best and the brightest” who have done great harm because they are certain that they know what’s best for everyone else. They’re really doing what transnational corporations and the elites that run them think is best – for us.
-
Gaza Quiz
An uneasy cease-fire has been declared ending Israel's attack on Gaza, Operation Pillar of Defense. Take this quiz to see how much you know about the situation.
- How did the people of Gaza come to be where they are?
- A majority of them are descendants of refugees who in 1948-1949 fled or were driven out by Israeli forces from territory that was supposed to be part of the Arab state of Palestine but was taken over by Israel, and they were never permitted to return.
- Some of them are descendants of residents of the Arab town of Majdal, who, after the 1948-49 war were evacuated from different parts of the town and concentrated in a neighborhood surrounded by barbed wire (to make way for Jewish settlers) and then expelled to Gaza.
- Gaza was conquered by Israel in October 1956 and subjected to massacres; Israel withdrew under international pressure in March 1957.
- Gazans came under Israeli occupation in 1967 when Israel—in a war in which, in the words of Prime Minister Menachem Begin in 1982, "we had a choice … We decided to attack [Egypt]"—conquered the Sinai (since returned to Egypt), Gaza, East Jerusalem (annexed), the West Bank, and the Golan Heights (annexed).
- All of the above.
- In 2005, Israel under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon "disengaged" from Gaza. Which of the following statements about the disengagement is true?
- Israel's Gaza "disengagement" was a unilateral move, not worked out with any Palestinian leaders at all.
- Israeli settlers were removed from Gaza, but more new settlers moved to the West Bank in 2005 than left Gaza and more Palestinian land was taken over on the West Bank than was given up in Gaza.
- Ariel Sharon's chief aide, Dov Weisglass, told an interviewer for an Israeli newspaper: The significance of the disengagement plan "is the freezing of the political process. And when you freeze that process you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion about the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package that is called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed from our agenda indefinitely."
- All of the above.
- Israel says that its occupation of Gaza ended in 2005. Which of the following conditions that exist to this day raises a question about whether there has actually been an end to Israeli control of Gaza?
- Israel prohibits Gaza from engaging in air commerce with or air travel to or from other nations.
- Israel prohibits Gaza from engaging in sea commerce with or sea travel to or from other nations.
- Israel prohibits Gazans engaged in fishing from going more than 3 nautical miles off shore, denying them access to 85% of their fishing waters.
- Israel has declared a formal no-go zone for Palestinians inside Gaza covering more than 3 percent of the total land area and another 14 percent within which entry is effectively restricted due to a real risk of gunfire, excluding from Palestinian use 35% of the land suitable for farming.
- The Israeli army carries out incursions into this zone a number of times a week.
- All of the above.
- Which of the following reflects the Israeli attitude toward Gaza and its people?
- The statement in a 1956 Knesset speech by Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion: "If I believed in miracles, I would pray that Gaza would be washed down into the sea."
- The statement by Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1993: "If only it [Gaza] would just sink into the Sea."
- The fact that in Israeli slang, "go to Gaza" means "go to hell."
- All of the above.
- The Palestinian organization Hamas rules within Gaza. Which of the following is true regarding Hamas?
- A descendant of the Muslim Brotherhood, it was promoted in its early years by Israel and the United States, which were eager to establish a counterweight to the then-dominant secular Palestinian organization Fatah.
- It won a plurality in the Palestinian legislative elections in January 2006.
- It took over Gaza in 2007 after Fatah, working with Israel and the United States, launched a failed coup against it.
- All of the above.
- Hamas refuses to accept the three Israeli-U.S. conditions: that it recognize Israel, renounce violence, and agree to accept all agreements previously accepted by the Palestinian Authority. Which of the following is true?
- Israel and the United States have refused to recognize an independent Palestinian state, with Washington even blocking UN recognition of nominal Palestinian statehood.
- Neither Washington nor Tel Aviv has renounced violence (to say the least).
- Nonviolent protest against the Israeli occupation has been brutally repressed.
- Israel "previously accepted" the Fourth Geneva Convention, but when the World Court found Israel's construction of the Wall on the occupied West Bank to be in violation of that convention, Israel refused to remove it and the United States supported its refusal.
- Israel signed the Oslo Accords which state that "The two sides view the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a single territorial unit, whose integrity will be preserved during the interim period" and yet has pursued a policy of trying to separate Gaza from the West Bank.
- Hamas has indicated on numerous occasions that it was willing to accept an independent Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, along with a truce that could last 20, 30, or 50 years, or even indefinitely.
- All of the above.
- Israel says it can't trust Hamas to maintain cease-fires. Which of the following is part of the historical record?
- A study found that from 2000 to 2008, it was "overwhelmingly Israel that kills first after a pause in the conflict" and that this pattern "becomes more pronounced for longer conflict pauses," with Israel unilaterally having interrupted 96% of the periods of nonviolence that lasted longer than a week and 100% of the periods of nonviolence lasting longer than 9 days.
- In 1997, Hamas leader Khaled Meshal made an offer to Israel through King Hussein of Jordan for a thirty-year cease-fire. Israel ignored the offer and then tried to assassinate Meshal in Amman.
- Following its 2006 electoral victory in Gaza, Hamas secretly conveyed a message to the Israeli government that it "would pledge not to carry out any violent actions against Israel and would even prevent other Palestinian organizations from doing so," if Israel stopped its undercover assassination program and ended its military attacks in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel did not reply.
- In June 2008 a six-month truce was arranged between Israel and Hamas, and broken by Israel on the night of Nov. 4-5, 2008.
- All of the above.
- Israel claims that its blockade of Gaza is simply a means of keeping out weapons from the territory. Which of the following is true?
- The blockade has always included a ban on almost all exports from Gaza, crippling the economy, while having no connection to weapons imports.
- Dov Weisglass, an adviser to former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, explained that "The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger."
- The Israeli Ministry of Defense did a study in 2008 of the minimum daily humanitarian food needs of Gaza and then, until June 2010, Israel proceeded to allow in less than that amount.
- Among the items Israel prohibited being imported into Gaza before June 2010 were notebooks, cilantro, sage, jam, chocolate, French fries, dried fruit, fabrics, and toys.
- Even though food is now allowed into Gaza, Israel still restricts exports, imports of basic construction materials, despite a shortage of approximately 250 schools and some 71,000 housing units, and restricts travel between Gaza and the West Bank.
- All of the above.
- Which of the following describes conditions in Gaza on the eve of Operation Pillar of Defense?
- The people of Gaza have lower per capita incomes than they did in the 1990s, despite improvements over the past three years.
- The unemployment rate in 2011 was 29% and during the first quarter of 2012 unemployment stood at 47% for women and 58% for people between 20 and 24 years old.
- 44% of households were food insecure in 2011 and another 16% were vulnerable to food insecurity.
- 10% of children suffer from stunting (long-term exposure to chronic malnutrition).
- 39% of people lived below the poverty line.
- Currently, more than 90% of the water supplied through Gaza's aquifer does not meet the safety standards of the World Health Organization and is unfit for drinking.
- All of the above.
- Israel launched Operation Pillar of Defense on November 14, 2012, claiming it needed to respond to an unrelenting barrage of rockets from Hamas. Which of the following is an accurate statement of the lead-up to November 14?
- From October 30, 2012, until Nov. 10, 2012, there were a total of 4 rockets fired from Gaza, which fell in open areas causing no casualties or damage.
- On November 4, Israeli forces shot and killed a 23 year-old mentally-challenged Palestinian walking approximately ten meters from the fence on the Gaza side. The Israeli military did not allow a Palestinian ambulance to retrieve the body for two hours.
- On Nov. 8, Israeli troops operating within Gaza were fired on by Palestinians; Israeli fire killed a Palestinian boy.
- On Nov. 10, Palestinian armed factions fired on an Israeli military vehicle patrolling on the Israeli side of the fence, injuring four soldiers. Israel responded by firing tank shells hitting a residential area, killing 5 civilians, including 2 children, and injuring 36 civilians, including 9 children.
- Palestinian rocket attacks began on Nov. 10, after more than a week of relative quiet.
- All of the above.
- What happened on November 13, the day before the Israeli targeted assassination of Ahmed al-Jabari, Hamas' military chief?
- Palestinian rocket fire decreased from 64 on Nov. 11, to 35 on Nov. 12, to 1 on the morning of Nov. 13.
- Palestinian rocket fire ended, but then, in the words of the Israeli government, "Following the launch of Israel's operation Pillar of Defense … rocket fire from Gaza resumed on Wednesday evening (14 Nov)…"
- Reuters reported that "After five days of mounting violence, Israel and the Palestinians stepped back from the brink of a new war in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday, [Nov. 13,] sending signals to each other via Egypt that they would hold their fire unless attacked. … Ismail Haniyeh, prime minister of Gaza's Hamas government, praised the main armed factions in the enclave for agreeing on Monday night to a truce. 'They showed a high sense of responsibility by saying they would respect calm should the Israeli occupation also abide by it,' he said."
- A draft proposal for a long-term cease-fire, with mechanisms to ensure compliance, had been agreed to by an Israeli negotiator and Hamas's deputy foreign minister, and was being submitted to Ahmed al-Jabari and Israeli security officials for their consideration. Jabari, who had authorized the negotiations, received a copy of the proposal the day he was assassinated.
- All of the above.
- Israel (and the United States) claim that the Israeli attack on Gaza was a lawful act of self-defense. Which of the following statements about self-defense conform to international law and morality?
- Military force in self-defense must be a last resort, having exhausted non-military means (such as accepting a cease-fire, negotiating a long-term cease-fire, and, most decisively, ending the occupation of Palestinian territory).
- Self-defense is not permissible against someone legitimately resisting illegal occupation (and so, for example, Japanese troops in China from 1937-45 had no right of self-defense against attacks from Chinese forces).
- Even when self-defense is permitted, the measures taken must not disproportionately endanger civilians.
- All of the above.
- If a cease-fire was possible without Operation Pillar of Defense, which of the following is a plausible explanation for why Israel launched its attack?
- Because Israel always wants to maintain its deterrent power, meaning that fear of its massive military response will keep subject people in line.
- Because an election is coming soon in Israel and wars and Palestinian rockets tend to help politicians' electoral prospects.
- To test out the Iron Dome system and send a message to Iran.
- Because Pillar of Defense weakened Mahmud Abbas's Palestinian Authority, while strengthening Hamas, which serves the Israeli interest in being able to insist there is no partner for peace.
- All of the above.
- Which of the following statements was made by an Israeli official or personality?
- Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Eli Yishai: "We must blow Gaza back to the Middle Ages, destroying all the infrastructure including roads and water."
- Israel Katz, Israel's transport minister and member of Netanyahu's Likud party, on 11 November: "we must detach from Gaza in a civilian manner—electricity, water, food, and fuel—and transition into a policy of deterrence, just like in Southern Lebanon."
- Avi Dichter, Israel's Minister of Home Front Defense: "there is no other choice, Israel must carry out a formatting action in Gaza, actually format the system and clean it out, the way we did in Judea & Samaria during Operation Defensive Shield."
- Knesset member Michael Ben-Ari of the National Union party: "Brothers! Beloved soldiers and commanders—preserve your lives! Don't give a hoot about Goldstone! There are no innocents in Gaza, don't let any diplomats who want to look good in the world endanger your lives[;] at any tiniest concern for your lives—Mow them!"
- Rabbi Yaakov Yosef, son of Israel's former Chief Rabbi and spiritual leader of the Shas party, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef: "The army has got to learn from the Syrians how to slaughter and crush the enemy."
- Gilad Sharon, the son of former prime minister Ariel Sharon, in the Jerusalem Post: "The residents of Gaza are not innocent, they elected Hamas. The Gazans aren't hostages; they chose this freely, and must live with the consequences….We need to flatten entire neighborhoods in Gaza. Flatten all of Gaza. The Americans didn't stop with Hiroshima—the Japanese weren't surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki, too."
- All of the above.
- Which of the following is a UN statistic regarding the casualties of Operation Pillar of Defense?
- More than twenty-five Palestinian civilians were killed for every Israeli civilian killed (103:4).
- More than twenty-five Palestinian combatants were killed for every Israeli combatant killed (55:2).
- Israel, with its arsenal of highly advanced "smart" weaponry, fired without being under pressure, killed as high a percentage of civilians among all those it killed (65%) as did Hamas (67%), with its inaccurate rockets fired under great pressure.
- All of the above.
- Which of the following is true regarding U.S. military aid to Israel?
- Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance in the world since 1945, having received $115 billion in bilateral assistance, about two-thirds of which has been military aid and which in recent years has been almost entirely military aid.
- U.S. military aid to Israel has helped transform Israel's armed forces into one of the most technologically sophisticated militaries in the world and has helped Israel build a domestic arms industry that ranks as one of the top 10 arm exporters.
- One of the main Israeli weapons used to attack Gaza have been F-16 aircraft, provided by the United States. From 2000 to 2009, the United States paid for and delivered at least 93 F-16D fighter jets, valued at $2.48 billion, and licensed and paid for at least 13,559 spare parts and co-production parts for Israel's arsenal of F-16s.
- All of the above.
- In which other way has the United States aided Israel in its assault on Gaza?
- The Obama administration blocked a United Nations Security Council statement calling for a cease-fire on November 20, 2012 to end Operation Pillar of Defense.
- President Obama told Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu "no country can be expected to tolerate rocket attacks against civilians," but failed to note that no people should have to live under occupation, with bombs and shells falling on them, killing far greater numbers of innocent civilians.
- The United States has blocked efforts to hold Israel responsible for its previous assault on Gaza, by rejecting the Goldstone Commission Report.
- President Obama declared that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with Hamas.
- The United States has defended Israel's right to stop humanitarian aid ships bound for Gaza.
- The Obama administration, by its use of targeted drone killings, has normalized the practice that Israel now uses to such murderous effect.
- The United States has over many years blocked efforts to move in the direction of a long-term solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, among many other acts vetoing a Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories.
- All of the above.
- Which of the following is a way to put pressure on the Israeli government to end its occupation of Palestine, and on the United States government and corporations which support that occupation?
- Support the work of the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation to cut off U.S. military aid to Israel.
- Support the work of Jewish Voice for Peace and its "We Divest" campaign to pressure TIAA/CREF to divest from companies that profit from the Israeli occupation.
- Support the work of Code Pink and its Stolen Beauty campaign to boycott beauty products made in the occupied territories.
- Support other campaigns that aim to achieve justice for Palestinians.
- All of the above.
Answers and Sources- e) All of the above.
- Report of the Director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, Assistance To Palestine Refugees, A/1905, Sept. 28, 1951, paragraph 10; Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 462-73, 517-18.
- Arnon Golan, "Jewish Settlement of Former Arab Towns and Their Incorporation into the Israeli Urban System (1948-50)," Israel Affairs, vol. 9, no. 1/2 (Autumn/Winter 2003), pp. 158, 161; Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, pp. 528-29.
- Amira Hass, "A thin black line," Haaretz, Feb. 11, 2010; Joe Sacco, Footnotes in Gaza, New York: Metropolitan Books, 2009.
- "Excerpts from Begin Speech at National Defense College," New York Times, Aug. 21, 1982.
- d) All of the above.
- Chris McGreal, "Israel redraws the roadmap, building quietly and quickly; Settler population grows as Sharon grabs more West Bank land than he returned in Gaza," Guardian, Oct. 18, 2005.
- Avi Shavit, "The big freeze," Haaretz, Oct. 8, 2004.
- f) All of the above.
- United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), Gaza access closure map; OCHA, oPt, Gaza humanitarian situation.
- B'Tselem, "No-go zones near Gaza Strip perimeter fence," Jan. 1, 2011, updated Oct. 14, 2012. See also Diakonia IHL Programme, "Within Range: An Analysis of the Legality of the Land 'Buffer Zone' in the Gaza Strip," Legal Analysis Report 1, 2011; Al-Haq, Shifting Paradigms: Israel's Enforcement of the Buffer Zone in the Gaza Strip, 2011.
- OCHA, oPt, and World Food Program, Between the Fence and a Hard Place: The Humanitarian Impact of Israeli-Imposed Restrictions on Access to Land and Sea in the Gaza Strip, Special Focus, Aug. 2010. See also Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, "Factsheet: Displacement in the 'Buffer Zone' Three Years after Operation Cast Lead.," [2011?].
- d) All of the above.
- Orna Almog, Britain, Israel and the United States, 1955-1958: Beyond Suez (London: Frank Cass Publishers, 2003), p. 114, quoted in Dan Freeman-Maloy, "For Israel Imperialism Isn't Enough," Znet, Nov. 16, 2012.
- Amira Hass, Drinking the Sea at Gaza, Days and Nights in a Land under Siege, New York: Owl Books, 1999, p. 9.
- Hass, Drinking the Sea at Gaza, p. 9.
- d) All of the above.
- See Stephen Zunes, "America's Hidden Role in Hamas's Rise to Power," ZNet, Jan. 5, 2009.
- National Democratic Institute, Final Report on the Palestinian Legislative Council Elections, January 25, 2006(Washington, DC: 2006).
- David Rose, "The Gaza Bombshell," Vanity Fair, April 2008.
- g) All of the above.
- Helene Cooper, "Obama Says Palestinians Are Using Wrong Forum," New York Times, Sept. 21, 2011, (print edition, Sept. 22, p. A12). The Obama administration opposes even Palestinian efforts to be recognized as a non-member, observer state of the UN. Noah Browning and Matt Spetalnick, "Abbas tells Obama he'll seek Palestinian UN upgrade, defying U.S.," Reuters, Nov. 11, 2012.
- See, among many examples, Natalie Tabar, "Repression of Non-Violent Protest in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: Case Study on the village of al-Nabi Saleh," al-Haq, Dec. 10, 2011; Human Rights Watch, "Israel: End Crackdown on Anti-Wall Activists," March 5, 2010; Yousef Munayyer, "Palestine's Hidden History of Nonviolence," May 18, 2011.
- International Court of Justice, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, July 9, 2004; UN News Centre, "UN Assembly votes overwhelmingly to demand Israel comply with ICJ ruling," July 20, 2004.
- Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, Sept. 13, 1993, Article IV.
- See, for example, Ismail Haniya, "A just peace or no peace," Guardian, Mar. 31, 2006; Danny Rubinstein, "Haniya tells Haaretz: Withdrawal to 1967 borders will lead to peace," Haaretz, May 23, 2006 (summary here); Ismail Haniyeh, "Aggression Under False Pretenses," Washington Post, July 11, 2006; Khalid Mish'al interviewed by Ibrahim Humaydi, Damascus, Oct. 10, 2006, published in al-Hayat, Oct. 12, 2006, quoted in Sherifa Zuhur, Hamas and Israel: Conflicting Strategies of Group-Based Politics (Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, Dec. 2008), pp. 45-46; Ahmed Yousef, "What Hamas Wants," New York Times, Nov. 1, 2006; Khalid Mish'al, "Our unity can now pave the way for peace and justice," Guardian, Feb. 13, 2007; Amira Hass, "Haniyeh: Hamas willing to accept Palestinian state with 1967 borders," Haaretz, Nov. 9, 2008; Sharmine Narwani, "Khaled Meshaal Interview: Hamas Chief Weighs In on Eve of Peace Talks," Huffington Post, Aug. 31, 2010; Ethan Bronner, "Hamas Leader Calls for Two-State Solution, but Refuses to Renounce Violence," New York Times, May 5, 2011; Eyder Peralta, "Hamas Foreign Minister: We Accept Two-State Solution With '67 Borders," National Public Radio, May 17, 2011; Christiane Amanpour, "Israel-Hamas Cease Fire; Interview with Hamas Political Leader Khaled Meshaal," CNN, aired Nov. 21, 2012. For discussion, see Jerome Slater, "Just War Moral Philosophy and the 2008–09 Israeli Campaign in Gaza," International Security, vol. 37, no. 2 (Fall 2012), pp. 62-65.
- e) All of the above.
- Nancy Kanwisher, Johannes Haushofer, & Anat Biletzki, "Reigniting Violence: How Do Ceasefires End?" Huffington Post, Jan. 6, 2009. See also Institute for Middle East Understanding, "Factsheets: Self-defense or provocation: Israel's history of breaking ceasefires," Mar. 15, 2012 (and updated).
- Slater, "Just War Moral Philosophy and the 2008–09 Israeli Campaign in Gaza," p. 58, citing Zeev Schiff, "Ex-Mossad Chief: Hamas Offered 30-Year Cease-fire in 1997," Haaretz, March 30, 2006.
- Slater, "Just War Moral Philosophy and the 2008–09 Israeli Campaign in Gaza," p. 59, citing Barak Ravid, "In 2006 Letter to Bush, Haniyeh Offered Compromise with Israel," Haaretz, Nov. 10, 2008.
- Rory McCarthy, "Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen," Guardian, Nov. 5, 2008.
- f) All of the above.
- Gisha, Graphing 5 years of closure, June 2012, p. 3, figure 4.
- Quoted in Conal Urquhart, "Gaza on brink of implosion as aid cut-off starts to bite," The Observer, April 15, 2006. Weisglass denied saying this. . A secret U.S. cable published by Wikileaks revealed that, in late 2008, U.S. embassy officials in Israel told the State Department that "Israeli officials have confirmed that they intend to keep the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge . . . functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis." Reuters, "WikiLeaks: Israel Aimed to Keep Gaza Economy on Brink of Collapse," Haaretz, Jan. 5, 2010, quoted in Slater, "Just War Moral Philosophy and the 2008–09 Israeli Campaign in Gaza," p. 53n32.
- Gisha, Reader: "Food Consumption in the Gaza Strip – Red Lines" , Oct. 2012, p. 8, table 1 (showing that almost continuously from summer 2007 to summer 2010, fewer truckloads of food and other basic humanitarian supplies entered Gaza than the 106 truckloads [daily, five days a week basis] calculated to be the minimum requirement. For a rough translation of the Ministry of Defense document, see the Jan. 1, 2007, and Jan. 27, 2008, versions of Ministry of Defense, Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories, Food Consumption in the Red Lines—Gaza Strip. "The 'minimum basket' allows nutrition that is sufficient for subsistence without the development of malnutrition." (Jan. 1, 2008, presentation, slide 2). Imports through the tunnel system were substantial in 2009 and 2010.
- Amira Hass, "Why won't Israel allow Gazans to import coriander?" Haaretz, May 7, 2010.
- Gisha, "The Gaza Cheat Sheet," Oct. 15, 2012; A report by the United Nations Country Team in the occupied Palestinian territory, Gaza in 2020: A liveable place? Aug. 2012, p. 9. In Operation Cast Lead, Dec. 2008-Jan. 2009, 6,268 homes were destroyed or severely damaged (ibid., p. 4), as were another 298 houses in Operation Pillars of Defense (OCHA, oPt, Gaza and southern Israel Situation Report [as of 22 November 2012, 1500 hours]).
- g) All of the above.
- UN Country Team, Gaza in 2020: A liveable place? pp. 2, 4.
- Ibid., p. 4.
- Ibid., p. 4.
- Save the Children and Medical Aid for Palestinians, Gaza's Children: Falling Behind, 2012, p. 2.
- UN Country Team, Gaza in 2020: A liveable place? p. 6.
- Save the Children and Medical Aid for Palestinians, Gaza's Children: Falling Behind, p. 16.
- f) All of the above.
- See the compilation in Wikipedia, citing Israeli media. QassamCount lists 3 rockets. [Updated Nov. 30, 2012: This answer originally referred to 2 rockets based on Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC), News of Terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, October 31 – November 6, 2012, p. 3, and ITIC, News of Terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, November 7-13, 2012, p. 5.]
- OCHA, oPt, Protection of Civilians Weekly Report, 31 October – 6 November 2012, p. 3. Two days later, 3 Israeli soldiers were injured when an apparent IED exploded near their vehicle on the border; this was followed by an exchange of gunfire. Asher Zeiger, "3 soldiers injured by explosion on Gaza border," Israel Times, Nov. 6, 2012.
- Reuters, "Israeli gunfire kills Palestinian boy in Gaza clash: medics," Nov. 8, 2012; OCHA, oPt, Protection of Civilians Weekly Report, 7-13 Nov. 2012. The boy's age is variously given as 12 or 13. Amnesty International reported that it had gathered evidence suggesting that this attack was "indiscriminate and, therefore, in violation of international humanitarian law." Amnesty warned that "The Israeli military must not carry out further indiscriminate attacks, or attacks in densely-populated residential areas that will inevitably harm civilians." Amnesty International, "Israel/Gaza: All sides must step back from the brink to protect civilians," Press release, PRE01/561/2012, Nov. 14, 2012. Later that day, in the same area, an Israeli soldier was injured by a Palestinian mortar shell fired at Israeli forces patrolling along the perimeter fence.
- OCHA, oPt, Protection of Civilians Weekly Report, 7-13 Nov. 2012, pp. 3-4. For this attack too, Amnesty International reported gathering evidence suggesting it was indiscriminate. Amnesty International, "Israel/Gaza: All sides must step back from the brink to protect civilians," Press release, PRE01/561/2012, Nov. 14, 2012. See also B'Tselem, Illegally fired tank shells kill four civilians in the Gaza Strip, 10 November 2012, Nov. 21, 2012. Note that this single incident resulted in more Gazan civilian deaths than all the Israeli civilians killed by rocket and other fire from Gaza in the almost four years since Operation Cast Lead. See B'Tselem, Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians in Israel, 19.1.2009 – 30.9.2012," which lists 5 deaths, 3 of them from rockets and other fire from Gaza.
- ITIC, News of Terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, November 7-13, 2012, p. 2. Most of the rocket attacks were fired by factions other than Hamas, and, according to an Israeli peace activist who served as a negotiator with Hamas for the release of Gilad Shalit, even when Hamas was drawn into firing rockets, its rockets always landed in open spaces, intentionally. Nir Hasson, "Israeli peace activist: Hamas leader Jabari killed amid talks on long-term truce," Haaretz, Nov. 15, 2012. [Updated Nov. 30, 2012: The word "relative" was added to clarify that the quiet was apart from the few rockets mentioned in question 10a.]
- e) All of the above.
- Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Israel Under Fire.
- Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Israel Under Fire.
- Reuters, "Israel, Gaza agree to hold fire after latest round of fighting," Nov. 13, 2012, 12:55 p.m. EST.
- Gershon Baskin, "Israel's Shortsighted Assassination," New York Times, Nov. 16, 2012. Baskin, the Israeli intermediary, had been the initiator and negotiator of the deal to exchange captured IDF soldier Gilad Shalit for Palestinian prisoners.
- d) All of the above.
- In Just War moral theory, "last resort" is a condition of jus ad bellum. In international law, the same concept is captured in the notion of "necessity." See Yoram Dinstein, War, Aggression, and Self Defense, 4th ed., New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 208-210.
- To quote one Nuremberg judge: "Under International Law, as in Domestic Law, there can be no reprisal against reprisal. The assassin who is being repulsed by his intended victim may not slay him and then, in turn, plead self defense." (Trial of Otto Ohlendorf and others, Military Tribunal II-A, April 8, 1948, cited in Michael Mandel, "Self-Defense Against Peace," Counterpunch, Feb. 05, 2009.
- Human Rights Watch, "Israel/Gaza: Avoid Harm to Civilians," Nov. 15, 2012; B'Tselem, "Israel's obligations in responding to rocket and mortar fire," Jan. 1, 2011.
- e) All of the above.
- See, for example, Yaakov Lappin, "Israel's Fight to Regain Deterrence," Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, Nov. 13, 2012.
- See, for example, Yousef Munayyer, "Bodies for Ballots," Daily Beast, Nov 15, 2012; and see tweet of Haaretz editor-in-chief Aluf Benn reproduced in Ahmed Moor, "Israeli elections … and death in Gaza," Mondoweiss, Nov. 14, 2012.
- Nicole Gaouette, "Israeli Attacks in Gaza Also Serve as a Warning to Iran," Bloomberg News, Nov. 20, 2012; Russ Wellen, "Leveraging Operation Pillar of Defense Into an Attack on Iran," Foreign Policy in Focus blog, Nov. 19, 2012.
- See, for example, the comment of Shlomo Brom, director of the program on Israel-Palestinian relations at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, that "If, like Netanyahu, you don't want an agreement or you don't believe in one, it is very comfortable for them that Hamas is there." Quoted in Judi Rudoren and Isabel Kershner, "On This, 2 Sides Agree: Fighting Hardened Positions," New York Times, Nov. 25, 2012.
- g) All of the above.
- Yeshiva World News, "LIVE BLOG DAY 4: Operation Pillar Of Defense [UPDATED 11:59PM IL]," Nov. 17, 2012.
- Ali Abunimah, "Inciting war crimes: Israel minister says force Gaza population into Egypt, cut off water, electricity," Electronic Intifada, Nov. 15, 2012.
- Ali Abunimah, "Amid calls for more war crimes, Israel minister hopes attacks will 'reformat' Gaza," Electronic Intifada, Nov. 14, 2012.
- Ali Abunimah, "'Flatten' Gaza like Hiroshima and 'mow' the population, Israeli public figures urge," Electronic Intifada, Nov. 18, 2012.
- Ali Abunimah, "'IDF must learn from the Syrians how to slaughter the enemy,' says prominent Israeli rabbi," Electronic Intifada, Nov. 18, 2012.
- Ali Abunimah, "'Flatten' Gaza like Hiroshima and 'mow' the population, Israeli public figures urge," Electronic Intifada, Nov. 18, 2012.
- d) All of the above.
- OCHA, oPt, Occupied Palestinian Territory: Escalation in hostilities: Gaza and southern Israel, Situation Report (as of 22 November 2012, 1500 hrs), p. 1.
- Ibid., p. 1.
- Ibid., p. 1.
- d) All of the above.
- Jeremy M. Sharp, "U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel," Congressional Research Service, March 12, 2012, RL33222, summary and p. 30.
- Ibid., pp. 4, 7.
- U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, "Israel Misuses U.S. Weapons against Palestinians: Case Study of F-16 Fighter Jets."
- h) All of the above.
- Associated Press, "US blocks UN Security Council call for Gaza cease-fire as unbalanced against Israel," Fox News, Nov. 20, 2012; Stephen Zunes, "Abetting Murder in Gaza," Foreign Policy in Focus, Nov. 26, 2012.
- The White House, Readout: president's Call to Prime Minister Netanyahu, Nov. 21, 2012.
- Colum Lynch, "U.S. Rejects U.N. Proposal to Compel War Crimes Probes of Gaza Conflict," Washington Post, Sept. 17, 2009; The White House, "Remarks by Assistant Secretary Esther Brimmer to the American Jewish Committee of Greater Miami and Broward," May 1, 2012.
- The White House, "Fact Sheet: Advancing Israel's Security and Supporting Peace," July 27, 2012.
- Stephen Zunes, "Washington Okays Attack on Unarmed U.S. Ship," Foreign Policy in Focus, June 30, 2011.
- Glenn Greenwald, "Obama's kill list policy compels US support for Israeli attacks on Gaza," Guardian, Comment is Free, Nov. 15, 2012.
- UN News Centre, "United States vetoes Security Council resolution on Israeli settlements," Feb. 11, 2011. The other 14 Security Council members voted in favor of the resolution, which was co-sponsored by over 120 countries.
- e) All of the above.
Stephen R. Shalom teaches political science at William Paterson University and is on the editorial board of New Politics.
- How did the people of Gaza come to be where they are?
-
MORENA Established As a New Party on the Mexican Left
The Movement of National Regeneration (MORENA), which served as the campaign organization of Andrés Manuel López Obrador for president of Mexico in the election held this past summer, has transformed itself into a new political party on the Mexican left. López Obrador has now brought into existence a new party that will compete with the Party of the Democratic Revolution that put him forward for president in 2006 and 2012. The party has adopted a nationalist, democratic, and neoliberal program emphasizing market competition; little distinguishes it from the Party of the Democratic Revolution of which it is an off-spring.
López Obrador told the assembly that this would be a new kind of party, “Without individualism, opportunism, nepotism, cronyism, favoritism, sectarianism, clientelism, or any of those political scars.” The new party would avoid factionalism and cliques, said the former presidential candidate. Members of the new party he said, would not be required to follow a leader’s line, but could freely exercise their consciences and their votes.
Delegates Adopt Programs, Elect President
At the new party’s founding convention held in the Six Year Plan Sports Center in Mexico City, 1,676 party activists elected a 204 member National Council that adopted the party’s statutes, a declaration of principles and an action program. Altogether the National Council is made up of 300 members, the 204 elected at the Congress and the presidents, general secretaries and organizational secretaries of the 32 states. Also attending the founding Congress were representatives of other left parties and of the governments of Cuba and the United States. The Congress elected Martí Bartres Guadarrama president of MORENA. Bartres began his career as a student activist in the Communist Party of Mexico (PCM) in 1981 and later in the Unified Socialist Party of Mexico (PSUM), a fusion of the Communists with other left parties. Together with PSUM he became part of the Party of the Democratic Revolution playing a leadership role in the Federal District and in the administration of its mayor López Obrador.
The party members present included labor union and peasant activists, prominent intellectuals, human rights activists, and professional politicians who had given up their memberships in other parties to join MORENA. Many of those present had been members of the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD).
A Neoliberal Program
The new party’s program has a fundamentally neoliberal, or at best social liberal character, as can be seen in some of its position on the economy. MORENA calls for “A new economic model in which the state assumes responsibility for guiding development without extreme interference. Pushing [the development of] productive chains among the private and social sectors, maximizing employment and value added, pushing support for education science and technology. Strengthening the internal economy with just wages and compensation for workers, while promoting union democracy and workers right to choose their own unions, without state intervention. A model which in its entirety promotes a strong national economy with greater internal and external competitiveness, where the state promotes the national economy and at the same time balanced and reciprocal foreign commercial relations.”
While MORENA defines itself as a left party and many of its leaders come out of various socialist organizations, the new party defines itself fundamentally as nationalist and democratic, modernizing and developmental, but nowhere mentions socialism or even social democracy. (See the MORENA program.)
The Political Organization of the People and the Workers (OPT), a coalition made up of the Mexican Electrical Workers Union (SME) and a variety of social movements and left parties that had supported López Obrador in the presidential election, decided not to work in the new MORENA political party, but rather to continue to build its own organization. (For the OPT’s position. see here. For a discussion of the OPT by a leader of a Mexican socialist party, see here.)
While López Obrador has proclaimed the noble and high ideals of MORENA and its leaders and activists, it is not clear why Mexico needs another center-left, multi-class party.
-
Mexico: When the Center Will Not Hold
Review of Jo Tuckman. Mexico: Democracy Interrupted. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012). 311 pages. Photos. Bibliographic Essay. Index. $35.00 hardback, $19.25 Kindle.
If you want an overview of Mexico today—either because you’re planning a trip and have never been there, or because you haven’t kept up on Mexico for the last few years, or because you follow Mexico pretty regularly but would like to see an overview of the general situation—you couldn’t do better than Jo Tuckman’s Mexico: Democracy Interrupted. Tuckman, a journalist who works for the London Guardian and has written for a number of other publications as well, brings to this book not only her nose for news but also an intellectual depth not always found in such work, which may be why this book is published by Yale and not a commercial publishing house. In nearly every chapter she brings into her account a Mexican historian, sociologist or political scientist whose book she has read or whom she interviews for this project.
This is a good read held together by one strong idea. The central thesis of the book is that the end of the seventy-year rule of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) with the election in 2000 of President Vicente Fox of the conservative National Action Party led to a fundamental change in Mexico, and not just a change in its political system either. The end of the PRI era, the break-up of the one-party state, and the weakening of the gravitational pull of the center led to the rise in politics and society of what she calls the “de facto powers.” Tuckman uses this analysis of the debilitated central power and the strengthening de facto powers to explain the changes in Mexican politics, in the drug cartels, and in the Catholic Church. Her argument is both convincing and illuminating, providing us with a useful perspective from which to examine contemporary Mexico.
Around that strong intellectual armature, Tuckman winds the sometimes bizarre, often frightening, and frequently moving stories of Mexico today, taking up politics, the legal system, religion, the drug wars, and environmental issues. While Tuckman herself does not make a strong political argument, her book is informed by a liberal sensibility. Over the years I have read many such journalistic accounts of Mexico in both English and Spanish. The classic and still the best—though now quite dated—remains New York Times reporter Alan Riding’s Distant Neighbors: A Portrait of the Mexicans published in 1985, a monumental 560-page account that combined journalistic savvy with a deep understanding of Mexican history and culture. Tuckman’s book does not pretend to be the same sort of encyclopedic account, but within the parameters she chose, she has done a fine job. If you want to know what Mexico is like today, read this book.
-
China: From Bureaucratic Communism to Bureaucratic Capitalism
The election last week of Xi Jinping to the chairmanship of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), together with six others who with Xi constitute the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the party, represents entrenchment of what the Chinese Marxist intellectual Au Loong Yu has called “bureaucratic capitalism.”[1] The bureaucratic capitalists, many of them princelings, that is, sons of the founders of China’s Communist government, have through their control of the state and crony state-corporation relationships come to dominate the heart of the country’s capitalist economy and to form the core of the new bourgeoisie that rules the country. They are a group of families and clans connected by both party and business relationships that constitute the country’s ruling class. It is this use of the party and state to control capitalist enterprises, to exploit workers, and to make profits that, as Au argues, constitutes the unique character of Chinese capitalism today.
The emerging leadership of princelings will not seek fundamental change, but rather work to preserve and expand their class power and privileges. As Edward Wong wrote in the New York Times:
The princelings are not a coherent political faction, and their ranks are rife with personal and ideological rivalries. Their family connections may mean a greater confidence with wielding power and pressing for bolder changes. At the same time, that class has grown wealthy off China’s political economy, in which officials and state-owned enterprises work together to reap benefits, often at the expense of private entrepreneurship. Even those princelings who support liberalizing the economy or the political system still believe in the primacy of the party, and their push for various reforms is seen as an effort to ensure the party’s survival.[2]
Xi and the other new leaders are deeply committed to continuing the state-led capitalist development that has not only given them enormous power but also made many of them fabulously wealthy. The CCP, which now Xi heads, represents the guardian of the economic and political power of this new ruling class. The domination of this group for the next decade, barring unforeseen developments, means that either a turn to a more western model of capitalism, or democratic reforms, or a socialist transformation of the society from above are all off the agenda. Democracy and socialism will come to China from below, or they will not come at all.
How did China, a nominally Communist country, come to be a thoroughly capitalist country with this unique form of political power and governance?[3] The roots of the existing bureaucratic capitalist class are to be found in the bureaucratic Communist, or, more exactly, bureaucratic collectivist class, that emerged from the Chinese revolution. It was the experience of building the CCP and the People’s Liberation Army, leading the national revolution, and obliterating both foreign economic control and the old competitive capitalism that had existed in China that created the Chinese Communist one-party state. The CCP, always in control of the Communist revolution, also found it possible to keep control in the transition to capitalism.
From Working Class Party to Peasant Army
The CCP’s unique character was formed in the 1920s and 1930s after the tragic events of Shanghai 1927. Throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, China was dominated by foreign powers, principally by Great Britain and other European powers, though Czarist Russia, the United States and Japan had also become involved in the dismemberment of imperial China. At the same time Chinese warlords, landlords and capitalists exploited the country’s workers and peasants. A national and democratic revolution in 1912 created a Republic under president Sun Yat-sen, leading to the end of the Qing monarchy. The Chinese Republic struggled to impose a democratic order on China’s fragmented authoritarian regions as the country fell into civil war.
The Russia Revolution of 1917 (1918) led to an alliance between the Soviet Union and the Kuo-min-tang (KMT), the principal party of the Chinese Republic, led by Chiang Kai-shek. Under orders from Joseph Stalin, Chinese Communists subordinated themselves to the KMT and hesitated to create an independent organization. In April 1927 in the industrial city of Shanghai, which was a Communist stronghold, the KMT turned on the CCP, executing thousands of its members.[4] The Chinese Communists, following Stalin’s new left turn in what is called the “Third Period” of the Communist movement, then attempted in December 1927 to organize revolutionary insurrections in several cities, most famously the so-called Canton Commune, all of which were crushed leading to the deaths of thousands more Communists.
The Army as Party
After those devastating defeats, Mao Tse-tung and other Chinese Communist leaders retreated to the countryside where they reconstructed the party and built the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. The CCP’s leaders—some intellectuals, some workers—became completely uprooted from urban Chinese society, their ties to the working class broken; they were now proletarian in name only. These deracinated party cadres became the leaders of the party, the officers of the army, and the core of a new revolutionary sort of movement. This was a party leadership and its staff, that is to say, a revolutionary bureaucracy, in search of a social base that could provide the revolutionary force necessary to overthrow the ruling landlords, warlords, capitalists and the KMT of Chiang Kai-shek.
Moving through the Chinese countryside, generally opposing the wealthy landowners, but allying themselves in different places and at different moments with various strata of the Chinese peasantry, the surviving Communist cadres of the 1920s recruited peasants to the People’s Liberation Army. While the People’s Liberation Army was made up of peasants (like most other armies until the late twentieth century) and while it was they who provided the force that eventually fought and won the Chinese Revolution, this could not be called a peasant army or a peasant revolution in any meaningful political sense; the peasants did not write its program, they did not provide its leadership, and they exerted no democratic control over the party or the army. Everywhere the People’s Liberation Army went, it was a body of armed men better organized, much better armed, and more powerful than the peasant communities it encountered, able to impose its political will on the countryside through its political program and a combination of political maneuvering and military power. The remarkable Long March (or marches) of 1934-35 by the People’s Liberation Army (really three armies) from the South and the East to the West of China represented the consolidation of this Communist party-army, the army as party.
The Communists Lead a National Revolution
With the Japanese invasion of China in mid-1937 and the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War, The Communists found themselves fighting not only the KMT, but also the Japanese. While both the KMT Army and the People’s Liberation Army were supposedly both battling the Japanese, in reality there was a three-cornered struggle to control China that continued until the wars end in 1945. Chiang Kai-shek and the KMT, more concerned to defend the landlords and capitalists against the Communists than to fight the Japanese. After the defeat of the Japanese, the Chinese Communist strategy was to continue to expand its control over the countryside and only at the end to take control of the cities. When they arrived in the cities, the Chinese Communist authorities distributed literature to the workers and the urban masses telling them not to strike or seize their factories, but rather to obey orders from the CCP. The Communists’ greatest concern was to win the confidence and support of the capitalist class and to restore industrial production. The Communists saw no role for the working class in the final steps of taking the Chinese cities between 1945 and 1949.[5]
The Rise of the Communist State
The CCP and the People’s Liberation Army having contributed to the struggle against the Japanese and having then defeated the KMT succeeded in 1949 in taking control of all of China with the exception of the island of Taiwan to which Chiang Kai-shek and the KMT retreated. The CCP had led a nationalist revolution to victory, establishing a new state that was soon completely controlled by the Communists. The Communist leadership in the patriotic struggle against the Japanese and then in the revolutionary civil war against the KMT had won the party enormous credibility and the support of the majority of the Chinese people. The Communist program of agrarian reform, taking land from the landlords and distributing it to the peasants, stood at the center of its revolutionary program. By 1952, the land reform was complete, land had been distributed to the peasants, and the landlord class eliminated. By 1956, fifteen years ahead of schedule, 97% of all land had been collectivized.
While the CCP had initially attempted to win over the capitalist class, once in power, beginning in 1952 it moved with determination and speed to eliminate virtually all privately owned companies. By 1956, the capitalist class had to all intents and purposes ceased to exist.[6] Given that the Communists already controlled the state by 1949, the cost of these campaigns to end landlordism and capitalism was tremendous in terms of human lives. It is believed that more than one million died between 1949 and 1953 in the campaigns against “rightists” and landlords.
In 1952, all other parties were banned, giving the CCP a monopoly of political power. The Chinese Communist leadership, supported by the Soviet Union (with which it had signed a pact in 1950), created a state that resembled Stalin’s regime: the CCP in control of the state, and the state in control of industry and agriculture. The CCP also took control of the labor unions and all social organizations; the new one-party state did not permit independent organizations of any sort. While the government enjoyed popular support and while there was a high degree of participation in the institutions and activities organized by the CCP, nowhere was there democracy. The society had been collectivized by the state which was controlled by the bureaucracy. Like the Soviet Union, China was neither capitalist nor socialist; it was a bureaucratic collectivist society, hostile to both capitalism and socialism.[7]
Mao’s Policies
With the landlord and capitalist classes eliminated, and the working class and peasantry subordinated to the party, Mao and the Communist leadership could now use the state to implement policies to achieve their goals of increasing productivity and raising the standard of living. Like any ruling class, China’s bureaucratic ruling class believed that it knew what was best for the country, best for itself as a class and best for the rest. Mao, whose policies dominated China throughout much of the post-revolutionary period, imposed his policies on the country from above, sometimes without consultation with the entire party leadership and always without consultation with the party’s members or the population in general. The essence of Maoism was voluntarism, the notion that the CCP bureaucracy through sheer will power could overcome objective conditions, pushing the society toward socialism and eventually arrive at communism.
The first Five Year Plan of 1953-1958 proved successful as China’s economy expanded, but the pace was not rapid enough for Mao. As he prepared to push even harder, Mao, who had become president of the People’s Republic of China in 1954, worked to eliminate any opposition. The Hundred Flowers Campaign of 1956-57, supposedly to encourage the creativity and to hear the criticism of Chinese intellectuals, proved to be an ambush. Many of those intellectuals suggested that the CCP had developed into “a new ruling class which monopolized power and privilege and alienated itself from the masses.” Others suggested that the party officials had privileges and received preferential treatment and that they treated the population as “obedient subjects, or to use a harsh word, slaves.”[8] The dissidents, having exposed themselves, were suppressed.
Now fully in charge of the state, Mao launched his Great Leap Forward in 1958. The Great Leap, or the “rash advance” as it was also called, was intended to transform China rapidly from an agricultural to an industrial society. New agricultural techniques were introduced on the collective farms, while communes throughout the countryside were also to engage in decentralized industrial production. Throughout the country there would be backyard steel mills with the idea of overtaking the production of Great Britain and the United States respectively in seven and fifteen years. The Great Leap proved to be a disaster of unprecedented proportions, leading to starvation and the deaths of at least 30 and possibly 45 million.[9]
Following the debacle of the Great Leap, Mao was succeeded in the presidency by Liu Shiao-chi, unleashing a protracted struggle for leadership of the CCP between the Maoist voluntarists and Liu’s policies modeled on industrialization in the Soviet Union. In 1966, Mao initiated the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, ostensibly a struggle against traditional Chinese culture, against capitalist elements in Chinese society, and against corruption and bureaucracy in the CCP, though principally an attempt to retake control of the party and the state. An extremely complex series of events involving the party faction fight, class struggles, as well as ethnic and religious persecution, the Cultural Revolution eventually took approximately 500,000 lives. Mao became the center of a cult of personality that was practically a religion as he returned to power.
Deng Xiaopeng’s Market Reforms
From 1949 to 1969, Mao’s emphasis on ideology and voluntarist politics had kept China churning, overturning first all of the old prerevolutionary relationships and then turning even the new revolutionary order upside down. The turmoil of those twenty years swept away much of the old order and made possible the development of a new political economy. Two years after Mao’s death in 1976, Deng Xiaoping, a political pragmatist became China’s “paramount leader,” introducing the slogan “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” and the economic reforms that laid the basis for the transition to capitalism. It was with the 1978 reforms that the Chinese economy first began to take off. Deng introduced market mechanisms and emphasized industrial products for export, leading China to enter into trading relationships with other nations. While China remained something of a hybrid system, with the Communist state still dominating both economic planning and many major industries and plants, a qualitative shift had taken place. Deng’s policies set China on the path of capitalist economic development, beginning the transition from bureaucratic Communism to bureaucratic capitalism.

Graph above from Wikicommons
The Chinese transition from bureaucratic communism to bureaucratic capitalism was the work of both the early CCP leaders and their children, the princelings, who used the state-owned and mixed enterprises to enrich themselves, created their own privately-owned firms, engaged in crony capitalism, and used their political power to extort both party leaders and private business.[10] The introduction of market mechanisms and private property, together with the continuing exploitation of wage labor, created an economy now driven by the profit motive and the accumulation of capital. The new bureaucratic capitalist class accrued wealth, which they displayed conspicuously, and arrogantly exercised their privileges, while at the same time the uneven development of the new economy failed to meet the needs of peasants, workers, and students. The Tiananmen Square demonstration in 1989 involved mostly student protestors demanded transparency and democracy. When the protestors began to number into the hundreds of thousands, the new bureaucratic capitalist class summoned the Army which crushed the movement, killing hundreds and perhaps thousands of protestors.
Deng Xiaoping was succeeded first by Jian Zemin in 1989, who took over following the crushing of the Tiananmen protests, and he in turn in 1997 by Hu Jintao. Both of them continued to carry out the market reforms as they also expanded industrial production and exports. At the same time they opened up China to foreign direct investment, taking advantage of others’ capital to propel Chinese industrialization. The development of urban, industrial and rural real estate that took place was made possible by CCP capitalists using their power and privilege to grab the land of peasants and the urban poor, leading to tens of thousands of conflicts throughout China each year.
During Hu’s administration in 2007 China passed the private property law which sanctioned private ownership of the means of production, which had already emerged in fact. In these years China constructed, still something of a hybrid system but now predominantly capitalist, constructed a modern industrial infrastructure of railroads, highways, harbors and airports; industry expanded enormously in the Pearl River, Yellow River, and Beijing regions, while skyscrapers rose in Shanghai. By 2010 China surpassed Japan to become the second largest economy on earth, second only to the United States. The growth of China in the Hu years was nothing less than spectacular.[11] China is expected to catch up with the United States in GDP by 2025.[12]

Growth of China’s economy during the Hu years
The Chinese Labor Movement
The creation of bureaucratic capitalism necessarily meant the creation of a bureaucratically constrained working class. Until the 1980s, the Chinese government agencies had directed workers to enterprises where they would find employment. The establishment of market mechanisms and private property led to greater mobility for workers who now sought jobs not only in the state-owned and mixed enterprises, but also in the private companies. Hundreds of millions of peasants left the farm to find work in the cities, while some 150 million migrant workers traveled from the provinces for temporary work in industry. The state-owned, mixed-, and foreign and domestic privately-owned firms employed workers in manufacturing and services. Industrial barracks housed workers in enormous plants and industrial complexes such as Foxconn City with as many as 270,000 workers in one facility.
Chinese workers were forbidden from organizing independent labor unions and from engaging in strikes. The CCP in both its bureaucratic Communist and bureaucratic capitalist periods controlled the All China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) which in turn controlled the workforce. A 1992 law required all unions to be affiliated with the ACFTU. The new Labor Law of 1994 did away with the “iron rice bowl,” the system of jobs security that generally protected workers from dismissal. Following the passage of the new law some 40 million workers lost their jobs.
Nevertheless, by 2007 workers had carried out tens of thousands of protests and strikes each year in the 2000s. The Honda strikes of 2010 won some of those workers the right to choose representatives at their own factory, a small first step to a greater worker role in the union and workplace. At the same time, under the pressure of the strikes, the Communist state permitted the ACFTU to engage in collective bargaining throughout much of industrialized China. But the Chinese bureaucratic capitalists would not permit the creation of independent labor unions and are not likely to do so in the near future. Still as China urbanized, industrialized and as workers’ joined the many strikes, their wages rose.
China’s Foreign Policy from Mao to Deng and Beyond
We should say a word about China’s foreign policy during the Mao years. As the Cold War opened, the People’s Republic of China, then allied with the Soviet Union, took advantage of the unsettled post-war situation to reassert its control over Tibet. During the Korean War, China, with the backing of the Soviet Union, entered on the side of North Korea, sending over two million troops to fight against South Korean and U.S. forces. When the Hungarian Revolution occurred in 1956, China supported the Soviet Union’s suppression of the workers’ rebellion there.
Things began to change in the 1960s as China moved away from the Soviet Union. By 1964 China had developed and tested a nuclear bomb, joining the United States, the Soviet Union, the UK, and France in the nuclear club. By the 1960s, however, the Soviet Union and China had fallen out, and there was even a small border war in 1969. Finding himself facing both the internal conflict of the Cultural Revolution and threats from the Soviet Union in 1972, Mao embraced Richard Nixon’s suggestion that China ally itself with the United States.
The Sino-American alliance involved American and Chinese cooperation in Asia and Africa against various nationalist and leftist governments and movements allied with the Soviet Union. (Though there were exceptions to this rule, as in the case of the Philippines where the pro-Soviet CP made a deal with Marcos and the pro-Beijing CP went into revolutionary opposition.) So, for example, while the Soviet Union materially supported liberation movements in Southern Africa, the United States and China opposed them, providing material aid to white power regimes, for example, in Angola.
After the Deng reforms of 1978, the U.S.-China political and military alliance became transformed into what was primarily an economic relationship, with China opening its doors to U.S. capital, producing products for the U.S. market, and purchasing U.S. Treasury bills that funded the U.S. debt. Today China has become a global economic power with investments around the world, especially in extractive industries such as mining.[13]
The New Leadership
The new leadership of Xi Jinping confronts the challenge of continuing to expand China’s bureaucratic capitalist economy while keeping both peasant and worker protests from becoming a challenge to its rule. At the same time, it will have to deal with the continuing tensions with the United States as it gradually first pulls even and then overtakes it economically, at least in terms of GDP. China’s economic power has been accompanied by an increase in its political influence around the world and will also be attended by a rise in military power as it continues to develop its capacity for everything from cyber war to traditional military, naval and air power. While some have suggested that the new China may be capable of pursuing a peaceful foreign policy, no capitalist nation before has ever done so, and China is not likely to be the first.[14]
China has become a great capitalist power with its own unique system of bureaucratic capitalism, and while it may see reforms intended to keep the new ruling class in power, like other capitalist states it will only be fundamentally changed by a mass movement from below. While there have been an extraordinary 100,000 riots, strikes and other protests per year involved hundreds of thousands of workers, peasants, and others, they have not yet been able to win independent unions or other independent organizations. The struggle for democracy in China is likely to be a long one, but as democracy is fought for that will simultaneously open a struggle for socialism, as some Chinese intellectuals and workers now understand. The democratic socialist society that they envision will be the work not of the Communist Party but of people like themselves.
Notes
- Au Loong Yu, China’s Rise: Strength and Fragility (London: Merlin Press, 2012). See an interview with Au Loong Yu, “China: bureaucratic capitalist?” at the Europe Solidaire site. See also Au Loong Yu, “China: End of a Model…Or the Birth of a New One?” New Politics, Vol. XII, 3 (Summer 2009). For a discussion of the current leadership group see: “A look at China’s new leaders who will rule alongside Xi Jinping in the apex political body,” Washington Post , Nov. 15, 2012. For thumbnail sketches of the new leaders see: “China’s New Leadership Team,” Washington Post.
- Edward Wong, “Ending Congress, China Presents New Leadership Headed by Xi Jinping,” New York Times, Nov. 15, 2012.
- While CCP rule today is unique, it shares some similarities with the one-party states that have ruled other countries, particularly in the developing world. Typically these were countries where a revolutionary upheaval was either led by or gave rise to a party that then created a one-party state; then after decades of bureaucratic rule and party control of the economy, there arose political party competition and a more open capitalist market. Take, for example, Turkey as described in Kerem Öktem’s Angry Nation: Turkey since 1989 (New York: Zed, 2011). The same could be said for Mexico.
- The classic history of this event is Harold Isaacs, The Tragedy of the Chinese Revolution originally published in 1938 and issued in a revised edition in 1951. The book is now available from Haymarket Books.A more recent book, Alexander Pantsov’s The Bolsheviks and the Chinese Revolution, 1919-1927 (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2000) discusses and analyzes the relationships between the Soviet Union, the Communist International, its various factions and the Chinese Revolution. The French writer André Malraux fictionalized these events in his novels The Conquerors and Man’s Fate, the second of which is set in Shanghai in 1927.
- The events described here are narrated and explained in greater depth in Jacques Guillermaz, A History of the Chinese Communist Party, 1921-1949, translated by Anne Destenay (New York: Random House, 1972 [1968]) and Jean Chesneaux, Françoise Le Barbier, and Marie-Claire Bergère, China: From the 1911 Revolution to Liberation (New York: Pantheon, 1977).
- Nigel Harris gives an account of these developments in his book The Mandate of Heaven: Marx and Mao in Modern China (New York: Quartet Books, 1978). Harris holds the view that in the 1950s China became a state capitalist regime, arguing that though there was no market competition, the state became the sole capitalist. See pp. 261-69.
- The theory of bureaucratic collectivism was developed by Max Shachtman in the late 1930s and early 1940s in debates with Leon Trotsky. His essays were later collected in his book Bureaucratic Revolution: The Rise of the Stalinist State (New York: The Donald Press, 1962).
- Philip Short, Mao: A Life (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1999). The first quotation comes from Short and the second from a Chinese critic of the regime during the era, both are found on page 465.
- The famine has been documented using Chinese sources by Yang Jisheng in Tombstone: The Great Chinese Famine, 1958-1962 (New York: Ferrar, Straus and Giroux, 2012). The story is also told in Frank Dittkötter’s Mao’s Great Famine: The History of China’s Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958-1962 (New York: Walker and Company, 2011). Xun Zhou’s The Great Famine in China, 1958-1962 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012) is a documentary history of the events. See Ian Johnson’s review of all three books in “Worse Than You Ever Imagined” in the New York Review of Books, Nov. 22, 2012.
- Au Loong Yu gives this description in China’s Rise.
- For a handy timeline of China’s leaders see: “The Politburo’s Growing Number of Influential Leaders” in the New York Times.
- Martin Jacques, When China Rules the World (London: Penguin, 2012 [2009]), p. 5, citing a Goldman Sachs study of 2007.
- Jacques, When China Rules the World, Chapter 10, “China as a Rising Global Power,” pp. 406-88.
- Giovanni Arrighi suggested this in Adam Smith in Beijing: Lineages of the Twenty-First Century (New York: Verso, 2007) and it has also been raised as a possibility by Jacques in When China Rules the World.
-
A Call to Join in the International Days of Solidarity Against Political Repression in Russia
An appeal from the Russian leftists to their comrades in the struggle:
Today we, the representatives of Russian leftist organizations, turn to our comrades all over the world with an appeal for solidarity. This call and your response to it are very important to us. Right now we are facing not just another instance of dubious sentencing by the Russian “justice” system or another case of a human life broken by the encounter with the state’s repressive apparatus. Today the authorities have launched against us a repressive campaign without precedent in the recent history of Russia, a campaign whose goal it is to extinguish the left as an organized political force. The recent arrests, threats, beatings, aggressive media attacks and moves towards declaring leftist groups illegal all point to the new general strategy on the part of the authorities, much more cruel and much less predictable than that of recent years.
The massive protest movement that began in December 2011 radically changed the atmosphere of political and social passivity established during the Putin years. Tens of thousands of young and middle-aged people, office workers and state employees, began to appear on the streets and to demand change. On December 10th and 24th 2011, and then on February 4th 2012, Moscow, Petersburg and other large cities became the sites of massive rallies, demonstrating a new level of politicization of a significant part of society. The “managed democracy” model crafted by the ruling elite over many years went bankrupt in a matter of days. Political manipulations ceased working in the face of real politics, born from below. The movement, whose demands were initially limited to “honest elections,” quickly grew into a protest against the whole political system.
After the elections of March 4th 2012, at which Vladimir Putin, using a combination of massive administrative pressure on voters, massive falsifications and mendacious populist rhetoric, assured himself of another term, many thought that the potential for protest mobilization had been exhausted. The naïve hopes of the thousands of opposition volunteers, taking on the role of election observers in the hope of putting an end to voter fraud, were crushed.
The next demonstration, in the success of which few believed, was scheduled for the center of Moscow on May 6th, the day before Putin’s inauguration. And on this day, despite the skeptical predictions, more than 60,000 people showed up. When the march approached the square where the rally was to take place, the police organized a massive provocation, blocking the marchers’ path to the square. All those who attempted to circumvent the police cordon were subjected to beatings and arrests. The unprecedented police violence produced resistance on the part of some of the protestors who resisted arrests and refused to leave the square until everyone had been freed. The confrontation on May 6th lasted a few hours. In the end, over 650 people were arrested, some of whom spent the night in jail.
The next day, Putin’s motorized procession headed for his inauguration through an empty Moscow. Along with the protesters, the police had cleared the city of all pedestrians. The new protest movement had demonstrated its power and a new degree of radicalization. The events of May 6th gave rise to the Occupy movement, which brought thousands of young people to the center of Moscow and held strong until the end of May. Leftist groups, until then peripheral to the established liberal spokesman of the protest movement, were progressively playing a larger role.
Those events were a signal to the authorities: the movement had gone beyond what was permitted, elections were over, and it was time to show teeth. Almost immediately, a criminal investigation was launched into the “mass disturbances,” and on May 27th, the first arrest took place. 18-year-old anarchist Alexandra Dukhanina was accused of participating in the disturbances and for the use of violence against the police. The arrests continued over the next few days. The accused were drawn both from the ranks of seasoned political activists (mainly leftists) as well as from ordinary people, for whom the May 6th demonstrations were their first experience of street politics.
So far, nineteen people have been accused of participating in those “disturbances”; twelve of them are in jail in pre-trial confinement. Here are some of their stories:
- Vladimir Akimenkov, 25, communist and activist of the Left Front. Arrested on June 10th, 2012, he will be in detention until March 6th 2013. Vladimir was born with poor eyesight. In jail, it is getting even worse. In the last examination, he had 10% vision in one eye, and 20% in the other. This, however, was not a sufficient cause for the court to replace detention with house arrest. At the last court session of the court, the judge cynically commented that only total blindness would make him reconsider his decision.
- Michael Kosenko, 36, no political affiliation, arrested on June 8th. Kosenko, who suffers from psychological disorders, also asked for his stay in jail be replaced with house arrest. However, the court declared him “dangerous to society” and plans to send him for forced treatment.
- Stepan Zimin, 20, anarchist and antifascist, arrested on June 8th and placed under detention until March 6th 2013, after which date his arrest can be extended. Stepan supports his single mother, yet once again the court did not consider this sufficient cause to set him free under the obligation to remain with city limits.
- Nikolai Kavkazskii, 26, socialist, human rights activist and LGBT-activist. Detained on the 25th of July.
Investigators have no clear evidence proving the guilt of any one of these detainees. Nevertheless, they remain in jail and new suspects steadily join their ranks. Thus the last of the players in the “events of May 6th,” the 51-year-old liberal activist and scholar Sergei Krivov, was arrested quite recently, on October 18th. There is every indication that he will not be the last.
If the arrests of already nearly twenty ordinary demonstration participants were intended to inspire fear in the protest movement, then the hunt for the “organizers of massive disturbances” is meant to strike at its acknowledged leaders. According to the investigation, said “disturbances” were the result of a conspiracy, and all the arrested were receiving special assignments. This shows that we are dealing not only with a series of arrests, but with preparations for a large scale political process against the opposition.
On October 5th, NTV, one of the leading Russian television channels, aired a film in the genre of an “investigative documentary,” which leveled fantastical charges against the opposition and in particular, against the most famous representative of the left, Sergei Udaltsov. This mash-up, made in the tradition of Goebbels’ propaganda, informs of Udaltsov’s ties with foreign intelligence, and the activities of the “Left Front” that he heads are declared plots by foreign enemies of the state. By way of decisive proof, the film includes a recorded meeting between Sergei Udaltsov, Left Front activist Leonid Razvozhaev, Russian Socialist Movement member Konstantin Lebedev, and one of the closer advisors of the president of Georgia, Givi Targamadze. In particular, the conversation includes talk of money delivered by the Georgians for the “destabilization” of Russia.
Despite the fact that the faces on the recording are practically indiscernible and that the sound is clearly edited and added separately to the video, within just two days the Investigative Committee of the Prosecutor General’s Office (the agency today playing the leading role in organizing repression) used it to launch a criminal case. On October 17th, Konstantin Lebedev was arrested and Sergei Udaltsov released after interrogation, after having signed an oath to remain within the limits of Moscow. On October 19th, a third participant in the new “affair,” Left Front activist Leonid Razvozhaev, tried to petition for refugee status with the Ukrainian delegation of the UN. As soon as he stepped outside of the delegation building, unknown parties violently forced him into a vehicle and illegally transported him across the Ukrainian border onto Russian territory. Once in an undisclosed location in Russia, he was subjected to torture and threats (including regarding the safety of his family) and compelled to sign a “voluntary submission of confession” and “statements of confession.” In these “statements,” Razvozhaev confessed to ties with foreign intelligence and to preparations for an armed insurgency, in which Konstantin Lebedev and Sergei Udaltsov were also involved. Afterwards, Razvozhaev was delivered to Moscow and placed in jail as a criminal defendant. At present, Razvozhaev has asserted in meetings with human rights activists that he disavows these confessions obtained under duress. However, he could not disavow their consequences. “Razvozhaev’s list,” beaten out of him by torture, has become notorious: it contains the names of people who will before long also become objects of persecution.
The scope of repression is spreading steadily. Quite recently the Investigative Committee announced the start of an inquiry into Sergei Udaltsov’s organization, the Left Front, the result of which may well be its prohibition as “extremist.” Pressure against the anti-fascist movement is likewise building. The well-known activists Aleksei Sutug, Aleksei Olesinov, Igor Harchenko, Irina Lipskaya, Alen Volikov have been detained on invented charges and are being held under guard in Moscow. Socialist and anti-fascist Filipp Dolbunov has been forced to undergo interrogation and threats on multiple occasions.
It is hardly accidental that the majority of the victims of this unprecedented wave of repression are involved in the leftist movement. At a threshold moment of preparations for austerity measures in Russia, for curtailment of labor rights and pension reforms, the Putin-Medvedev administration is more afraid than anything of an alliance between the existing general democratic movement and possible social protest. Today’s wave of repressions is the most important test for Russia’s new protest movement: either we hold strong or a new period of mass apathy and fear awaits us. It is precisely for this reason, in the face of unprecedented political pressure, that solidarity of our comrades in struggle in Europe, and in the entire world, is so crucial.
We turn to you with a plea to organize Days of Solidarity Against Political Repression on the 29 of November – 2 of December in front of the Russian Federation embassy or any other representative of the Russian government in your countries, demanding the immediate release of the illegally arrested and the termination of the shameful criminal actions and preparations for new “Moscow trials” based on torture and forgeries. We also ask that you use the most concrete information in your protests and demands, with the specific names and details that we provide in this appeal. This is crucial for every person behind bars today.
Please, send your reports on solidarity action and any other information or questions on this email: solidarityaction2012@gmail.com
Solidarity is our only weapon!
United, we will never be defeated!Russian Socialist Movement, Autonomous Action, Left Front
