Blog

  • 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

    1. 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).
    2. 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).
    3. Doris Z. Fleischer & Frieda Zames, The Disability Rights Movement: From Charity to Confrontation, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2011).
    4. 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).
    5. Erving Goffman, Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1963), 128.
    6. See ibid., ch. 2. Disability theorists, in contrast, would see disability as having at least the potential to make a positive contribution to identity.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. For a good overview, see Luc Boltanski and Eve Chiapello, The New Spirit of Capitalism trans. Gregory Elliott (London: Verso, 2005).
    10. See Ford, supra note 7.
    11. Ibid.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Soldatic and Meekosha, supra note 12 at 199.
    15. Barnes, supra note 17 at 15.
    16. Ibid. at 18.
    17. 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).
    18. 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.
    19. Buck v. Bell 274 U.S. 200 (1927).
    20. 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.
    21. See Fiona A. Miller, "Making Citizens, Banishing Immigrants: The Discipline of Deportation Investigations, 1908-1913" (2000) 7:1 Left History 62 at 67, 83
    22. Stone, supra note 17 at 116.
    23. James I. Charlton, Nothing About Us Without Us: Disability Oppression and Empowerment (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), pp. 131-136.
    24. Shapiro, supra note 22 at 57-58.
    25. Ibid. at pp. 64-69.
    26. Soldatic and Meekosha, supra note 12 at 197.
    27. Ibid. at 198.
    28. Alan Roulstone, "Disabled People, Work and Employment: A Global Perspective" in Watson, Roulstone, and Thomas, supra note 12, 211 at 213-14.
    29. Soldatic and Meekosha, supra note 12 at 203.
    30. 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).
    31. Robert Wilton, "Working at the Margins: Disabled People and the Growth of Precarious Employment" in Pothier and Devlin, supra note 24, 129.
    32. Jeannette Cox, "Crossroads and Signposts: The ADA Amendments Act of 2008" (2010) 85 Indiana Law Journal 187 at 199-202.
    33. Ibid. at 200-02.
    34. Ruth Colker, "The Americans with Disabilities Act: A Windfall for Defendants" (1999) 34 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 99 at 99-100.
    35. Samuel R. Bagenstos, "The Americans with Disabilities Act as Welfare Reform" (2003) 44 William and Mary Law Review 921 at 926-27.
    36. See, e.g., Tobin Siebers, Disability Aesthetics (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2010).
    37. Sunny Taylor, "The Right Not to Work: Power and Disability" (2004) 55 Monthly Review 30 at 30-44.
    38. Finger, supra note 8.
    39. 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

    1. J.W. Trent, Inventing the Feeble Mind: A History of Mental Retardation in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994.
    2. Ibid., p. 109.
    3. K. Johnson & R. Traustadottir, Deinstitutionalization and People with Intellectual Disabilities: In and Out of Institutions, Part 1—Living Inside, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2005.
    4. Ibid.
    5. Douglass 1914 as cited in Trent, p. 109.
    6. Trent.
    7. Ibid.
    8. Ibid.
    9. Ibid.
    10. G. Reaume, Remembrance of Patients Past, Oxford, 2000, Chapter 5 "Patients Labour," pp. 133-180.
    11. Ibid.
    12. Johnson & Traustadottir.
    13. Ibid.
    14. L. Visier, "Sheltered employment for persons with disabilities," International Labour Review, 137(3), 1998: 347-365.
    15. Ibid.
    16. 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.
    17. P. Thornton & N. Lunt, Employment Policies For Disabled People in Eighteen Countries: A Review, 1997.
    18. National Disability Rights Network, "Segregated & Exploited: The failure of the Disability Services System to Provide Quality Work," January 2011.
    19. G. Albrecht The Disability Business: Rehabilitation in America, London: Sage Publications, 1992.
    20. 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.

    1. How did the people of Gaza come to be where they are?
      1. 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.
      2. 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.
      3. Gaza was conquered by Israel in October 1956 and subjected to massacres; Israel withdrew under international pressure in March 1957.
      4. 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).
      5. All of the above.

       

    2. In 2005, Israel under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon "disengaged" from Gaza. Which of the following statements about the disengagement is true?
      1. Israel's Gaza "disengagement" was a unilateral move, not worked out with any Palestinian leaders at all.
      2. 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.
      3. 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."
      4. All of the above.

       

    3. 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?
      1. Israel prohibits Gaza from engaging in air commerce with or air travel to or from other nations.
      2. Israel prohibits Gaza from engaging in sea commerce with or sea travel to or from other nations.
      3. Israel prohibits Gazans engaged in fishing from going more than 3 nautical miles off shore, denying them access to 85% of their fishing waters.
      4. 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.
      5. The Israeli army carries out incursions into this zone a number of times a week.
      6. All of the above.

       

    4. Which of the following reflects the Israeli attitude toward Gaza and its people?
      1. 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."
      2. The statement by Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1993: "If only it [Gaza] would just sink into the Sea."
      3. The fact that in Israeli slang, "go to Gaza" means "go to hell."
      4. All of the above.

       

    5. The Palestinian organization Hamas rules within Gaza. Which of the following is true regarding Hamas?
      1. 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.
      2. It won a plurality in the Palestinian legislative elections in January 2006.
      3. It took over Gaza in 2007 after Fatah, working with Israel and the United States, launched a failed coup against it.
      4. All of the above.

       

    6. 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?
      1. Israel and the United States have refused to recognize an independent Palestinian state, with Washington even blocking UN recognition of nominal Palestinian statehood.
      2. Neither Washington nor Tel Aviv has renounced violence (to say the least).
      3. Nonviolent protest against the Israeli occupation has been brutally repressed.
      4. 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.
      5. 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.
      6. 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.
      7. All of the above.

       

    7. Israel says it can't trust Hamas to maintain cease-fires. Which of the following is part of the historical record?
      1. 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.
      2. 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.
      3. 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.
      4. 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.
      5. All of the above.

       

    8. Israel claims that its blockade of Gaza is simply a means of keeping out weapons from the territory. Which of the following is true?
      1. The blockade has always included a ban on almost all exports from Gaza, crippling the economy, while having no connection to weapons imports.
      2. 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."
      3. 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.
      4. 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.
      5. 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.
      6. All of the above.

       

    9. Which of the following describes conditions in Gaza on the eve of Operation Pillar of Defense?
      1. The people of Gaza have lower per capita incomes than they did in the 1990s, despite improvements over the past three years.
      2. 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.
      3. 44% of households were food insecure in 2011 and another 16% were vulnerable to food insecurity.
      4. 10% of children suffer from stunting (long-term exposure to chronic malnutrition).
      5. 39% of people lived below the poverty line.
      6. 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.
      7. All of the above.

       

    10. 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?
      1. 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.
      2. 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.
      3. On Nov. 8, Israeli troops operating within Gaza were fired on by Palestinians; Israeli fire killed a Palestinian boy.
      4. 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.
      5. Palestinian rocket attacks began on Nov. 10, after more than a week of relative quiet.
      6. All of the above.

       

    11. What happened on November 13, the day before the Israeli targeted assassination of Ahmed al-Jabari, Hamas' military chief?
      1. Palestinian rocket fire decreased from 64 on Nov. 11, to 35 on Nov. 12, to 1 on the morning of Nov. 13.
      2. 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)…"
      3. 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."
      4. 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.
      5. All of the above.

       

    12. 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?
      1. 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).
      2. 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).
      3. Even when self-defense is permitted, the measures taken must not disproportionately endanger civilians.
      4. All of the above.

       

    13. 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?
      1. Because Israel always wants to maintain its deterrent power, meaning that fear of its massive military response will keep subject people in line.
      2. Because an election is coming soon in Israel and wars and Palestinian rockets tend to help politicians' electoral prospects.
      3. To test out the Iron Dome system and send a message to Iran.
      4. 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.
      5. All of the above.

       

    14. Which of the following statements was made by an Israeli official or personality?
      1. Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Eli Yishai: "We must blow Gaza back to the Middle Ages, destroying all the infrastructure including roads and water."
      2. 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."
      3. 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."
      4. 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!"
      5. 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."
      6. 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."
      7. All of the above.

       

    15. Which of the following is a UN statistic regarding the casualties of Operation Pillar of Defense?
      1. More than twenty-five Palestinian civilians were killed for every Israeli civilian killed (103:4).
      2. More than twenty-five Palestinian combatants were killed for every Israeli combatant killed (55:2).
      3. 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.
      4. All of the above.

       

    16. Which of the following is true regarding U.S. military aid to Israel?
      1. 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.
      2. 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.
      3. 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.
      4. All of the above.

       

    17. In which other way has the United States aided Israel in its assault on Gaza?
      1. 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.
      2. 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.
      3. The United States has blocked efforts to hold Israel responsible for its previous assault on Gaza, by rejecting the Goldstone Commission Report.
      4. President Obama declared that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with Hamas.
      5. The United States has defended Israel's right to stop humanitarian aid ships bound for Gaza.
      6. The Obama administration, by its use of targeted drone killings, has normalized the practice that Israel now uses to such murderous effect.
      7. 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.
      8. All of the above.

       

    18. 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?
      1. Support the work of the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation to cut off U.S. military aid to Israel.
      2. 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.
      3. Support the work of Code Pink and its Stolen Beauty campaign to boycott beauty products made in the occupied territories.
      4. Support other campaigns that aim to achieve justice for Palestinians.
      5. All of the above.

       

     
    Answers and Sources

    1. e) All of the above.
      1. 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.
      2. 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.
      3. Amira Hass, "A thin black line," Haaretz, Feb. 11, 2010; Joe Sacco, Footnotes in Gaza, New York: Metropolitan Books, 2009.
      4. "Excerpts from Begin Speech at National Defense College," New York Times, Aug. 21, 1982.
    2. d) All of the above.
      1. 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.
      2. Avi Shavit, "The big freeze," Haaretz, Oct. 8, 2004.
    3. f) All of the above.
      1. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), Gaza access closure map; OCHA, oPt, Gaza humanitarian situation.
      2. 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.
      3. 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?].
    4. d) All of the above.
      1. 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.
      2. Amira Hass, Drinking the Sea at Gaza, Days and Nights in a Land under Siege, New York: Owl Books, 1999, p. 9.
      3. Hass, Drinking the Sea at Gaza, p. 9.
    5. d) All of the above.
      1. See Stephen Zunes, "America's Hidden Role in Hamas's Rise to Power," ZNet, Jan. 5, 2009.
      2. National Democratic Institute, Final Report on the Palestinian Legislative Council Elections, January 25, 2006(Washington, DC: 2006).
      3. David Rose, "The Gaza Bombshell," Vanity Fair, April 2008.
    6. g) All of the above.
      1. 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.
      2. 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.
      3. 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.
      4. Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, Sept. 13, 1993, Article IV.
      5. 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.
    7. e) All of the above.
      1. 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).
      2. 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.
      3. 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.
      4. Rory McCarthy, "Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen," Guardian, Nov. 5, 2008.
    8. f) All of the above.
      1. Gisha, Graphing 5 years of closure, June 2012, p. 3, figure 4.
      2. 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.
      3. 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.
      4. Amira Hass, "Why won't Israel allow Gazans to import coriander?" Haaretz, May 7, 2010.
      5. 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]).
    9. g) All of the above.
      1. UN Country Team, Gaza in 2020: A liveable place? pp. 2, 4.
      2. Ibid., p. 4.
      3. Ibid., p. 4.
      4. Save the Children and Medical Aid for Palestinians, Gaza's Children: Falling Behind, 2012, p. 2.
      5. UN Country Team, Gaza in 2020: A liveable place? p. 6.
      6. Save the Children and Medical Aid for Palestinians, Gaza's Children: Falling Behind, p. 16.
    10. f) All of the above.
      1. 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.]
      2. 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.
      3. 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.
      4. 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.
      5. 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.]
    11. e) All of the above.
      1. Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Israel Under Fire.
      2. Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Israel Under Fire.
      3. Reuters, "Israel, Gaza agree to hold fire after latest round of fighting," Nov. 13, 2012, 12:55 p.m. EST.
      4. 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.
    12. d) All of the above.
      1. 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.
      2. 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.
      3. 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.
    13. e) All of the above.
      1. See, for example, Yaakov Lappin, "Israel's Fight to Regain Deterrence," Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, Nov. 13, 2012.
      2. 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.
      3. 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.
      4. 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.
    14. g) All of the above.
      1. Yeshiva World News, "LIVE BLOG DAY 4: Operation Pillar Of Defense [UPDATED 11:59PM IL]," Nov. 17, 2012.
      2. Ali Abunimah, "Inciting war crimes: Israel minister says force Gaza population into Egypt, cut off water, electricity," Electronic Intifada, Nov. 15, 2012.
      3. Ali Abunimah, "Amid calls for more war crimes, Israel minister hopes attacks will 'reformat' Gaza," Electronic Intifada, Nov. 14, 2012.
      4. Ali Abunimah, "'Flatten' Gaza like Hiroshima and 'mow' the population, Israeli public figures urge," Electronic Intifada, Nov. 18, 2012.
      5. Ali Abunimah, "'IDF must learn from the Syrians how to slaughter the enemy,' says prominent Israeli rabbi," Electronic Intifada, Nov. 18, 2012.
      6. Ali Abunimah, "'Flatten' Gaza like Hiroshima and 'mow' the population, Israeli public figures urge," Electronic Intifada, Nov. 18, 2012.
    15. d) All of the above.
      1. OCHA, oPt, Occupied Palestinian Territory: Escalation in hostilities: Gaza and southern Israel, Situation Report (as of 22 November 2012, 1500 hrs), p. 1.
      2. Ibid., p. 1.
      3. Ibid., p. 1.
    16. d) All of the above.
      1. Jeremy M. Sharp, "U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel," Congressional Research Service, March 12, 2012, RL33222, summary and p. 30.
      2. Ibid., pp. 4, 7.
      3. U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, "Israel Misuses U.S. Weapons against Palestinians: Case Study of F-16 Fighter Jets."
    17. h) All of the above.
      1. 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.
      2. The White House, Readout: president's Call to Prime Minister Netanyahu, Nov. 21, 2012.
      3. 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.
      4. The White House, "Fact Sheet: Advancing Israel's Security and Supporting Peace," July 27, 2012.
      5. Stephen Zunes, "Washington Okays Attack on Unarmed U.S. Ship," Foreign Policy in Focus, June 30, 2011.
      6. Glenn Greenwald, "Obama's kill list policy compels US support for Israeli attacks on Gaza," Guardian, Comment is Free, Nov. 15, 2012.
      7. 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.
    18. e) All of the above.
      1. U.S.Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation.
      2. Jewish Voice for Peace.
      3. Stolen Beauty.

     
    Stephen R. Shalom teaches political science at William Paterson University and is on the editorial board of New Politics.
     

  • 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.

    China-chart1

    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]

    China-chart2

    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

    1. 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.
    2. Edward Wong, “Ending Congress, China Presents New Leadership Headed by Xi Jinping,” New York Times, Nov. 15, 2012.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. 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).
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Au Loong Yu gives this description in China’s Rise.
    11. For a handy timeline of China’s leaders see: “The Politburo’s Growing Number of Influential Leaders” in the New York Times.
    12. Martin Jacques, When China Rules the World (London: Penguin, 2012 [2009]), p. 5, citing a Goldman Sachs study of 2007.
    13. Jacques, When China Rules the World, Chapter 10, “China as a Rising Global Power,” pp. 406-88.
    14. 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

  • Michael Lebowitz Tries to Tackle "Real Socialism"—And Misses

    Michael A. Lebowitz. The Contradictions of "Real Socialism": The Conductor and the Conducted. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2012. 222 pp., $15.95

    Initially, I was very enthused at the chance to read and review Michael A. Lebowitz's Contradictions of "Real Socialism," expecting to find an incisive analysis of how and why the countries of "real socialism"—those heir to the Bolshevik legacy, no matter how distorted, developed after the October Revolution of 1917—failed as they did, ending their reigns of "socialism" with either the restoration of capitalism itself, as in the former USSR and Eastern Europe; or the triumph of capitalist institutions and investments within the building of what survived as "socialism," as in China and Vietnam.[1] Unfortunately, I was to be disappointed: despite salient elements within Lebowitz's analysis, in which he tries to analyze this "real socialism" as a socio-economic system with fundamental characteristics and contradictions the way Marx had analyzed capitalism as a system in Capital, he's departed crucially from the historicity of Marx by creating an economic model of "real socialism" that is ahistorical and schematic. Thus, Contradictions of "Real Socialism" lacks the richness of both historical context and specific referents found not only in Capital, which can be seen as developing a general schematic of capitalism, but certainly in the historical writings of Marx, in which this schematic is provocatively enhanced, expounded and qualified through rich and detailed expositions of the actual working-out of events.

         Lebowitz does too much and too little at the same time—as he himself explains in his "Preface," numerous elements and investigations he wished to include in this volume would have to wait for later books; so that, in Contradictions, he's left us instead an ahistorical bare-bones model of "real socialism" that confines itself only to relations between workers, managers and economic planners as they were within the aggregate factory workplaces—omitting the macroeconomics of this "real socialism" nationwide, and leaving out all consideration of the way political decisions made by the leaders of "vanguard Marxist," i.e., Marxist-Leninist, parties impacted the economic actors. He also confines his consideration to the palpable repression that existed in "real socialist" societies to the way workers' initiatives were frustrated on the factory floor, and how workers were channeled into specific modes of working—leaving out entirely the subjugation of the arts, culture and literature to Marxist-Leninist Party norms; all discussion of political repression; and the role of gender and nationality in framing economic and political decisions, decision-making, and access to political and economic power. He leaves us, then, with only a detailed economic model of one part of the system of "real socialism," the microeconomic workings of individual enterprises, and the social relationships between planners, managers and workers as they develop in the course of enterprise performance. All else has been abstracted out of consideration by this partial model which Lebowitz considers the essential, systemic whole.

         Lebowitz justifies this ahistorical schematism on p. 10, where he writes:

    "To select and blame a different element from the combination that made up Real Socialism—for example, underdeveloped capitalism, the lack of world revolution, short men with moustaches? That can be an entertaining parlor game but in the absence of a careful consideration of precisely how various elements within Real Socialism were interconnected and interacted to make up that whole, can we really understand its fate? Which were inherent, indeed necessary, aspects and which were contingent, merely historical elements? [Emphasis in original.]"

    While Lebowitz has a point here, he ignores the way in which these "contingent, merely historical elements" shaped and defined the "inherent, indeed necessary, aspects" that came to be "real socialism" as we understand it. Especially as, for the sake of his analysis developed in Contradictions, he takes as his referent for "real socialism" the system in existence in the USSR and Eastern Europe from 1950 through its collapse in 1989-1991, a system that by 1950 already had its "inherent, even necessary, aspects" firmly in place as they had been put there by a "short man with moustache" and, before that, by two men with goatees, whose "contingent, merely historical" political leadership of "real socialism" in the USSR established that system, dictated what it would be and would not, and proclaimed it as the model of socialism in practice to Marxists worldwide. Many of the "inherent" elements which Lebowitz scathingly criticizes—the inequality, the power of managers, the tussles between managers and planners, the bonuses for achieving or exceeding production goals—were those that had won out after "contingent" battles over policy in the top echelons of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. While Lebowitz has a point when, in his model, he notes, emphasizes and develops the similarities, the parallels, between the "real socialism" of the USSR and the "real socialism" of the various countries of Eastern Europe (without specifically referencing them by name), he fails to note that there were also differences and departures; jus as, historically, there were similarities and parallels in the capitalism of England, France and Germany, there were differences and departures as well—not insignificant in how different social systems both within "real socialism" and capitalism specifically developed.

         Yet Lebowitz's model is definitely not without merit. His model clearly defines and delineates the social roles played by three distinct strata within the economic system of "real socialism" whose interests were often antagonistic, but which the system required be brought into equilibrium: the planners, who set production goals with the aim of increasing quantity of output, and often arbitrarily; the plant managers, who had the most to gain materially through lowered goals, which could be met more easily and thus the managers rewarded with bonuses for meeting or exceeding production; and the workers themselves, the most powerless of the three strata, who, despite their formal "ownership" of the means of production, were the least able to change the production goals and the conditions of the workplace. Thus did the system resemble a Hobbesian "war of all against all," pitting planners against managers, and both against workers, who embodied under this system of "real socialism" a concrete manifestation of alienated labor that could only resist the ukases of planners and managers indirectly. For developing the details of the workings of his model, Lebowitz relies heavily on the works of Janos Kornai, a Hungarian economist under "real socialism" who first wanted to reform the system in place, but later emigrated to the United States and became a neoliberal. With extensive help from Kornai's writings, Lebowitz develops this truncated system in detail, and shows the various interactions and direct thwarting of other actors' efforts when they crossed the narrow material interests of one of the actors, but confines all this to only looking very deeply at one aspect, as noted above—the economic battle as played out on the factory floor.

         While pointedly noting that all three of these strata were supposed to be in "harmony" by the mythology of official Marxism-Leninism, and thus appropriately all members of the same Marxist-Leninist party, this membership subsumed and hid not only the antagonisms within these three strata, but also obscured and hid the real loci of power, which essentially lay with the managers against both the planners (who were often only able to plan in a formalistic sense) and the workers themselves. But the weakness of this model, as noted above also, is its ignoring the role of the political leaders of the party, who more often than not decided the economic goals to be achieved, whether economically feasible or not, and told the economic specialists what they were to do and not to do. As Lebowitz notes acidly from the beginning, indeed makes the centerpiece of his analysis of "real socialism" as a system, the result was a system plagued with chronic shortages and hoarding at all levels, for "real socialism" was, at bottom, economically very inefficient. Yet Lebowitz, a retired professor of economics, limits himself to a sociological analysis and never discusses the economic problems of inefficiency—of misallocation of resources, of periods of stagnation in the production of goods followed by frenzied speedup and overtime as the deadline for meeting production goals approached, the bureaucratic nature of the planning mechanism itself, and the sacrifice of quality in order to achieve quantity. Lebowitz's analysis could've definitely benefitted here from the study of two basic works on what went wrong with the "real socialist" system, Irwin Silber's Socialism: What Went Wrong? (Pluto Press, 1994) and David Schweickart's analysis of the Soviet planning system in Against Capitalism (Cambridge University press, 1993), where he pointedly notes (p. 87), following Alec Nove, that some 50,000 industrial enterprises produced 12 million identifiably different products, where the information required for planning such production would tax even an optimally efficient planning mechanism.

         At fault in all this, Lebowitz argues, is the notion of "vanguard Marxism," which is, of course, classical Bolshevik-legacy Marxism-Leninism, although he doesn't say so; and the solution, for Lebowitz, is a socialism that embodies genuine workers' democracy and the participation in the decision-making process. Here he follows many an argument presented by the workers' councilist and anarchist critics of Bolshevism. Certainly this is to be preferred to the authoritarian, hierarchical brand of socialism that came to be called "real socialism" or "already-existing socialism." Yet, in his paean to workers' democracy one can't help but wonder if Lebowitz isn't romanticizing workers, and that somehow collective ownership of the means of production coupled with workers' participatory democracy isn't the automatic panacea Lebowitz assumes it to be. For him, in the last part of the book, where he discusses the virtues shown by workers both under capitalism and "real socialism," Lebowitz seems ready to see workers qua workers as embodiments of St. Francis of Assisi; yet even the best of human beings can be very flawed at times, can let down and be let down by the ordinary vicissitudes of life.

         Isn't it better to follow Eugene Debs on this when he states, "Socialism will not make men good, but it will make them better"? While we can certainly applaud Lebowitz's conception of socialism as an efficacious means to make ordinary workers (which actually embodies far more than just factory hands) "rich human beings," as Lebowitz puts it several places, wouldn't it be far better for the cause of socialism not to aim for such empyrean goals, but settle for a slower pace embodied in settling for less than maximal social transformation, but achieving concrete, but more limited, results that make people's lives demonstrably, measurably better? Haven't we socialists done a disservice to socialism itself by expecting too much of it? With the result that "real socialism" is what came to be, what got accepted and rationalized as socialism; and we socialists are stuck with its unfortunate, too often unpalatable, legacy—which itself becomes an obstacle, for achieving a humane 21st Century socialism.

     

    Note

    1. In referencing certain counties as (or having been) "socialist," as well as in using the terms "Marxist-Leninist" and "Bolshevik legacy," I am using them in their colloquial senses, and not distinguishing between Stalinist and non-Stalinist conceptions of the terms.

     

    This review is dedicated to my academic advisor in economics at Indiana University-Bloomington, Scott Gordon, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Economics and History and Philosophy of Science, now 88: excellent and accomplished scholar, encouraging friend and supporter who pushes me to do my best consistently, and self-professed "man of the left."

     

    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.

  • Communism Confronts the Mexican Revolution

    Daniela Spenser. Stumbling Its Way Through Mexico: The Early Years of the Communist International. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2011. Translated by Peter Gellert. 205 pages. Notes. Index.

    Daniela Spenser, the accomplished Mexican historian, has produced an assiduously researched, meticulously detailed, and very nicely written account of the early years of Communism in the Mexican Revolution (1918 to 1922, with a less detailed epilogue carrying events up to 1929). She argues that the Bolshevik international revolutionary project and the Communist International had only a sketchy understanding of Mexico and thus failed to grasp the powerful impact of the country’s revolution. That fundamental problem was complicated by the fact that the Mexican Communist party was founded principally by foreigners who themselves did not have a profound knowledge of Mexican society and politics. Other problems included the relative isolation of the foreign Communist International agents sent to foment revolution in Mexico, as well as the early party’s lack of resources. Her principal point is that the experience of the Mexican Revolution and the achievement of the Constitution of 1917 gave Mexican workers an investment in the new revolutionary state with which the Communists could not compete in the early years. In the excellent translation by Peter Gellert, the book is a fascinating read.

    It’s a little irregular to review a friend’s book, so I should inform readers of this journal, that in 1995 when I arrived in Mexico with a Fulbright fellowship to study a group of American war resisters who had been among the founders of Mexican communism, my host institution, the Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropolgía Social (the Center for Research and Higher Studies in Social Antrhopolgy or CIESAS), assigned me to work with Daniela Spenser who was also doing research on Mexican Communism. We shared documents, I offering her copies of documents in English that I had from the Library of Congress, the U.S. Military Intelligence Division, and the U.S. Bureau of Investigation, while she gave me copies of documents from the Russian archives, principally in English or Spanish. Daniela also shared with me her knowledge of the various Mexican archives in which I was working. Her assistance helped me with the research for what became my Ph.D. dissertation “‘Slackers’: American war resisters and Communists in Mexico, 1917-1927” (1998). We became friends, though sometimes over the years we argued about our somewhat differing interpretations of the Bolsheviks, the Communist International, and the Mexican revolution. In the end, I think our views have converged, probably because she has convinced me and I have moved in her direction. I might also confess that the translator, Peter Gellert, is a friend with whom my wife and I had shared an apartment in the 1980s and whom I had introduced to Daniela.

    Daniela’s research during those years resulted in her fine book, The Impossible Triangle: Mexico, Soviet Russia and the United States in the 1920s, based on her Ph.D. dissertation earned at the University of North Carolina, as well as many scholarly articles and most recently Stumbling Its Way Through Mexico. She has also written a book on the history of the Mexican Communist Party during the presidency of Lázaro Cárdenas (1934-40), available only in Spanish; its title translates as Unity at All Costs: the Third International during the presidency of Lázaro Cárdenas (Unidad a toda costa: la Tercera Internacional en México durante la presidencia de Lázaro Cárdenas, 2007).

    Daniela brings to her scholarship a unique personal history. Born in Czechoslovakia, her parents fled the country in 1968 at the time of the Soviet invasion that crushed the democratic aspirations of the Prague Spring. Her father, a radio broadcaster, and her mother, a high level interpreter, fled to England where Daniela studied at the university. As a young adult, she same to the United States and went to Florida where she worked for a while in hotels as a waitress. She once said to me, “I saw that I didn’t like American capitalism much better than I liked Soviet Communism.”

    Looking for an alternative to the two, Daniela turned to the developing world. She moved to Mexico’s most southern state, Chiapas, where she worked first with coffee coops and later with the Mexican government’s state-owned coffee company, becoming an authority on coffee who years later was sometimes called upon as a consultant. In the 1980s, she moved to Mexico City and became a researcher at CIESAS where one of her early books was a history of the Socialist Party of Chiapas (El Partido Socialista Chiapaneco: rescate y reconstrucción de su historia, 1988).

    In Stumbling, Daniela narrates the history of the early Communist Party in Mexico through a series of short biographies, first of the foreign founders—American Charles Francis Phillips, the Indian M.N. Roy, and the Russian Mikhail Borodin—and then of the Communist International’s agents in Mexico—Louis Fraina and Sen Katayama. The biographies and the narration are set within both the history of the Communist International and within the economic, social and political history of Mexico. All of this is grounded in Daniela’s command of primary sources in Spanish, English, and Russian from Mexican, American and Soviet archives as well as a mastery of the vast secondary literature on Communism.

    Daniela’s conclusion is that the Bolshevik’s early projection of world revolution as a uniform prescription for country’s around the world disoriented would-be Communist revolutionaries in Mexico who did not grasp the significance of the profound revolutionary experience and the achievements codified in the Constitution of 1917. Later, the Communist International agents Fraina and Katayama, proved incapable of grasping the complexity of the agrarian movements and the labor movement before the International ended that phase of its attempt to establish a Communist party in Mexico. In the Epilogue, Daniela discusses the International’s Bolshevization of the Communist parties, including the Mexican Communists, and their alternating strategy of first attempting to permeate the agencies of the government of Plutarco Elías Calles and then becoming involved in schemes to overthrow it. All of the early attempts to found a Communist Party bore little fruit, and only after Joseph Stalin came to power in the Soviet Union and in the International was a Communist Party successfully installed in Mexico, though that was an altogether different thing than what had been envisioned by the Communists of the teens and early twenties.

    A few of the handful of early Mexican Communists no doubt had the idea of creating an independent revolutionary socialist movement. The power of the Mexican revolution and the more distant power of the Soviet revolution made that impossible. By the late-1920s, not only the Communists, but also the more deeply rooted and larger anarchist labor movement had also been effectively suppressed. Other social movements were coopted, often after their leaders had been assassinated. By 1929 Calles had founded a state party and during 1930s Lázaro Cárdenas brought the peasant, labor and popular sectors into the state party which somewhat later was named the Institutional Revolutionary Party. Not until the late 1960s would there again be an independent left movement in the country, but then that too would submerge itself in the late 1980s into the Party of the Democratic Revolution founded by Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas. It seems that every time Mexico succeeds in creating an independent left movement, either the moth flies into the fire, or the flames flicker and catch the moth.

    While beginners in the study of Mexican Communism will still want to start with Barry Carr’s Marxism & Communism in Twentieth Century Mexico (1992), anyone who wants more detailed information and a more profound and updated understanding of the early years will turn to Daniela’s Stumbling.

  • Workers' Control: Toward a Revolutionary Transformation

    Immanuel Ness and Dario Azzellini. Ours to Master and to Own: Workers’ Control from the Commune to the Present. Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2011. 443 pages. Notes. Bibliography, Index. Paperback $19.

    Virtually every crisis of modern capitalism from the late nineteenth century to today has been accompanied by workers’ strikes, insurgencies and sometimes revolutions in which workers have taken over and run their workplaces. Workers took control of their factories through their strike committees, factory committees, and workers councils. Sometimes they did so in collaboration with a working class political party that was also fighting to create a workers’ government, at other times they saw their workplace committees themselves as the government. Always workers fought the capitalist class of financiers, industrialists, and merchants, and sometimes they struggled with a socialist government or against a dictatorial communist state. Sometimes the experiments in workers’ control, hamstrung by capitalist or state bureaucracies, were strangled in red tape and buried in government decrees. At other times, often in the most important cases, they were crushed by bloody counter-revolution. Almost always briefly, workers showed that they had the capacity not only to work, but also to manage a factory, and sometimes even to administer an industry. In the course of these all too brief experiments in workers’ control, they showed how an entire society might be run differently, for the benefit of all and not only for the wealth and power of a few.

    Now, in the first comprehensive volume since the nearly forty year-old Workers’ Control: A Reader on Labor and Social Change, edited by Gerry Hunnius, G. David Garson, and John Case (Vintage, 1973), Immanuel Ness and Dario Azzellini have produced Ours to Master and to Own: Workers’ Control from the Commune to the Present, a collection of essays by 23 authors describing a wide variety of these experiences of workers’ control from a remarkable number of countries: France, England, Germany, Russia, Italy, Spain, Yugoslavia, Poland, Indonesia, Algeria, Argentina, Portugal, India, Venezuela, Brazil, Canada and the United States. In all of these countries between 1870 and 2010 we see efforts by workers to run everything from industry and agriculture to government offices and public services. When workers in the face of a crisis—economic collapse, war, or revolution—find themselves forced to reorganize production, they often also make it both more efficient and more humane, as well as more gratifying because they have taken ownership and control of the workplace. All of the essays provide fascinating accounts of workers’ struggles for control while dealing with the particular historical realities of their time.

    There are too many different experiences here to review them all, but we might mention a few: In David Mandel’s essay “The Factory Committee Movement in the Russian Revolution,” we see workers take control of their factories under capitalism, then play a part in a socialist revolution, and finally deal with the centralization of power by the newly founded Soviet State. In Andy Dugan’s essay “Workers’ Democracy in the Spanish Revolution, 1936-1937,” dealing with the period of the civil war and the struggle between Francisco Franco’s fascist Falange and the Spanish Republic, we see the anarchist workers of Catalonia decreeing and managing collective property under workers’ control, as they face opposition not only from the capitalists but also from the Spanish Republican government. Jafar Suryomenggolo’s essay “Workers’ Control in Java, Indonesia, 1945-46,” shows how the workers’ control that emerged during the independence revolution against Japan and then the Netherlands became stifled by the new nationalist state. Samuel J. Southgate’s essay “From Workers’ Self-Management to State Bureaucratic Control: Autogestion in Algeria,” presents a similar account of developments there following the Algerian revolution.

    Today, as workers and those on the left are attempting both to create a new labor movement and a new conception of socialism, these essays challenge us to think about the complicated relationships between workers’ rebellions, labor unions, workplace organization, political parties, and the state. These essays suggest that meaningful change will have to come from below, from democratic movements of working people in their workplaces, and that a fight for a democratic socialist society will have to be one that forces unions, parties and a genuinely democratic government to express the needs and desires of those working people. Sheila Cohen, author of one of the four introductory essays, hers titled “The Red Mole: Workers’ Councils as a Means of Revolutionary Transformation,” argues, as her title says, that the most important thing about all of these experiences is that they were the first step, the partial expression, the beginning of a revolutionary transformation. When workers begin to control their workplaces, the experiences recounted in this book suggest, it is also possible that working people might control the society and transform the government to create a truly human society.

    Manny Ness has generously donated copies of this book to the UE Research and Education Fund in order to support the cross-border work of the United Electrical Workers (UE) and Frente Auténtico del Trabajo (FAT). For each tax deductible contribution of $25.00 or more, UEREF will send you a copy of this book. To make a contribution, click here.

    Thanks for your solidarity!

  • Pleased by the election results?

    In following commentary on Obama’s victory, I’ve been struck by the extent to which fear has driven people’s votes. Response to Obama’s re-election has been a sigh of relief (that we have been spared a Republican reign of terror) or an intensification of the fear felt (and drummed up) on the Right about our enduring four more years of a socialist president (I wish!) bent on destroying the country.  Sarah Palin’s interview describing her disbelief at Obama’s victory was typical. What’s  revealing about her incredulity is that it shows how much she and the Right believe their own propaganda, how captive they are to their own ideology. Some of my facebook friends, mostly education activists fight the neoliberal “deforms” of privatization of schools, deprofessionalization of teaching, and tacher union-busting are savoring this victory.  Others are more ambivalent, questioning what Obama’s re-election means for teachers and students in the nation’s public schools. As I watched coverage of the Obama headquarters party, I thought about how the Chicago teachers who were at the Obama victory party felt, knowing that they had been striking against a vicous Mayor who was his former chief of staff, against he policies Obama’s administration has made its hallmark.A UK comrade summed up my own response: “I guess we must be pleased that Romney wasn’t elected even if we aren’t particularly pleased that Obama was – is that right?”  Obama’s victory means continuation of policies that do harm.   School reform, neoliberal syle – rather than a robust job creation program –  will be made the chief instrument to end poverty. Charter schools, which end democratic control of school systems, will be pressed as a panacea for improving educational inequality.  Standardized testing will allow corporations to control what is taught and how students and teachers are measured. So, take that sigh of relief that Romney has lost and enjoy the victory – but don’t make the same mistake Sarah Palin does. We need to recognize that neoliberalism has done an effective job of frightening people that there is no alternative for them or their children other than the educational program Obama/Duncan have advanced. Our job in the next four years is to show them that we have another vision and will fight for it.  Yes, against our opponents in both parties, including the President just elected.

  • Interview with Socialist Alternative Candidate Kshama Sawant

    Andrew Sernatinger: I’m speaking today with Kshama Sawant, a socialist running for a seat in the Washington State House of Representatives against Democrat Frank Chopp, presently the House Speaker. Kshama is a lecturer in economics at Seattle University and Seattle Central Community College, and is a member of Socialist Alternative. Kshama, thanks for speaking with me today.

    Kshama Sawant: Thank you for having me.

    AS: I wanted to do this interview because there are so few left electoral campaigns in the US, and when they happen I think they’re worth our attention and some examination. If it’s alright with you, I’d like to start at the beginning. Why did you decide to run for the Washington State Legislature, and what politically motivates this campaign?

    KS: I think at the outset I should say that as a socialist and an activist in Socialist Alternative, we have a slightly different approach to elections or any other campaign for that matter. I don’t unilaterally decide that I want to run for office, rather the decision is about whether to run an election campaign as socialists or not, and then the people who are in the organization democratically decide who should be the candidate. I think that’s important to mention in itself because it demonstrates what vision we have for a future society: where genuine democracy, meaning genuine rights to make decisions that affect peoples’ lives, is at the center.

    And as far as why we decided to run this campaign, I think our observation about political events in recent events is the answer. We live in very changed times since the last year. We’ve seen the Arab Spring, the Egyptian and Tunisian Revolutions, the Wisconsin uprising of the public sector, and the Occupy Movement. And in the United States the Occupy Movement really was a watershed event and it broke the silence on some things that people had been thinking about but had not been able to express. Meaning the deep economic inequality, the outrage at how the rapacious and greedy banks who caused the financial collapse were the ones getting bailed out while there were massive budget cuts to education and social services, enormous levels of foreclosures of ordinary people who had lost their jobs. So there is a lot of latent anger in American society and Occupy really crystallized that and brought it to the surface.

    Our campaign is inspired by our involvement in Occupy, and we thought that the time was right for the Left to run candidates. In fact, I would say that many more candidates on the left should have run in this election year. I hope that in the coming years there will be a confluence of bigger movements of young people and older people and disabled and workers along with grassroots campaigns.

    AS: Why did you decide to run for State office? Is there any reason in particular or it just happened to be something that was available?

    KS: Primarily it was based upon where we could run a strong campaign, but it’s also a very interesting phenomenon that’s happening here. We’re running against Frank Chopp, who is the Speaker of the House and the most powerful legislator in Olympia [the capitol of Washington]. He has been in the Legislature for seventeen years and the speaker for ten years. Our campaign is raising critical points, not only about him but also of the entire Democratic Party. Statewide what we’re seeing is brutal attacks against funding for education and healthcare and other social programs, including disability.

    It’s an interesting state because the Democratic Party has been in the majority for years, in both the House and Senate. They also have had the Governor’s Mansion for years. What we’ve seen is not what you might expect with liberal or progressive policies, but actually Washington State happens to have the most regressive tax system in the entire nation. The state also happens to be the home of major multinational corporations like Boeing, Microsoft, Amazon, Starbucks and so on, which pay historically low taxes on their profits.

    We thought this was an especially striking situation where we have a phenomenally wealthy state where basic needs of people are not being satisfied. We hear this rhetoric over and over from the Democrats that, “we’re trying to save education and healthcare but we can’t because we need to balance the budget and this is the only thing we can cut.” But that is a blatant lie because they could be raising taxes on corporations and the super wealthy. One fact I’ll quickly mention is that the Seattle metropolitan area has the tenth largest concentration of super-wealthy people, households who have at least $30 million.

    Our campaign is calling for full funding of free, good quality education, single-payer healthcare and high-quality public transit. We know that all this can be funded if we had political representation in Olympia that could boldly and courageously argue for taxing corporations and the super wealthy.

    AS: To clarify, you’re running as the Socialist Alternative candidate in Washington. Is Socialist Alternative a party in Washington or how does that work?

    KS: We are primarily an activist organization, but for the purposes of this campaign we are running as a party. I am running as the Socialist Alternative candidate and that’s what shows up on the ballot.

    AS: You made reference earlier to the Occupy movement. How does your campaign relate to Occupy, and does what remains of Occupy see your campaign favorably and support your initiatives?

    KS: Our campaign relates to Occupy in the sense that we are running this campaign in an era after Occupy has happened. There is a political space now where people are sick and tired of being silenced and accepting the status quo. That changed political atmosphere and consciousness is very much an outcome of this year of movements, which Occupy has been a part of. That has very much to do with why this campaign has been so successful already.

    I would say that for a first campaign running on a shoe-string budget, running openly as socialists this has already been a trail-blazing campaign. We were written in by a community campaign into this position against Frank Chopp. We won 10% of the votes against Frank Chopp where we were not on the ballot but people wrote us in. I think that is a very strong indicator of how the political mood has shifted since Occupy. It gives an indication of the times to come.

    AS: You were talking earlier about running on a shoe-string budget. The numbers your website give suggest you have about a tenth of the budget of your opponent, where you have roughly $16,000. How have you been able to organize your campaign to be so successful to get into the primary and then to where you are now?

    KS: Right, I think that it really is a testament not only to the commitment and energy that our campaign team and all our volunteers have brought in, which I have to say is incredibly humbling and amazing, but its also reflecting the hunger that people are feeling for alternatives. I have myself tabled, been out on the street handing out leaflets and talking to people in the district and outside the district about our campaign. Overwhelmingly people have been supportive of the campaign precisely because they have had enough. They’re tired of not having options.

    You can see that not only in our state race, and there’s no Republican running in our race. But nationally, if you see the enthusiasm that progressive voters had for Obama in 2008 versus what they have now, it’s a night and day difference. In 2008, women, youth, people of color went out in historic numbers to vote for Obama, but now a lot more people are probably going to stay home. Jill Stein’s campaign has gained some visibility. It shows that while people might end up voting for Democrats, its not the same as it was four years ago. Most people are just holding their nose and voting Democrat because they at least want to vote for the lesser evil. But in reality what they would like is a real alternative, a real campaign which in a genuine way represents the interest of ordinary people.

    A very important aspect of why our campaign is striking a chord with people in the district and nationally is that we are very clear about where we stand. We’re not taking any corporate donations; we do not want to be beholden to corporations. We have no interest in making lucrative careers for ourselves. We want this campaign to serve as a rallying point for bigger movements, for bigger electoral campaigns next year. We’re talking about running a slate of candidates on the left for Seattle city council, and maybe even the Mayoral race if possible.

    I think that actually not having corporate funding is helping us make a connection with people, because most people are angry that the control that corporations have on the political agenda. Its extremely refreshing for people to see a campaign that is gaining some ground that is being very principled about that.

    AS: You were saying earlier that you’re running as an explicitly pro-worker candidate. How has organized labor and other parts of the left responded to your campaign?

    KS: That’s a very interesting question because it contains some of the heart of what needs to change in the United States in order to have movements of the working class succeed. As far as endorsements are concerned, we’ve been endorsed by a local of the Communication Workers of America, Wash-Tech, and we are endorsed by a group of workers called the Organized Workers for Labor Solidarity.

    But the reality is that even though many rank and file workers may be angry about the situation and want a change, the bigger reality of the labor movement in the past thirty years is that the labor leadership is tied at the hip to the Democratic Party. Labor unions bring out tens of thousands of foot soldiers for the Democratic Party to campaign for them; they give them hundreds of thousands of dollars. Unquestioningly. Unchallengingly. Uncritically.

    That is precisely why labor is getting battered. All the gains that ordinary people have made, that the working class has made has all happened because people went out in the streets and put pressure on the Democratic Party. You didn’t get that by giving the Democratic Party money and not asking them any questions.

    AS: Earlier you said that your campaign is premised off of the idea that there is both an opening and a need for left, pro-worker candidates in this political moment. How do you respond to those like Bruce Ramsay, the Seattle Times columnist who wrote, “If the Democrats had tried to push through a hard left agenda, they probably would have quickly lost their majority.”

    KS: Bruce Ramsay is probably a more right-wing libertarian, but whether he intended to or not he actually has presented a very insightful point. The reality is that there are some well-meaning people in the Democratic Party who truly want to carry out a progressive agenda, but this is what happens: if you belong to a party whose elite is in bed with corporations, then you cannot actually carry out an agenda that is in favor of ordinary people or the working class.

    What the Democratic Party does, and this is classic of their role, is they play lip service to the working class but then their policymaking is primarily, or sometimes almost entirely, skewed in favor of big business. So its true, if Frank Chopp were to wake up tomorrow and call a press conference to say, “I’m going to fight for single payer healthcare. I’m going to fight for fully funded public education because I know it can be done, and I’m going to tax Boeing and Microsoft,” what would happen is that he would become a hero for ordinary people but he would be punished by his corporate masters. As long as he’s serving his corporate masters, he’s not going to be able to do that.

    AS: One of the interesting things about this campaign is that it’s just between a Democrat, Frank Chopp, and yourself as the socialist candidate, which eliminates charges that you could “spoil” the election and hand it to the Republicans. What are our thoughts on the significance of this and what do you think are the broader implications of the race?

    KS: I think that not having a Republican in the race makes it easier for people who are worried about the so-called “spoilers”. But to be honest, if a Republican was running in the race we wouldn’t let that stop us. This whole logic of lesser-evilism leads us nowhere. The logic is that sometimes the Democrats may appear a little bit to the left of Republicans, but you know conservative economics and capitalists always talk about “incentives”. Think about the incentive structure for the Democrats: if you’re going to vote for them no matter what they do, then they have no incentive to shape up and do something for you, which is where the pressure from mass movements comes in.

    When a campaign like ours runs, whether a Republican is running or not, it provides us an opportunity to clarify that circular logic. Yes, there is no Republican in our race so if you’re a progressive you should freely vote for us. But, also realize the politics of fear is not the answer and its never going to be the answer.

    AS: Do you feel like in your campaign specifically that the absence of a Republican has made people more attracted to your campaign who otherwise might be afraid of the “spoiler” issue?

    KS: It’s hard to say because the district is a very progressive district and both the Democrats running in this district, Jamie Peterson and Frank Chopp, are both well to the right of many of the views of this district. This is a district that loves its public transit, very pro-progressive policies on homelessness and education. The district includes two of the biggest state institutions, Seattle Central Community College and the University of Washington-Seattle, both of which have seen ridiculous amounts of tuitions increases and loss of funding.

    So it would be difficult for me to predict, but I would say that even if a Republican were running, just looking at the statistics from past races Republicans don’t usually get much of a foothold in this district. I would venture to say that even if a Republican were running we’d still be striking quite a chord.

    AS: At the end of September you actually did get to have a direct debate with your opponent, Frank Chopp. I thought it was a little bit unusual that a major party candidate agreed to the debate. Can you talk about how that went and what you thought the outcome was?

    KS: We did have debate; it was organized by the Socialist Alternative student club at Seattle University. They invited both me and Frank Chopp to the debate. Interestingly, Mr. Chopp assumed at first that it was going to be a tame forum: there wouldn’t be a real debate and both candidates would just state their campaigns and having a very nicey-nice dialog.

    When he was sent the program for the debate he was livid and he actually called one of the student members and chewed her out. We didn’t hide the fact that we’re Socialist Alternative, so it seems inconceivable that we would invite you and not have you debate our candidate. But he did come and I thought he did pretty well. I thought the debate was a really excellent opportunity for us to have a serious discussion of the political discussion between the Democrats and our campaign. (It’s on YouTube for anyone to watch.)

    Something that I wasn’t anticipating was that he has never actually had any response for why such massive cuts have been necessary for ordinary people. It’s really illuminating to have an actual challenge to that kind of framework. We can say, “No, we reject that choice. It’s a false choice. What we really need is full funding and cutting most of the funding and leaving the crumbs for us is not what I’d call saving [services].”

    In every subsequent debate he talks less like a canned politician and is trying to sound more like an activist. Simply having a genuine working class representation in opposition is forcing him to alter the language he’s presenting because he can see that people are rallying around our message. I think people should recognize that itself as a victory for this campaign. Understand that this is what puts pressure on Democrats. Not voting for Dems unchallengingly every four years, but challenging them because then they’re forced to do something about it. If we keep up this pressure, we can win actually material gains for the working class. We can win an increasing minimum wage, we could win single payer healthcare.

    AS: Most people don’t realize that Washington State has among the most regressive tax structures in the country. Washington has no income tax and politicians often claim that they need to maintain a tangle of tax exemptions to keep the multinational corporations the states houses—earlier you mentioned Boeing and Amazon and the like. How has your campaign addressed this?

    KS: Just to give you some background, in 2010 in the midterm elections there was a ballot measure, “1098” that was going to be a tax on high incomes. It failed. If you look at what happened in the run-up to the 2010 elections, when 1098 was first introduced it had two-thirds supporting it. What happened in the run-up to the general elections was that the right wing went on an all-out assault on the bill. They did an unbelievable media blitz.

    It was directed to ordinary, working class people and they said, “if you vote for this measure, then in another couple of years the taxes will come to you and not just on the wealthy.” If you look at the facts, this was completely untrue, but do you know why most people ended up voting against 1098?

    One reason was that the Democrats never counted that assault from the right wing. The Democrats are more powerful than the Republicans in this state, and they could have done their own media blitz. They could have knocked on doors. They could have been shouting from the rooftops that that was a lie and that 1098 would be good for the people. They didn’t do anything for it! I don’t remember seeing a single Democratic legislator when we were pounding the pavement for 1098.

    The second reason people voted against it is that virtually every time the Democrats have passed a revenue increase, it has been regressive. They tax things like soda, candy, gasoline and cigarettes, which affect the poorest people the most. So it was not a stretch of the imagination for people to believe that if they passed this, eventually the taxes would come on their shoulders.

    If you really want to fight for a progressive tax, then you have to take on corporate interests in a real way, not in a lip service way.

    AS: How can people support your campaign if they want to?

    KS: The first thing I would urge everyone to do is go to our website. Votesawant.org We would really appreciate financial contributions and other kinds of contributions: we need people with creative skills and ideas about how we can effectively use the last two weeks. We also want people to send us their views. If they really like our campaigns, we want to hear from them. Just get in touch with us and we’ll write back to you. If you want to know more about socialism I really invite you to have discussions with us.

    At this point I’d really stress that we need financial contributions. We have a shoe-string budget and we’re making it go as far as it can go, but we have to face the fact that we need resources to print leaflets, to have yard signs, to allow people to take time off work so that they can work on our campaign.

    AS: Is there anything else you’d like to say before we go?

    KS: I hope that people draw a lot of inspiration and energy from how this campaign has gone. Most important of all, people should have conversations with others and spark that whole discussion and debate about what needs to happen. What we need very urgently in America is not just a huge movement, but many huge movements. The only solution to this is a revolt. You realize the latent power of the working class, we are the 99% they are the 1%. There are so many more of us and the only thing holding us back is our fear.

    AS: Thanks so much for speaking with me, Kshama.

    KS: Thank you, Andrew.

    Andrew Sernatinger is an independent journalist based in Madison, Wisconsin.

  • Self Immolation and The Left: The Greens Do It Again!

    Even in the age of extreme reality television, nationally broadcasted suicides remain a blessedly rare occurrence. And so the suicide which occurred during a Huffington Post sponsored debate on third party voting probably should have received more attention that it did.

    The act in question was that of Green Party campaign manager Ben Manski who, objecting to condescending and impertinent remarks from the moderator and other participants, stalked off the set, leaving the floor to Matt Stoller, an anti Obama former Democratic Party operative by no means favorable to the Greens, conventional Democratic Party hack Emily Hauser, and, mainly, to Daniel Ellsberg who was recommending a vote for a Obama in swing states.

    This should be described as a suicide because in objective political terms it was precisely that. It is, after all, the job of a campaign manager is to acquire votes for his candidate from whatever quarters they are forthcoming. What seems to have been lost on Manski was, first of all, that Ellsberg, while voicing some strategic reservations, had, in fact, stated that he would vote for Manski's candidate Jill Stein in his home state of California.

    Second, much more important than this retail political calculus is that, as a few seconds' thought will reveal, the wholesale logic of Ellsberg's position was overwhelmingly in favor of Stein. For the other side of the coin of strategic voting recommended by Ellsberg and others is an explicit endorsement for Stein in the great majority of instances, namely in safe states.

    Should progressives actually listen to Ellsberg (and other influential leftists such as Noam Chomsky and Jeff Cohen), Stein could be assured of millions of votes in undisputed states such as New York, California and Illinois. Or in states such as Texas, where Romney is a sure winner, a small percentage but large aggregate numbers of votes would go Stein's way. The result could be the Green Party achieving the holy grail of 5% qualifying them for $20 million in federal election funds, potentially helping them to establish themselves as a viable, and not merely symbolic alternative.

    But rather than trumpeting Ellsberg's endorsement, Manski and Stoller chose to ignore it by focussing on the divisive and comparatively insignificant question of whether swing state voters should deliberately "send a message" to Obama by increasing Romney's chances to win. Stoller went further, doubting whether a Romney victory should be a cause for any particular concern, as there are areas where Obama may turn out to be worse. Regardless of the merits of this position, it is necessarily a speculative one, as no one can predict with any certainty how Romney or Obama will govern.

    What is certain is that the votes to be gained in swing states are far fewer than those available to the Greens in safe states. Should the Greens capture these and achieve their 5%, this could, combined with serious organizing at the municipal level, constitute the seeds of an actual left alternative to the Democrats. The development of an electoral wing of the now dormant but hopefully reviving protest movement, much as has Syriza in Greece, would constitute a serious threat to the neo-liberal regime-much more so than the defeat or one of its two hand-picked candidates in a national election.

    Finally, Manski could have pointed out that an explicit endorsement of a Green represents a significant concession for many among the left agenda setting media. Neither Ellsberg nor Chomsky, has, to my knowledge directly endorsed voting for a third party presidential candidate, even in the typically highly qualified and unenthusiastic form in which Chomsky couched his support for Stein this year. For Cohen, who, in a recent interview on the Real News network, defined strategic voting as voting for Obama in contested states and for Stein everywhere else, this was a much bigger step. A founding member of the Progressive Democrats of America, Cohen had both in name and deed, committed himself to reforming the Democratic Party as the only possible vehicle for progressive change. The change of allegiance to the non-partisan "Roots Action" is indicative that the Democrats can no longer count on this contingent for its critical, but effectively largely unconditional support in the past.

    It is the catastrophe of the Obama administration which has led to this fracture and it is likely to be among the first of many cracks in Democratic Party edifice which has imprisoned within it leftists, and worse, stunted the left imagination for generations. The best hope of the left is to continue to allow the Democratic Party to undermine its own foundation as the Obama administration turns on and consumes its most loyal supporters-those whom the President's good friend and chief of staff charmingly referred to as "fucking retards."

    At the same time, for it to pick up the pieces left by the near total delegitimation of the existing party system, the left needs to be ready with a serious, unified and viable political party capable of competing for and exercising state power .

    By contemptuously rejecting Ellsberg's safe states proposal Ben Manski, and others who adopt his suicidal posture, are flushing many thousands of votes down the toilet, and in so doing, have shown they are not interested in joining the battle.

    Until they recognize that seriously competing for state power is necessary to achieve it, the left will surely remain in the hole which, as this anecdotes shows, it has, to a significant extent, dug for itself.

     

    JOHN HALLE is Director of Studies in Music Theory and Practice at Bard College.

  • Lessons of the American Revolutionary Left of the 1970s

    Book review of: Michael Staudenmaier. Truth and Revolution: A History of the Sojourner Truth Organization, 1969-1986. Oakland: AK Press, 2012. Bibliography, index. 387 pages. Paperback, $19.95.

    Michael Staudenmaier’s Truth and Revolution: A History of the Sojourner Truth Organization, recently published by the radical AK Press, is a thoroughly engaging critical history of one of the most interesting revolutionary socialist groups that emerged from the radical upsurge of the 1960s and 1970s. While Staudenmaier clearly admires STO, many of whose members he knew and several of whom were his friends, this is far from being a hagiographic work. The author presents the group with all its foibles, it many frustrations and its ultimate failures, without ever letting us forget that what he admires about this group was its attempt to develop socialist theory while also being deeply committed to organizing and struggle. It is not surprising that this book is being widely read by many of the new non-state socialist groups such as Advance the Struggle and the Black Orchid Collective that have arisen out of the social movements of the last decade and become visible through their work in the Occupy movement, for today they are striving to establish a theory and practice just as STO did—and just as many other groups from a full range of left perspectives did—in the 1970s. While there are now a pile of books about the party-building efforts of the 1960s and 70s, Staudenmaier’s is the most interesting one I’ve encountered.[1]

    Perhaps I like this book so much in part because I lived in Chicago in the 1970s and knew a few of the STO members and always liked them. I was a member of the International Socialists (IS) and some of our members worked in the International Harvester tractor plant with some STO members and our two groups often collaborated, and sometimes differed, on workplace and community issues that arose there. Though STO formed part of the New Communist Movement and the IS had come out of the Trotskyist tradition, our groups overlapped in many of our political positions and in our work. We shared not only labor and community organizing experiences, but also found ourselves over the years involved in the same movements for international solidarity with the initial revolution in Iran in 1979 and with the Central American national liberation movements of the 1980s, and we shared preoccupations with the issues of African American struggles for civil rights and social justice and women’s fights for equality and liberation. Like STO, we in the IS wrestled with the problems that arise in a political organization from young people’s passionate personal relationships, with the issue of parenting and childcare, with the problems of leadership “heavies” who often seemed to make decisions without adequate consultation with the ranks. I think that anyone who was active in the left of the 1970s in almost any group would recognize themselves in parts of the STO story, and that new groups arising today will profit from Staudenmaier’s thoughtful examination of STO’s history.

    STO’s Theory

    The Sojourner Truth Organization was founded in Chicago in 1969 and Chicago remained its headquarters throughout its history, though in the 1970s and 80s the name was also applied to a network of organizations in cities mostly in the Midwest affiliated with and largely led by STO in Chicago. Several initial founders, who remained its leaders throughout most of its history, came out of Communist Party backgrounds. Don Hamerquist had been an outstanding young leader of the Communist Party who some believed would succeed its longtime chairman Gus Hall, but after attempting “to lead a coup in the party” and failing, he quit. Noel Ignatin (later known as Noel Ignatiev) had also been a Communist, but had left the CP with Ted Allen and Harry Haywood to found the Provisional Organizing Committee to Reconstitute the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party (the POC). Carol Travis was the daughter of Bud Travis, a Communist Party leader in the seizure and occupation of the General Motors plant in Flint, Michigan, by autoworkers in the strike of 1936-37. Many of the STO founders had also been members of Students for a Democratic Society (sds) and one had been a member of the Black Panthers. While STO formed part of the New Communist Movement, largely made up of Maoist organizations, it was from early on influenced by C.L.R. James who had come out of the Trotskyist tradition. Then too, Ken Lawrence had come out of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) experience, and brought the syndicalist idea into the group. Though its initial founding core had one African American and one Latina woman, both soon left the group and throughout most of its history STO was an all white organization.

    What STO’s founding members had in common was a desire to build what they understood to be a Leninist organization based on independent workplace organizing and a belief that to do so they would have to challenge the racism of white workers. The notion of the importance of organizing workers had its roots in Marx and Lenin, but it had taken on a new sense of urgency and possibility as a result of the May-June strike in Paris in 1968, the “hot autumn” of strikes in Italy in 1969, and the massive strike wave in the United States in 1970. Unlike other groups in the New Communist Movement, the International Socialists, the Maoist “parties,” and other groups that had gone into the workplace to build rank-and-file or reform caucuses within the unions, STO argued that it was necessary to build completely “independent workers’ organizations” that would not be part of unions and would not contest to control union structures and offices. The theory of independent workers’ organizations (or workers councils as they were sometimes called), principally crafted by Don Hamerquist, was one of the two distinctive theoretical and strategic ideas developed by STO.

    The other idea that STO developed and popularized was “white skin privilege,” a theory first suggested by Noel Ignatin and Ted Allen (not an STO member) in a paper called “The White Blindspot” originally written for a debate in sds in 1967. (Actually Allen had used the term in 1965 in a piece commemorating John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry; the kernel of the idea came from W.E.B. DuBois Black Reconstruction in America, 1860-1880.) White supremacy, they argued, was largely founded on white skin privilege, a set of real social and material benefits that accrued to those deemed to be white, from preferential treatment by government and police to first hired and last fired in the workplace. White skin privilege was seen as the principal obstacle to unity between black and white workers. STO argued that in the course of labor and social struggles, whites would have to repudiate their white skin privileges and show support for the struggles of African Americans and Latinos, and that by doing so, unity between white workers and workers of color would make possible a united proletarian struggle to overthrow capitalism.

    Hamerquist, who helped to develop these theories about white workers’ racism and about the nature of the union, brought in the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci whose then recently translated Prison Notebooks used the concept of “hegemony” rather than simply the state’s monopoly of force to explain bourgeois rule. (Gramsci later became enormously popular among leaders of the more social democratic New Left, who used his concept of hegemony and the “war of position” rather than a “war of maneuver” to justify their turn to the Democratic Party. And, of course, Gramsci became enormously popular in academia where his writings were used for cultural studies rather than cultural or social revolution.) Hamerquist argued that bourgeois hegemony was exercised over the working class through the labor bureaucracy and through white racism. He developed the concept of “dual consciousness” (not to be confused with W.E.B. DuBois’ use of that term), meaning that workers tended to have in their minds a bourgeois and a proletarian consciousness, and the job of revolutionaries was to help them in strengthening their proletarian consciousness. (In the political tradition from which I come, we never had such a Manichaean notion of workers’ consciousness, but tended to recognize that most people of whatever class have a “mixed consciousness”—our minds made up of residues of beliefs and concepts from our family, religious training, grammar school education, the world of teenage peers, the bombardment from commercial advertising, and politicians appeals to patriotism—the challenge being to come to think clearly about the world—Marxism helps—so that they can make intelligent choices for a revolutionary alternative.)

    While independent workers’ organizations and white skin privilege were the two key ideas that distinguished the STO from other left organizations, during the 1970s and into the 1980s, the group also developed other positions that differentiated it from the New Communist milieu out of which it had come. During the 1970s Hamerquist and Ignatin wrote important documents breaking with Stalinism: they repudiated Stalin, they rejected the notion that Khrushchev or his successors had reformed the Soviet Union, and they rejected the idea that China or Cuba were socialist states, arguing that all were state capitalist. No doubt the influence of C.L.R. James had been important in leading them to this conclusion. They also rejected the Stalinist forms of party organization, arguing that most of what the left called Leninism were actually undemocratic structures and practices that would better be called Stalinism.

    Finally, STO had throughout its history a very healthy concern about the relationship between a cadre organization or a political tendency attempting to build a revolutionary party and the movements, usually small but sometimes mass movements, in which it worked. Later in the 1970s and early 80s, STO would characterize this question between what we call in my tradition the issue of “party and class” as the issue of “autonomy.” This notion of autonomy is perhaps what Staudenmaier values most in the STO experience, though as he would be the first to admit, nowhere did the group succeed in either adequately explaining the theory or in working it out in practice. Autonomy was for STO, as it has been the other groups on the left, a slippery concept expressing the high ideal of freedom of thought and action for a social group, but constantly entangled in the questions of organizational structure, leadership, and program.

    Workplace Organizing

    Staudenmaier provides a useful chronology of the STO’s activities: from 1969-1975, workplace organizing; from 1976-1980, anti-imperialist solidarity; from 1980-1986, tendency building and direct action. During the first period of workplace organizing, STO grew to fifty members in the Chicago area, many of those members engaged in organizing in factories in Chicago and for a while in steel mills in Gary, Indiana. In those workplaces STO often put out factory bulletins with names like Talk Back and Breakout! as well as its newspaper Insurgent Worker. STO, and the several lawyers in the group, also became involved in assisting workers in plants where it did not have members. While STO was sometimes involved in heroic and inspiring struggles, as Staudenmaier’s account makes clear, the group’s labor organizing activities seldom led to the formation of stable groups in workplaces. In part this was due to STO’s refusal to run for union office—though it did sometimes tacitly support reform candidates in the unions.

    Though many STO members were in unionized workplaces, the union was not an arena of struggle for the group and consequently it could not turn its workplace struggles into institutional victories that might have changed the character of the unions. This problem was exacerbated by the fact that in many of the larger workplaces in Chicago, such as the Stewart-Warner plant, STO was only one of several left groups—from the Communist Party to the New American Movement from Maoists to Trotskyists—that had organizers in the plant, often with their own bulletins and newspaper. STO’s refusal to permit its members to run for office led to splits in the organization, as several of its best organizers, such as its leaders of the Latino caucus at the International Harvester plant, left the organization. Nowhere did STO succeed in creating the independent workers’ organization which stood at the center of its political theory.

    All of the revolutionary socialist groups on the left in the 1970s were attempting to build a revolutionary party out of their work in industrial workplaces. The STO experience might be compared to that of other leftist groups, mostly Maoists, that ran their members for election as union steward, built local union caucuses, and participated in broader union movements, such as Steelworkers Fight Back, a caucus that supported Ed Sadlowski’s campaign for president of the United Steel Workers (USW) in 1977. Local union and national campaigns gave activists an opportunity to talk not only about shop floor issues, but also about the large issues facing the union, the industry and the society. When workers found their shop floor work had an impact on union policy and relations to the employer, they achieved power, as well as a greater sense of their own power, and often also improved their wages, working conditions, and benefits. The most successful among the left organizations in such union work was IS, which was involved in initiating such caucuses in the United Auto Workers, the Communications Workers of America, as well as participating in such caucuses in the American Federation of Teachers and the USW. Most significant of these experiences was the IS’s role in establishing Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU), a long standing caucus in the Teamsters union.[2] The IS also initiated Labor Notes, the union reform newspaper and education center with biannual conventions that attracted a thousand union activists each year. While the IS initiated these projects, they were never conceived of as socialist projects and from the beginning were independent (autonomous) organizations with their own leadership, organization and resources, and programs. The collapse of the social movements of the 1970s (among African Americans, Latinos, women and students) and the end of the recent period of labor militancy with the recessions of 1974-75 and 1979-80, accompanied by the country’s rightwing administration under Ronald Reagan and depoliticization of the society, made the task of relating labor work to socialist ideas and organization a challenge for all of those on the left, with no simple answers.

    Throughout that first five years of labor organizing, STO had constant interactions with African American and Latino workers and leftists, but its white skin privilege theory proved of little use in building alliances between white workers and workers of color, while STO could never decide if it should recruit people of color to its own organization, or urge them to join an African American or Latino socialist group. STO literature often challenged white workers to give up their white skin privilege and to support the demands of African American and Latino workers, but in practice it was not always clear what this would actually mean. Most other left groups viewed STO’s white skin privilege theory as liberal and moralistic; in any case, it proved no guide to action. Based on Staudenmaier’s account, African American and Latino organizations and leaders appear to have been mystified by STO’s theory and practice. The few African American workers who joined STO during this period left in the splits. By the mid-1970s, STO was reduced to six members.

    Anti-Imperialist Work

    In 1976 STO decided that the economic and political climate was at a “lull,” suggesting that workplace organizing would not be possible for some time. The group therefore should turn its attention to theory, education, and work in the anti-imperialist movements. (This is very similar to the notion of the “downturn” developed by Tony Cliff of the Socialist Workers Party of Great Britain in 1978 and then the International Socialist Organization of the United States shortly afterwards.) So in 1977 Ken Lawrence developed the STO’s mandatory “Dialectics Course” with reading from Hegel, Marx, Lenin, Luxemburg, Gramsci, Luckacs, C.L.R. James and Mark Twain (yes, that’s the same Mark Twain you’re thinking of). STO members would take a week off work and political activities to go out into the country for these sessions in which all members participated, first as students and then as instructors. The “Dialectics Course” helped to give the STO a reputation as one of the most intellectual and theoretical groups on the left.

    Most of the group’s work at this time was in support for anti-imperialist struggles, particularly the struggle of Puerto Rico for independence. While STO worked at first with the Puerto Rican Socialist Party (PSP) a Marxist-Leninist party in Puerto Rico and the United States closely aligned with Cuba). STO eventually, however, became part of the National Liberation Movement (MLN), a collection of left groups that supported the Armed Forces of National Liberation (FALN), a Puerto Rican group that set off 120 bombs in Chicago and New York between 1974 and 1983. STO members believed that they had to support the Puerto Ricans struggle against imperialism, including the armed struggle.

    While STO sometimes differed with the FALN and other Puerto Rican groups, it would not make its political difference public because of the repression that the armed movement and other Puerto Rican organizations were facing. Consequently, STO’s own political positions became completely lost in its unconditional and apparently uncritical support of the MLN and FALN. Also, like some other left groups, STO took a position of support for the revolution in Iran, including initially backing the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who ultimately brought the rightwing Islamic dictatorship. Similarly, STO found itself becoming an unconditional and uncritical supporter of Central American revolutionary movements during the period of its participation in the solidarity groups such as the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES). Throughout the years of this work, Staudenmaier explains, STO’s member worked frantically, rushing from one crisis to another, from one organization to another, until in the frenetic race from one emergency to another some in the group felt that they lost sight of their own identity and objectives.

    Tendency Building and Direct Action

    After five years of work in the anti-imperialist movements, STO changed its direction once again, this time to tendency building and an emphasis on direct action. STO had had a wealth of organizing experience, and despite being unable to point to many significant victories, its core ideas—independent workers’ organizations and white skin privilege—had become attractive to a number of organizations in cities in the Midwest and in some other areas of the country, most notably Denver, Colorado, and Portland, Oregon, though there was also an attempt at organizing in Mississippi. Led by STO, these local collectives now put their energies into the anti-war movement that had developed against Ronald Reagan’s wars in Central America and into the new anti-nuclear movement led by the Clamshell Alliance. STO was attracted to these movements because of their commitment to direct action, though appalled by their pacifism and opposition to violence, and frustrated by the middle class, white composition of the movements.

    The attempt to build a national tendency eventually failed for several reasons. Since its founding in 1969 STO had been plagued by what Staudenmaier calls “informal hierarchies,” that is, a small group of the original founders—Hamerquist, Ignatin, Travis, and Lawrence, and a couple of others—dominated the group whether or not they held formal office. They tended to develop the positions, write the documents, maintain contacts with local and national organizations, and determine the course of the group. STO failed throughout its history to establish democratic structures and processes and that both undermined its own functioning and proved an obstacle to establishing a national tendency. Then too, STO’s core theoretical concepts—independent workers’ organizations and white skin privilege—seemed to be unrelated to the group’s work in the anti-war and anti-nuclear movements in the 1980s, work which had little to do with the workplace or with winning white workers from their racism. Finally, demography was a real factor: many of the group’s members were aging, a few were parents with responsibilities for their children, and others, having left the industrial workplace, were moving on to other careers. (Ignatin, for example, born in 1940, turned 45 in 1985, and left the group a year before it died.) While STO had been interested in building an international tendency in the 1980s together with the autonomia groups in Italy and Germany, the debilitation of its own based in the United States made this impossible.

    After STO withered away in 1986, several of its leaders went on to have interesting jobs and professions in other areas. Carole Travis, breaking with STO’s historic opposition to taking union office, became the president of United Auto Workers Local 719 at the GM Electromotive plant, serving three terms (nine years), and later went on to work for the Service Employees International Union as Director of the Illinois State Council for thirteen years. Most recently she participated in the Occupy movement in both Zuccotti Park and Oakland. Michael Goldfield became a professor of labor history at Wayne State University in Detroit focusing his research on workers’ movements and labor, and in particular on the failure of the labor unions to organize the South. Noel Ignatin became a professor at the Massachusetts College of Art, best known for his book How the Irish Became White and for his journal Race Traitor. The Sojourner Truth Organization’s survivors and successors have put its digital archives on the net, with as complete a collection as possible of its journals, newspaper, and pamphlets. Many of the former STO members retain their revolutionary socialist worldview and continue to contribute to movements as they have in some cases for fifty years.

    The Lessons of the Experience

    Sojourner Truth Organization represented only one of dozens of groups and involved only hundreds of the thousands of leftists who in the period between the late 1960s and 1980s were involved in attempts to build revolutionary organizations. American economic and political power, police repression, and the difficulties of developing a political theory and practice appropriate to the United States led all of those efforts to fail. In 1979-1981 most of the Maoist groups collapsed; the Socialist Workers Party, the largest Trotskyist group, after a belated and brief attempt at entering industry and the unions, evolved into a Castroite sect; the International Socialists split three ways between 1978 and 1979, and the New American Movement majority gave up its revolutionary vocation and merged with the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) to form the Democratic Socialist of America (DSA). The STO suffered the common fate that befell what we can call the Generation of 1968.

    After one has finished reading Staudenmaier’s book three points stand out in my mind. First, STO never succeeded in developing the democratic structures and processes necessary for an effective political organization. Second, STO’s two core theories—white skin privilege and independent workers’ organizations—never proved a guide to action. They did not accurately describe the nature of workers’ movements in the labor unions with their particular relationship to capital, nor did they adequately capture the nature of American racism in such a way as to guide the work of activists. Third, STO’s healthy concern about the autonomy of mass movements, workers’ organizations, and the struggles of African Americans and Latinos never emerged as a clear theory of any sort. While it always considered itself Leninist, STO never succeeded in describing the relationship between a revolutionary organization and the way it should relate to the movements in which it operates.

    What lay behind the STO’s white skin privilege and union abstention theories? I suspect that STO’s theories were rooted in their attempts to grapple with the strengths and weaknesses of the Communist Party out of which either they or their parents had come. The white skin privilege theory expressed their profound frustration with the widespread racism of white workers—which had become so palpable South and North during the Civil Rights movement and the War in Vietnam—and which proved so obdurate. The Communists—despite the remarkable work they had done (not without its serious problems created by the vicissitudes of the Stalinist era, but better than everyone else’s), despite their often brilliant and courageous African American cadres, and despite their remarkable and also courageous white fighters against racism—had not been able to turn the corner on the issue in a big way on a national scale—organizing the South being the big unfinished job as Goldfield has pointed out—though they did a remarkable job in various places in the CIO period. The race problem in America is just so terrible and so intractable. And then, of course, the Communists Party had by the late 1930s become tied to a strategy of trying to ally with or to penetrate the union bureaucracy, a policy which had further distorted its own Stalinist politics. So STO leaders like Hamerquist, Ignatin, and Travis attempted to think their way out of these problems by developing critical theories of white racism and the nature of the labor bureaucracy, which is to their credit. But in the end, those two theories, this self-definition, failed to serve as a guide to action and also became so important to the group’s sense of its unique identity, that theory formed a barrier to practice, that is, to mass work, recruitment, and ultimately to the group’s survival.

    Notes

    [1] Others include: Max Elbaum, Revolution in the Air: Sixties Radicals turn to Lenin, Mao and Che (New York: Verso, 2002); A. Belden Field, Trotskyism and Maoism: Theory and Practice in France and the United States (New York: Praeger, 1988); Fred Ho et al., Legacy to Liberation: Politics and Culture of Revolutionary Asian Pacific America (AK Press, 2000); Milton Fisk, Socialism from Below in the United States: The Origins of the International Socialist Organization. Fisk’s book is really a history of the International Socialists (IS) up to the founding of the ISO. There are also many memoirs of revolutionary activists of the period now available.

    [2] Dan La Botz, “The Tumultuous Teamsters of the 1970s,” in Aaron Brenner et al., eds., Rank and File Rebellion: Labor Militancy and Revolt from Below during the Long 1970s (New York: Verso, 2010). See also Dan La Botz, Rank and File Rebellion: Teamsters for a Democratic Union (New York: Verso, 1990).

  • Film Review: “The Master”

    Paul Thomas Anderson’s new film “The Master,” starring Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, and Laura Dern, might alternatively have been titled “Masters and Followers,” for the movie is as much about his followers as it is about the character of the master, Lancaster Dodd (played by Hoffman).

    Promotional Poster for The Master

    Promotional Poster for The Master

     

    The film is an exploration of what the philosopher G.W.F. Hegel called “the master-slave dialectic,” the relationship between the powerful and the powerless, between dominance and dependence. According to Rotten Tomatoes critics love this film (85%), general audiences not so much (63%), no doubt in part because the film's loose plot and unfulfilling conclusion fail to provide an adequate structure for the strong acting and brilliant cinematography. Anderson asks us to contemplate the patriarch-tribe, father-son, teacher-student, master-servant relationships, but also to ask whether or not in such a world as ours any sort of healthy, free and autonomous existence is possible, and what that would look like. The film’s attraction is its intellectual and moral challenge: can we live without masters?

         Freddie Quell (intensely portrayed by Joaquin Phoenix), a shell-shocked, broken-hearted, alcoholic, World War II Navy veteran and seaman, who in his post-traumatic state finds it hard to hold a job or establish a relationship with a woman, fleeing his accidental killing of a coworker, stows away on a ship that turns out to belong to Lancaster Dodd, the leader of a spiritual movement called The Cause. Dodd takes an immediate interest in Quell and through an intense psychoanalytic, confessional “processing” session leads his subject to face the fact of his broken heart. Master and servant bond, and even if the tie is not permanent—for Quell is one of those who would be free—the Master is powerful and for a while overpowering. (Trailer.)

    The Master and the Cause

         Through the eyes of Quell, and the fabulous cinematography of Mihai Malaimare Jr., we learn about Dodd and the Cause, a transparent fictionalization of L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology, with the same mix of science and spiritualism, hypnotism and reincarnation, healing community and outright cult. When he first meets Dodd, Quell asks what he does, to which Dodd replies, “I do many, many things. I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist, a theoretical philosopher.” Dodd’s Cause, combining Christian perfectionism, Freudian psychoanalysis, spiritualism, and pseudo-science—just like Hubbard’s Scientology—proselytizes through a process of personal manipulation and intense brain-washing. (See here for a documentary with an interview of L. Ron Hubbard.)

     

    Hoffman as Lancaster Dodd, The Master

    Hoffman as Lancaster Dodd, The Master

     

        Hoffman as Dodd is appropriately magisterial, paternal, and pompous, while at the same time garrulous, intimate and sentimental, never a tyrant but rather the all-wise, all-powerful father beaming down on his tribe. Paul Thomas Anderson understands that the master of a cult is never simply a charlatan, but always as much self-deceived as he is deceptive, as monomaniacal as he is manipulative. In this case Hoffman’s young wife Peggy (Amy Adams)—a character in the story which apparently has no parallel in the life of L. Ron Hubbard—is the one person not under his control. She is his more opportunistic partner, the organizer of his household and entourage, and at times the driving force in his latest project.

    The Nature of the Cult

         Set in the immediate post-war period, the film is also an examination of what author David Riesman, a sociologist of that era called The Lonely Crowd (1950) of modern American life with its “other-directed individuals” looking for meaning and direction usually from corporate advertising and their suburban neighbors. Those unsatisfied by the subdivisions and consumerism—the displaced and disoriented—sought direction and solace elsewhere. Dodd and the Cause, as suggested by the case of Quell, provide spiritual guidance and do social work for the lost, the broken, and the sick, while for the wealthy and well-off they provide meaning to those whose lives seem meaningless. Throughout the film as Dodd wanders from San Francisco to New York to Philadelphia, staying in the homes of the well-to-do, he conducts séances, gives lectures, and in general inspires his well off followers. In New York City, however, an argument with a critic and an altercation involving Quell lead to buyers’ remorse and Dodd is arrested and sued for bilking a foundation and practicing medicine without a license.

         All of this, of course, is in the nature of the cult: the enlightened guru, the inner circle of the cognoscenti, the mystical knowledge, the community of believers, good works or social welfare, the militant defenders of the faith, but also the financial shenanigans, the trouble with the law, the inevitable persecution and flight. And sometimes too there are martyrs. The cult speaks to those societies disrupted by modernization, to those individuals whose personal lives have been ruined by abuse, violence, divorce, untimely death, unemployment and eviction, or because they make up the downtrodden and the down-on-their-luck. The guru provides clarity to the confused, answers to the questioners, a destination to the seekers, and perhaps most important a community to the lonely, the alienated, and the desolate. In a world that for many is a spiritual vacuum, the guru and his cult provide a surfeit of the spirit. Dodd/Hoffman is the friendly face of the guru, the father, the guide.

         All of this is so familiar to us in the more usual religious way. We could be talking here about Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormons, Jim Jones of the Peoples Temple, Jim and Tammy Faye Baker of the Praise the Lord (PLT) Club, or anyone of dozens of Evangelical mega-church or television preachers. What’s different about Scientology or the Cause is the attempt to modernize the ancient spiritualism by combining it in some way with science or at least the aura of the scientific. We saw this at the beginning of the twentieth century when a split occurred in Madame Blavatsky’s purely spiritual Theosophist movement and Rudolf Steiner left to found the Anthroposophy movement, claiming to combine the spiritual and the scientific. Steiner too was a philosopher, scientist, and spiritual leader who blended Eastern religion and Christianity, subscribed to a kind of communitarianism, believed in reincarnation and called his Anthroposophy “the spiritual science.”

         It was the tendency of American Protestant Christianity of the Evangelical variety, and particularly the perfectionist strain within it, that led sociologist Howard P. Becker to coin the term “cult” in 1932. The cults Becker studied were the small churches constantly spun off from more mainstream Protestant faiths, resulting in myriad micro-sects each with its own unique theology. Led by charismatic preachers with mystical beliefs who created new variations of old rituals and practices, they proliferated throughout the American Bible Belt of the Lower Midwest and the South. Some of these Protestant preachers were simply hucksters retailing religion while others were conmen bilking the gullible and sometimes seducing the innocent. Fascination with that sort of cult led to Sinclair Lewis’ wonderful 1927 novel Elmer Gantry and the movie adaptation by the same title starring Burt Lancaster. Gantry portrayed by Lancaster says in the trailer, “Elmer Gantry is an all American boy. He’s interested in money, sex—and religion.” (See 1960 trailer.) We recognize that Gantry is kith if not kin of Dodd.

         While it is usually religion that spins off sects and cults as easily as the winds blow up dust devils on the prairies, politics can do so as well. Politics too has its cults. L. Ron Hubbard, who wanted one day to have his own kingdom, bears a striking resemblance to Lyndon LaRouche, the neo-fascist guru who also claims to know it all, from politics to economics to musical theory. While LaRouche represents the political cult on the far right, we also have Bob Avakian, perpetual chairman of the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party on the far left, the developer of what he calls a “New Theoretical Synthesis.” He takes pride in the cult of personality he has created around himself through the program actually called “Appreciation, Promotion and Popularization of Bob Avakian.”

    Joaquin Phoenix as Freddie Quell

    Joaquin Phoenix as Freddie Quell

     

         Sometimes the cult becomes transformed into more significant populist politics, as in the case of Huey Long, known as the Kingfish, the populist governor of and then senator from Louisiana. The master not as leader of a sect but as head of a political movement. Here we have the Evangelical preacher as radical demagogue and the search for meaning, security and community transformed into a political party organized around a personality. Robert Penn Warren’s powerful Pulitzer Prize-winning novel All the Kings’ Men, a fictionalization of Long’s career, was later made into a movie in 2006 starring Sean Penn as Willie Stark, the fictional Long. We see in this film another master who tells a younger man who works for him: “Boy, you work for me because I’m the way I am, and you’re the way you are, and that’s just an arrangement in the natural order of things.” (Trailer of All the Kings’ Men.)

         Toward the end of “The Master,” Quell has decided to leave The Cause and Dodd says to Quell, “Well, see if you can live without a master, for if you can, you will be the first human being in all of history to do so.” Dodd’s suggestion that we all live with masters is the film’s great question and challenge. Liberals and conservatives in our society claim to value the individual and his or her rights above all, yet we live in a society where for most the development of their individual abilities and personal fulfillment are not possible. The anarchists say “No God, No Master,” (“Master” in this case meaning boss) and “No Church, No State,” slogans that raise the idea of personal autonomy within the community of producers. Socialists envision a society organized around the idea that a society of abundance, collective ownership and democracy would allow the development and fulfillment of the individual. Yet socialist revolution has ended in the past in authoritarian states. The society without masters or servants remains a dream.

  • Movie Review: “Death by China,” a film by Peter Navarro

    To call this feature-length film xenophobic, fear-mongering and hysterical almost understates the case. The whole thing is so over-the-top that, like a bad horror movie where you can see the strings moving the monster, it leaves us numbed and bored or perhaps laughing. Yet it’s not funny.

         “Death by China” opens with shoppers happily buying cheap Chinese products, turns to closed American factories, then to unemployed workers. Talking heads tell us that China, without workers’ rights or environmental controls, competes unfairly with American workers. The animation shows jobs rolling away to Chinese factories, as Chinese bombers, labeled “money manipulation” or “trade deficit,” bomb the American capitol repeatedly. Someone comments, “One day they’re going to own us.”

         China is shown as the conqueror of Tibet, as the persecutor of the Falun Gong (imprisoning its believers and harvesting their organs), and as the power behind Iran and Pakistan. Chinese products shown in graphic images threaten the lives and health of Americans, including poisoning American children, as well as killing American pets. Chinese pollution, dragged across the Pacific by a Chinese bomber, covers the United States with smog while dropping particulate matter. We see Chinese preparations for massive military buildup and the troops strutting and missiles rolling through Tiananmen Square, as an authority tell us that China “is the only country in the world preparing to kill Americans.” A Chinese knife stabs into the heart of a stars-and-stripes map of America, and the blood and life ooze out. (For a taste of this film, see the trailer.)

         While most of the incidents in the film are true, simply turning from one to another does not help us understand the situation any better. When the movie’s over, we don’t know more about China than most of us did when we went in, and in fact, its oversimplifications of the reality of China and its impact on the world would leave us knowing less, if we could have believed them.

         The film seems to be modeled on those 1950s anti-Communist films that mixed cartoons, historical footage and expert voices in the same way. In the end, the film may be so crude that it becomes almost comic, but the sentiments in it and the fears it plays to could lead to tragic consequences if its virulent nationalism were to take hold in the minds of anxious people and find expression in ambitious parties and politicians.

    AFL-CIO Sponsors Showings

    Who’s promoting this bizarre film with its crude cartoons and Cold War rhetoric? Organized labor. This month, in big cities and small towns throughout Ohio the AFL-CIO’s local labor councils are sponsoring a tour of Peter Navarro and showing of his feature length film “Death by China,” based on the premise that America’s central problem is an on-going and losing trade war with China, a conflict every bit as serious as a genuine military conflict. And failure to deal with trade policy now, Navarro suggests will almost inevitably lead to real military conflict in the not too distant future. America’s trade policy, the film argues, has permitted the Chinese to take over American markets, become America’s chief creditor, and undermine American security. Both at the opening and the end of the film there were brief statements that America’s enemy is the Chinese government, not the Chinese people, but those comments could not begin to temper the dominant message: that the Chinese nation threatens the American nation, and that we have to unite to stop them.

         Only in the last third of the film does Navarro begin to argue that the real problem is multinational corporations such as Cisco, Ford, Motorola, Intel, Apple, Boeing and GE that move their facilities to China to take advantage of low wages, lack of environmental controls, and China’s undervalued Yuan currency in order to reap enormous profits. These corporations and the National Association of Manufacturers, we are told, use their wealth to influence Congress and to shape America’s trade policies, taking their plants, technology, and jobs to China. But, we are told by Thea Lee, the AFL-CIO’s Policy Director and Chief Economist, corporations are supposed to make a profit: that’s their job. Our job is to get the government to force corporations to behave. To do so, it is suggested, we need a political movement that can force the government to change our trade policy. Various speakers also suggest that we might also need a movement to lead a boycott of Chinese goods.

         Navarro, an economics professor at the University of California at Irvine who has run and lost three times as a Democratic Party candidate in San Diego, calls his film non-partisan. Bill Clinton and both Bushes are castigated for their roles in bringing China into the World Trade Organization. Both Republicans and Democrats are featured in the film speaking out against China’s trade policies. Liberal activist actor Martin Sheen narrates the film. Tim Ryan, a Democratic congressman from Youngstown, Ohio, who has introduced bipartisan legislation to stop China’s currency manipulation, is balanced by Dana Rohrabacher, an arch-conservative Republican congressman from California. Many of the talking heads come from the U.S. government’s U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, and hold a variety of mostly conservative views. At the same time Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, is prominently featured at a couple of points in the film and policy director Thea Lee more frequently. And clearly the AFL-CIO sees the film as raising their issues, or they wouldn’t be promoting it.

         “My goal,” Navarro told the Cincinnati audience, “is to get this issue out there and to get both presidential candidates talking about it and promising to do something about it. If Mitt Romney and Barack Obama promise to deal with our China trade policy, then my job is done,” he told a mostly labor union audience at the Esquire Theater in Cincinnati. Navarro’s film hardly seemed necessary to do that, as both candidates have featured China trade policy in their campaign advertising. Some of those in the audience suggested that politicians will promise anything.

         If trade policy is the central point of the film, the maintenance and expansion of manufacturing is the film’s secondary theme. With multinational corporations as the villains, the heroes are small- and medium-sized business owners who the film argues are the country’s job creators. A number of small business owners, men and women, commented on the ways in which Chinese competition and U.S. trade policy had led to the failure or decline of their business, or left them wondering how they would be able to continue. There is the suggestion that this group, the small business class, would be the ones to lead the fight for the future. Business men and women are the heroes. And the workers?

    What’s Missing?

    Surprisingly for a film being promoted by the AFL-CIO, unions and workers hardly appear except as officials speaking up for policy changes or as workers being laid off. Unions nowhere appear as leading a social movement to fight the multinational corporations or government policies, nor are workers shown anywhere in the film in collective action. While there is from time to time talk of a need for a movement, we don’t see workers occupying the capitol building in Madison in 2011, and we don’t see the Occupy Wall Street movement that followed it. (Actually, a couple of the people in the film appear to have been interviewed at Occupy Wall Street, though the videography lifts them out of the occupation or demonstration, and Navarro carefully avoids mentioning the Occupy movement.) Demonstrations of real power that might lead to changes in policy are nowhere to be seen in this movie.

         Also missing are the Chinese workers. The film’s Cold War approach, where China is simply described as a Communist totalitarian country fails to take into account the profound political, economic and social changes of the last few decades. Most important it leaves out of the account altogether the enormous Chinese labor movement that has arisen in the last few years. Every year China sees tens of thousands of protests involving workers and peasants, and those struggles have led both to immediate relief in some cases and to structural reforms that have given workers slightly more leeway. (See Eli Friedman, “China in Revolt.”)

         Talking to the audience in the Esquire Theater after the film’s showing, Peter Navarro suggested that we in America need to get together and change trade policy. We need, he said, to be able to compete. The film’s goal is to build a fortress America that can resist the Chinese bombers. To bring together Democrats and Republicans, small business and labor to change U.S. trade policy. Nowhere is there a suggestion of the need for a struggle to defeat the multinational corporations or to deal with the capitalist system. China, not capitalism is the problem. That's a message that should make the multinational corporate executives and medium- and small-businesspeople sleep better. Though those Chinese bombers flying toward the capitol will steal the sleep from some.

     

  • NY Times Obituary for Michael Wreszin, New Politics contributor

    In a surprisingly warm and positive obituary, the New York Times noted the death of Michael Wreszin in August of this year. The obit says of Wrezin’s writings, “His subjects were cosmopolitan, humanist thinkers who saw a growing militarism in American political culture but whose scrupulous habits of mind could make them misfits in the ideological camps they joined.” Mike Wreszin was a frequent contributor to New Politics. We miss him already.