Blog

  • The House Resolution on Yemen is a Stinker

    Image

    Congress was given a chance to stand up for basic humanity and the Constitution, but instead chose to lay an egg, a rotten one at that. It rejected a chance to use the War Powers Act to halt U.S. collaboration with Saudi Arabia’s ruthless war and siege tactics in Yemen. Instead it passed a resolution that could have been written by the Saudi kingdom’s lawyers and publicists.

    The effort started well. Reps. Ro Khanna, Thomas Massie, Mark Pocan, and Walter Jones introduced a privileged bipartisan bill invoking the War Powers Resolution to force a floor vote on ending U.S. participation in Saudi Arabia’s two year old war. Eventually H.Con.Res. 81 had 45 cosponsors and support from a large number of organizations. They had been building on a number of efforts in Congress to stop US involvement, including one this June that narrowly failed to stop the sale of $500 million in precision-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia.

    Their key legal point was that Congress had never authorized participation in what plainly is a war. They tried to invoke the Constitution, through enforcement of the War Powers Act, legislation passed in the 1970’s to hold back the tendency towards an imperial presidency and disasters like the Vietnam War.

    The action in Congress came on the heels of a U.N. warning. The Saudis had just shut down all land, sea, and air entry to Yemen, supposedly to keep out Iranian weapons. For a country devastated by civil war and Saudi bombing and totally dependent on donations of food, medicine and chemicals to treat water, it was a death knell. The U.N.’s highest official on humanitarian aid, Mark Lawcock, told reporters outside the Security Council, “There will be a famine in Yemen. It will not be like the one in 2011 in Somalia that cost 250,000 people their lives. It will be the largest famine the world has seen in many decades, with millions of victims.” Millions!

    Yet the Khanna bill ran into opposition, not just from a Republican leadership eager to support a president who firmly thinks (or tweets) that the Saudi princes “know exactly what they’re doing,” but also from the Democratic Whip, Steny Hoyer, who urged fellow Democrats to refuse to sign onto the bill. In the end the “privileged” status was stripped from the bill and it was sent to oblivion in committee and another bill put in its place and guaranteed one hour of debate.

    It was House Resolution 599, which did nothing to stop our warfare on Yemen. It had nothing in it about U.S. weapons being sold to the Saudis or U.S. mid-air refueling of Saudi bombers. Instead it provided a tendentious history of the bloodshed and our involvement, wrapped in a fig leaf of pious clauses urging the warring parties to obey humanitarian law.

    When you inspect the resolution’s “whereas” sections you see the entire situation framed with the Saudi kingdom’s legal and factual assertions. It claims that “In 2014 after years of violence and insurgency, Iranian-supported Houthi rebels seized the Yemeni capital.” The Iranian bugaboo is in there right at the start and all through the resolution. In fact this analysis is topsy-turvy. Whatever Iranian military aid the Houthis received came after the Saudis started bombing in 2015. Elizabeth Kendall writing in October of this year says the Houthis were “only marginally connected to Iran” and in fact that Iran had advised the Houthis not to conquer Yemen’s capital city. Her paper is under the auspices of The Atlantic Council project “Pushback: Countering and Exposing Iran” whose purposes can hardly be seen as friendly to the Tehran regime.

    U.S. House Resolution 599 further claims that the Hadi government is the “legitimate” and “internationally recognized” government (even though Hadi was the Vice President of Yemen’s last dictator for 17 years and was picked by the Gulf kingdoms to pacify and thwart Yemen’s democratic revolution). The resolution justifies Saudi intervention with this clause, “Whereas the Saudi-led Arab Coalition launched a military intervention in 2015 against the Houthi-Saleh alliance in response to the deposition of the legitimate Government of Yemen.” Nowhere does it mention that by law the United Nations Security Council must authorize military action by foreign or international forces, something that has never happened.

    Then there’s this section: “Whereas the Saudi-led Arab Coalition has worked to improve their targeting processes and capabilities aimed at reducing unintended civilian casualties….” This is grotesque. The Saudis have bombed schools, markets, civilian airports, hospitals, and wedding parties. In October 2016 their air force bombed a funeral home during a funeral. Hundreds of mourners were decimated.

    HR 599 mentions that Yemen is suffering 500,000 cases of cholera (the number is more like 900,000), but it emptily blames it on “the war.” There is no mention in the resolution that Saudi bombing has destroyed the clean water infrastructure

    The final sections of the resolution are the “Resolved” clauses. These clauses make not one demand on Saudi Arabia, call for no suspension in international arms sales to the kingdom, and put no pressure on the Trump Administration. Instead the resolution salutes the Saudi kingdom as it declares that the U.S. House of Representatives “supports the Saudi-led Arab Coalition’s 14 commitments to abide by their no-strike list and restricted target list and improve their targeting capabilities.” The only country criticized by name in the resolution is Iran. The resolution “condemns Iranian activities in Yemen in violation of UNSCR 2216” and blesses “the interdiction of Iranian weapons to the Houthis.”

    To be sure the resolution has a few pious sentences about humanitarian concerns. It denounces activities “inconsistent with the laws of armed conflict, including the deliberate targeting of civilian populations.” Yet it does NOT call for an end to the closing of all access to Yemen by land, sea, and air, just for access to Yemen by humanitarian groups and reporters.

    The resolution passed 366-30. Members of Congress can now go on to their Thanksgiving feasts with good consciences. They have used an hour of their valuable time for a #YemenDebate. No need to do more about the coming Yemen famine.

    Yet a day later Connecticut’s Senator Chris Murphy persisted in talking about Yemen, persisted in denouncing the Saudi-U.S. war there. He started his remarks by doing the unthinkable. He described what cholera actually is, what it’s like to suffer through it. His language was medical as he talked about uncontrolled diarrhea and vomiting. He did it in less than a minute. If he had graphically related the symptoms of what hundreds of thousands of Yemenis were feeling and what measures brave medical personnel have to take, he would have left the Senate gagging in disgust. Come to think of it, that is what we all should be feeling after observing years of U.S. government support for the Saudi kingdom’s wretched attack on Yemen.

    Efforts to fight the Saudi-U.S. aggression against Yemen must continue. Check out the Coalition to End the U.S.-Saudi Alliance: www.SaudiUS.org

     

    Stanley Heller is Administrator of Promoting Enduring Peace, founded 65 years ago in New Haven, best known for its Gandhi Peace Award, www.pepeace.org. He can be reached at stanley.heller@pepeace.org PEP is active in the Coalition to End the U.S.-Saudi Alliance

     

  • Lone-Wolf Terrorism: A Symptom of the Deepening Social Crisis

    Image

    On November 5, 2017, 26-year-old Devin Kelley killed 26 people and injured 20 others attending Sunday church services at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, TX.  This small, unincorporated community is 30 miles southeast of San Antonio and, in 2000, its population was but 362 people. Sadly, Kelley is the latest, but not the last lone-wolf terrorist to engage in the mass killing of Americans.

    Kelley seems to have been a very troubled man.  He grew up in New Braunfels, TX, located about 35 miles from where the killings took place.  After graduating high school, he joined the Air Force.  While serving, he violently assaulted his wife and step-child, and was court-martialed for domestic violence, served a one-year detention sentence, was demoted and received a bad conduct discharge.  He subsequently remarried and was the father of another child, but was living a hard-scrabble existence.  Due to an Air Force screw-up, Kelley was able to purchase a Ruger AR assault-type rifle and an anti-ballistic vest which he used in his murderous rampage.

    Five days earlier, on October 31st, Sayfullo Saipov, a 29-year-old legal immigrant form Uzbekistan, undertook another terrorist act.  At around 3:00 pm on Halloween afternoon, Saipov drove a rented pickup truck on a bicycle path abutting the West Side Highway along the Hudson River in New York’s downtown Tribeca district, attacking pedestrians and bicyclists, killing 8 people and injuring 12 others. After crashing his truck into a school bus and attempting to flee, Saipoy was shot by a police officer and shouted in Arabic “Allahu akbar,” “God is great.

    Earlier that month, on October 3rd, in Las Vegas, NV, Stephen Paddock, a 64-year-old retired real-estate speculator and gambler, shot re-tooled assault rifles from a room on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay at attendees of the Route 91 Harvest music festival, killing 59 people and leading to over 500 people being injured.  After the shooting, police found 23 guns in his room at on Mandalay Bay hotel as well as 20-plus more in his two Nevada homes, along with an enormous amount of ammunition.  He seems to have been as normal as the proverbial “guy next door,” although some reports claim his father was reportedly mentally ill with “psychopathic with suicidal tendencies.”

    In August, at the bloody anti-racist showdown in Charlottesville, VA, a 20-year-old white nationalist, James Alex Fields, Jr., from Maumee, OH, drove his car into a crowd of demonstrators, killing Heather Heyer, a 32-year old local resident, and injured 19 others.

    Killings by lone-wolf perpetrators are reaching an epidemic proportion.  Over the last few years, there have been dozens of such incidents.  Six that gained significant media attention over just the last five years are: (i) Omar Mateen killed 49 (50 including himself) people and injured 58 at an Orlando, FL gay nightclub in 2016; (ii) Micah Johnson shot and killed four Dallas police officers and one Dallas Area Rapid Transit officer in what authorities called a “sniper ambush” in 2016; (iii) Ahmad Khan Raimi, a 28-year-old, Afghan-born U.S. citizen, detonated a pressure cooker bomb in Manhattan’s Chelsea neighborhood and exploded a pipe bomb along a Marine Corps charity race in in Seaside Park, NJ, in 2016; (iv) Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik shot and killed 14 people and wounding 22 others at an office 2015 Christmas party in San Bernardino, CA; (v) the white racist Dylann Roof killed nine African-American parishioners at the Emanuel AME Church in downtown Charleston in 2015; and (vi) the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing by Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev left three spectators dead and wounded 264 others.

    Government and media reporting on these and similar incidents attempt to distinguish between “mass shootings” and “terrorist” acts.  Mass shootings, like those committed by Kelley and Paddock, involve lone-wolfs driven by psycho-personal factors; terrorist acts, like those committed by Saipov and Fields, involve lone-wolfs driven by ideological-political factors.  The distinction, while analytically useful, fails to grasp the underlying commonality binding the growing phenomenon of lone-wolf terrorism. Most troubling, lone-wolf terrorism is a symptom of the deepening social crisis.

    * * *

    “The United States (US) is the primary target among western states for lone wolf terrorist (LWT) attacks, and the frequency of attacks continues to increase.”  These words open a June 2015 Georgetown National Security Critical Issue Task Force (NSCITF) report, “Lone Wolf Terrorism.”  It points out that while such terrorist acts constitute a very small portion of all terrorist attacks (1.8 percent), it notes that such attacks more than doubled from 30 attacks in the 1970s to 73 attacks in the 2000s.

    Since 1900, according to Wikipedia, more than 100 acts of political terrorism have taken place in the U.S., many committed by lone-wolfs.  They include the assassinations of two presidents – William McKinley (1901) and John Kennedy (1963) – as well as the attempted assassinations in the continental U.S. of seven presidents – Theodore Roosevelt (1912), Franklin Roosevelt (1933), Harry Truman (1950), Kennedy (1960), Richard Nixon (1972, George Wallace paralyzed), Gerald Ford (1975) and Ronald Reagan (1981, James Brady wounded).  These are attacks on presidents; no one knows the true scale of terrorist violence in the America.

    A 1999 FBI report, “Terrorism in the United States,” found that in the two decades between 1980 and 1999 there were 327 domestic terrorist acts that left 205 people dead and 2,037 injured.  A 2010 report from the University of Maryland’s START (National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism) project found that between 1970 and 2007 the U.S. faced 1,347 “terrorist attacks.”  It reports that New York was the most targeted city (21% or 284 attacks), followed by Miami (70), San Francisco (66), Washington, DC (59) and Los Angeles (54).  (For a list of terrorist acts dating from 1865, see Wm. Robert Johnston, “Terrorist attacks and related incidents in the United States.”)

    Earlier this year, the nonprofit advocacy group, Everytown for Gun Safety, released a revealing study, “Mass Shooting in the United States, 2009-2016,” reporting that from 2009-2016, there were 156 “mass shootings” in the U.S.  Such incidents are defined in terms of whether four or more people were shot and killed.  Digging deeper, it found: “These incidents resulted in 1,187 victims shot: 848 people were shot and killed, and 339 people were shot and injured. In addition, 66 perpetrators killed themselves after a mass shooting, and another 17 perpetrators were shot and killed by responding law enforcement.”  Most disturbing, “the majority of mass shootings – 54 percent of cases – were related to domestic or family violence.”

    The Georgetown study warns, “While the majority of LWTs are single, white men with criminal records, these patterns are too broad to develop a clear profile for LEOs.”  Among the most notorious lone-wolfs are: Andrew Philip Kehoe, who committed the 1927 bombing of the Bath, MI, School; George Metsky, known as the New York “mad bomber” during the 1940-1956 period; Sam Melville and Jane Alpert, 1960s New Left radicals; and Ted Kaczynski, the “Unibomber” who operated between 1978-1995.

    Today’s lone-wolf domestic terrorists are draw from the same ideological cloth as those of yesteryear.  They are driven by political-ideological, cultural-religious or psycho-pathologically forces.  Sometimes, combinations of all three categories are realized in violent acts. The following examples illustrate each category.

    Among lone-wolf political attackers are:

    §  April 19, 1995: Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols bomb the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City, OK; the explosion left 169 people dead, including 19 children, and more than 675 people injured; it also damaged or destroyed more than 300 buildings in the immediate area.

    §  April 15, 2013: Tamerlan Tsarnaev, a 26-year-old Chechen immigrant, and his 19-year-old brother, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, explode a self-made bomb near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing three spectators and wounding 264 others.

    §  December 2, 2015: a married couple, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, kills 14 people and wounding 22 others, many of them Farook’s co-workers, a holiday party in the conference room at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, CA.

    Among lone-wolf cultural attackers are:

    §  June 17, 2015: the white racist Dylann Roof kills nine African-American parishioners at the Emanuel AME Church in downtown Charleston, SC; his website was named the “Last Rhodesian” and his jacket sported flags of white-ruled Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) and South Africa; his car license plate featuring the Confederate flag; and his racist manifesto.

    §  June 11, 2016: Omar Mateen, a 29-year-old American-born Muslim son of Afghan immigrant, kills 50 people (including himself) and the wounding of 53 others in Orlando, FL, at the Pulse nightclub, a popular gay entertainment and community center, on Latin night.

    Among lone-wolf psychopathic attackers are:

    §  July 20, 2012: James Holmes kills 12 people and injured 70 others in a shootout at an Aurora, CO, movie theatre.

    §  December 14, 2012: Adam Lanza, a 20-year-old resident of Newtown, CT, fatally shot and killed 20 children and seven staff members at the Sandy Hook Elementary School as well as his mother.

    The recent long-wolf attacks – Kelley’s at a Texas church, Saipov’s targeting New York pedestrians and cyclists, Paddock’s Las Vegas shootings and Fields’ crashing into a demonstrator – reflect the complexity of the terrorist act.

    * * *

    The Georgetown study identifies “four main trends” among domestic, lone-wolf terrorists:

    §  Increasingly target law enforcement and military personnel;

    §  Overwhelmingly use firearms to conduct attacks;

    §  Increasingly become radicalized via the Internet, extremist media and the civilian workplace; and,

    §  Proclaim an individual ideology instead of claiming affinity to specific, organized extremist groups.

    In the next few years, domestic lone-wolf terrorist incidents are likely to increase.

    Sadly, the Everytown for Gun Safety study warns that the “majority of mass shootings in the United States are related to domestic or family violence.”  It notes that many share a set of common symptoms including the violation of a protective order, evidence of ongoing substance abuse, serious mental illnesses and the easy availability of high-powered assault firearms.

    One factor that seems common to many (if not all) recent mass shooters or terrorists — but given little attention – is the deepening sense of disillusionment spreading through the country.  It is like an undiagnosed cancer, a phenomenon that is often expressed in secondary symptoms until a major outbreak – like a terrorist act – occurs that is too late to treat. Disillusionment is expressed in the rising morbidity and mortality rates, including suicides and drug (e.g., heroine and oxy-condign) overdoses among white men 35 to 64 years.  It is also expressed in the deepening dissatisfaction with the way income and wealth are distributed, notably ongoing wage stagnation and the rising poverty rate. And some are waging a war against U.S. war-making internationally.

    Most troubling, depression and social or political cynicism is mounting, evident is a growing sense that the long-cherished belief in the “American Dream” is over.  This is the shared ideology that shape American society for a half-century following WWII.  It is the defining belief that hard work, debt and white skin privilege would guarantee the ordinary American – and, more importantly, their children – a better tomorrow. Those days are over.

    American disillusionment was most bitterly expressed in the desperate effort to reverse history that elected Trump president.  In such a festering social setting, one can only expect the worst – more lone-wolf terrorism.

  • A New Green Uniform for Latin America’s Armies?

    Image

    When the decorated “Hero of the Republic of Cuba,” General Ramón Espinosa Martín, rallied his forces in the province of Camagüey in September, it was against an enemy far more dangerous than those he had faced in the Escambray mountains in 1958 during the Cuban Revolution or even in Angola in 1975 resisting US and South African intervention. This enemy was nature itself.

    Cuba’s military, like others throughout the Caribbean, was in the front line preparing for the devastating Hurricane Irma that battered the island from September 7–10, destroyed 14,657 Cuban homes, and damaged many others.

    Through a complex network of well-established civil defence and compensation strategies, Cuba’s National Defense Council led the official response to the disaster – and undoubtedly saved hundreds, if not thousands, of lives.

    In Mexico, where two devastating earthquakes struck in September, causing significant damage and claiming at least 467 lives, the armed forces took over many rescue operations. In Guatemala, the military has been at the forefront of the government’s response to recurrent flooding this year that has affected at least 144,000 people.

    Latin American militaries have also been in the frontline combating another natural threat: disease. In April this year Peru’s army was drafted in to help fight dengue fever in Piura. In Brazil in 2016, in the largest military mobilization in the country’s history, the armed forces were tasked with eradicating the mosquito responsible for spreading the Zika virus.

    From hurricanes to earthquakes to diseases, when natural disasters strike Latin American militaries are invariably called up. Even if there is little prospect of inter-state warfare in this region, its armed forces are often kept busy mopping up the mess caused by nature.

    Yet if you were to bury yourself in scholarship on security on Latin America, you could be forgiven for thinking that war is imminent. Academic security perspectives remain overwhelmingly concerned with armed defence of the state and have singularly failed to engage with alternative theories that have proliferated since the end of the Cold War.

    This is largely because  a traditional understanding of security as defence – built on the aging firmament of Clausewitzian ideas about warfare and US Cold War priorities – continues to exert disproportionate influence over scholarship about this region of the world.

    In the US itself, where most of the research on security in Latin America originates, policymakers are also constantly finding new potential threats in the region. Accordingly, English-language perspectives have focused disproportionately on issues of public security and violence, the war on drugs, cross-border terrorism and migration, and low-intensity conflicts within strategic US allies.

    Alternative security theories

    The end of the Cold War posed searching questions about the purpose of security, spawning alternative theories that went beyond traditional concerns about war to explore “emergent” threats deriving from globalization.

    Scholars began to ask what or who should be the most appropriate object of security, and many argued that “national security doctrine” had not rid people of the everyday insecurities caused by poverty, hunger and poor health. A “human security” perspective was enthusiastically taken up by multilateral bodies. Debates about “securitization” widened the range of policy areas approached through a lens of security.

    Similarly, growing interest in “environmental security” began to address diverse themes – from the environmental impact of warfare to the potential for “greening” defense activities. Debates touched on a range of themes, from the potential for environmental changes to fuel inter-state conflict (the “environment-conflict” thesis) to the securitization of climate change.

    Yet when it comes to scholarship about Latin America, these alternative conceptions of security have had a limited impact and, even when they have been the main focus of research on the region, have tended to reflect US anxieties.

    This is strange, because even a cursory examination of history reveals that there has been little inter-state warfare in this region.

    Arie Kacowicz, for example, has argued that an absence of warfare means there has been a long South American peace since the late 19th century and that, with the end of the Cold War and the resolution of conflicts in Central America, the region has become one of the most peaceful in the world.

    The role of the military in Latin America has, in fact, rarely been one of fighting wars, and the region is one of the least militarized in the world. It is on the periphery of the international system, states rarely face the security dilemmas found elsewhere, and there are no existential threats to national security. WMD are absent amid an emphasis on nuclear non-proliferation, growing security cooperation, and an increasing commitment to peacekeeping.

    The character of scholarly debates on Latin American security reflects a lack of empirical research on policymaking, and the obvious point of departure for correcting this is to undertake a close reading of the libros blancos – the defence “white papers” compiled throughout the region between 1989 and 2015 as part of a confidence-building agenda agreed by defence ministers at the US-sponsored Williamsburg summit in 1995. These in fact paint a picture of security thinking that challenges US scholastic obsessions.

    The most striking recurring theme in these white papers is how security policy must be reconciled with democracy, an emphasis that reflects both a determined effort to ensure civilian control over defence ministries following a lomng period of military rule and, in Ecuador and Colombia, the product of public consultation exercises that ended the military monopoly over policymaking. These documents are notable for recognising that defence is not solely a military responsibility but a social one, reinforcing the underlying trend in civil-military relations.

    A second aspect of these white papers is their lack of theoretical sophistication – and in the absence of theory, civilian governments resorted to institutional and historical arguments to explain why they needed to reassess their security policies. In most cases they took their cues from the momentum generated at Williamsburg and resulting changes in the inter-American defence system that established a network of regional security forums.

    A third feature of these papers that has been addressed only in a limited way is an explicit commitment to human security objectives. Ecuador, for example, developed a sophisticated analysis of human security in 2002 and wrote this into its constitution (Article 393). An oft-stated reason for pursuing human security objectives was an underlying commitment to economic development that interpreted inequality as a threat to stability.

    Finally, these white papers demonstrate that the creation of institutional structures for military cooperation across the region had important implications, by reducing the emphasis in security policy upon armed force and increasing the emphasis upon collective defence. Such ideas were only possible in a situation where military clashes were considered unlikely, and the white papers developed historical perspectives that alluded recurrently to the disappearance of conflicts and foresaw few prospects of future ones.

    In summary, these white papers offer compelling evidence of a shift in emphasis away from the coercive aspects of security policy towards notions of collective defence, an embrace of human security perspectives, and a developmental aspiration. There is little doubt that this reinterpretation was driven by the politics of the Left, reflecting the broader process of democratization.

    Nonetheless, these white papers also show that the environment has hitherto not been a prominent security concern, and has been incorporated as a threat within policymaking mainly in terms of broader concern about natural disasters.

    Environmental security puzzle

    The absence of scholarship on environmental security in Latin America and the limited attention this is given in the policy documents is puzzling, given the factors that make this region fertile territory for theoretical development.

    Those factors begin with the history of the region, which yields many examples of security responses to the threats posed by the natural environment and has been the scene of incessant struggles over land and resources. More recently, the transition to democracy pushed the environment up the political agenda to the extent that Latin America has since had a disproportionate influence over global climate change debates.

    A key question, therefore, is why traditional security perspectives have persisted. First and foremost has been the overwhelming influence of the US over the security agenda in Latin America. While the end of superpower tensions after 1989 clearly strengthened policymaking autonomy vis-à-vis Washington, there have been signs of a revived emphasis on military power reminiscent of the Cold War.

    A second reason for the persistence of traditional security perspectives has been the unique, often dominant status of the military in Latin American political development. The high command’s interpretation of threats and fetishistic sovereign vocation have had an overbearing influence on security policy, helping to explain why until recently this remained exclusively a military domain characterized by a focus on armed defence against enemies of the state. Notwithstanding this, and seen in the round, the military has also had a profoundly malign influence on politics as frequent foes of democracy and serial abusers of human rights.

    Together, these factors have frozen scholarly perceptions in time, preventing debates about Latin American security from moving forward.

    This would be little more than an academic problem were it not for the fact that it is stifling Latin America’s ability to respond the principal security threat that it confronts today.

    Ample evidence suggests that extreme weather events and natural disasters are already the main threats faced by this region, and that these are set to worsen due to climate change. It has been argued that the effects of Hurricane Harvey in the Gulf of Mexico earlier this month, for example, were made significantly worse by climate change.

    The UN’s World Risk Index for 2016 lists eight Latin American countries within the 30 that face most risk from extreme events. The Germanwatch Global Climate Risk Index  places four countries in Latin America – Honduras, Haiti, Nicaragua and Guatemala – among the 10 most badly affected globally by extreme weather events between 1996 and 2015. The 2017 tropical cyclone season was spectacular in terms of the number of events hitting the Caribbean, but at any given time the organization ReliefWeb monitors a series of ongoing disasters in Latin America.

    Concern about increasing natural disasters has prompted leaders of multilateral bodies to warn about a lack of preparedness for growing risk. In Chile in early 2017, for example, the severe impact of forest fires was blamed on poor preparation for climate change.

    Moreover, alongside climate change, Latin America already faces serious environmental challenges: from soil degradation and deforestation to the polluting impact of mining and threats to biodiversity.

    There are further reasons why Latin America should be an ideal laboratory for environmental security approaches.

    The region has been an important focus of research on the “environment-conflict” thesis, especially in Amazonia and Central America, has a long history of violent conflict over land, and in recent decades has witnessed a proliferation of socio-environmental conflicts. Moreover, it continues to suffer high levels of inequality, which can increase the risk of violent conflict. In 2007, International Alert identified 46 countries globally where, as a knock-on effect of climate change, there was a high risk of armed conflict, which included Colombia, Peru, Bolivia and Haiti. A number of studies conclude that climate change is a threat multiplier, increasing the risk of instability in fragile states.

    Latin America also offers opportunities to address a question that has been at the heart of the human security approach: security for whom? Ecuador and Bolivia both provide many examples of the security dilemmas states can face when development policies contradict environmental commitments and the interests of indigenous groups.

    The securitization of extractive and agricultural resources is becoming a prominent political issue in Peru, Mexico, Paraguay and Honduras. This has made indigenous groups and environmental activists targets of violence, and in 2016, Global Witness placed five Latin American countries the top 10 experiencing the highest number of killings of environmental activists.

    Swords into ploughshares

    Under the circumstances, it is opportune moment for Latin American security debates to shift their attention away from traditional strategic affairs to environmental themes.

    First, a transition has been underway in the role of militaries for some time and new ideas are displacing the state as the sole focus of security. Second, traditional notions of sovereignty are being tested by regional cooperation in ways that make them more open to the dicussion of environmental threats, which are inherently non-national. Third, multilateral initiatives have proliferated to address sustainable development, offering an institutional basis for collaboration on environmental security. Finally, the traditional focus of “national security doctrine” on economic development cherished by Latin America’s top brass offers a way to reconcile military and environmental priorities.

    In 2012, the scholar David Pion-Berlin argued that persistent interest in military defence in Latin America was ironic because the security threats it faces today do not lend themselves well to military responses. He asked, provocatively, whether the military had outlived its usefulness.

    This is not a frivolous question in a region with little warfare, not least because of military expenditure – totalling $67bn in 2016. This level of spending on armies that do not fight makes little sense when the cost of environmental threats is considered: for example, the combined price tag of the 2010 earthquakes in Chile and Haiti alone was about $38bn – 50% of the entire Latin American and Caribbean military budget in that year ($77bn).

    Moreover, Latin America is lucky to have two unique role models where governments have chosen to dismantle their armies, Costa Rica and Panama. It is no coincidence that Costa Rica is recognized as a global leader in environmental protection, and in 2017 topped the Happy Planet Index ranking socio-environmental wellbeing for the third year in a row.

    The response of Latin America’s militaries to disasters demonstrates where the real value of these institutions lies in this region today, and their future potential in the battle against climate change. Given this, soldiers are more likely to need shovels than guns.

    A region without warfare that boasts our shared planet’s most awe-inspiring biodiversity – where the military has been little but a malign influence – might be better served anyway by turning its swords into ploughshares.

  • Post-Modern Trumpism and Loneliness: The Rise of Vulgar Authoritarianism

    ImageLoneliness

    In Hannah Arendt’s pioneering book The Origins of Totalitarianism, she criticized the failure of many to understand the appeals of fascism to modern citizens. She wrote that many observers gave fairly rote justifications for its rise and appeal in an apparently advanced and enlightened country like Germany, the birthplaces of Goethe, Kant, and Beethoven. Some claimed that it was the depressed economy that was responsible. Others in the German context pointed to defeat and humiliation in the First World War. Some reactionary conservatives claimed it was declining moral standards and the collapse of religiosity. And Arendt accepted that many of these might have something to do with it. But her ultimate explanation was far simpler and yet strangely more acute. Modern Germans were lonely.

     The technologically oriented modern world, focused on the production of wealth and new economic values had driven many Germans from their homes in rural areas. There they had expected to grow into secure jobs in traditional forms of work whose ancestry went back centuries. Instead, they found themselves in big cities where they knew no one and were exposed to forms of life with which they had no familiarity, and which seemed to evolve and metastasize from day to day. Coupled with the realization that myth of endless capitalist expansion was simply that, a mythology brutally desacralized with the advent of Depression and unemployment, countless Germans found themselves alone and poor in a world that seemed strange and unreal to them. In this context, their capacity for resentment and radicalization deepened and could gnaw at itself in bitter isolation. It was only a matter of time before many of these same Germans gravitated to the simplifying but rhetorically powerful movements who promised them belonging, prosperity, and of course revenge against the manipulative alien parties who had manipulated them and infected their country.

    Today, Arendt’s analysis still has a great deal to teach us about the appeal of hard right movements to lonely individuals. Much has been written about the rise of Trumpism–its relativism, its appeal to traditional values to efface all standard political conventions, its vulgarity, its populism–but relatively little attention has been paid to its psycho-social foundations beyond traditional appeals to working class ennui and economic malaise. Here Arendt can still be our teacher. But we must update her insights considerably by looking at how our now post-modern technological world engenders new but still seductive hard right movements.

    Technology and Capitalism

    It seems strange today to think of how anyone could be lonely. Technology, especially telecommunications and the internet, have brought about a global village where billions of people can interconnect with one another in an instant. Often all that is required is a cell phone with a decent enough data plan. People are connecting with one another at a rate that would bewilder even such prophets of the post-modern world as Marshall McLuhan and Jean Baudrillard. Moreover, the economy is booming. After a recessionary dip in the last 2000s, the 2010s have seen recovery and job expansion in the United States and many other OECD countries.

    Any yet hard right movements like Trumpism thrive because people say they are deeply anxious and losing their country. They feel alienated and like they no longer connect with their communities. Many claim that Western Civilization itself-whatever that means-is under assault by hordes of turbaned and hooded immigrants bringing foreign religions and customs. How is this possible? With immense capacities to communicate, and interconnected economy, and Western Civilization still mostly retaining its position as a globally hegemonic, how is it that these hard right movements exist. I believe the answer lies more deeply, in the political economic processes of post-modern capitalism and its alliance with the powers of technology. Much as in Arendt’s day, these same forces continue to propel a culture of loneliness and anxiety. But they do so in a unique way.

    In the United States and other Western countries, reactionary conservatives have long made idols of both Christendom and the dollar. They wanted a white, Christian society organized according to traditional mores that were widely approved by democratic majorities. At the same time they wanted robust capitalist societies in which barriers to capital expansion and wealth creation were liquidated as rapidly as possible. What was never accepted was the fundamental tension between these two positions. The stability of a traditional way of life is in no small part dependent on maintaining forms of wealth creation and their affiliated technologies to the extent possible. But one of the features of capitalization, especially in the post-modern era where technology enables the movement of wealth and the creation of new industries with unparalleled rapidity, has been precisely to upend these traditional forms of wealth creation and their affiliated technologies. At points capitalist firms will move themselves around the globe. At others they will simply outdate industries; coal being an ideal example. These will demolish traditional forms of wealth creation and the communities which depend on them. And this is only the surface tendencies.

    Echoing observations by Edmund Burke decades before, in the middle of the nineteenth century Karl Marx wrote that in capitalism “everything that is solid melts into the air.”  He was referring to capitalisms’ tendency to upend traditional forms of life and their affiliated mores. Strangely, it has largely been the deepest conservative critics who acknowledged this tendency and sought to explain it. Writers such as Max Weber, Joseph Schumpeter, and George Grant recognized that capitalism-for all its variations-has an uncanny ability to transform societies by liquidating barriers, including moral barriers, to the pursuit of profit. In some circumstances this could mean liberalizing the public sphere. In other circumstances, it meant colonizing the globe to establish new markets and tear down competition.

    We can see the impacts of this everyday. We live in a society where capitalist firms continuously create new values through the production of new products and technologies which are affiliated with diverse ways of life. In effect, capitalism produces social difference by encouraging people to express their individuality through consumption. Bohemian hipsters assume their identity through purchasing the right clothes, drinking the right beer, and pushing for the legalized sale of narcotics. Emancipated women are expected to earn a big salary, wear the right clothes, and buy cars that would make a yuppie blush. And of course, we have a President who has transformed the very idea of truth into a kind of marketable value, determined by popularity and campaign donations. And this is simply the case in the Western world. It boggles the imagination to conceive of the social transformations wrought by capital in economic giants such as China and India, where growing disparities in wealth and development have led to immensely different ways of living in various parts of the country.

    Trumpism and Capitalism

    We can now bring this analysis full circle to update Arendt’s analysis of loneliness and the appeal of fascism. Modern capitalism continuously revolutionizes both the forms of wealth creation and the affiliated technologies present in a society, and the values that society professes. Far from being an ally of traditional, “Christian,” society, it has demolished even the possibility of tradition. And it will continue to do so at an accelerating rate.

    Recognizing this and dealing with it extensively would require a deep rooted commitment to critique and analysis of contemporary trends in political economy and our growing dependence on technology. But this is rarely undertaken, in no small part because the powers that be benefit from these very tendencies and have no interest in seeing them abetted. The consequence is that the many individuals who are increasingly outdated by these trends, and left alone in a society they no longer recognize, turn to the modern technologies which helped render them obsolete. There, they do not turn to the global polis and the wealth of information provided by modern technologies. Instead these individuals look inward, towards groups and individuals who feel the same sense of alienation and loneliness. Rather than look to the complexity of these social trends, and recognizing the breadth of the problem, these individuals find powerful figures like Trump and Steve Bannon who are willing to profit from, and direct, the powers caged in their resentment. The finger is pointed not at the roots of social trends, but at its symptoms and critics. Migrants, leftists, intellectuals and employees in the knowledge sector, cosmopolitans and so on. These provide an easy and vulnerable outlet for lashing out. So a few hundred Muslims wearing a burka, or a Professor teaching a class on post-colonial theory for two hours a week, become the subject of paranoiac projects. They are tormentors who emerge to tear down society. All the while, what is ignored is that figures like Trump and Bannon, who deploy the might of capital and technology to advance their own power and egos, are the most individualized catalysts for the real forces undermining tradition and society. The vulgar authoritarianism of Trumpism is the result of these radical trends in our society. It gives expression to the resentment of the lonely and alienated whom these trends have left behind, and deliberately channels their energy against the weak and vulnerable to prevent recognition of the real roots of the problem. 

  • Herman Axelbank, Max Eastman, and the Documentary “Tsar to Lenin”

    ImageThe Russian Revolution, the only—if only briefly—successful workers’ revolution took place in the era of photography and film, consequently thousands of hours of film footage from the revolutionary period existed. In the late 1920s, as the revolution’s red star was fading, a Russian-born man decided to collect as much as possible of the existing film—some of it shot by individuals, some by governments, some by new agencies, some by who-knows-who. Eventually, over 50 years this man collected some 271 motion picture film reels. He was a fanatic. Glad he was.

    Herman Axelbank, who had been born in 1900 in Nowo Konstantinow, Ukraine (at the time part of the Russian empire) later moved to the Bronx in New York City. In 1920 he began collecting film footage of the Russian Revolution; gradually this became his personal calling, his obsession. Eventually he compiled and edited the film into a roughly chronological account. Then in 1928 he contacted the writer Max Eastman to ask his help in producing an actual film. Eastman described his first impression of Axelbank:

    In the late autumn of 1928, a young man named Herman Axelbank came to see me—a persuasive young man. He was broad and short, hairy enough so that his chin was always blue, and his skull, which he kept close-cropped, was so shaped as to give him—but for his eyes—a rather formidable appearance. His eyes were deep blue and warm, and could be very convincing of his nobility of spirit. And he had in his possession a thing of great value to mankind: a collection of all the important films, or most of them, that had been taken of momentous events and personalities in the Russian revolution. He had come down from the Bronx merely to ask me whether I thought a consecutive narrative could be made of them, but before we parted he had offered to give me complete editorial control, and split the profits fifty-fifty, if I could convert hem into a “visible history” of the revolution.[1]

    Eastman agreed to take on the job.

    Axelbank had come to the right man. Max Eastman had been a socialist virtually all of his adult life, editor of The Masses and later of The Liberator. It was Eastman who raised the money to send John Reed to Russia where Reed wrote Ten Days that Shook the World, first published serially in Eastman’s magazine. In 1922 Eastman went to Russia to see the revolution for himself, spending a year and nine months there. In 1928 a Russian Communist named Eleazar Solnetsev passed on to Eastman a bundle of political papers written by Leon Trotsky, leader of the opposition to Joseph Stalin in Russia. At about the same time, Eastman was contacted by James Cannon, a longtime Communist who has just become a supporter Trotsky and his opposition group in Russia. Eastman edited the papers Solnetsev had given him into a book eventually titled The Real Situation in Russia by Leon Trotsky and gave the proceeds to Cannon’s Trotskyist organization, though Eastman himself never joined the group.[2] At about the same time that Eastman agreed to undertake the editing of Axelbank’s film, he was also working on the translation of Trotsky’s monumental three-volume History of the Russian Revolution. Perhaps no man in America knew more or had thought more deeply about the Russian Revolution. A Trotskyist, Eastman was not uncritical of Trotsky; a supporter of the Russian Revolution, he was willing to discuss its failings and the disastrous turn it appeared to be taking.

    Eastman threw himself into the film project. He traveled to Paris to get film from Pathé and Gaumont, and while there he got Alexander Kerensky, whose government Vladimir Lenin and Trotsky had overthrown, to give him permission to use photos of Kerensky made by the surrealist photographer Man Ray. In Berlin Eastman got photos of the Tsar swimming naked (Russian men then didn’t wear bathing suits) and of the Russian royal family: his wife the Tsarina and his son the Tsarevitch feeding his pony. He had trouble finding film of Stalin, who was not prominent before or even during the Revolution, but eventually found one short piece of Stalin shifting his weight back and forth from foot to foot. Eastman finished "Tsar to Lenin" in January of 1931. Charlie Chaplin, the star of Modern Times, took a look at it; he thought it was good.

    Post-production work with Axelbank proved to be difficult. He was understandably extremely possessive of the film that he had birthed and which Eastman had midwifed. Axelbank kept it in a vault, in strongboxes to which only he had a key; he made access difficult by mysteriously disappearing for long periods of time. Axelbank felt persecuted and misused and his cranky behavior destroyed relations with potential financial backers and promoters. Axelbank proved to be not only difficult but also litigious. Eastman found himself embroiled in a series of court cases over the finished film, which ended up in the possession of court-appointed receivers. The receivers leased the movie to the Lenauer Film Company in 1936, but the printed capitions still had to be replaced by a vocal narrative before it was finally ready. The film was finally released in theaters on March 6, 1937, first playing in the Filmarte Theater on West Fifty-eighth street in New York City.

    The New York newspaper reviewers praised the film and the public flocked to the theater to see it. By then, however, Stalin had come to power in Russia, took over the Communist International, and determined the policy of the Communist Parties worldwide. Stalin wanted no mention of his adversary Trotsky, who he had exiled, whom he was hunting–killing family, friends, and comrades–and whose assassination he would arrange a few years later. The Communist Party in the United States, consequently, called for a boycott "Tsar to Russia" and the Soviet Union’s film industry made clear to film distributors and theaters in America that if they showed Axelbank’s and Eastman’s film they would never receive any Soviet films ever, this at a time when the films of the Russian Sergei Eisenstein were tremendously popular among the avant garde. So “Tsar to Lenin,” blacklisted by the Stalinists, never had a run in American theaters, though Axelbank put out another version that reached a small audience. Eastman placed a copy of his film in the Library of Congress where it was preserved, but languished.[3] A few years later, Eastman, deeply disappointed by the Russian Revolution, gave up his leftist politics and became an editor of the conservative Readers Digest, a disappointing and profoundly sad end to a brilliant literary and political career. For decades those interested in viewing “Tsar to Lenin” had to satisfied with a much cut version made available through the Library of Congress and the film in its entirely was not made available to the public generally until released by the Socialist Equality Party, a small Trotskyist group, in 2012.

    “Tsar to Lenin” is now available on YouTube and well worth watching though it deals only with the revolution in the most narrow sense of the word, that is the upheaval that brought the soviets (workers, peasants, and soldiers councils) to power under the leadership of the Bolsheviks and the bloody civil war that followed. We have no great film of the Russian social revolution, the functioning of the soviets, the workers seizing of the factories, the peasant land seizures, no film of the struggle between democracy from below and what eventually became bureaucratic rule from above–though we have right-wing films of the rise of StalinTremendous film archives exist in Russia and some are available online, though whether or not they contain the filming of everyday working class life and workers’ struggles to preserve and exert their power as the Communist bureaucracy and the state together hardened into a new ruling class and a new state is doubtful. We can only hope that some other fanatic like Axelbank has preserved such film somewhere and somehow, and that some new Eastman (would that be China Miéville, author of October?) would come along to write the narrative.


    [1] Max Eastman, Love and Revolution: My Journey through an Epoch (New York: Random House, 1964), Chapter 77, “My Career in the Movies,” p. 57.

    [2] Eastman, Love and Revolution, Chapter 75, “A Taste of Rehabilitation,” pp. 510-16.

    [3] Eastman, Love and Revolution, Chapter 89, “A Triumph and a Defeat,” pp. 615-17.

     

  • How will labor look after the Janus case is decided?

    Image

    The Janus case before the Supreme Court will deny public employee unions the right to require non-union members to pay their share of the union’s costs to negotiate on behalf of everyone in the bargaining unit.

    Most unions and pundits have identified unions’ loss of revenue as an unfavorable ruling’s most dire consequence. Forces behind Janus aim to weaken public employee unions and the public sector.  The Right’s other, less widely understood purpose, is destroying the public sector and public ownership of resources.  However, the Right’s deeper, darker strategic purpose has been mostly ignored, even by unions: Janus is a "once-in-a-lifetime chance" to “defang the Left” and “deliver the mortal blow to permanently break” the Left’s “stranglehold on our society.”  Everyone who cares about democracy and the economic and social well-being of people who work for a salary set by an employer has a stake in how unions respond to the Court’s decision, which seems pre-determined by the vote Judge Gorsuch will cast in favor of eliminating this union right.

              Most of the fear about Janus focuses on the loss of dues.  The tacit assumption of Janus supporters and foes is when faced with a choice of being a union member and paying dues or not, significant numbers of members will bolt.  Workers who have been paying agency fee will not join. Because unions understand the danger of Janus as being a financial blow to the apparatus, solutions have focused on saving money, cutting staff and pursuing mergers.  In some cases, unions have realized they should be pro-active to stave off mass desertions and are reaching out to members to solidify their support as dues payers.  Belt-tightening and talking to members may temporarily fortify the unions as organizations, but they ignore the question Janus demands we ask: Why are we predicting members will desert the union and agency-fee payers will refuse to join?

              Labor’s assumptions about the threat Janus poses exemplify the real crisis unions confront, one often not discussed even behind closed doors.  In defining their purpose as protecting members’ narrowly-conceived economic interests and operating like a business, unions construct a very limited role for members.  Members are passive, with limited authority and voice.  Their sole “power” is to pay dues and cast votes in what are generally uncontested elections for officers. 

              The Janus brief articulates arguments familiar to any union activist who has tried to recruit co-workers, especially those who prefer to remain “agency fee” payers.  The plaintiffs’ claims are about their unions’ purposes, its presence as a political force, and its being a collective voice for working people on the job. The brief reads “Janus objects to many of the public-policy positions that AFSCME advocates, including the positions that AFSCME advocates for in collective bargaining. For example, he does not agree with what he views as the union’s one-sided politicking for only its point of view. Janus also believes that AFSCME’s behavior in bargaining does not appreciate the current fiscal crises in Illinois and does not reflect his best interests or the interests of Illinois citizens.”In building support for Janus, the Right has concentrated on the meaning of union membership and of public employee unions’ engagement in politics.  In contrast, unions have argued on the narrowest ground, pleading about “fair share” and railing against “free riders,” fuming they will be “required to represent non-members, who would be paying nothing at all, passing that burden off to dues-paying members.”

              This argument about paying for representation has little resonance to workers who feel they are not well-represented. It avoids the political contestation the Right has undertaken and is winning about why joining the union is in workers’ self-interest. The Right has succeeded in confusing many workers about its individualistic, competitive ideology and the unions have been very slow to address why these values are harmful, antithetical to union principles of collective action and solidarity. The Right’s frighteningly vast financial resources stacked the deck against labor in this battle over competing ideas, but unions have been confused in responding to the charge they are just another special interest group, buying politicians for their members’ benefit (and benefits).  Unions have disarmed themselves in this assault by having adopted the mentality and tactics of special interests. As others have observed, organized labor has by and large forgotten the grammar and vocabulary of class struggle. Labor has accepted the Right’s and employers’ definition of the contest (winning over “friendly” politicians in either party), the weapons (campaign donations), and the enemy (foreign countries and their workers). In doing so, unions have turned their back on their unique resource—an informed, mobilized membership that understands solidarity.

              Though we shouldn’t adopt their methods or mentality, labor can learn a great deal from the Right’s victories. To move from the defensive, labor needs to develop a new “mindset,” as investment bankers did when they reimagined public education as a profit center.  The strategies being discussed to avoid disaster post-Janus reflect the unions’ unwillingness to reimagine themselves. One strategy is to eschew the legal responsibility to be “exclusive representative” of the bargaining unit, creating competition between unions.  Multiple unions representing workers for a single employer is the norm in other countries, where unions are allied with political parties, and some might consider it an idea worth pursuing. But as Chris Brooks demonstrates in an empirical study of what occurred in Tennessee, seeing one’s constituency as members-only and encouraging competition among unions is a cure worse than the disease. Workers turn workers against one another, viewing one another as rivals. Company unions, masquerading as professional groups that offer low insurance rates, compete, successfully, against traditional unions.

              Is a “Workers’ Bill of Rights” an answer to Janus and the anticipated loss of collective bargaining in more states? It’s an interesting legal strategy but its limitation is that it’s a legalistic, not political. It doesn’t speak to the reasons workers choose not to join unions when they have that right or vote down unions in elections. Further, as Nelson Lichtenstein points out, the “rights discourse” is limited by being individual. What makes unions unique is they represent members’ individual interests through expression and struggle for their collective interests. Moreover, this Bill of Rights ignores social oppression that workers experience on the job and separates their lives and rights outside the workplace from their working existence. While it defends workers’ rights to free expression on the job, it is silent about labor's vision for free speech on the streets, for a different kind of society.  This strategy’s major flaw is not in what it tries to do but in what it substitutes for—labor’s failure to critically analyze its losses. 

              One way to understand what occurred when the Caucus of Rank and File Educators (CORE), the reform caucus of the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU), won the union’s leadership,  was that it adopted a new “mindset.”  They conceived of the CTU as a “member-driven union” that served members’ economic interests best when it supported social justice.  The newly elected leadership altered the way the union talked and acted about its purpose and tried to make all the union’s operations support this “mindset.” CORE put the people it represented, employees of the Chicago Public Schools, at the center of its organizing as Jane McAlevey puts the challenge.  A “member-driven union” gives people a reason to be union members and not agency fee payers. The goal? Shift the “union” from being “it” to being “we.” 

              Putting workers at the center of organizing requires union democracy and understanding the working class as being global.  What Kim Moody calls “labor nationalism” has weakened the unions and made workers prey to Trump’s xenophobia. The slogan “’Buy American’ is very close to “Make America Great Again.”  U.S. public employee unions are weaker for not having vigorously supported campaigns of public employee unions in the global South against the privatizations, attacks on civil service, and privatization. The World Bank has hammered away that public employees, teachers and teachers unions hurt the poor, impeding their educational success, by opposing policies that shifted public money and control of education to the private sector. Now teachers and students in the U.S., especially in low-income communities of color that are most politically vulnerable, suffer from versions of these policies  the World Bank imposed on Latin America, Africa, and Asia.  

              Overcoming the fallout from Janus requires reimagining union membership by democratizing the unions, inverting hierarchical relations that replicate disempowerment on the job. Why have professional negotiators or staff sent by the national or state at the bargaining table instead of members who have been elected based on their leadership and ideas? Should union organizers be elected rather than being hired and appointed? Should votes in the union’s executive council meetings identify how individuals have voted on major issues? Should endorsements for political office be made by the membership in a referendum? What process should be followed when officers to speak on behalf of the members by endorsing political issues and campaigns? Should we try “participatory budgeting” to have members decide priorities for members’ dues? What’s a member’s responsibility for recruiting and educating co-workers about the union? Activists who have tried to recruit co-workers to the union know that changing people’s minds is slow and hard. It requires listening and a deep commitment to union ideals because people have many beliefs that are inimical to collective action. It also requires having a union you trust will make a difference in their lives and yours.

              This is a time of truth for unions and their supporters. We need to look in the mirror and see that Janus has two faces.  It can reduce organized labor to a shell, or it can be the start of a remarkable revitalization that draws strength from the widespread social protests that have emerged from the Sanders campaign and Trump’s election.  Labor needs friends to urge it to adopt the mindset that allows the latter to happen.

     

    Lois Weiner directs the Urban Education and Teacher Unionism Policy Project at New Jersey City University and is a member of the New Politics editorial board. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

    (A version of this article appears in In These Times.)

    Janus photo by Loudon dodd – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7404342

     

  • Whither Catalonia? An interview with Josep María Antentas

    Image

    Dan La Botz, a co-editor of New Politics, interviewed Josep María Antentas, teacher of Sociology at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) and anticapitalist activist.

    DL: The Catalan independence movement and its suppression by the Spanish state have garnered the attention of the world. What has been your attitude toward the question of Catalonia?

    JMA: My traditional position is the defense of the right to self-determination, with the idea that when a group wises to exercise this right its position must be made specific. In the current situation and since the independence movement began in 2012, the defense of a “Yes” vote has a more democratic content than the “No” vote, which is associated exclusively with the reactionary defense of the Constitution and the political regime.

    DL: So you called for voting yes on the referendum recently organized by the Catalonia government?

    JMA: My position is that a “Yes” in the referendum now is the position that makes it possible to break with the post-Franco political framework. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that independence has to be the endpoint; an eventual Catalan Republic could confederate or federate with Spain afterwards, or could at least ask to do so. And there might be other options.

    DL: What has been the impact of this process on the Spanish state?

    JMA: The impact of the independence process on the Spain as a whole is complex because, in the short term, the Spanish right uses it to cohere its social base and in the last weeks we are experiencing a shift towards the right in the Spanish political and social life. But at the same time, it is the principal threat to the political regime created in 1978.* If Catalonia became independent, it is unlikely that the political regime of 1978 could survive. Such a crisis could open the opportunity for change in the Spanish state as well. The strategic, decisive question is how to link the independence movement—without dissolving its demand, with a perspective of breaking with the 1978 regime within the state as a whole. This requires combining unilateral action from Catalonia with the struggle within the Spanish state as a whole in favor of a new majority politics of the left. But this center-periphery dialectic is complex and neither Catalan independence movement, nor the forces of the Spanish left such as Podemos know how to do it.

    DL: What is the social base of the independence movement?

    JMA: The independence movement is principally based in the middle class, public employees, and youth. The Catalan government is an alliance between the neoliberal right party PDeCAT (Partit Demòcrata Europeu Català or Catalan European Democratic Party) and the center-left ERC (Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya,Republican Left of Catalonia). But since the movement began the relation of forces between these two groups has been displaced towards the ERC, while the PDeCAT has lost support. If there are elections on December 21, and the the two parties renew their alliance, the ERC will take control. Or, to put it another way, on the one hand, the Catalan right is playing a central role, but, on the other hand, it has been overwhelmed in a process that benefits the center-left independence forces.

    DL: What has been the role in all of this of the CUP (Candidatura d'Unitat Popular or Popular Unity Candidacy), the farther left political party? And can you explain what has happened to Together We Can (En Comú Podem)?

    JMA: CUP is an independence party and the principal force of the Catalan anti-capitalist movement. It went from 3 percent to nine percent of the vote in the last five years. It’s independence project goes beyond official “independence pure and simple” and links the national question with the social issues and defends an explicit anti-capitalist and anti-1978 regime position. It is a militant, combative force with a participatory and anti-bureaucratic culture. But it remains excessively trapped in the role of honest guarantor that the independence process be carried out to the end, of pressure on the government so that there is no step backwards, and it had no strategy whatsoever for attracking the social base of the left that remains outside of the movement.

    DL: And what are the obstacles that the left faces?

    JMA: The principal problem is that Catalonia’s radical left is divided: a part, CUP, is totally inside the movement; the other part (led by Ada Colau, the mayor of Barcelona and leader of En Comú Podem) is outside and maintains a passive wait-and-see attitude. I think that one has to be both within and outside of the movement, to support it insofar as it has democratic demands that would break with the old regime, but without necessarily sharing its strategy and its objective. The fact is that a part of the left has been totally outside, and that has given the right greater maneuvering room.

    En Comú Podem supports the right to self-determination but it is not pro-independence. It has an anti-austerity program though not anti-capitalist. It defended the necessity of having a referendum on independence in agreement with the Spanish government, but it did not support the holding of the uni-lateral referendum on October 1, even though it considered the “mobilization” to be legitimate. But, as I said, it’s passive and wait-and-see attitude has prevented it from intervening.

    DL: And where are the working class in all of this? My understanding is that the Catalan working class diverse, multinational. How does that affect things?

    Yes, a central part of the Catalan working class, in particular the traditional industrial working class, has its origins in immigration from the South of the Spanish state in the 1970s. We should also point out that in Catalan society there is a generalized used of both Catalan and Spanish and that the population in general is bilingual, even though part of the population prefers to use either Catalan or Spanish in their daily activities.

    At the same time, Catalonia as well as the Spanish state has in the last two decades experienced a strong immigration coming from Latin America, Eastern Europe, Africa, and also Asia, so the society has become multiethnic and multilingual. But both Catalan and Spanish politics, including the social movements, nevertheless remain quite “white” and “indigenous” [meaning the native-born people of the region].

    The part of the working class that participate in the movement are the public employees (education and health) and young college graduates who can’t find decent, full-time jobs. The traditional industrial working class and the working class youth with less education have kept their distance from the movement. There are two reasons for that: First, they have less identification with the Catalan national question, since the bulk of Catalonia’s industrial working class is made up of immigrant workers who came form the South of Spain in the 1970s. Second, the disintegration of working class society and politics has led to a general crisis of the labor movement.

    During the Franco dictatorship, the national question and the social question tended to become coordinated because they had a common enemy: the dictatorship. It was a period of working class hegemony within the Catalan nationalist movement. This situation began to change in the 1980s when the conservative nationalism of Jordi Pujol, the leader of the CDC (Convergència Democràtica de Catalunya or Catalonian Democratic Convergence) from 1974 to 2003, became hegemonic, while the working class lost its central social and political position in Catalan political life. The fact the independence movement, which erupted as a mass movement in 2012, only defended independence and disassociated itself from “other” demands, particular from the concrete criticism of the politics of austerity, has been an important strategic error and has made it more difficult to involve the working class and the left’s social base.

    DL: So, given all that you have told us, how does this movement move forward?

    Since the Spanish Republic’s proclamation on October 27, the Catalonian government was totally paralyzed. It never thought that things would go so far and didn’t foresee going beyond a symbolic declaration. Since October 27 there has been an absolute vacuum of leadership and an absence of guidance. All of the strategic limits of the catalan government and the social organizations that drive the movement were suddenly exposed. The dissolution of the Catalan government by the Spanish state through the application of Article 155 of the Constitution, Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy’s government’s announcement of Catalonian election on December 21, and the jailing of part of the Catalan government (the other part is in exile in Brussels), which put the independence movement in defensive position.

    DL: What then are the priorities of the left in this context?

    JMA: It is necessary to defend unity of action in the street (demonstrations, etc.) but to remain politically independent of PDeCAT and ERC, with our own slogans within the movement (in particular emphasizing the idea of the need to open the process toward a constituent assembly in Catalonia, as a way of putting the social and democratic aspects at the center of the discussion, and not only debating “independence.”

    DL: So what is the strategy and what are the prospects as the Spanish state now plans to hold elections in Catalonia on December 21?

    JMA: the December 21 the Spanish government called elections immediately after the dissolution of the Catalan government. They have been imposed by force. But all of these Catalan parties are going to participate in them, since there is no other realistic alternative. All of the forces against the bloc representing the regime of 1978 are going to state in their programs opposition to the dissolution of the Catalan government and the demand for freedom and amnesty for those who have been arrested. But beyond this shared defensive element, the fundamental strategic question is to establish a democratic roadmap of rupture with the regime of 1978 that unites the independence forces and those that are not pro-independence but defend the right to self-determination.

    *The “regime of 1978” refers to the political and institutional framework of the established by the approval of the Constitution of 1978 which resulted from the agreement reached between the anti-Franco forces and a section of reformers within the Franco regime and which marginalized those who rejected the agreement and favored a “break.” This gave rise to a kind of democratic state that conserved important aspects of the Franco regime and which didn’t change substantially the dominant power block.

     

     

  • Leftist Candidate Jabari Brisport of DSA Makes Strong Showing in Brooklyn

    Image

    Jabari Brisport, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), made an extraordinarily strong showing in his first bid for the New York City Council. Running on both the Green Party and Socialist lines in Crown Heights, District 35 of Brooklyn where he grew up, Jabari won almost 30 percent of the vote, receiving 8,619 votes. He was defeated by Democrat Laurie Cumbo, who took 68 percent of the vote while the Republican Christine Parker got just 4 percent.

    Jabari ran as a socialist in a diverse district with a mixed population of African Americans, Afro-Caribbeans, orthodox and Hassidic Jews, upper middle class white newcomers, and young hipsters. The district has a population of 124,170, larger than many cities. The 2017 election saw one of the lowest turnouts in years. Only about 22 percent of the 5,053,842 registered voters in New York City as a whole cast ballots in the election.

    Jabari wore his politics on his sleeve. As he told a reporter from New York magazine, “I want to win because I’m not seeing the results. I’m hearing people talk the talk of being progressive, but it’s not enough to be progressive. You’ve got to be revolutionary, you’ve got to be socialist, you have to want to change society, and that means going on the offense.”

    Brisport ran principally on opposition to a plan to turn a publicly owned armory building that covers an entire city block into luxury housing, arguing that it should be used for low-income housing and facilities for the community. He called for converting the property to a community land trust. He took up the position of the Crown Heights Tenants Union, which had opposed the deal. His opponent Cumbo had supported the armory deal until public turned against it, as manifest in the spread of “Kill the Deal” signs in local home and store windows. While Cumbo, under pressure, later came out against the armory deal, many doubted her sincerity and had no confidence in her actual commitment to resist it.

    Shortly before the election, Jabari was arrested after he and other housing acivists disrupted a City Planning Commission meeting that voted 11-1 in favor of the plan to turn the publicly owned property into a private development of luxury apartments.

    While housing was the big issue, Jabari also defended public education against charter schools, supported Black Lives Matter and called for criminal justice reform, as well as speaking out for climate justice.

    Following the election Jabari wrote to his supporters, “We just did something the political establishment never would have thought possible. Our campaign got over 8000 votes, nearly 30 percent. One thousand of those voted specifically on the Socialist ballot line! We should all feel proud. We have just sent City Hall a clear message – socialism is rising in New York City.”

    The Role of DSA

    DSA, which has over 1,000 members in Brooklyn, mobilized its members to support Brisport’s campaign. Jabari won the Green Party primary election, while DSA circulated petitions and won enough signatures to put a Socialist line on the ballot.

    DSA had its own operation, independent of the Green Party, in which its members helped to produce campaign literature, canvassed the neighborhoods, and mobilized to get out the vote. DSA members approached local residents saying, “I’m a member of the Democratic Socialists of America and I’m supporting Jabari Brisport…”

    Jabari’s was one of two campaigns supported by Brooklyn DSA in the last few months. In the Democratic Party primaries, DSA had supported Rev. Khader El-Yateem an Arab-American Lutheran minister and community organizer. Born in Bethlehem, Palestine in 1962, El-Yateem migrated to the United States in 1992 and settled in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn in 1995. While he ran primarily on local community issues, El-Yateem also took controversial stands on broader political questions, such as his vocal support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement against Israel, known as BDS.

    In the District 43 Democratic primaries, El-Yateem, also a DSA member, received 31 percent of the vote, while Justin Brannan won with about 39 percent, other candidates dividing the rest.

    For many years DSA principally worked within the Democratic Party and supported its candidates and didn’t expect or ask candidates to run as socialists. These two races give expression to DSA’s new approach to politics, willing to support both progressive Democratic Party candidates, especially if they run as open socialists, but also independent, Green Party or socialist candidates. The race also demonstrates DSA’s desire to link politics to the building of social movements, such as the fight for decent housing and against Islamophobia.

    DSA’s political approach has put them at odds both not only with some progressive Democrats and also with the Working Families Party. The WFP did not support either El-Yateem in the primary or Brisport in the general election. We will seeing more such candidacies backed by DSA in New York City and other areas of the country.

    *Dan La Botz is a Co-Editor of New Politics. He was the Socialist Party USA candidate for the U.S. Senate in Ohio in 2010. He worked as a volunteer in the Jabari Brisport campaign for NYC City Council.

     

     

     

     

  • Is Socialist Revolution Possible – Or Even Necessary?

    Image

    Bennett Muraskin:

    I look at the world for many decades now and do not see evidence that the class struggle is alive and well, except to the extent that workers are on the losing end. But even more than that, it does not appear that the class struggle is playing a key role anywhere in the world. All of the major conflicts are being fought on national, ethnic and/or religious grounds.  In these conflicts, whether they are in Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Niger or even Catalonia, workers line up with their tribe.

    It used to be that the anti-colonial forces at least wrapped themselves in the mantle of socialism, as in the days of the Algerian, Vietnamese or Angolan struggles for independence. Now it is ISIS and kindred groups of fanatics who are pretending to lead the charge against Western imperialism or neo-colonialism.

    It looks to me that every attempt to achieve socialism has gone bad. Compare the former East Germany with former West Germany or the current North Korea with the current South Korea. Do the people of China yearn for the “good old days” of Mao Zedong or are they infinitely more prosperous under state capitalism? I was in Poland a few years ago. No one had a good thing to say about the “People’s Republic.” The most recent socialist experiment in Venezuela is going down the tubes.

    It was been nearly 170 years since the Communist Manifesto and 100 years since the Bolshevik Revolution, where the workers held power for at most two or three years. The left in Russian has been insignificant since the fall of the collapse of the Soviet Union over twenty five years ago. What happened to the once mighty Communist parties of Italy and France?  Obviously their demise did not lead to the rise of the rise of the anti-Stalinist left.

    I recently met a Socialist Party USA activist at a Labor Day Parade in New Jersey.  When I mentioned that Bernie Sanders working within the Democratic Party was the best alternative, he opined that Sanders is not a socialist. Well, I said, you are right. Generically he is a social democrat. But if he went around calling for workers’ ownership of the means of production, he would have never even been elected the mayor of Burlington, VT. Even Eugene Debs could never garner more than 6% of the popular vote, nor could the original Socialist Party in its heyday elect more than two Congressmen.

    Here is my question. If revolutionary socialists have nothing to show for all their efforts for the past 180 years, maybe it is time to give up the ghost and accept that social democracy on the Western European or Scandinavian model is the best we can achieve.

    Michael Hirsch:

    Bennett,

    Yours is a fair question to ask of editors of an eclectic left journal, though one largely committed to the radical vision of socialism from below: why the unblemished optimism over the prospects for radical social change in the face of hideously disappointing, centuries’ long results? Here’s my attempt at clearing the air.

    Understand that you’re asking two questions that aren’t necessarily conjoined. First, why have the expectations of revolutionary socialists going back to Marx and Engels that a growing proletariat would act of necessity to overthrow capitalism in its own interest been so dismally unfulfilled. And second, given that, why do we not simply embrace a social democratic coda stressing reforms, or, as Trotsky put it in September 1939 in a moment of despair, resign ourselves to fight to improve the conditions of the slaves.

    As to the first, you have to take seriously the economics that came out of World War II. Socialists from Michael Harrington to Daniel Singer cite the ascendance of Keynesian economics, which created a welfare regime in which consumerism didn’t empower working people so much as substantially increase their purchasing power – as a spur to increasing production – during what the French called Les Trente Glorieuses (the thirty glorious years, i.e., 1945 to 1975). What followed, what I call the thirty inglorious years, is still working its way into people’s consciousness as a new and growing subclass of contingent workers – the precariat –typifies the life chances of millions of young people worldwide, while the traditional industrial proletariat – still numerous in absolute numbers though shrinking in proportion to other sectors – is joined by public sector workers battling to defend what is left of the social safety net. In short, the class struggle is still being waged, and with a newly reconfigured working class, though capital holds the high ground. Unions are at least organizing the unorganized in sectors that barely existed a generation ago. That’s one example of class struggle as fought by our side. I think you will agree it is promising.

    On social democracy. You have to take seriously its sad history, along with the early degeneration of its main left critics, the Communists. In the United States, what was left of any New Deal politics died with the oil embargo of the mid-1970s and the rise of the New Democrats, who were neither new nor barely Democrats. Increasingly, US liberals and European social democrats in office were administrators of the state and enablers of the capitalist system, not its gravediggers. In France, François Mitterand prior to his 1981 presidential breakthrough made a series of bold promises to nationalize industries, some even under autogestion, a broadly understood French version of workers’ self-management. Within days of his inauguration, all mention of autogestion was gone. Within two years, industries nationalized were reprivatized and Mitterand served out his term as a caretaker for capital. Do I exaggerate?

    In Sweden, the Meidner Plan, a real reform that, if implemented, would have nationalized industry under a form of workers’ control, saw the Social Democratic Party abandoning it after Swedish capital moved against them. The Soviet-backed CPs for the most part went from slavish support for all things Stalinist to a warmed-over reformist Eurocommunism without blinking, seeing their vote in Italy reduced from 30 percent to utterly marginal. Those that stayed Stalinist, as in Greece and Spain, shriveled on the vine.

    What does all this mean? Capital had a plan and the means to follow it through, whether in good times then or in periodic crises now. The left, as embodied by the social democrats and the then extant Stalinists, did not, have a plan beyond posing as governing arbiters if not mediators. Class struggle was relatively muted – or at least less obvious – in the boom years; it is raging today in what the 1970s United Auto Workers president Douglas Fraser presciently called “a one-sided class war.” The left, not to mention the unions as a whole, bears some responsibility too. If Antonio Gramsci is to be taken seriously, we’ve collectively done a languid job of getting our ideas out. As society becomes more socialized, and where social reproduction is now better understood by the left as a corollary to economic exploitation at the point of production, socialism as the logical outcome of a post-industrial socialization ironically takes the form of automation instead of workers control. The alternatives desperate people grasp, such as the noxious nationalism and racial or religio-posturing of a Trump and a Netanyahu, just to name two with whom you are doubtlessly well-familiar, seem to attract supporters by default.

    What I’ve written here is hardly exhaustive, but I expect it addresses your concerns. The class struggle is ongoing, economic crisis is endemic, the long-range choices are still as Karl Kautsky and Rosa Luxemburg argued, a choice between socialism and barbarism, with barbarism understood as genocidal total warfare and/or environmental liquidation. Trotsky’s conclusion, even in his darkest days, that there was no “incontrovertible or even impressive objective data as would compel us today to renounce the prospect of the socialist revolution” (The USSR in War), rings true. Like Pascal’s Wager, what choice do we really have?

    Resistance to the system is ongoing, even when it takes bizarre and unaccustomed forms as with the Antifa opposition to the rise of white nationalism or the efforts to tear down the statues of undeserving Civil War generals. Defining whose history is true, which for Gramsci was a necessary adjunct of activist, revolutionary cultural work, is part of the class struggle, too. So are the efforts to rediscover commonalities despite seeming differences. The growing acceptance of intersectionality, not as rhetoric but as an activist, working principle, is proving that class and identity are not at variance, but indissolubly entwined.

    So, comrade Muraskin, a Luta Continua.

    Barry Finger:

    “Here is my question? If revolutionary socialists have nothing to show for all their efforts for the past 180 years, maybe it is time to give up the ghost and accept that social democracy on the Western European or Scandinavian model is the best we can achieve.” – Bennett Muraskin

    Fifty years ago, it was the US, with its underdeveloped welfare state, that was out of step with advanced capitalist societies. Neoliberalism, with the complicity of Democrats as well as Republicans, has, in the intervening decades, decimated the labor movement and begun the piecemeal dismantling of New Deal and Great Society gains. This well-recognized dynamic has been replicated on an international scale.

    Today it is an open question whether the Scandinavian model can be replicated, expanded, or even defended without a worldwide revival of labor militancy.

    Every civilizational upgrade under capitalism with respect to wages, hours and workplace conditions in the “past 180 years” has been inextricably linked to organized working classes asserting their power over the public domain. The exploited classes defend their interests by seeking to inject the principal of social responsibility against the prevailing, seemingly inviolable, rights of private property. It is a perpetual war for position. Where the working classes have been defeated so too has the cause of democracy and progress been set back. The Scandinavian model is now an isolated outpost in the class war. It is the forward operating base of labor, now besieged from all quarters and in full retreat.

    If capitalism were a static system, the permanency of class compromise along Scandinavian lines might be an arguable proposition. Labor crusades, above all, for a share of the prosperity its work creates sufficient to permit it economic security, workplace dignity, limitations on social inequality, and a comfortable retirement. Even the most conservative labor leaders contest almost every right of the employer: over hiring and firing; over wages and hours; over the speed and intensity of work; over promotions and transfers. They challenge every right, that is, save one – the “right” to own and manage.

    This trade union limitation has been replicated on a broader social scale in the scope and limitations of the modern welfare state, a grand compromise between the aspirations of labor for social control and the entrenched requirements of capital for the “freedom” to pursue profit-making.

    On paper at least, the capitalist state is fully capable of exercising the type of social control over the market place – of managing the truncated “economic democracy” needed to minimize the gulf that separates the public from the private domain that labor demands while ensuring, in modified form, the rights of property. It is long well known, after all, how targeted state spending and taxation can regulate output, employment and income to dampen the effects of the business cycle, while ensuring long-run price stability.

    It would seem – again on paper – that the welfare state should be a win-win for both classes in society. As long as labor’s circumscribed demands could be satisfied, it had no reason to challenge this compromise. And it didn’t.

    But what about capital? It, too, would seem to have benefited greatly from this compromise.  State spending socializes the costs of training, research, and development and subsidizes the investments that allow individual businesses to commercialize the process of innovation.  Infrastructure spending reduces turnover times and assists capital to economize on its costs. State contracts increase the level of capacity utilization and thereby enhance the mass of profits available for investment and capitalist compensation.

    The welfare state, it would seem, broadly encourages, by dint both of its secular and counter-cyclical activities, a socially favorable investment climate.

    But if we delve a bit further, we can see that the welfare state has a fatal design flaw that has proven all-but disastrous to this rosy scenario. Full employment and working class economic security eliminates the key threat that management holds over the heads of workers. Without it labor discipline breaks down. And not just labor disciple. Tight labor markets endanger profit margins and intensify the always-latent problems that beset capital accumulation. Moreover, state spending on vast social programs of remediation, as envisioned by consistent welfare state advocates, also transfers capacity from the private domain that would otherwise be available for capital accumulation and profit expansion.

    Under “normal” circumstances this contagion may be accommodated. We might, with little fear of contradiction, periodize the life expectancy of the welfare state with the relatively exceptional and exceptionally brief period of unimpeded capitalist expansion pursuant to the end of World War II. But what is obscured is this. Productivity under capitalism has to be measured against the effects that the forces of production have on the relations of production; that is, against the production of value and profit. Because capitalist accumulation cannot be separated from labor-displacing innovation, a growing mass of capital investment perpetually seeks profit indemnification against a relatively diminished base of workers directly and indirectly engaged in the production of commodities, the very source of the system’s profits. As long as this fall in the rate of profit can be counterbalanced by a growing mass of profits, the crisis tendencies of capitalism can be averted.

    But this is also where welfare state expansion comes into conflict with capital accumulation. Rising real wages and the diversion of production from capital formation to individual and state (public) consumption suppress the accumulation process just when its pace needs to be accelerated. Profits are destroyed rather than contributing to capital formation, because they are diverted from the feedback loop of private production.

    Of course, once the crisis fully sets in, the expansion of state spending certainly has the positive effect of mopping up excess capacity that plagues the contraction of sales and markets. State spending can in theory put the growing legion of unemployed to work and assure that social consumption does not decline. But this increase in economic activity, while socially desirable, is capitalistically useless. This non-capitalist stimulus to demand does not increase investment and profitability. Rather it raises the level of economic activity by bringing excess capacity back into play for the purpose of creating public goods instead of capitalist commodities.

    What good, then, is the unchallenged “right to own and manage,” if it is exercised under circumstances that imperil the incentive to invest and, which, if left unchecked, all but invites the state to assume responsibility over an increasingly dysfunctional and unresponsive private sector?

    Where, of course, the system is being actively challenged from below concessions in the form of countercyclical activities is the lesser evil for capitalists. But the restoration of profitability rests not on state spending, but in speed-ups, rationalization and concentration; the elimination of excess capital and an increase in the degree to which profits can be wrung out of the hides of workers. And having spent decades dismantling and neutering all the organs of working class resistance – unions and parties, there is no reason why an emboldened capital should feel the need to concede power and authority for purposes that do not serve its ends.

    Most socialists share with social democrats the view that a thriving and expanding welfare state is more socially desirable than unfettered capitalism. The difference, however, lies in this. Socialists deny, for the reasons stated, that a healthy and vibrant welfare state is a long-term viable option for capitalists. Welcome as it may be to workers and to the broad public, it rests on exceptional historical and economic circumstances that are unlikely to be replicated. Capitalism cannot be housebroken, and will not share authority. It will violate the class consensus – the implied social contract – that underlies the welfare state and actively prepares to do so as as soon as such opportunities permit.

    Socialists warn that the welfare state is a privilege extracted from the dominant economic ruling class to be infringed upon and abrogated whenever capitalism finds itself in difficulty or endangered by its continuance.

    The scandal of the Great Recession is not the failure of the markets to rationally direct investment. Only true believers continue to think otherwise. No, the scandal is the fact that the capitalist state has within its means, by dint of its ability to freely finance any expenditure consistent with existing productive capacity, to offer jobs on demand at a living wage, to assure health care for all, adequate housing, fully-funded child care and a national pension and yet universally chooses not to do so and to step away from well-established arrangements. There are no financial constraints, the “debt burden” fraud notwithstanding, only a political restraint, the restraint that the power of money casts over democracy.

    That is why socialists raise the demand of expropriation. Not because the tools are not technically available for the state to plan and control the economy, including one nominally under private ownership. One need only look to capitalism under war-time conditions to understand this. No, we call for expropriation because social authority cannot be shared between classes. We call for the nationalization of the banks, for instance, not because public expenditure requires access to private bank capital. The Treasury and Federal Reserve can generate and handle any expense public authority calls upon them to manage. We recognize, in our call, that the socialization of the banks is the only means adequate to put an end to the financial engineering that directs wealth unproductively and exacerbates social inequality. We raise the demand for socialization to end the anti-social behavior of tiny minority in society that subverts and circumvents every honest attempt at regulation. And we call, above all, for the nationalization of the financial sector – and all sectors of production and distribution – to eliminate source of capitalist power over the popular will.

    More generally, socialists warn that capitalism “permits” and or “allows” democracy only to the extent that it does not endanger the class privileges of the bourgeoisie.

    That, and not because we are hidebound dogmatists, is why we will not and should not give up the ghost and accept welfare-state capitalism.

  • Weinsteins in the Workplace: Will Unions Be Part of the Solution Or the Problem?

    Image

    The exploding national debate about workplace harassment of women by powerful bosses or male co-workers is a great opening for unions to demonstrate their importance as one form of protection against such abuse.

    Unfortunately, when unions are not pro-active on this front in their dealings with management or, worse yet, allow bullying or sexual harassment among staff or members, their credibility and appeal as a sword and shield for women (or anybody else) is greatly reduced.

    Unions don’t exist in a vacuum. They reflect the workplace or occupational cultures of their members, and the latter are a product of social conditioning often unsupportive of solidarity on the job, collective activity, or sensitivity toward women and minorities.

    So the task of forging a united front, for purposes of mutual aid and protection in the workplace, is easily hindered by union dysfunction and internal divisions based on race, gender, ethnicity, age, and other membership differences.

    It takes continuous organizational effort—in the form of training and recruitment, new leadership development, and structural change–to insure that the bullying, harassing, divide-and-conquer behavior of bosses, big and small, doesn't infect and weaken the “house of labor" too.

    Locker Room Talkers

    One of my local union assignments, in a 27-year career representing the Communications Worker of America, illustrates some of the complexities, and ironies, of this challenge at the micro level. 

    The CWA unit in question had several hundred members, all factory workers in a depressed mill town in central Massachusetts. The union "brothers" greatly outnumbered the "sisters" in this blue-collar workplace. What President Trump calls "locker room talk" was fairly widespread; the culture was rough, definitely not PC, and, in fact, included some vocal Republicans more in love with their guns than the liberal causes or candidates championed by their national union.

    When I inherited this local in the early 1990s, I was struck by how many people in the shop seemed to have been bickering with or picking on each other since grade school. The rank-and-file was dispirited, divided, and prone to self-blame, for lagging wages and pension coverage. The union leadership was seen as a do-nothing little club, with no women in it, either as elected officers or appointed stewards.

    Members resented their local president for spending dues money on trips to CWA meetings and conferences that benefitted no one else. If workers had a problem or complaint, grievances might be filed on their behalf. But there wouldn’t be any follow-up pressure on management to secure favorable settlements. Everything took place behind closed doors.

    The local union president, whose nickname since high school was "Pinky," sang in the choir of a local church. He was a closeted gay male, a Navy veteran who acted superior to his blue-collar workmates, and often displayed a hostile attitude toward female co-workers. He believed in issuing orders, tightly controlling information, and liked to end poorly attended membership meetings as quickly as possible, due to "lack of a quorum." 

    “Jewing Us Down”?

    Since we had begun wage negotiations with the company, I pressured President Pinky to call a meeting, with or without a quorum, to highlight our lack of progress. I entertained the hope that this rare bargaining update might spark some rank-and-file activity he would be unable to quell. 

    The company's HR director at the time was a non-gentile from out-of town named Sheldon. And Pinky, despite his own aspirations for a salaried position (which he later got) did not like this particular management negotiator. So Pinky began his bargaining report with the news that Sheldon was "trying to Jew us down" at the bargaining table. The head nodding and muttering throughout the gloomy VFW hall suggested that Pinky, for all his leadership flaws, did know his local audience.

    I was a newly assigned union rep not yet known or trusted by anyone in the room, but felt compelled to call Pinky out on this.  My interruption began with a reminder that everyone present worked for a big corporation. Local management’s lack of enthusiasm for paying them better had nothing to do with Sheldon’s ethnicity or religion, I explained. Furthermore, as someone married to a Jew, I was not a fan of the phrase Pinky had used because it was part of evil stereotyping that helped murder millions of people during World War II, a slaughter of innocents not ended until VFW members and others helped defeat the Nazis responsible.

    Since there were no Jews (or African-Americans) present, I asked how many other people had ever been offended at some point in their life by the slurring of Italians as “Wops,” Puerto Ricans as “Spics,” Irish-Americans as “Micks,” French-Canadian New Englanders as “Frogs,” women as “sluts,” or gay people as “fags”—all in the context of attributing some unflattering characteristic or behavior to everyone in the group so labeled.

    A few hands went up. I then noted that talking about other people like this—even if they were in management—did not help us address the problem of how to build the internal unity necessary to win a good contract. Nobody would be getting a decent raise unless everyone in the shop pulled together, stood up, and fought back.

    Pinky did not welcome this personal reproach, my related call for collective action, or reality check on where negotiations were headed without it. True to form, the meeting was gaveled to a close quickly. Members left with the assurance that their local officers would handle everything.

    Unwanted Personal Contact

    Not long afterwards, I got my first opening to help plant the seeds of a better approach, which took another decade to flower. An hourly worker I’ll call Sally—an attractive single-mother, mistreated by men in her past—was threatened with disciplinary action by the company because of her alleged “sexual harassment” of a supervisor! In her version of their interaction, confirmed by co-workers, the married manager who complained about her was actually the initiator of unwanted personal contact.

    With the local leadership’s grudging assent, we not only filed a grievance, but also circulated a petition throughout the shop to support Sally. A special meeting was called to discuss her case, an unprecedented approach to “grievance handling” in the local.

    Women never active in the union but sympathetic to Sally got the petition signed in every department and shift. Nearly half the membership showed up on a Sunday morning to show solidarity with the grievant. At her first union meeting ever, Sally got a big round of supportive applause, from men and women alike.

    Management grumbled, of course, about the creation of such an unexpected and unwelcome ruckus. Despite the murky details of Sally’s actual relationship with the supervisor, disciplinary action against her was dropped. One of the female leaders of the petition drive volunteered to become a union steward and, a few years later, in the post-Pinky era, Peggy was elected vice-president of the local.

    She and others became part of a new, younger, more militant leadership of the local, which restored rank-and-file confidence in CWA. This union revival occurred just in time because, by 2001, the company was owned by the Pritzker family, billionaires from Chicago, who were seeking health care give-backs. (Fortunately, Pinky wasn’t still around to link that all-too-common management objective to the ethnicity of the new owners.)

    By now, a once sullen, isolated, and dispirited union body was filing group grievances, calling in OSHA inspectors, conducting informational picketing, making allies in the community, and defending good medical benefits in the local media. During contract talks, any member could attend, as an observer, and written reports were distributed, plant-wide, after every bargaining session.

    To resist concessions, the local responded with its first strike in 37 years. During that month-long work stoppage, no one crossed the picket-line and women played prominent roles on the strike and bargaining committees.

    SAG & SEIU: "Zero Tolerance?"

    The lessons of this story are several, and hopefully relevant to unions facing virtual extinction today, due to mounting legal and political attacks. A big part of labor’s comeback strategy must involve bottom-up rebuilding of local unions. Greater militancy, internal democracy, and transparency are key elements of that strategy, plus new, more diverse leadership. Challenging retrograde attitudes about women, blacks, Jews, Muslims, Latinos, or any foreign-born workers is an essential part of that task. Replacing officials who are obstacles to inclusion is a necessary, if not always sufficient, step toward real union reform.

    Among the many job-related concerns that can help build unity—among union members and workers seeking collective bargaining rights—is bosses who bully and harass people. However, unions can best stop such behavior and hold repeat offenders accountable if they have their own act together and avoid complicity with similar misconduct.

    In the Toronto Globe And Mail last month, one outspoken Harvey Weinstein victim—Canadian actress Mia Kirshner—accused both of her unions, the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television, and Radio Artists (ACTRA) of offering “inadequate protection” against “sexual harassment and abuse in the film industry.” 

    Kirshner’s blistering critique was seconded in Jacobin by Morgan Spector, a New York-based television, film, and theater actor. He also faulted SAG, which has a female president, for not being aggressive enough on behalf of aggrieved members—despite an official union policy of “zero tolerance” for sexual harassment.

    Worse yet, in Bloomberg News, a former hotel union staffer-turned-journalist, Josh Eidelson, just blew the whistle on misconduct by a top Service Employees International Union (SEIU) leader, in charge of its “Fight for 15” campaign among fast food workers. The career of Scott Courtney, Executive Vice President of SEIU, had previously been promoted by Mary Kay Henry, the gay woman who is the union’s national president. But, in mid-October Henry suspended him from his $250,000 a year position because, as Eidelson reported, “people working for Courtney had been rewarded or reassigned based on romantic relationships with him.”

    Courtney has since resigned, before he could be fired, as demanded by UltraViolet, a women’s group which called his conduct “wholly unacceptable.” And, as Buzzfeed News has reported, two male SEIU staffers who reported to Courtney have also been fired or put on administrative leave in Chicago, based on allegations that he protected them, despite co-worker complaints about their bullying behavior involving women.

    Press coverage of this union scandal is tainting SEIU’s reputation and credibility as a defender of fast food workers, who are often subjected to similar harassment by low-level managers in their industry. It’s a propaganda gift to anti-union employers everywhere, from McDonalds to your local manufacturer. Already, neo-liberal media outlets like the New York Times are writing unions off as a contributor to any “real and lasting transformation” of American workplaces, “in the wake of Harvey Weinstein’s expulsion from Hollywood” and the outing or toppling of other high-profile predators.

    In a lengthy October 29 editorial about next steps toward “lasting change,” the Times called for safer work environments, more enlightened and transparent management, and stronger anti-discrimination protection.

    While marveling at “what a difference it can make when women join together—and men join with them—to confront harassers openly,” the editors failed to note that collective action, of this sort, is best organized and sustained by a well-functioning union.

    When labor organizations like SAG or SEIU don’t quickly confront Weinsteins in the workplace, particularly in the situations referenced above, they’re just confirming management claims that unions are weak, irrelevant, and hypocritical as well.

    *Steve Early has been active in the labor movement since 1972. For 27 years he was an organizer and international representative for the Communications Workers of America. He is the author, most recently, of Refinery Town: Big Oil, Big Money, and the Remaking of an American City from Beacon Press. He can be reached at Lsupport@aol.com.

  • After 121 Years, the First Indigenous Singer Performs at Brazil’s Teatro Amazonas

    [1]Djuena Tikuna during her performance at the Teatro Amazonas. Image: screenshot, Jornalistas Livres (Youtube)

    On 23 August, Djuena Tikuna [2] became the first indigenous singer to perform on the stage of the Teatro Amazonas [3] (“Amazonas Theatre”) — a bastion of European culture in the middle of the world’s largest tropical forest.

    The 32-year-old artist produced and starred in the launch of her work Tchautchiüãne, or ‘my village’ in the Tikuna language. The album was inspired by the Amazonian rubber boom [4], which saw the massive exploitation of the region’s rubber trees — and the region’s people — beginning at the turn of the 20th century.

    The state of Amazonas [5] has one of the largest indigenous populations, making up around 17% [6] of the 896,000 indigenous people currently live in Brazil.

    Djuena is from the Tikuna people — Brazil’s largest indigenous ethnic group – and identifies as a “singer of the indigenous movement”. According to Djuena, the Tikuna are a “very musical” people; she learned from her mother, who learned from her grandmother, who, in turn, learned from her ancestors.

    Her lyrics are full of activist spirit; they speak of matters dear to her community, such as the environment and the demarcation of lands. More importantly, she sings in the Tikuna language, which, for her [7], is a political choice:

    Alguns povos não falam mais a sua língua. Já pensou se canto em português? Os jovens que estão me assistindo vão querer me imitar. Mesmo na cidade, temos de manter a língua e a identidade.

    Some peoples no longer speak their language. Can you imagine if I sang in Portuguese? The youth who are watching me will want to imitate me. Even in the city, we have to keep our language and identity.

    To understand what her show means for Brazil’s indigenous peoples, it is useful to look at the history of the Teatro Amazonas itself.

    The building, in central Manaus [8], the capital of Amazonas state, was designed by the Portuguese Institute of Engineering and Architecture of Lisbon and inaugurated in 1896, at the peak of rubber exploitation in the region.

    In an era when the automobile industry was taking its first steps, the discovery of extracting rubber from the seringueira [9] trees — commonly found in the Amazon — proved to be an extremely lucrative business, and attracted hordes of investors, adventurers, and workers from other parts of Brazil.

    The industry used indigenous techniques to extract natural rubber from the trees, and the wealth it generated turned the state capitals of northern Brazil into some of the country’s richest. As a show of this new wealth, the local elite proposed and financed the construction of the Teatro Amazonas — a project which was actually built by indigenous workers.

    The conversion of many indigenous people into poor workers was not the only damage done by the rubber boom; this period was characterized by the mass expulsion of various tribes from their lands.

    121 years has passed since indigenous workers built the Teatro Amazonas, and for the first time, an indigenous performer took to the stage of one of that era’s most important landmarks.

    When still a child, Djuena left the village and went to live in Manaus. In a piece reported by the website Jornalistas Livres, she says the idea to take her show to the Teatro Amazonas came from a question she asked herself: “Why can’t I sing there? Because I’m indigenous?”

    She adds:

    Quando eu cantei no palco do Teatro Amazonas com eles, que nós batemos os pés, é uma forma de eu estar dizendo: estamos aqui, parentes. Vocês sofreram por causa dessa construção, mas nós estamos aqui, vamos continuar aqui lutando e vamos continuar aqui resistindo.

    When I sang on the stage of the Teatro Amazonas with them, and we beat our feet, it is a way of me saying: we are here, kinsmen. You suffered because of this building, but we are here, we will continue fighting here and resisting here.

    The video ends with calls of “Demarcação já!” (“[Land] demarcation now!”) which is part of campaigns [10] — including a protest song [11] released by artists earlier this year — to defend remaining indigenous lands by ensuring full legal recognition, an issue which has been further weakened under Brazil’s current president Michel Temer’s[12] government.

    Article reposted from Global Voices: https://globalvoices.org

    URL to article: https://globalvoices.org/2017/10/31/after-121-years-the-first-indigenous-singer-performs-at-brazils-teatro-amazonas/

    URLs in this post:

    [1] Image: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH4YsoAV2nM&t=4s

    [2] Djuena Tikuna : https://www.facebook.com/DjuenaTikuna/

    [3] Teatro Amazonas: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teatro_Amazonas

    [4] Amazonian rubber boom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_rubber_boom

    [5] Amazonas : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazonas_(Brazilian_state)

    [6] around 17%: http://mundoeducacao.bol.uol.com.br/geografia/a-populacao-indigena-no-brasil.htm

    [7] for her: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/ilustrada/2017/08/1912133-pela-primeira-vez-artista-indigena-e-protagonista-no-teatro-amazonas.shtml

    [8] Manaus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manaus

    [9] seringueirahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hevea_brasiliensis

    [10] campaigns: http://www.redebrasilatual.com.br/cidadania/2017/04/indigenas-sao-atacados-pela-policia-em-brasilia-artistas-lancam-musica-em-defesa-da-causa

    [11] song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbMzdkaMsd0

    [12] Michel Temer’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Temer

  • Wholly Dedicated to Socialism From Below

    THE DEATH of Joanne Landy earlier this month is a profound loss to the socialist and internationalist movements.

    Image

     Joanne Landy (second row on the right) with others from the Socialists for Independent Politics; above right: Speaking in solidarity with Greece.

    Joanne died less than a day shy of her 76th birthday, and for her entire adult life, she retained a commitment to the fight for a more democratic and more humane world, and to the politics of socialism from below.

    In her nearly 60 years as part of the socialist movement, Joanne was the most principled of activists and intellectuals. She had the rare combination of the sharpest intelligence and the highest degree of empathy, both for her fellow socialists and activists, as well as for those struggling around the world.

    At the time she announced her cancer diagnosis last year, at a celebration for her life this past June, and in her last days in the hospice, the international outpouring of love and comradeship for Joanne was both remarkable and entirely understandable, given her personal and political impact on so many people and around so many issues.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    JOANNE WAS born in Chicago in 1941. Her father was Jewish and had fled Nazi Germany, where he had trained as a lawyer. In the U.S., he became a librarian and the director of the library at the then-Chicago Teachers College/Wilson Junior College (now Chicago State University). Her mother was a Unitarian and a liberal activist, including in the fight for integrated schools.

    As a teenager, Joanne was a self-described pacifist, having attended workshops of the American Friends Service Committee. Just shy of 16 years old, she enrolled at the University of Chicago, where she joined the Young Peoples Socialist League (YPSL) in 1958.

    She was recruited by Deborah Meier, who was part of the wing of the Trotskyist movement led by Max Shachtman. In 1957, Shachtman's Independent Socialist League had joined the Socialist Party and its youth group, the YPSL.

    By the early 1960s, a split had developed in the Shachtman group between a right wing and a left wing. The right wing, led by Shachtman, had turned to supporting the Democratic Party and its imperialist foreign policy–including the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.

    But it was the principled politics of Shachtmanite left-wing–which retained its commitment to socialism from below and the "Third Campism" represented by the slogan "Neither Washington Nor Moscow but International Socialism"–to which Joanne remained committed for the rest of her life.

    After two years at the University of Chicago, Joanne moved to New York City with her first husband, Sy Landy. It was in New York that she first met Julius and Phyllis Jacobson, who had founded the journal New Politics in 1961 and were important political influences in Joanne's life.

    New Politics was launched in response to the rightward turn of Shachtman, and Joanne was to become an editor of the re-launched New Politics, with the Jacobsons, in 1986. She remained active on the New Politics editorial board until the last weeks of her life.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    JOANNE MOVED west and enrolled at the University of California at Berkeley in the fall of 1964, just in time to become a founder of the Independent Socialists Club (ISC) and for the beginning of the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley.

    Hal Draper, one of the leaders of the left wing of the Shachtmanite tradition, along with others including Joel Geier and Mike Parker, formed the ISC based on the principles of socialism from below.

    Socialist intellectual and Cuba expert Sam Farber, himself was one of the founders of the ISC, noted at the June 2017 gathering to honor Joanne that she was the star recruiter to the ISC in Berkeley–based not only on her intelligence and perseverance, but her ability to listen.

    This experience in Berkeley was crucial to Joanne's political development. The organizing skills remained with her the rest of her life, while the experience of the rapid growth of the anti-Stalinist left and the high level of politics and activism of the period led to a sense of optimism and possibility that Joanne always carried with her.

    Among other things, Joanne also met her most important lifelong political collaborator, Tom Harrison, in Berkeley when Tom arrived there in 1966.

    In September 1969, following the implosion of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and the national growth of the ISC, it was decided to form a more centralized national organization, the International Socialists (IS).

    Joanne was a member of the IS from its founding, but was expelled in January 1972 for breaking discipline over the question of the slogan of victory for the National Liberation Front in Vietnam. The IS position was to support the struggle of the North Vietnamese and to call for a military victory to the NLF on the basis of their democratic struggle for national liberation, without being uncritical of the NLF or providing political support.

    Joanne was one of a group that, while opposing U.S. imperialism and calling for the U.S. troops to leave Vietnam, opposed active support for the NLF, believing this would substitute one set of authoritarian rulers for another in Vietnam. It wasn't the disagreement in opinion, but the decision to publicly distribute a flyer advocating the position, that led to Joanne's expulsion.

    Nonetheless, Joanne and the group who joined her around this issue did their best to minimize the contention arising from the split, and she succeeded in retaining close political relationships with the leadership and members of the IS that paid off through the coming decades of her political life.

    This tactical decision on the handling of her expulsion from the IS was emblematic of a number of qualities the Joanne possessed: a political farsightedness, an ability to understand the various sides of an argument without conceding her position of principle, and her ability to organize and win people to her position.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    INITIALLY, FOLLOWING the split with the IS, Joanne was part of an informal grouping called "Socialists for Independent Politics." While short-lived, this grouping did produce a political bulletin, but it was separate and politically distinct from the group around Hal Draper, who had left the IS in 1971. Draper was moving away from an immediate commitment to political organization per se, and was calling for the creation of a "political center" like those built around left-wing political journals.

    Though not hostile to Draper, Socialists for Independent Politics generally believed in the need for pluralistic political organization and independent political activity, and they were critical of what they came to see as Draper's growing softness toward the labor bureaucracy.

    Joanne returned to New York City in 1975, where she lived for the rest of her life. In 1980, she became involved with a group of activists who built support for the independent Solidarnosc trade union movement in Poland.

    This work proved enormously successful and put Joanne in contact with a broader milieu of political activists, including some who came from, but were critical of, the official Communist Parties. Some of these activists included Ed Asner, Noam Chomsky, Barbara Garson, Michael Harrington, David McReynolds, Pete Seeger, Paul Sweezy and E.P. Thompson.

    Ultimately, Joanne was a central figure in the founding of the Campaign for Peace and Democracy/East and West (later renamed simply the Campaign for Democracy, or CPD).

    Building on the ideas of E.P. Thompson of "détente from below," the CPD sought to build contacts with, and strengthen the capacity of, peace groups on both sides of the Cold War between the U.S. and the former USSR. Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, Joanne, on behalf of the campaign, traveled to Eastern Europe in support of the aims of the Campaign.

    Often in her capacity as co-chair of the CPD, Joanne was actively involved in struggles against U.S. imperialism in Latin America in the 1980s, in Bosnia and Iraq in the 1990s, and in the post-9/11 imperialist wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    In recent years, she was involved in campaigns in solidarity with the peoples of Iran and Greece. For example, in her inimitable way, she brought together activists from all sides of the Greek political left, both in the U.S. and in Greece, to build a solidarity movement against the humanitarian crisis of neoliberal austerity.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    NEITHER JOANNE nor the CPD wavered in their commitment to the struggle of the peoples of countries victimized by U.S. imperialism.

    Nor did Joanne overlook the role of other imperial interests and the brutality of anti-democratic dictatorships throughout the world. She combined a ruthless and committed anti-imperialism, with an equal commitment to the struggles from below for democracy and basic humanity waged across the world.

    Sam Farber described her as a "principled and critical internationalist." In this way, and on this basis, she and the CPD were able to play a unique and critical role in the antiwar movement in the United States.

    As Ashley Smith wrote in a tribute to her on behalf of the editorial board of the International Socialist Review: "[Joanne] was an internationalist who fought against all imperialisms and all states that oppressed their peoples, in the hopes of building a new and democratic society throughout the world."

    Similarly, activists in Haavar: Iranian Initiative Against War, Sanctions and State Repression wrote in a moving tribute to Joanne:

    [C]hallenging those in the antiwar movement who in the name of "anti-imperialism" refused to criticize the repression carried out by the Iranian government, she made the most principled arguments in favor of a kind of internationalist anti-imperialism that would never sacrifice the democratic demands and aspirations of ordinary people. We always knew she was with us and would have our backs, no matter what.

    Sam Farber, who had known Joanne for over 58 years, noted that despite achieving prestigious academic degrees at Berkeley (in History) and Columbia University (in Public Health), Joanne had dedicated her life to her political ideals.

    In that dedication, Joanne Landy's own humanity was ever present. The love and respect that she earned was always shared back to her friends and comrades. Her death has left those who knew her with an enormous sadness.

    The greatest tribute to her legacy will be to honor her political commitments with an intelligence and empathy we can only hope to mirror. Joanne Landy: ¡Presente!

     

    This article originally appeared on Socialist Worker.

     

  • The Complete Guide to China’s Leadership Re-shuffle

    Image

    This article was received before the official announcement of the new leadership. – DL

    In a highly choreographed ritual, seven suited men will this Wednesday stride onto a stage in Beijing, hair dyed jet black, led, naturally, by Chinese President Xi Jinping. What to the casual observer appears to be a rigid, inconsequential ceremony is in fact the unveiling of the most powerful political body on earth.

    The Politburo Standing Committee (PBSC) may be somewhat trivial-sounding, but is actually the very pinnacle of political power in China. It acts as an immensely powerful decision making body, and the new membership will take their seats on it as China approaches a crucial stage in its development. But the revealing of the new PBSC in front of the world press is far from the be all and end all of the 19th Party Congress. There are a host of other important bodies which will also be stacked with new members, including the wider Politburo, the Central Military Commission and the Central Committee, all of which perform significant governmental functions.

    In spite of this, analysts, and particularly journalists, all too often espouse the view that elite Chinese politics is a black box that produces both totally unforeseeable and totally unpredictable outcomes – and it is thus a waste of time trying to predict or analyse the what will happen at leadership transitions. Westerners who dare to try are dismissed as not being able to ‘understand China’. It is, however, an indisputable fact that Chinese and non-Chinese scholars can and have correctly predicted the membership of the PBSC ahead of time with a remarkable degree of accuracy, delivering crucial insight and analysis on the likely outcomes ahead of time.

    But why is this any use? Does it really matter if it is possible to foresee the composition of the PBSC a few weeks or days before the official announcement on Chinese state television? Is all the effort really worth it? The short answer is yes. It’s incredibly valuable for foreign governments, investors, as well as for academics, economists or anybody else making long-term predictions about China’s future. The 21st century will likely be defined by the rise of China. There is no escaping the fact that any comprehensive projections need to take into account future leadership transitions, a skill best developed through practice.

    Now that those issues are settled, let’s shed some light on things.

    How key personnel decisions are made, who takes them, and the factors at play

    The official explanation for how the aforementioned bodies are filled is that the Central Committee selects the Politburo, who then selects the Politburo Standing Committee, who in turn selects the General Secretary. In reality, the decisions are taken through a complex mix of negotiations between individual leaders (particularly the paramount leader of the country), the outgoing members of said bodies, factions within the Party, and Party elders.  The process is intricate in the extreme, with trade-offs and deal making between the various stakeholders eventually resulting in the final composition being decided, which is usually a compromise of sorts. What is most important to underline is that while the role of the leader of the Party is key, it is far from guaranteed that the incumbent leader will get what they want.

    That being said, there is no doubt that the role of General Secretary will be more significant than in previous years. By any yardstick, Chinese President Xi Jinping heads into the reshuffle with a level of influence in the proceedings unprecedented since the era of Deng Xiaoping. He has consolidated his power faster than any Chinese leader in the reform era, and is in a formidable position to influence proceedings. But contrary to what some may say, Xi’s power has its limits. He is constrained by a huge number of conventions, which will be examined later.

    But how does an aspiring contender for top leadership in China make it to the top? In a word, it is through ‘guanxi’, a Chinese term referring to the fostering of close personal ties between two individuals. Cultivating an extensive guanxi network that transcends factional lines and includes high ranking officials is imperative for career advancement in the Chinese political system. Guanxi networks puts cadres in a position to perform favours for each other, with the superior conferring protection and a pupillage on the subordinate, while the subordinate provides support for the superior. Ultimately, it is the strength of candidates’ guanxi networks which is the single most important factor in personnel appointments, largely because of the impact personal ties have on the formation of cliques and factional ties.

    In illustrating how guanxi networks influence appointments at the very highest levels of leadership, Scholar Jing Huang proposes that at the top level of leadership, “the supreme leader entrusts more power to his most loyal and capable follower in order to secure his control and to prevent instability at the time of his departure. Yet, the latter’s rapid expansion will eventually jeopardise the dominant leader’s position.” The best example of this playing out is not seen in China, but in East Germany. Then-leader Walter Ulbricht was ousted by his protege Erich Honecker, who by the 1970s had taken control of economic policy and had accrued great influence over personnel appointments. Honecker manipulated the reception behind the iron curtain to the thawing of tensions between East and West Germany for his own gain and prevented Ulbricht from consolidating his position. This was largely  achieved through using his new influence over Party appointments by blocking Ulbricht’s loyalists promotion to high office (thereby preventing Ulbricht from introducing new players into the struggle to reduce Honecker’s influence relative to Honecker himself). After securing Soviet backing, Honecker then clearly assumed the position of leader of the country, which was followed by him receiving formal positions to correspond with said status. Such scenarios can still occur at the very highest levels of leadership in China, as there are no institutionalised mechanisms to prevent it.

    If there is one single distinguishing characteristic to the Chinese political system it is the enduring prevalence of factionalism. There is no aspect of Chinese politics so little understood, so little studied by academics, and yet so crucially important. Truly endemic after decades of taking root, all aspects of the appointment system at high levels are in some way related to larger power plays being played out between factions. Naturally, guanxi is key to the existence of factions; with factions themselves essentially being composed of interconnected networks of political connections. These then form a more coherent group of individuals, who though not necessarily sharing the same (or even many) of the same views on policy, rely on each other for their political survival. But the Chinese political system and the key players within it are not all black and white with regard to factional affiliation, but often varying shades of grey. Within factions themselves, smaller cliques form, leading some onlookers to proclaim them factions in their own right, adding to the confusion. Factionalism is what truly gives Chinese politics its reputation for being a smoke and mirrors game.

    Factions, and the deals struck between them, are at the very heart of the appointment process at virtually every level of the Party and government – and this only intensifies the further up the chain of command one goes. Factors including a truly criminal lack of institutionalisation of power, patron-client relations amongst cadres, and unclear policy-making guidelines have made factionalism an enduring, and likely permanent, feature on the Chinese political landscape. While factions are ultimately focused on accruing power, they also represent different constituencies and interests – and to a lesser extent, policy goals.

    Some argue factions emerge primarily due to agreements and disagreements on a policy-making level. This was certainly the case in the 1980s, with the Party being broadly divided between reformists and hardliners. These divisions, or at least the remnants of them, still exist today, but tend to cross factional lines in that there are both reformers and hardliners within both major factions – particularly on the issue of economic reform. This is demonstrated by the fact that Xi’s inner circle of confidantes includes both nationalistic hawks like Liu Yuan, and fierce economic reformers such as Liu He. The simple fact is differences over policy are no longer the primary reason behind the formation and maintenance of significant, bona fide factions within the Party.

    What is known in Chinese as ‘mishu’, which literally translates as ‘office clerk’ but is better understood as referring to patron-client relations, also plays a key role in building careers and in factionalism in the Party. Lucian Pye noted in the 1970s how the role of mishu is steeped in Confucian political culture, and it has been hugely significant in grooming the Fifth and Sixth Generation of leaders for top leadership, rooting out the pretenders along the way. Xi Jinping served as mishu to then vice premier Geng Biao, who himself was once mishu to Xi’s father. A mishu group must definitely does not represent a faction in its own right, but collections of overlapping mishu is critical to the formation, maintenance and strengthening of factions.

    Despite some lone voices who argue to the contrary, most analysts of Chinese politics accept the Party can be divided into two broad factions. The first is what has been termed by analyst Cheng Li as the Jiang-Xi camp. This includes what remains of Jiang’s ‘Shanghai Gang’, the name given to his own personal faction that distinguished themselves by serving in Shanghai before making it to Beijing. The faction has undergone an evolution not dissimilar to the experience of the ‘religious right’ in the U.S.; namely, it has evolved and changed significantly, but is still recognisable to what it was a decade ago. The so-called ‘Shaanxi gang’ and other informal groupings associated with Zhejiang and Fujian have been co-opted into the faction by Xi, along with another crucial element – the Princelings – namely, the offspring of retired Party officials. Chief among them is Xi himself. The Jiang-Xi faction has of late stolen the populist rhetoric previously championed by the Youth League faction, which has intensified under Xi’s leadership.

    The other major faction is often referred to as the ‘Youth League faction’, so named as many of the cadres which the body is composed of have risen to prominence through the CCP’s youth organisation, the Communist Youth League. Many of the most high-profile Youth League faction members come from humble beginnings, having risen to the top from total obscurity. Examples include former President Hu Jintao and Premier Li Keqiang. Unlike the Jiang-Xi camp, the Youth League faction has not undergone any significant evolution over the last decade, with its members continuing to strike a broadly similar tone and advocate for similar policies. The faction is seen by supporters and detractors as being more representative of the working class and other marginalised groups in society than the Jiang-Xi camp, and generally supports policies which favour said groups. This was exemplified by the popular former Premier Wen Jiabao, who meticulously cultivated a down-to-earth ’man of the people’ image somewhat inspired by Mao's right-hand man, Zhou Enlai.

    What is crucial to underline is that both factions share certain common goals and objectives. The Jiang-Xi camp and the Youth League faction do not effectively function as two different political parties. Shared goals include maintaining a high economic growth rate, preserving social stability, and above all else, the maintenance of one-party rule. Cross-factional co-operation on these issues, while certainly not institutionalised, regularly occurs when it is to both sides’ benefit. The negotiations and deal-cutting between factions in the lead up to Party Congresses is typically far from cordial. Reports are impossible to verify, but sometimes the infighting surfaces in the open. Xi Jinping vanished for several weeks on the eve of the 18th Party Congress in 2012 in what was widely seen as a protest against outgoing President Hu Jintao’s plan to remain CMC chair for an extra two years. With the number of ambitious cadres far outranking the most coveted positions of power, by all accounts, deterioration of relations between the two major camps during personnel negotiations have in the past threatened to tear the Party apart. If Xi is genuinely seeking an extended stay in office, he threatens to drive a huge wedge between the two factions and leave a permanent scar on the factional landscape of the Party.

    Hence, a degree of factional balance throughout the institutions of the Party is imperative not just for good and effective governance, but for the sake of party unity and stability. It remains a long-standing convention to this day. It is not only inadvisable, but also politically very difficult for Xi to stack the PBSC with only his loyalists – not to mention potentially unnecessary for achieving Xi’s policy-making goals – which above all else is to build a more prosperous, proud and assertive China. Dominance by one faction, and the attitude towards dissent that said dominance encourages, can lead to major instability within the Party as negative sentiment towards the dominant faction can potentially build up like a dam. Factionalism, and the lack of institutionalisation which is the root cause of it, can also lead to a vulnerability to crises due to the blurred chain of command which results.

    Then there is the shadowy role played by the Organisation Department. Journalist Richard McGregor explains the role of secretive bureau perhaps better than anyone, writing that “The best way to get a sense of the dimensions of the department’s job is to conjure up an imaginary parallel body in Washington. A similar department in the US would oversee the appointment of the entire US cabinet, state governors and their deputies, the mayors of major cities, the heads of all federal regulatory agencies, the chief executives of GE, Exxon-Mobile, Wal-Mart and about fifty of the remaining largest US companies, the justices on the Supreme Court, the editors of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post, the bosses of the TV networks and cable stations, the presidents of Yale and Harvard and other big universities, and the heads of the think-tanks like the Brookings Institution and the Heritage Foundation. Not only that, the vetting process would take place behind closed doors, and the appointments announced without any accompanying explanation why they had been made.”

    The operative word here is “oversee”. The Organisation Department does not appoint, but rather approves candidates for promotion. It quite literally produces a report card (of sorts) on cadres’ performances and can, on that basis, make recommendations for further promotion. The significance and role in appointments of the Organisation Department varies on a case to case basis, but it is often extremely influential in preparing the initial starting points from which the political jockeying begins, in that it produces ‘report cards’ well in advance of any decisions on personnel appointments being made. No credible leaks of such material has reached the public domain since the 1990s, so the workings and current influence of the department are shrouded in mystery. The role of Head of the Organisation Department is often used as a challenging brief to test the metal of top leadership contenders, and is currently headed by Zhao Leji, a leading candidate for promotion to the PBSC.

    But regardless of how different factions or the role or the precise role of the Organisation Department is defined or viewed, one thing is clear: the Jiang-Xi faction truly dominates the outgoing PBSC, with only one member (Premier Li Keqiang) being from the Youth League faction. Whether that will change or not will depend on the outcomes of negotiations between the factions, but there is a growing sense that factional politics has become less volatile in its outcomes, if not in the ferocity of infighting. The likelihood of a more even share of the spoils at the reshuffle is considerably higher than many analysts have predicted. Still, only time will tell.

    Rules and Conventions

    The Chinese political system is awash with conventions, but there are few, if any, hard and fast rules. Every reshuffle sees conventions broken. What is unclear is whether we will see Xi rip the rule book to shreds or see him pay respect (or at least manoeuvring round or bending) of convention on Xi’s part. All of the issues raised below will be analysed further when looking at potential post-Congress scenarios.

    Prior to 2002, it was generally understood that PBSC and Politburo members usually retire at the Congress following their seventieth birthday. At the 16th Party Congress fifteen years ago, retiring President Jiang Zemin wished to prevent his bitter enemy Li Ruihuan from serving another term on the PBSC, and his determination was such that he introduced a retirement age of sixty eight for all top level leadership positions, forcing Li to step down. Given its origins, the ‘seven up, eight down’ convention can be seen as lacking legitimacy in some respects, but the fact remains it has been adhered to without exception since its inception. This is an issue of critical importance as we head into the reshuffle largely because of the case of one man; Wang Qishan. Wang has lead Xi’s signature anticorruption campaign, which has caught incredibly senior officials (albeit selectively) in the campaign’s wide dragnet, including (for the first time ever), a former PBSC member, Zhou Yongkang. Any bending of the rule, even for someone with the status and record of Wang Qishan, would be a major break of convention and incredibly controversial. However, if Xi wishes to serve more than two terms, it seems likely he would prepare the groundwork for this by allowing Wang Qishan (and perhaps others) to serve beyond the age of sixty eight, as in 2022 he will also be past the retirement age. More on this later.

    The principle of collective leadership could also restrict Xi’s options ahead of the reshuffle. This refers to the fact that the General Secretary heads up the PBSC, acting as a ‘first among equals’ on the body, which historically makes decisions collectively by majority verdict. While each PBSC member is given responsibility for specific policy areas, these are not as clearly defined as the portfolio given to ministers in the cabinet system in the U.S. and UK. Xi has undermined this convention on many fronts since taking office. Leading Small Groups, created ostensibly to support the work of the PBSC and the wider Politburo, have increasingly served as an avenue for Xi to consolidate his stranglehold on the policy-making process. However, the principle remains significant, if not sacred, and any attempt to undermine it, whether through adjusting the size of the PBSC or stacking it with Xi loyalists, is likely to be met with resistance.

    Another important convention has been variously described as the principle of ‘cross-generation designation of successors’ and  the ‘grandpa-designated successor’. This refers to the tradition of the leader of the country picking not his successor, but the successor to his own successor. Deng Xiaoping earmarked Hu Jintao, then the relatively obscure Party Secretary of Tibet, as a future President, describing him as “not bad”. Deng’s successor, Jiang Zemin, was instrumental in the ultimately successful effort to install Xi Jinping as General Secretary over incumbent Prime Minister Li Keqiang. Sinologist Willy Lam writes that Jiang was said to be ecstatic that he had managed to ensure the tradition of the ‘grandpa-designated successor’ continued. The principle is especially significant owing to the fact that the kingmaker this time round should in theory be Hu Jintao, who has left nobody under any illusions as to who he wishes to succeed Xi. Hu Chunhua (who is profiled later) is Hu’s clear preference for the top job. However, as will be discussed later, Hu Jintao’s capacity to influence proceedings is not thought to be high.

    Other conventions relating to personnel appointments include the principle of factional rotation. However, the impact, and even the existence of the convention, is disputed. There have only been two peaceful transfers of power under CCP rule, which limits the amount of evidence available to examine the claim. Nonetheless, the doctrine provides a satisfactory explanation for why the Youth League faction was happy to accept its near wipeout on the PBSC (with just one member out of seven on the Committee at present). Another tradition is that  PBSC hopefuls must have already served a term on the wider Politburo. While there is a precedent for the elevation of leaders directly from the Central Committee to the PBSC (skipping the ‘hoop’ of the enlarged Politburo), this has only been achieved by Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang- who enjoyed long-standing status as the two future top leadership frontrunners.

    Without further ado, let’s introduce the key players

    Image

    Xi Jinping The only person truly guaranteed a spot on the incoming PBSC is incumbent General Secretary, CMC chair and Chinese President Xi Jinping. For the purposes of this article, there is little point in writing yet another biography about Xi’s life, but instead to discuss what is not yet known – Xi’s strategy for the leadership reshuffle.

    In short, some believe Xi is seeking to further consolidate his position with an eye to staying in a formal position of power beyond 2022. Others believe that whatever his deepest desires, head will rule over heart and Xi will instead opt for a more consensus-driven path and allow multiple Youth League faction cadres onto the PBSC. The indications in the weeks leading up to the Congress seem to suggest the latter is more likely, but there is simply no way of telling ahead of time. Also of significance is whether Xi will seek to block the elevation of sixth-generation cadres to the PBSC, with the aim of removing any obstacles to him continuing as President beyond 2022. All of these scenarios will be examined in much greater detail later.

    Image

    Li Keqiang has served in the number two job as Premier, for almost five years, but has suffered from a seriously decline in  clout since taking office, being the biggest victim of Xi’s rapid consolidation of power. Dubbed the ‘PhD Premier’, Chinese state media was awash in the early stages of the Xi-Li administration with talk of ‘Likonomics’, praising Li’s understanding of the problems facing the Chinese economy to the skies. But no longer. Li has been systematically undermined by Xi from the off, and as the only Youth League faction member in the PBSC, he has stood alone and weak in a losing battle to cling onto his gradually dwindling influence at the top table. Xi’s creation of the Central Leading Group on Comprehensively Deepening Reforms has further robbed Li of any responsibility he might (and officially should) possess on the critical issue of economic reform.

    Li’s position is such that there have been unsubstantiated rumours circulating that Li will step down as Premier to be replaced by Wang Qishan, or even Wang Yang, with Li instead seeing out five more years on the PBSC in a less senior position, such as NPC or CPPCC chair. While this possibility cannot be discounted entirely, it is incredibly unlikely and would represent a break of what is arguably the most inflexible convention in Chinese politics – that the President and Premier are to serve ten years together leading the administration. It seems incredibly unlikely Xi would rock the boat and push for the demotion of the already marginalised Premier, especially given Li is unable to affect the policy-making process in a significant way – at least relative to Xi. While it would be a huge statement of intent, it would require vast amounts of political capital and open an enormous rift within the Party, without necessarily accomplishing any major consolidation of power on Xi’s part. It is thus all but guaranteed that Li will remain as Premier for another five years.

    Image

    Dubbed ‘China’s enforcer’, ‘graft buster in-chief’ and even ‘the firefighter’, Wang Qishan has played a pivotal role within the Xi administration. Having displayed an administrative flair throughout his career, his greatest feat yet has been heading up Xi’s flagship anticorruption drive. The scale, significance and perceived success (at least within China) of the drive is difficult to do justice to, as is the critical role Wang has played in carrying it out. Described by former U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson as “a committed reformer” and “a savvy up-and-comer with impeccable connections”, Wang is also unusually frank and decisive – rare qualities for  a Chinese politician. He has also enjoyed a friendship with Xi for decades.

    Ordinarily, his age would deal a fatal blow to any chances of remaining on the PBSC, but such is his contribution over the last five years to the Xi administration, speculation is rife that he may be allowed to serve another term and perhaps even take the place of Li Keqiang as Premier. Most analysts maintain that it remains politically very difficult for Xi to do this, despite Wang’s achievements. Others believe Xi has already thrown the rulebook out of the window, and has little to fear from extending Wang’s tenure on the PBSC.

    Image

    The favourite to succeed Xi, Chen Min’er worked alongside the President in Zhejiang, where Chen was instrumental in ensuring Xi’s efforts were well-received in the Chinese media. Chen is part of what has been nicknamed the ‘new Zhejiang Army’ – a group of officials who made their name while serving in Zhejiang while Xi was Party Secretary during the mid-2000s. After becoming the governor and later Party Secretary of Guizhou province, Chen became Party Secretary of Chongqing earlier this year. Many have drawn parallels between Xi’s brief spell as Party chief of Shanghai in the run up to the 2007 Party Congress and Chen’s short tenure in Chongqing, believing it to be an audition of sorts for the very highest office.

    Chen faces stiff competition in his bid to succeed Xi. It is far from guaranteed he will even bag a PBSC seat – and unlike rivals Wang Yang and Hu Chunhua, he does not sit on the Politburo at present, which may hamper his promotion prospects. While his position was certainly bolstered by the removal of Chongqing Party Secretary and rival for the Presidency Sun Zhengcai (not least because he stepped in to replace him In Chongqing), Chen will also have to contend with the aforementioned convention of the ‘grandpa-designated successor’ – which if respected, will hang Chen out to dry. Regardless, Chen remains the undoubted favourite to succeed Xi.

    Image

    The diametric opposite of former Chongqing Party Secretary Bo Xilai, Wang’s stock rose sharply when Bo was implicated in the murder of British businessman Neil Heywood.While Bo’s ‘Chongqing model’ advocated for state-led investment in the economy, draconian crackdowns on organised crime and espoused nostalgia and support for the values of the Mao era, Wang’s liberal attitude in governing Guangdong emphasised support for market-based economic reforms, technological innovation and investment in infrastructure. Both, however, have in the past engaged quite openly in a form of lobbying that is alien to the Chinese political system, something that aggravated certain people across the Party and was a contributing factor in seeing Wang miss out on a PBSC seat in 2012. Wang is also seen as a top contender to succeed Li Keqiang as Premier, with many speculating Hu Jintao wishes to see an administration lead by Hu Chunhua as President and Wang as Prime Minister take charge in 2022. Hu Chunhua’s loyalty to his boss, coupled with Wang’s reformist credentials and brash personality has ensured he plays second fiddle in Hu Jintao’s plan to ensure a Youth League cadre takes the helm in 2022. This could easily be reversed in time, and given the murky waters of Chinese politics, the Youth League’s preferred running order may have already changed.

    In the run up to the 18th Party Congress in 2012, mere rumours of Premier Li Keqiang’s support for ideas including judicial independence and constitutional government during his student days were enough to seriously damage his standing among party hardliners, contributing to him falling short of the top job. Whether Wang is truly seen as a reformer within the Party's upper echelons is another question entirely; the answer to which is unclear. Regardless, he is admired even by his critics for his charisma, intelligence and track record in government. He is a highly capable official widely seen as possessing ability worthy of a PBSC seat. Xi will almost certainly not wish to see Wang on PBSC, but if the Youth League faction make his promotion a red line, Xi will struggle to cut a deal to keep Wang off the PBSC.

    Image

    Said to be closer than any other politician to Xi, Li Zhanshu has served as Director of the General Office since 2012, a role more commonly referred to as chief of staff to the President. The role is the ultimate expression of the aforementioned phenomenon of mishu, with the holder serving as the most senior aide in government. While his predecessor’s career quite literally ended in a car crash, unlike most holders of the role, Li sits on the Politburo and is amongst the leading contenders for a seat at the top table. Like Xi, Li is also a princeling, with his great-uncle having served as Vice Governor of Shandong.

    Li’s factional affiliation is also to his benefit. While he is a princeling by birthright, Li also has close ties to the Youth League, having served as Hebei Communist Youth League Secretary in the late 1980s. Remarkably, Li is also linked to the Shanghai Gang through his patronage by Jia Qinglin, a key ally of former President Jiang Zemin.  He also has some provincial leadership experience, having served as governor of Heilongjiang province and Guizhou Party Secretary. All this, combined with his closeness to Xi, puts Li in a position to reduce factional tensions and stands him in good stead for promotion. Of all the contenders listed here, Li is arguably the favourite to join the PBSC.

    Image

    Having served as Head of the powerful Organisation Department since 2012, Zhao Leji is an unusual candidate for high office. Prior to 2012, he was not clearly aligned with either major faction, but is now a close confidante of Xi himself, having followed in Xi’s footsteps when he served as Party Secretary of Shaanxi province from 2007-12. However, his predecessor as Organisation Department chief, Li Yuanchao, fell short of a widely anticipated elevation to the PBSC five years ago. Still, Zhao is also relatively young – being born in 1957 makes him a Sixth Generation cadre, and helps put him firmly in the hunt for a PBSC seat and possibly even the Presidency. His age means he may have a second bite of the cherry in 2022 if he fails to win promotion this week.

    Zhao’s service in the far west in the Xinjiang Autonomous Region is to his benefit; if he joins the PBSC he will follow in a long line of leaders who have served in the backwater regions of Tibet and Xinjiang, which includes former President Hu Jintao. His lack of obvious factional ties, coupled with the remarkable lack of information surrounding both his career and personal ties makes his promotion prospects still less clear. At the last Party Congress in 2012, those without clear factional affiliation fared well, but that is far from a guarantee of success this time round. His potential promotion is amongst the most intriguing unanswered questions to be answered on Wednesday.

    Image

    Ahead of the reshuffle, no one has been left in any doubt that Hu Chunhua is the choice of former President Hu Jintao to succeed Xi. Dubbed ‘little Hu’ to differentiate him from his patron, Hu Chunhua has served in the important posting of Party Secretary of Guangdong, China’s most prosperous province since 2012, and before that as Party Secretary of Inner Mongolia. Hu is among the top picks to succeed Xi for many analysts, with former President Hu has signalling his clear support for him through recent public appearances alongside each other. Hu represents the brightest prospect for top leadership for the Youth League faction along with Vice Premier Wang Yang.

    However, Hu Jintao is not predicted to be influential in the selection of the new PBSC members. His influence undeniably pales in comparison to the role played by party elders in the 1980s. That said, the former President is not totally without ability to affect the proceedings. An important convention states he should be the one to choose Xi’s successor.

    Hu has not impressed everybody during his tenure in Guangdong. A wealthy Shenzhen businessman who had met with Hu multiple times mocked him, calling him a “political leper”, adding that he had risen through the ranks “largely by luck and with Chairman Hu’s backing”. Nonetheless, Hu’s report card in Guangdong is solid, if not particularly dazzling. Growth has remained steady, and his deft handling of the potentially explosive situation in the ‘democracy village’ of Wukan can only be called impressive. His position as a frontrunner to succeed Xi has certainly been consolidated to one degree or another by Sun Zhengcai’s removal, but few would dispute Chen Min’er has gained more politically from the move. This is because Sun and Chen previously held the status as the two top leadership frontrunners from Xi’s faction – now only Chen remains from that group. His chances remain strong, and convention dictates the previous President (Hu Jintao) is to choose who succeeds his successor. There is, however, ample evidence this convention will be unceremoniously abandoned, even though it has endured for decades. More on this later.

    Image

    Once tipped as a possible future President, Han Zheng has spent the whole of his career in Shanghai, and is rumoured to be among the frontrunners for the post of Premier when Li Keqiang steps down. Closely associated with former leader Jiang Zemin, Han was fortunate in the extreme for surviving the purge of the Shanghai Party apparatus following the dramatic purge of then-Shanghai Party Secretary Chen Liangyu in 2006, whom Han was close to. While he is a gifted administrator, the reason his career has thrived over the last decade has been more down to good fortune than anything else. Han rode his luck over a series of scandals, from the aforementioned fall of Chen Liangyu, to apartment fires and building collapses.

    His chances will be hurt by the fact that long spells in top provincial leadership positions have become a hallmark of the PBSC membership. Nonetheless, Han’s lack of provincial experience did not prevent him from becoming Shanghai Party Secretary, a position of real significance which is accompanied by a seat on the Politburo. A brief spell working for the Youth League early on in his career is certainly a feather in his cap. His record of achievement is overall impressive, which combined with his relatively close ties to Xi, gives him a fighting chance for promotion to the PBSC.

    IMAGE While Han Zheng has no experience in political leadership outside of Shanghai, ideology tsar Wang Huning has none at all. Once seen as being firmly in former President Jiang’s ‘Shanghai Gang’ faction, Wang astonishingly went on to work as a top aide for each of the last three Chinese Presidents, forming a key part of each administration and being part of the entourage on their foreign visits overseas. This straddling of an increasingly wide factional divide is rarely seen at such high levels of leadership as the Politburo, but betrays more about Wang’s talent for getting things done than any masterful political manoeuvring on his part.    

    Image

    Originally an academic by trade, he has served as Director of the Central Policy Research Office, as well as playing a key role in foreign policy formulation, ranking above Foreign Minister Wang Yi (which, despite being high-profile position and despite the connotations of the job title, is actually not a particularly important post in the Chinese political system). Wang is also said to have been instrumental in formulating the theoretical bases for the theories of the ‘three represents’ and ‘scientific outlook on development’, the ideological contributions of former President Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao to the Party constitution. He is also part of Xi’s inner circle of confidantes – but is said to be extremely modest to the point of (allegedly) not aspiring  to a top leadership position.

    Wang’s chances for promotion are incredibly difficult to estimate. Ordinarily, a total lack of provincial leadership would render promotion to the Politburo (which Wang already sits on) let alone the PBSC, a mere pipe dream. Many would argue, however, that Wang’s truly unique experience more than makes up for any lack of time served in the provinces. His experience working for former leaders from across the Party may also make him acceptable to the powers that be across factional lines.  The likely promotion of Li Zhanshu could hurt his chances as it would raise eyebrows to see the promotion of more than one technocrat who has made their name in Beijing. Whether or not he will join the top table is perhaps the most interesting unanswered question ahead of the reshuffle – the answer to which could shape expectations as to the experience potential PBSC members must have. Watch this space.

    And some outsiders for promotion to the PBSC…

    Cai Qi: Beijing Party boss Cai Qi has enjoyed a meteoric rise over the last two years. Very much Xi’s man – he is said to be close to the President – Cai seems destined for a seat on the wider Politburo. Indeed, the position he currently occupies; namely, Party Secretary of Beijing, traditionally comes with a Politburo seat (though these are non-transferable and only filled at Party Congresses, hence why Cai did not join the Politburo when he received the posting in 2016). Were he promoted to the inner sanctum of the PBSC, it would be arguably the fastest rise to the top table ever seen – he currently does not even sit on the 370-strong Central Committee at present – but Xi willing, he may just go all the way. His promotion would likely only be possible if Xi embarked on a successful effort to throw out the rule book and decide the appointments to the PBSC on his own terms.

    Liu He: Similarly, Liu He is another official who has risen from relative obscurity largely thanks to being a confidante of Xi. Liu is widely seen as being very influential in economic policy formulation in recent years, heading up the Leading Group on economic reform. Upon Xi introducing Liu to U.S. National Security advisor Tom Dillon, the President is reported to have remarked “This is Liu He. He is very important to me.” However, close ties to the leader, even one of Xi’s stature, is far from a guarantee of a PBSC seat – simple arithmetic alone on the number of seats available puts paid to that argument. Also, it is important to remember that anyone who is not a member of the Politburo is naturally up against it in terms of their prospects for promotion to the PBSC.

    Sun Chunlan: The only woman even remotely in contention for a PBSC seat, Sun Chunlan has served as Head of the United Front Work Department since 2012. Liu Yandong fell short of being the first woman to sit on the PBSC five years ago, and it seems likely Sun will share the same fate, despite Sun’s long experience in provincial leadership positions. Distinguished China analyst Cheng Li gives her more of a chance than most, recently commenting that Sun has a ‘five to ten percent chance’ of making it to the PBSC. Sun is thus a real outside shot for a PBSC seat, but is certainly remains in the running. Sun is considered a member of the Youth League faction, which is likely to be detrimental to her prospects for promotion, as does her gender. Few in the Party are minded to see a woman appointed to the PBSC. Her age means this will be here last opportunity for promotion. Another term on the Politburo, but not the PBSC, beckons.

    Liu Qibao: Youth League cadre Liu Qibao was thrown in the deep end as new Party Secretary of Sichuan province when the devastating Earthquake of 2008 hit. It had the potential to derail his political career, but the relatively swift response and successful recovery effort showed him to be capable of handling the situation. He worked for the Communist Youth League during the 1980s, at one point serving alongside Premier Li Keqiang, and has also regularly authored articles in the Party’s journal Seeking Truth. He has served as propaganda chief since 2012; also serving on the Politburo. While in the hunt for a PBSC seat, the small number of seats available makes his promotion unlikely, but not impossible.

    Some real outsiders for a PBSC seat include Zhang Chunxian, Chen Quanguo, Li Hongzhong, Xu Qianglin and Li Yuanchao. While their chances cannot be discounted entirely, their chances are not good enough to warrant a detailed examination of their backgrounds.

    Analysis

    In analysing what the state of the players means for possible outcomes of the reshuffle, even those who most fervently believe Xi is seeking a third term must accept such speculation would be inevitable given such a rapid consolidation of power. It is important not to confuse this with a desire to rule indefinitely. Many took the purge of Sun Zhengcai as an indication Xi is seeking to remove possible successors in preparation to serve as leader for longer than ten years. However, there glaring signs that Xi has manoeuvred Chen Min’er into position to succeed him in 2022.

    Prior to his elevation to the PBSC ten years ago, Xi briefly served as Party Secretary of Shanghai in what is widely seen as a crucial period in his career. Stepping in to replace the disgraced Chen Liangyu, Xi finally gained the upper hand over Li Keqiang, putting him in pole position to succeed Hu Jintao. He also oversaw the merger of his own cliques formed in Zhejiang and Shaanxi (along with the Princelings), with the Shanghai Gang, an all-important step in consolidating his position along with his that of his faction. In advance of the upcoming leadership reshuffle, Chen Min’er’s career has mirrored Xi’s to a remarkable degree. Just a few months ago, Chen was appointed Party Secretary of Chongqing in the wake of the purge of a high-profile predecessor (and rival for the top leadership) in the form of Sun Zhengcai. This can only be viewed as positioning Xi positioning Chen for promotion to the PBSC. It would make little sense for Xi to allow Chen’s rise if he were seeking to rule indefinitely.

    With everything taken into account, the signs are clear that Chen Min’er is Xi’s preferred successor. Whether Hu Jintao and the Youth League will be able to put a halt to this remains to be seen, but appears unlikely. Chen’s accession to the PBSC is far from an inevitability. A failure to win promotion will not doom Chen’s chances of succeeding Xi – far from it. It is entirely plausible (and many would argue more likely) that Chen will serve another term on the wider Politburo before While those who believe Xi is seeking a third term argue he would prevent any promotion of younger cadres to the PBSC, he could well be manoeuvring Chen Min’er as a back-up plan in case his bid to serve an extra term (or more) fails. As aforementioned, while Xi and Li were promoted to the PBSC directly form the Central Committee, and serving a full five year term on the Politburo before further promotion clearly remains an expectation of sorts among elements of the Party. Given Chen is not on the Politburo at present, an initial promotion to said level may instead be in the offing.

    On the other hand, there are those who argue Xi’s authority more than compensates for Chen Min’er’s lack of experience. The fact that the information flow on factional struggles within the Party has markedly decreased over the last decade also makes such a prolonged spell as a future leadership frontrunner a far more difficult status to obtain.

    Nonetheless, as early as 2000, some twelve years in advance of their respective appointments to President and Premier respectively, it was clear that Xi and Li were the frontrunners for top leadership of the fifth generation. Andrew Nathan and Bruce Gilley wrote in their 2002 book China’s New Rulers: The Secret Files identified Xi, Li and Bo Xilai as the three frontrunners for top leadership, correctly predicting (in the face of most forecasts at the time) Xi, not Li, would emerge as the frontrunner and eventually take the Presidency. Chen Min’er has unquestionably not held the status of ‘Crown Prince’ for nearly as long – and arguably does not even enjoy it today.

    The leaked documents that Nathan and Gilley’s book was based on were enormously prescient in noting twelve years ahead off time that Xi’s greatest asset would be “his lack of a clear ideological position, which allows hard-line and liberal officials alike too support him”. It was for this reason that Xi enjoyed broad support across the Party – in a straw poll conducted around the time of the Congress in 2007 surveying the 370-strong Central Committee, Party elders and other senior figures, Xi was said to have done significantly better than his primary rival Li Keqiang. This, combined with the influence of former leader Jiang Zemin and the fallout of the Ling Gu affair, eventually ensured it was to be Xi, not Li, that would succeed Hu. With regard to Chen’s case, on balance, the signs are he will join the PBSC.

    Little to no elevation of Sixth Generation officials, coupled with the promotion of Chen Min’er to either the wider Politburo or the PBSC, could be indicative of Xi taking such the approach of staying on beyond 2022. Equally, Xi could push for more diverse factional representation on the PBSC and still manoeuvre for the same outcome. The fact remains that the upcoming leadership reshuffle is far from the be all and end all of Chinese political dynamics for the foreseeable future.

    Perhaps the most crucial of all conventions heading into the reshuffle is the doctrine of the ‘grandpa-designated successor’. If said convention is respected, there can be no doubt that Hu Chunhua will be the next leader of China. Equally, if the disputed doctrine of factional rotation is obeyed (if it even exists), Hu Chunhua is assured of the Presidency. It will be incredibly difficult for Xi to prevent the accession of both Hu Chunhua and Wang Yang to the PBSC, should he desire to. The glaring lack of Youth League representation on the PBSC (even if this is mitigated by strong representation on other bodies of great significance) is something Youth League patrons will want to compensate for. The doctrine of factional balance also improves the chances of Wang and Hu, given the lack of Youth League members on the present PBSC.

    Another important issue heading into the reshuffle is whether Wang Qishan will serve another term on the PBSC. While Wang has proven invaluable during Xi’s first five years in office, convention dictates he must step down as he has reached the official retirement age. The regulations surrounding this were discussed earlier and need not be gotten into once more. The relative inflexibility of the convention, coupled with the fact it is not essential for Xi to keep Wang on to achieve his policy objectives make it increasingly unlikely Xi will stir controversy and push for Wang to remain on the PBSC. Either way, what is certain is that Wang will play a significant role over the coming years – regardless of whether he continues to hold a formal position of power. With everything taken into account, the indication is Wang’s chances of staying on the PBSC have dipped below fifty per cent. 

    Some predictions – and what they will mean

    There will undoubtedly be many surprises next week, and probably some relating to the composition of the PBSC. Any predictions are highly likely to be off the mark to one degree or another. But it would be rude and overly cautious not to make some.

    In the interests of brevity, the possible post-Congress scenarios can be narrowed down to the following broad and mutually exclusive outcomes:

    1.     No promotion of Sixth Generation cadres to the PBSC – paving the way for Xi to serve at least 3 terms as General Secretary

    2.     The promotion of a single clear successor from Xi’s faction (most likely Chen Min’er) to the PBSC

    3.     The promotion of several Sixth Generation cadres (likely including Chen Min’er, Wang Yang and Hu Chunhua) from multiple different factions, leaving no clear successor to Xi

    To cut to the chase, my own opinion is scenario three is the most likely event to occur. However, conventional wisdom amongst western analysts and journalists most definitely points to scenario one playing out. The image of Xi amongst said people is of a dictator determined to make his mark on China, and rule for considerably longer than ten years, perhaps even indefinitely. The dramatic fall from grace of Sun Zhengcai, once believed by some to be Xi’s choice to succeed him, has been interpreted by some as a statement of intent on the part of Xi to rule for longer than ten years. But it is hardly out of the ordinary for the purge of a high-profile figure to occur on the eve of a Party Congress. In terms of significance and sheer drama, Sun’s removal is positively eclipsed by the astonishing fall of Bo Xilai in the lead up to the 18th Party Congress in 2012. Such moves are not new and shouldn’t be read into too much – Sun’s ousting appears to be nothing more than Xi removing an undesirable from the scene in advance of the Congress. This is neither astonishing nor shocking, and should not have come as a surprise to most . To paraphrase analyst Cheng Li, it is important not to confuse an effective leader with a dictator.

    Crucially, even if Xi does wish to exert great power beyond 2022, there would certainly be no need for him so occupy a formal post. Xi will be extremely wary of how Jiang, who decided to remain in a formal position of power for two extra years than convention dictated he was entitled to, was seen as ‘overstaying his welcome’. It was a move that was to cost Jiang dearly in terms of the loss of goodwill towards Jiang and his faction over the coming years. It is of crucial importance to underline the strong tradition in Chinese culture of the role of elders – extending well beyond the political sphere. Hence, the most likely scenario post-Congress is of a PBSC with a more Youth League representation, and in 2022, it is likely Xi will step down, while still exerting pervasive influence from behind the scenes. What remains unclear is who will succeed him.

    Despite speculation to the contrary, it is highly unlikely the size of the PBSC will change. As discussed above, it makes little sense for Xi to push through changes that will rock the boat without necessarily consolidating his own power. The current constraints on the size of the PBSC do not prevent him from achieving his objectives, and is makes little sense for such a radical move to be taken with no clear benefits for Xi.

    Predicting the new PBSC

    And now for the most interesting, and by far the most difficult, prediction. This is likely to be off the mark in one way or another, but I would not be making a prediction at all without a degree of confidence in this outcome.

    In descending order of rank, my prediction is that the next Politburo Standing Committee will be composed of:

    1.   Xi Jinping

    2.   Li Keqiang

    3.   Li Zhanshu

    4.   Wang Yang

    5.   Chen Min’er

    6.   Hu Chunhua or Zhao Leji

    7.   Wang Huning

    My prediction that Xi will be happy with the status of party elder after 2022 is based on the fact that to date, Xi has not shown himself to be someone who cares much for official titles, and is more concerned with the acquisition of real political power and policy implementation than egoism. While some viewed his acquisition of ‘core’ status in 2016 as indicating the exact opposite, and noted it was something which was not afforded to his predecessor Hu Jintao, a better explanation is that it was an obvious way to cement his authority over the Party. Also, Hu can be seen as the exception to the rule in this case. Since its inception, the term has only seen three Chinese Presidents in total. Hu was the only one of the three not to be ‘cored’ – a fact some put down to modesty and others to his total lack of X. Thus, it is likely Xi will take on a role after his retirement greater than Jiang in the mid 2000s, and instead one not dissimilar to that of Deng Xiaoping in the early 1990s. This would entail him being able to influence decision making on a level equal to his successor, at least for the first term of the latter’s Presidency.  

    What is certain is that Xi would much rather see Hu Chunhua sit on the PBSC than Wang Yang, if given the choice. Rightly or wrongly, it is blindingly obvious Xi has a very low opinion of Hu’s ability. If that is the case, Xi may choose to accept the convention of the ‘grandpa designated successor’, giving carte blanche to Hu Chunhua to succeed him. A conspiracy theory that is not without merit speculates that former President Jiang did not seek to block Hu Jintao’s accession to the throne in the wake of his retirement, as Jiang believed Hu was weak enough for him to dominate his time in office. What is undeniably true is that Jiang wielded huge influence behind the scenes well into Hu’s tenure, largely through his proteges (one of which was Xi), who held many positions on the PBSC. Jiang also only relinquished his office in Zhongnanhai (best described as ‘China’s White House’) four years after his retirement from his last post. Make of that what you wish, but the possibility Xi may be happy to see a supposedly weak leader Hu Chunhua succeed him so as to tower over their tenure cannot be discounted. Much food for thought.

    What all this means for China’s future

    The impact of the new realities of the post-Congress Chinese political system is disputed. As the outcome is far from clear, naturally so are the implications of the Congress for Chinas future. Most analysts accept that the two most significant areas that will likely be affected in the long term, whatever the outcome of the reshuffle, are economic growth and social stability – a decline in either of which could undermine the legitimacy of, or even bring an end to, the rule of the CCP.

    Analysts’ view on China’s future can be broadly divided into two categories. On the one hand, there are those who believe that China must undergo a process of democratisation, or at the very least, embark on a meaningful political reform programme, in order to maintain both social stability and economic growth rates of around 7%. Chief among them is scholar of Asian affairs David Shambaugh, who argues that “China’s capacity for innovation will be severely limited by its lack of political liberalisation”. Shambaugh claims that continuing on the current trajectory of stagnation in the political arena will seriously hampering Chinese growth prospects in the long term.

    Whether there truly is a link between political reform and continued economic growth in the Chinese context, only time will tell. The one aspect of a liberal democracy that China’s political system encompasses; namely, the peaceful transfer of power (albeit not from one party to another, but from one generation to another), is undeniably smashed to pieces if Xi disrupts the standard succession template. This would be another in a long line of setbacks for political liberalisation, and if Shambaugh is to be believed, abuse of such norms will eventually (if indirectly) take a toll on the Chinese economy. On the other hand, if Xi chooses a more consensus-driven path, respects major conventions, and promotes cadres from across the Party as described in scenario three, political reform prospects will be given a boost, albeit a minor one.

    The fact remains, however, that the only realistic prospects for seismic political reform in the near future rest squarely on the shoulders of Wang Yang. It is as of yet unclear whether Wang has simply played the reform card to boost his career prospects or whether he espouses such views out of genuine conviction. We may never know. In any case, there are simply no other contenders for top leadership that have given even the slightest indication of support for a substantive programme of political reform. Many speculate Wang is more likely to finish as runner-up and instead take the office of Premier. Whilst this is the second most powerful political office in China, incumbent Premier Li’s predecessor Wen Jiabao showed how having a Premier firmly committed to political reform is far from a guarantee of it coming about. To succeed Xi, Wang simply must obtain a seat on the next PBSC, something (as discussed earlier) he is relatively well placed to do. But if Shambaugh’s thesis is to be believed, it is not just the hopes of all who wish to see political reform in China that lay with Wang and Wang alone, but the fortunes of the Chinese economy as well.

    Regardless of whether a political reform programme (or rather, a lack thereof) will affect economic performance or indeed social stability, for the time being it seems continued CCP rule is as secure as ever. Predictions of the Party’s fall have come and passed without incident, and there is little threat of an overnight collapse when all potential threats to the Party’s rule are disparate and disunited. Migrant labourers, the middle classes and Tibetan dissidents won’t be seen marching side by side through Beijing any time soon. And given many of said groups don’t even wish to see the overthrow of the Party, still less participate in any uprising, it is clear that for the foreseeable future the Party’s rule is as safe as houses, no matter what happens at the reshuffle.

  • Game Tape Analysis: Why Catalonia Represents All of Us

    Image

    At the southern tip of Europe, stretching out its two hands of Ceuta and Melilla to reach Africa, Spain usually goes unnoticed. Our news hardly ever makes world headlines; it’s simply not impactful enough. Over the past month, however, my adopted homeland has been enveloped in one of the most controversial events of the decade, and finally our dirty laundry is being hung out to dry on the international clothesline. The threat of Catalonia breaking away from Spain is juicy. It’s the political equivalent of a marriage gone wrong, complete with steepled-finger scheming, mutual resentment, and fittingly, bouts of domestic violence. But it also serves to show how the choices and actions of politicians turn a prominent issue in need of discussion into a roiling turmoil. The question of Catalonian secession is the result of the thoughtless, petty political practice that is ubiquitous in governments around the world, but that should have no place in the future of governance.

    I live in Seville, in southern Spain, the capital city of Andalusia, which has the resources to potentially be one of the richest regions of the country, but which is, unfortunately, one of the most mismanaged regions and thus suffers poverty and unemployment levels among the highest in the nation. Long before I had ever set foot in this land, or could even find my present-day home on a map, leaders of one of the actual richest regions of the country started to feel an inkling of doubt in their relationship with their peninsular brethren.

    Catalonian elected officials had been inspired to seek more autonomy when they re-drafted their regional statute, specifically taking measures to express their discontent with the redistributive nature of the tax system. Maybe negotiating the tax system didn’t seem too farfetched. The Basque Country, another autonomous region, does have their own internal revenue service. Perhaps the Catalans foresaw the economic crisis and wanted to safeguard against having to pay the welfare checks of other regions. Either way, I suspect that those Catalan leaders were thinking as most politicians do in modern times—not in what would make their constituents, their own people satisfied, or even happy with their lives while keeping the region afloat, but rather in 1) what do I personally believe, 2) what tactics can I use to get the people behind me, and 3) what move will keep me in this politics game the longest?

    In 2004, the Catalan parliament began to rewrite their Statute of Autonomy, the collection of regulations that guides the operations of all aspects of the region. However, the powers that were introduced some controversial articles that would have given Catalonia more judicial and economic independence, as well as implied a compulsory nature of the use of the Catalan language in the public sphere, and most concerning for the conservative Partido Popular (People’s Party, or PP) representatives in the regional parliament, the use of the word “nation” to refer to Catalonia in the statute’s articles. As the heirs to the Francoist ideal of a strong centralized Spain, if there’s one thing the PP is good at, it’s reading too much into what someone says, especially if it threatens the idea of One Spain.

    Controversy rose to a fever pitch, with the PP, led by current president Mariano Rajoy, stoking the fires of patriotism to shed a villainous light on the Catalan government. Finally, a compromise was made between socialist president José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and Catalan political leader Artur Mas, a redrafted solution found. It was rejected by the PP and the Catalan separatist party for being both too radical and too lenient at the same time, but it passed nonetheless. So the citizens got to vote. However, low voter turnout was a huge issue at that point in time, and the new autonomous statute received an overall approval, but only by the votes of 49% of the population. This is where things started to go awry. The PP were emboldened, and both sides were looking for a fight.

    Catalonia was unhappy with their situation. One contentious issue was the fact that as one of the wealthiest regions, taxes were levied on them by the central government and then fairly distributed amongst all the regions of the country, obviously having to contribute more to the poorest ones. The Catalans weren’t getting back what they were putting in. In addition to the economic issue that sparked the inferno, I would mention that tension has existed between Castilians and Catalans since the Hapsburg-Bourbon contest for the throne in the 18th century. Furthermore, during the Spanish Civil War, a topic that, frankly, Spaniards avoid talking about at all costs, Francoist forces made sure to act on this old feud. During this severely damaging period of time, which in my opinion has never seen proper closure, the Catalan, Basque, and to a lesser extent, the Galician cultures were oppressed, with Franco favoring pure Castilian traditions. Their language, their mother tongue, their most natural and fluid way to express their humanity, was prohibited as well as their centuries-old tradition of self-governance.

    When Spanish politicians are faced with the possibility of progress, a suggestion of change, they panic. The People’s Party always falls back on words like legal and tradition to back up what they believe is right, and they combat their opponents like seventh grade tattletales, keeping track of every single misdeed, and going after physical appearance if all else fails. And in some way, I understand this nervousness. There’s a tense undercurrent in Spain that is never mentioned. It’s as if the nation’s leaders feel that at any moment this fragile network of autonomous communities, so different one from another, and brought together forty years ago in an open-ended experiment in creating democracy, could come undone at any moment. I understand why they all look like they have stomach ulcers. Spain has been through a lot, and is still finding its identity as a modern nation.

    Once the citizens of Catalonia underwhelmingly voted in support of the proposed statute, the PP presented various cases of unconstitutional articles to Spain’s Supreme Court. From the filing of the lawsuit in 2006, the PP and the Catalonian leaders began to engage in a back and forth escalation of jabs. Both sides tried to get one another’s magistrates removed from the judicial panel, and in the end, the PP succeeded in the strategy that the Catalans had originated, and in 2010 the court finally ruled that parts of the document did indeed violate the Constitution. The response to the ruling was to calls for a referendum on whether Catalonia should take the step towards independence, and thus began the manipulation and mobilization of the people by the Catalan government.

    The Catalonian separatist movement is not a grassroots movement. The whole idea of secession, a legitimate threat of secession, came from the top, from leaders like Artur Mas and Oriol Junqueras, and the hastily-assembled idea of separating from Spain was spread by word of mouth and through Catalan media until people began to be convinced that it would be a good idea. I sympathize. The ham-fisted mannerisms of the conservative leaders are downright infuriating, and I have no doubt that many Catalans have a strong regional identity, pride in their culture, and disdain and resentment for past events that would propel them to distance themselves from the Spanish conservatives, who can’t stand Catalonia, yet abhor even more the idea of a Spain with a piece missing.

    As a leader, though, this is not the time to generate more controversy that will only lead to the edge of cliff, where we find ourselves today; it’s the time to take a breath, gather up your fellow policy makers, and rack your brains to find the best diplomatic solution to the problem. Instead, strong rhetoric and appeal to patriotism and cultural nationalism was employed, and a message of reassurance, that Catalonia could easily break away and that life would basically continue on as usual, only better, was propagated. But did those who spread the message of independence take the consideration to also share the practical, logistical planning that would have to take place if they really wanted to become an independent state? Did they leave their ego at the door? Did they give the Catalan separatists the chance to understand what they’re getting into?

    The issue went into a tailspin. The conservatives began to lash out ungracefully in fear. Catalan officials began to take measures that served for nothing but to save face and protect their own fragile egos, calling for referendums that were obviously non-binding and unofficial, over and over. Neither side did what they were elected to do: to guide us into a future where everyone is better. Politicians are the people I want to see leading us, and instead of having brave women and men who think in terms of solutions and are at the forefront of societal progress, we have at the very top of our political chain mere placeholders who duck and cover at the appearance of an opportunity to make our lives better. I ask them: if you aren’t here to eloquently solve our problems, who is? I look around the world and I see people who we refer to as “leaders” who are devoid of any shred of dignity and courage, whose practical skills are nil, and who are completely inept. But they’re great campaigners.

    They’re of a dying breed. The result of the argumentative nature of political behavior in our times is illustrated in the issue of Catalonian secession, and it shows how imperative it is to change. There is no stopping the advances that we as humans are taking, and the world is getting more complicated. However, we are not living merely to survive anymore. Our leaders and ourselves now have the time and the means to think about doing good instead of just staying afloat, and the real problems we are facing—global warming, unequal distribution of wealth worldwide, a solution to the eventual end of fossil fuels—are going to require cooperation and the ability to look beyond the fears we’ve inherited from older generations. Great people who embody ethical politics and possess an ability to think beyond the constraints of party platforms and one’s own self-interest in order to have an honest and evolving debate about issues, to act in good conscience on the behalf of those they represent, to lead, are the future of politics, but only if we take the conscious steps to make it reality.

  • Police Are the Problem, Not the Solution

    Police Are the Problem, Not the Solution

    Image

    Alex S. Vitale, The End of Policing. Verso Books, October 2017. 272 pp.

    Do we need the police?

    Brooklyn College sociologist Alex S. Vitale poses that question vividly in his The End of Policing: Are the police guarantors of social peace or its disruptors? Is the force’s mandate to serve the public equally and fairly, or to act as social-control agents, protecting property and its few owners at the expense of the many?

    Vitale traces the origins of the current push for policing as the universal solution for social ills to the 1980s popularization of the conservative nostrum “broken windows policing.” It promoted “zero tolerance” for surface manifestations of disorder no matter how minor, arguing that if that disorder were allowed to exist, it would inevitably metastasize into serious crime.

    He argues that policing is the wrong solution for many issues, particularly those where something’s illegality itself — alcohol in the 1920s, gambling and marijuana — is what makes it a problem. Drug addiction, he insists, is not a criminal-justice issue: As with sex work, it is the prohibition that makes it criminal and allows victimization through exploitation. Even gang violence, he claims, is largely a response to police provocations against black and brown youth. Border policing, when not just deadly, is a dead end. It can’t stop the flow of migrants, not when free trade destroyed local economies in Central America while U.S. agribusiness requires a seasonal workforce, but won’t pay living wages to Americans.

    Even when police practices are based on good intentions, Vitale argues, cops often work with populations better served by specialists, especially those like drug counselors and youth social workers who have emerged from the communities affected by those problems. The law creates a Catch-22 for social services such as drug treatment: Even where special programs exist for treating and housing addicts, individuals referred by the criminal-justice system get to jump the line and displace those with similar needs who aren’t facing criminal charges. In many cases, people not facing charges aren’t eligible for services.

    In the case of the mentally ill, Vitale notes how such seemingly salutary innovations as “crisis response teams, specialized courts and improved training can reduce the impact of the criminal system on the mentally ill and on the criminal-justice system, but these are not replacements for a rational, functioning mental-health system.”

    The punitive treatment of sordid-looking and often annoying homeless such as aggressive panhandlers may soothe public sensibilities, but has no impact on the overall homeless situation. Without a housing policy that creates stable, long-term residences, chasing the homeless away and eradicating squatter camps is not just ineffective, but cruel.

    In a humane and relatively cooperative society, there would be few areas that require police intervention. Vitale’s point, then, is not to eliminate the police per se, but to collapse the need for police to an irreducible minimum.

    In an otherwise comprehensive discussion of political repression, Vitale could have spent more time on police repression of workers’ struggles, which he treats as political repression of the left in just one omnibus chapter. He’s not wrong, but treating these as purely political and not also fundamentally economic attacks slights the broader systemic aspect of police intervention against strikes and job actions. Labor history is replete with those attacks.

    Illustration by Gary Martin.

    He also doesn’t acknowledge the reactionary role played by police unions. In New York, the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, along with the detectives’ and sergeants’ unions, do more than defend their members: They actively lobby for retrograde social legislation both in City Hall and in Albany. Opposition, largely from officers of color, does occur, but more often over issues like discrimination within the force than over community concerns.

    Vitale presents a dialectic in which police intervention becomes provocation in too many situations, causing oppressed people to fight back sometimes but not often enough in ways that build the community and a movement, which in turn only exacerbates police and state repression. Even where police try a soft approach, as with community policing or the use of non-punitive civil rather than criminal courts, the threat of arrest and criminalizing is omnipresent. For addicts, treatment and housing is never long term. In the absence of such necessary arrangements, it is no wonder that some despairing elements in affected communities ironically demand more police protection even as others fight for better-grounded services.

    Any ameliorating influences police could provide would better be served, as Vitale gives examples throughout, in well-funded social programs framed with the advice and consent of local people. Above all, jobs or an adequate income flow would be the death knell of urban and rural poverty, the real cause of crime and delinquency, and Vitale says as much. But that requires radical social change, Vitale’s overall point, though he doesn’t press it home. The book is only implicitly an anti-capitalist critique. To do more would mean writing another book.

    Short of the average cop having the wisdom of a Talmudic scholar and the patience of a sacristan, nothing can overcome the objective reality of ineffective training, dangerous situations and an ethos that stresses suppressing criminals over community-building and systemic prevention of crime, and often doesn’t discourage thuggery. The end of policing as we know it can’t come too soon.

    Much of Vitale’s empirical evidence parallels that in the excellent Truthout collection Who Do You Serve, Who Do You Protect? and he acknowledges an intellectual debt to Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow. Those are both key works in understanding police and racial repression. But Vitale’s amassing of trenchant facts into an enticing intellectual framework makes The End of Policing a must-read for anyone interesting in waging and winning the fight for economic and social justice.

    Originally posted at The Indypendent.

  • Open Letter to the People of the United States – from Puerto Rico, a Month after Hurricane María

    ImageDear Friends:

    By now you have surely heard about the catastrophic impact of Hurricane María in Puerto Rico, as well as the slow and still inadequate response by U.S. federal agencies, such as FEMA.

    A month after María, dozens of communities are still inaccessible by car or truck. Close to 90 percent of all homes lack electricity. Half lack running water. Many of Puerto Rico’s 3.2 million residents have difficulties obtaining drinking water. The death toll continues to rise due to lack of medical attention or materials (oxygen, dialysis) or from poisoning caused by unsafe water.

    The failures of U.S. agencies might come as no surprise, since the federal response (including FEMA's) to other disasters, such as for Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, was as slow and inadequate.

    You may have also heard President Trump state that Puerto Rico was dealing with a debt crisis before the hurricane and that its electric grid had been allowed to deteriorate. As far as they go, these statements are true.

    But President Trump also tweeted suggestions that Puerto Rican workers are lazy and that FEMA and other agencies cannot remain in Puerto Rico forever. This spins the notion that Puerto Ricans are themselves to blame and should not expect any more handouts. Trump aims to build a wall between us, which doesn’t come as much of a surprise either, by portraying us as a burden, as illegitimately claiming resources to which we have no right.

    Through the media you may have also heard that Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens as well as a nation, a people with its own identity and culture, under U.S. colonial rule since 1898. Sometimes these facts generate confusion regarding Puerto Rico's relation with the United States.

    Dear friends, contrary to what the President would have you believe, Puerto Rican workers are neither lazy, nor do they want everything done for them (as he also tweeted). They wish for the same things that most American working people want: jobs and adequate income; appropriate housing, education, health services and pensions; dependable infrastructure and livable neighborhoods, along with protection of the environment. Working people in the United States and Puerto Rico share the same interests. We have common needs. The effort to rebuild Puerto Rico should help us understand this fully, regardless of the political path Puerto Rico eventually follows, be it toward independence, statehood or some form of sovereign association with the United States. To better understand this joint agenda, we’d like to share a few historical facts.

    Puerto Rico has been a colony of the United States since the Spanish-American War of 1898. Puerto Rico was legally defined as unincorporated territory, a possession but not part of the United States, under the plenary powers of Congress. Although Congress has reorganized the territorial government over the years, up to the 1952 creation of the present Commonwealth status, the colonial nature of the relationship has remained unchanged. Puerto Ricans elect their governor and legislature, but they only attend to insular matters.

    We remain subject to both federal legislation and executive decisions, even though we have no participation or representation in their elaboration. Since 1898, Congress has never, we repeat, never consulted the Puerto Rican people in a binding plebiscite or referendum on whether to retain the present status, become independent or a state of the Union. Having retained its plenary powers, Congress should assume responsibility for a territory it claims as a possession: yet it has often skirted that responsibility. This again should come as no surprise, as Congress has often ignored and overlooked many unjust situations in the United States (affecting workers, women, African-Americans, Native Americans, immigrants, among others), unless activism and mobilizations forced it to do otherwise.

    But colonialism has an economic, as well as a political, dimension. After 1898, Puerto Rico's economy came under the control of U.S. corporations. Puerto Rico then specialized in producing a few goods for the U.S. market. One consequence has been the constant outflow of a significant portion of the income generated in Puerto Rico. At present, around $35 billion leave annually. This is around 35 percent of Puerto Rico's Gross Domestic Product.

    This capital is not reinvested and does not create employment here in Puerto Rico. Thus, Puerto Rico's one-sided, externally controlled and largely export-oriented economy has never been able to provide enough employment for its workforce: not when sugar production was the main industry; not in the 1950s and 1960s with light-manufacturing that came and often went; not today, through capital intensive operations, among which pharmaceuticals are the most important.

    This dependent and colonial nature of Puerto Rico's economy lies at the root of the high levels of unemployment, not the alleged laziness of Puerto Rico's workers, an old racist stereotype now taken up by President Trump.

    At present, Puerto Rico has a 40 percent labor participation rate. That is to say, 60 percent of its working-age population is out of the formal labor market; they have abandoned all hope of finding a job. Of the 40 percent that are still in the labor market, around 10 percent are officially unemployed.

    Mass unemployment depresses wages, which deepens inequality, and creates high levels of poverty. This helps explain the persistence of the wide gap in living standards with the U.S. mainland. After more than a century of U.S. rule, Puerto Rico's per capita income is half that of the poorest state, Mississippi. Around 45 percent of the people in Puerto Rico live under the poverty level.

    Lack of employment has resulted in considerable migration to the United States, with the Puerto Rican population stateside now at 5 million. Historically, Puerto Ricans have been incorporated into the U.S. working class as one of its discriminated and over-exploited sectors, along with African-Americans and other fellow Latinos. Deeply connected and concerned with the situation of their homeland, they are also part of a multi-racial and multi-national U.S. working class.

    Given the levels of poverty, it is not surprising that many in Puerto Rico participate in federally funded welfare programs. That is to say: considerable public funds are spent to partially mitigate the dire consequences of a dysfunctional colonial economy. To put it otherwise: the present situation, while profitable for a few corporations, is a disaster for both Puerto Rico and U.S. working people. Therefore, it is in the interest of both that Puerto Rico acquires an economy capable of providing for its inhabitants without requiring such compensations. 

    Since 1947, certain exemptions from federal and island taxes was one of the means of attracting foreign investors. Yet, in 1996 Congress began phasing out federal tax-exemption, which was completed in 2006. Make no mistake: tax exemption was never able to guarantee development or employment. But Congress replaced an inadequate mechanism with, well… nothing. A broken crutch may be of little help to a limping person, but simply removing it is even worse. As a result, manufacturing jobs have fallen by more than half since 1996. Puerto Rico's economy has shrunk since 2006. More than 250,000 jobs have been lost; 20 percent of the jobs that existed a decade ago have vanished.

    But Congress does not bear all the blame. As Puerto Rico's economy collapsed, its government did not re-evaluate its priorities. It did not seek, for example, to recuperate a larger portion of the profits leaving the island through taxation or other means. Instead, it took on massive debt. Meanwhile, electrical and other infrastructure was allowed to deteriorate, often to generate support for privatization. The situation could not be sustained: by June 2015 the government had to admit that its debt is unsustainable and would have to be renegotiated.

    Congress then adopted the Puerto Rico Oversight Management and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA). It created a non-elected, federally-appointed control board, with broad powers over Puerto Rico's state finances. It provides no funds or measures for economic recovery. It enables austerity policies that deepen poverty while perpetuating the present depression. In other words, it is anti-democratic, colonial, socially unjust and economically counterproductive. Under the fiscal plan it certified, no growth is foreseen until 2024! Again, this may not come as a surprise: this has been the formula (layoffs and cutbacks) applied against working people in dozens of budget crises, from New York City in the mid-1970s to Detroit in the recent past.

    Proposed government cuts come after other austerity measures such as new sales taxes (IVU, 2006); mass government layoffs (Law 7, 2009); attacks on public sector labor rights (Law 66, 2014); reduced public employment through attrition (90,000 jobs eliminated since 2006) and rescinding labor rights in the private sector (2017).

    What does Puerto Rico need? We need an adequately funded program of economic reconstruction (including the transition to renewable energy), the powers to carry it out and a true process of political self-determination. Congress can and should provide funds for reconstruction, which also requires the cancellation of Puerto Rico's public debt. This debt was already unsustainable; to collect it now would be criminal.

    You might rightfully ask: why should Congress allot billions for reconstruction in Puerto Rico, when it does not do so in the states? Our answer: it should do so in the states as well! After all, working and poor people in the United States are suffering the social and environmental consequences of decades of neoliberal economic policies. As much as we do, American working people need a vast program of economic reconstruction, geared toward creating jobs and addressing social needs.

    We draw inspiration from the many movements with similar objectives in the United States: to tax corporate profits, for job programs, urban reconstruction, expanded social services, universal health insurance and free higher public education, renewable energy, student debt cancellation and relief for indebted families, reduced military in favor of social spending, to organize workers and revitalize the labor movement, to end all forms of racist, sexist, homophobic or xenophobic discrimination. We in Puerto Rico need these movements as much as you do. We count on you to build and expand them. And we ask that you include Puerto Rico's needs for economic reconstruction, debt cancellation and self-determination in your demands and proposals.

    The limitations of one-sided dependent development are not the result of restrictions on movement of capital between Puerto Rico and the United States. They are, if anything, the result of the unfettered action of private interests. In other words, the dogmas of privatization, deregulation and free trade fundamentalism are part of the problem, not the solution. We need a planned reconstruction of our economy, with broadened public and cooperative sectors. Such plans must be elaborated in Puerto Rico, not by federal programs or agencies beyond our control or supervision.

    The same holds true in the United States, where budget deficits are not the result of over-generous social programs, but of low corporate taxes, and, after the crisis of 2008, of government debt to bail out the banks from their own speculative excesses.

    Over the years, much of the product of our labor has left the island, not unlike much of the wealth created by U.S. workers is taken by a fabulously rich corporate caste. This harsh reality demands that the fight against these ills –colonial and class exploitation– advance jointly. To those who threaten “No bailout for Puerto Rico” we respond: it is high time we invest in the people of Puerto Rico and of the United States –and stop protecting the privileges of banks and large corporations!

    Let us work together then for justice: justice for working people in the United States and for immediate and adequate hurricane relief, as well as lasting economic reconstruction, debt cancellation and self-determination in Puerto Rico.

    Sincerely,

    Rafael Bernabe

    Manuel Rodríguez Banchs    

    *Rafael Bernabe is a researcher and professor at the University of Puerto Rico. He is the author, with César Ayala, of Puerto Rico in the American Century: A History Since 1898 (2007). Manuel Rodríguez Banchs is a labor lawyer and social justice advocate. Both belong to Working Peoples Party in Puerto Rico.

  • The Misrule of Global Capitalism: Book Review

    Image

    Dale L. Johnson. Social Inequality, Economic Decline, and Plutocracy: An American Crisis. Palgrave Macmillan, 2017. 240 pp. Index, Appendix. $159

    Social Inequality is not for the faint-hearted. It covers the major political-economic issues of our time, from the structural changes in the economics of capitalism, to class structure, the imperialist state, and the distortions of capitalist culture. The author, a veteran scholar-activist of the New Left generation who now lives in Costa Rica[1], ends with a plea for resistance to our oligarchic “hegemon” and suggests a series of tactics to help us on the road.

    After an introductory chapter, Johnson proceeds to an examination of the polarization of wealth and poverty throughout the world. His description, generously salted with indignation, is solidly based on data derived from an array of sources, from the CIA’s World Factbook to Piketty, Stiglitz, and many others. His overview: “Prosperity for the 10%, austerity for the 90%, repression for those who protest at home and war against supposed enemies abroad.”(11)

    In the U.S., the fact that so many people barely get by is a strategy deliberately promoted by “plutocrats and their servants in political power—President Trump, Republicans in Congress, and corporate Democrats.”(3) This plutocracy, Johnson tells us, is itself dominated by “the…0.001%, the oligarchs of the financial center…”(17) He views the financial fraction of U.S. capital, (banking, investment funds, insurance, real estate, etc.), or in short Wall Street, plus the financiers and finance ministers of major countries and the heads of European and international banking institutions as the determining factor “in a hegemonic project to remake…world society into a savage capitalism in which their vested interests and class privilege are sacrosanct.”(16) This grouping enacts its policies through interlocks with corporations in all sectors of the economy and uses the power of money to influence state policy everywhere in the world.

    The degree to which finance capital has come to supersede “productive” capital and today dominates the capitalist economy has been debated for many years. G. William Domhoff has produced a series of works demonstrating the interlocks between the corporate sector, the state, and cultural institutions.[2] Domhoff demonstrates that leaders of most large corporations, both financial and industrial, typically hold board seats in a number of other corporations of both kinds. Identifying the financial sector as dominant when it is so interlocked with other corporate elements is misleading. It is an exaggeration to say that “The mode of economic recovery…since the latest crash has nothing to do with the opening of new avenues of economic development and everything to do with resurgence of speculative activity” by the financial sector.(23) In fact industrial development continues to play an important role within U.S. capitalism, and perhaps an even more important role in the “emerging” economies, including in the former Soviet satellite countries.

    Johnson’s thesis of the overwhelming dominance of this fraction so that “there is apparently no current serious division within the dominant class as a whole” is also open to question. He admits, in a later section, that the divisions within the Republican Party leading to the present chaos of the Trumpian regime do reflect some disarray within our ruling circles. It follows that the corporate plutocracy has never been monolithic. It is split into fractions with diverse interests. There are policy differences between a traditional internationalist wing (symbolized by the Clinton candidacy and much of Wall Street, and channeled through such institutions as the Council on Foreign Relations) and a more maverick wing (the Koch brothers, the Heritage, Cato, Pioneer, and American Enterprise foundations, and of course Trump himself). This is the tendency once labeled “cowboy” or “sunbelt” capital.

    Johnson is however on firm ground when describing the historical background to the current “unrestrained rule of capital.”(25) His expertise has for many years been in exploring the development of capitalism in the colonial and later neo-colonial world. He shows how the slave system produced surpluses that enabled merchant capital to become the dominant fraction of the capitalist class, and how very soon those surpluses provided the foundation for industrial development. This form of globalization, in which the colonial world exported raw materials and imported manufactured goods, led to what he and other scholars in this “school” called dependent development. So-called third world countries were not, in fact, “underdeveloped.” They developed as exploited dependencies in such a way that they remained poor. Over many years this has changed as globalization trends have led to the gradual industrialization of the “third world” and the incorporation of former peasant and plantation labor into modern factory labor and the integration of these economies into global capitalism. This development is not necessarily accompanied by democratic forms of government. In fact, Johnson insists, real democracy is in scarce supply not only in the “emerging market” economies, but throughout the capitalist world.

    In the U.S. today, as Johnson sees it, we have a stagnant economy in which capital prioritizes unproductive and destructive activity: speculation, the pillage of the natural environment, increased militarization and intensified exploitation of labor at all levels. This constitutes nothing less than a new phase that Johnson calls “degenerative development.” This phase is accompanied by changes in the class composition of capitalism. The blue collar industrial working class is in decline. But basic working class occupations also include clerical and sales workers, teachers, workers in the food and recreational sectors, and the unemployed. “Contingent” (part-time, seasonal, occasional) workers overlap all of these. Johnson reluctantly uses the term “underclass” to designate workers in the informal economy (off the books) plus welfare recipients and the homeless, all adding up to nearly 70% of the employable population as objectively working class. The working class, Johnson makes clear, has not disappeared into the great “middle class,” which is a deliberately mystifying statistical abstraction. If we define “middle” as, say, those earning between 2/3 of median income to twice the median (about $54,000 to $162,000), most of them are objectively working class.

    The traditional old middle class (the “petty bourgeoisie”) is only one fraction in what Johnson calls the “intermediate class.”(52-55) Another fraction includes administrators and supervisors. However, his putting semi-autonomous and service professionals (including state employees) into the middle class is questionable. This is the grouping that a number of left sociologists have included as part of the “new working class.”[3] The different fractions of this intermediate class have different interests. Small business owners are frequently anti-union and oppose increasing the minimum wage and similar reforms. Supervisors’ jobs are primarily to support corporate and state hierarchies. “Professionals” are becoming more like other workers as they lose decision-making autonomy. The intermediate class is “bi-furcated,” the majority being pushed into the working class and even unemployment while a minority becomes the “line and staff servants of capital.”(208)[4]  As more workers become employed in the lower echelons of the white collar sector Johnson wonders how working in unproductive and socially destructive enterprises affects workers’ consciousness. He thinks those who are becoming deprofessionalized (teachers, social service workers, medical workers) are likely to be open to change, but he has his doubts about those who work in the more directly repressive occupations, like the police.  

    He is wrong, however, in saying that the petty-bourgeoisie is being eliminated, as Marx predicted. Although the bankruptcy rate for small business start-ups is considerable, Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that sector overall is doing well after a dip following the Great Recession. A major contributing factor is the outsourcing and subcontracting of work by larger corporations and the public sector in order to lower labor costs.

    Meanwhile “the social gains of centuries of struggles of colonized people for independence and by oppressed peoples for liberty, equality, and fraternity” are being undermined by plutocracy’s agenda—increased exploitation of people and natural resources in the service of profit.(86-87) As protests increase, the state becomes more repressive and is gradually reduced “to its essence, the security apparatus.”(82) Social divisions based on race, ethnicity, gender, and other differences within the working class are manipulated throughout the culture to prevent unification and political mobilization. The racist nature of the criminal “justice” system undergirds these social divisions through its exercise of a punishing level of military force in African-American neighborhoods.[5]

    Johnson devotes Chapter 8 to a fine-grained description of how our current “super rogue” warfare state developed and today carries out its strategy of “official terrorism” and what the impact of our “imperial ambition” has been on the peoples of the world, from Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya, etc. He believes that considering the totality of this development, the U.S. is moving towards a new form of fascism. However, I question his lumping together under that label a variety of authoritarian regimes (from Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy to Franco’s Spain, Imperial Japan, and even South American military dictatorships) that differ in the class composition of their oligarchies, their mass bases (if any), the economic juncture that gave rise to them, and their outcomes.

    In the following chapter Johnson, again in microscopic detail, describes the ruling ideology of capital and its program: neo-liberalism, closely associated with globalization, financial deregulation, and “the commodification of useful services to bring all cultural, social, and economic activity into the sphere of capital,” otherwise known as privatization. (145) He takes Greece as a sad case study of the results of these policies. In the U.S., these consequences take the familiar form of the loss of manufacturing jobs due to NAFTA and other trade deals.

    This program has of course generated opposition: Podemos in Spain, the apparently failed Syriza in Greece, the isolated and splintered left in France and Germany, and the right-populist parties throughout Europe. Johnson describes how elected governments of the left as in Ecuador and Bolivia have been trying to extricate themselves from the period of dependent development and poverty for the masses, with mixed results due to a continuing dependence on primary goods exports to generate capital. Also, every effort to improve the living standards of the working class and the indigenous population, including in Cuba and Venezuela, has met with intense opposition from local bourgeois elements, often backed by the U.S. The hostility to reforms on the part of the U.S. oligarchy and its state, extending to coups and attempted coups, is well-known.

    Johnson has long been an enthusiastic supporter of the Cuban Revolution and of Chavez’ “Venezuelan Socialism.” He claims that Cuba continues to “develop its substantive democracy of mass participation…” (174) Meanwhile Venezuelan “socialism” appears to have degenerated into chaos. He attributes all shortcomings to the problem of dependence on exports (sugar, oil) and to hostility and economic sanctions by the U.S. There is no doubt that both problems have been severe impediments to progress. But are these sufficient explanations? That question is outside the scope of this review.[6]

    What is to be done? Johnson cautions that we should not allow the apparently overwhelming power of the oligarchy to send us into apathy. Persistent struggle, including for incremental reforms, is necessary. Among Johnson’s suggestions for first demands must be the dismantling of the CIA, and the prosecution of war crimes committed by America’s own leaders. But he is clear that we must go far beyond the mild social democracy of a Bernie Sanders. For example, we should demand the nationalization of banks and the public ownership of the corporations that currently control access to water, health, transportation, education, electric power. Is this naïve in the era of Trump? No, he seems to say, asking us to recall the popular 1968 slogan “Be Realistic, Imagine the Impossible.”(245)

    He warns against impatience: “A counter-hegemony project takes time and experience to bring about.”(247) He then describes a range of “post-Sanders” formations such as Our Revolution as hopeful signs. Johnson thinks the notion of turning the Democratic Party in a truly progressive direction is “an unlikely scenario,”(242) and is similarly skeptical of labor unions being able to force significant changes in the near future. Nevertheless, Johnson is hopeful that the agglomeration of activists and the present broad range of protests are signs that divisions can be overcome and that a “Democratic Socialism for the 21st Century” is possible.”(237)

    In a lengthy Appendix Johnson provides the reader with somewhat scattered lists of movement websites, blogs, relevant publishers, research groups and other resistance sites. This is followed by an Index that is so short as to be practically useless.

    Dale Johnson has provided us with what amounts to a textbook on contemporary international capitalism and how to fight it. The book represents a lifetime of engaged scholarship, and given its macro-level approach, makes a unique contribution to our understanding of world events. Its title Social Inequality, Inequality, Economic Decline, and Plutocracy is somewhat off-putting (the subtitle An American Crisis is more to the point), and carries an unfortunate price tag that puts it out of reach of any but a decreasing number of wealthy university libraries. I hope a paperback edition is forthcoming.


    [1] Disclosure: Dale Johnson and I were colleagues and political allies at Livingston College, Rutgers University (New Brunswick, N.J.) from about 1970 until our retirements.

    [2] See, for example, Domhoff, “Interlocking Directorates in the Corporate Community,” and Domhoff, Clifford Staples, and Adam Schneider, “Interlocks and Interactions Among the Power Elite: The Corporate Community, Think Tanks, Policy-Discussion Groups, and Government,” www.whorulesamerica.net

    [3] See, for example, Richard Hyman & Robert Price (eds.), The New Working Class? White-Collar Workers and Their Organizations (Macmillan, 1983); Martin Oppenheimer, White Collar Politics (Monthly Review, 1985); Richard Sobel, The White Collar Working Class (Praeger, 1989).

    [4] This point has a long history. See C. Wright Mills, White Collar (Oxford, 1956).

    [5] It is not true, however, that a majority of people killed by police are Black. While it is true that young Black men are killed at about seven times the rate of whites, the absolute figures show that more whites than Blacks are killed by police in any given year. 

    [6] However, for a left criticism see Gabriel Hetland, “Why is Venezuela Spiralling out of Control?,” NACLA.org/news/2017/05/03; “Why is Venezuela in Crisis?” The Nation (Aug. 17, 2016); Jeffrey Webber, “Venezuela: What’s Going On?” Against the Current #185 (Nov.-Dec. 2016) and Samuel Farber, “Building Socialism in Cuba,” Jacobin, 10-12-16.

     

  • Venezuela: Maduro Constantly Rearms His Enemies

    Image

    The political crisis that has been shaking Venezuela for months is at the heart of a war of information and propaganda, which is even inviting itself, albeit for other purposes, into the French political debate. Beyond binary discourses, we wanted to take the risk of complexity with Fabrice Andreani, doctoral student in Lyon-II University, who is working on the Bolivarian revolution. [CQFD]

    CQFD: In January 2016, in CQFD, you analysed with Marc Saint-Upéry the crises of post-Chávez Venezuela. How have things evolved?

    Fabrice Andreani: The victory of the anti-Chavist opposition coalition Table of Democratic Unity (MUD) in the December 2015 legislative elections meant the loss by the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) and its allies of 2 million votes, mainly because of the abstention in the barrios, the popular neighbourhoods, demobilized since the death of Chávez in 2013. This was against a background of shortages of regulated or subsidized goods and recourse to the black market, with astronomic rates of inflation. But also brutalization and an unprecedented extension of state violence. After declining between 1999 and 2008, it began with judicial, police and militia harassment of PSUV dissidents (trade unionists, peasants, indigenous people), before spreading to the students and the parliamentarians of the MUD who were demanding the departure of Maduro between February and May 2014. It took on a much more lethal character in 2015, through a campaign, as illusory as it was spectacular, against ordinary popular kinds of illegal activities — especially small- and medium-scale smuggling –- resulting in thousands of evictions from public housing and dozens of summary executions.

    I was in Venezuela in the spring of 2016 when people started talking about a humanitarian crisis. Apart from local fruit and vegetables and bread here and there, the purchase of any basic product — flour, oil, milk, margarine, soap, nappies, sanitary pads, paracetemol, condoms — implied waiting in endless queues or paying a high price to the local trader. Emigration spread to all social classes.

    Riots and looting, which had almost disappeared under Chávez, became commonplace, as well as the lynching of thieves, real or targeted as such. All of this in a context where the rate of homicide is fifty times higher than in Europe and 95 per cent of crimes and misdemeanours are unresolved.

    Meanwhile, the MUD was deprived of a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly, which augured for a quasi-cohabitation. The Supreme Court of Justice, whose mandate was renewed before the legal date by the outgoing PSUV majority, effectively invalidated the election of indigenous deputies on suspicions of fraud (so far unproven), then annulled all the laws that had been adopted, including entry into the country of humanitarian aid, denounced as an “imperialist Trojan horse”… Maduro then took on emergency powers and declared a state of economic emergency. On the one hand, he set up a network of committees of PSUV militants who directly sell the food sent by the army. On the other hand, he launched the Orinoco Mining Arc, whereby 12 per cent of the country’s territory is to be exploited via opencast mining, in order to extract minerals (gold, silver, diamond, bauxite, coltan, cobalt…), by a military enterprise linked to the entourage of Maduro and by Chinese, Russian and North American multinationals — in defiance of the vital rights of indigenous peoples.

    Following these various irregularities, the MUD launched a procedure to revoke Maduro by referendum — also demanded by many Chavists. But the National Electoral Council (CNE) changed the rules several times along the way. Finally it cancelled it in extremis, after having suspended the regional elections, but also the trade union elections, where the PSUV no longer controls the two major industries, oil and steel. So by autumn 2016, the demonstrations called by the MUD and the student organizations coexisted intermittently with popular protests. So that between two steps of salsa and jokes about his “diet” on TV, Maduro was forced to cut short at the last minute disastrous inaugurations of infrastructures in barrios –- which was followed by arrests and convictions. Since the end of March, when the Supreme Court decided to take the place of Parliament and Luisa Ortega, the Attorney General –- a Chavist –- denounced a break in the constitutional order, the streets have not been empty. Especially since on May 1st, after some thirty deaths, hundreds of arrests and a series of penalties of ineligibility against MUD parliamentarians, Maduro pulled out of his hat the idea of an all-powerful Constituent Assembly. Unlike Chávez in 1999, he refused to submit to a referendum on the system of election, which was tailor-made for the PSUV [1]. The opposition boycotted the election of this Constituent Assembly which took place in August under conditions that were more than dubious.

    The dissenting prosecutor Luisa Ortega has since fled the country, denouncing the corruption of Maduro and others. What political forces does the government actually have at its disposal? Is there any opposition other than the liberal right?

    The first victory of the Constituent Assembly was to dismiss the “traitor” Luisa Ortega, who had been at the head of her ministry since 2007. Too well known to be found at home with a bullet in her head, she was given a warning by the abduction of her daughter and granddaughter in February when she was in Brazil. In dissenting, she is well placed to know what risks she runs if there is no movement on the side of the PSUV: at best, she will finish in a minor position on the left flank of the MUD; at worst, she will rot in a military prison alongside people whom she did not much care about in previous years [2]. Or else she can take flight, at the risk of being forced, due to insufficient protection, to give names to the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), present in many countries of South America, in exchange for political asylum.

    However, she explained that she could not demand that the protestors respect the law in the face of a government proclaiming “Whoever is not with us is a terrorist” (as Maduro put it), and while exactions have become the norm [3]. Before embarking with her files in a “go-fast” (a flight) to Colombia and then Brazil, along with her husband and colleagues who were equally threatened, Ortega said that of the more than a hundred violent deaths since April, about 25 per cent were due to the police and the army, and 40 per cent to pro-government paramilitaries. To this must be added the more confused causes of the deaths of rioters and onlookers, as well as the assassination of Chavist militants and representatives, as well as police and military personnel [4].

    Today, “Madurism” is fundamentally based on the politico-military chieftainships of public administrations and enterprises, and on networks of currency, contraband and drug trafficking. To this must be added the support of a clientele of 10 to 15 per cent of the electorate, of which a minority deals the crumbs (from the oil rent) to the rest, provided that they stay in line. The monocolour Constituent Assembly probably mobilized not more than half of the 8 million voters announced — against a backdrop of widespread blackmail in relation to public employment and food aid.

    In the face of Ortega’s “betrayal” and the hundreds of cases of military insubordination, part of the PSUV and its allies doubtless hoped for a signal from the higher ranks of the army, and vice versa. But notwithstanding the dissent of three PSUV deputies, the appeal to rebellion of a helicopter pilot over Caracas in July, or the civilian-military attack on a barracks in the popular town of Valencia in August 2007, the status quo prevailed. Whether it is the Platform in Defence of the Constitution, launched in mid-2016 by ex-ministers, intellectuals and high-ranking officials, or Marea Socialista (see the platform published on July 29th, 2017) a dissident political grouping of the PSUV, no anti-Madurist Chavist group can claim to have a significant popular base. The Socialism and Freedom Party, autonomous from the PSUV since 2008 and anchored in the trade-union movement, created along with Marea Socialista and collectives of barrios a Platform of the People in Struggle and Critical Chavism. But it still has to fight against the widespread idea on the left that occupying the street is playing the game of the right. On this point the anarchists close to the monthly El Libertario are in agreement.

    Roughly speaking, the MUD opposition coalition gravitates to the centre-right — its parties range from the far left post-Maoists to the liberal-conservative right, through various forms of social democracy. But these labels generally remain in the background during mobilizations that bring together up to a few hundred thousand people. And it can be over a million, in a country of 31 million inhabitants, when students, private sector employees, health workers and teachers are involved. As is the case with any state or “body of armed men” (as Engels put it), who trick and mistreat in a “socialist” Newspeak, the “anti-communist” — and here, anti-Cuban –- discourse is certainly present in the street, in particular among the students. But this is more in the name of a primordially political liberalism than an economic ultraliberalism that has never really caught on in this oil country [5].

    There is also racism –- based more on class than on race — in the wealthy fringes of the MUD, but it is too minor to explain alone the weak mobilization of the anti-Madurist Chavist base. In reality, the culture of street protest, still strong in the barrios, is contained in it by the “social informants” of the PSUV and the paramilitaries. On the other hand, this same culture is totally foreign to the middle-class youth who supported the revolution. In short, behind the comfortable criticism of the leading contingents in the demonstrations, described as violent and right-wing — while being eminently plural — the fear of repression remains a great factor of deterrence.

    Some observers argue that the situation, comparable to that in Chile in 1973, results from an “imperialist economic war”. What do you think?

    The April 2002 coup, followed by the oil and commercial lock-out the following winter, both backed by the private media and the United States, but defeated by a massive popular and military counter-offensive, forms the original matrix of the Chilean analogy. Chávez wanted to stop the rampant privatization of the PDVSA oil company and launch an agrarian reform. The managers of PDVSA and the big bosses then bet, mistakenly, on his fall. Hence the decision to reinstate exchange controls to prevent capital flight. But this, together with the complicity of the Chavist high officials, generated a hyper-profitable business, through the falsification of imports and the resale on the black market of petrodollars assigned by the state to pay for them. For the greater benefit of the bosses tied up with to the government, especially those in charge of public enterprises and subcontractors. The private sector, forced to be more scrupulous under the threat of nationalization, got into this business later on. Of the trifle of one trillion petrodollars accumulated over the period 2003-2013, nearly a quarter evaporated, even before it was counted by the state, and another quarter was lost in the operations of an allocation of foreign exchange to importers who speculate, in various ways, with the foreign exchange earned.

    Besides, while the oil sector and nationalized enterprises (steel, cement, electricity, etc.) were slowing down –- because of lack of maintenance, corruption scandals and repeated strikes — the rentier euphoria was such that the state has continued to get into debt to finance a number of major projects: from TeleSur satellites to the hundreds of thousands of homes provided in the last campaign of Chávez (2012), and a number of infrastructures that have never been created (metro and train lines, bridges, etc.).

    The PDVSA even incurred debts in kind China –- something which was only viable if the price of oil remained high. Unfortunately, crude oil prices collapsed in 2014, making the gap between the official and unofficial exchange rates of the dollar literally explode — a gap that already provided profit margins of at least 100 per cent to “agents of economic war”.

    Although the fall in crude oil prices is partly a result of the growth of shale oil production in the United States, it is not the result of any concerted plan… No more than is the flight of capital, the shortages and the hyper–inflation, not to mention the disappearance of millions of 100-bolivar bills – worth almost nothing and used to make fake dollars (using “cleaned” paper).

    As the Marxist economist Manuel Sutherland, who was sacked last year by the Bolivarian University, clearly explains, the Bolivarian Revolution succeeded in making currency trading “the most profitable business in the history of capitalism”, and all the rest flows from that. It is a curious war, he adds, where Maduro and his consorts are constantly rearming their enemies whom they have denounced for so many years. The fact is that they prefer to pay, cash down, an “odious” debt, including to Wall Street, rather than restructure it – probably less through divergences with the IMF than to avoid any audit that would reveal the identity of the operators of this veritable robbery of the century.

    However, it would have been enough to save less than a tenth of the loot stashed away since 2003 to pay for more than three years of imports at the staggering levels of 2012. Moreover, the fact that small Madurist groups advocate an agrarian neo-Stakhanovism in isolated communes has very little influence over the activity of the rest of the population, 90 per cent urban, half of them self-employed in the informal market sector.

    Trump recently spoke of “a possible military option if necessary”. Is it credible?

    Neither the State Department nor the Pentagon nor the CIA take seriously any statement from Trump on international issues. All the regional leaders, allied or not, condemned these remarks. As did the White House National Security Advisor, and then the Vice-President. What is worrying, especially in Bogotá and Brasilia, is the possibility of a civil war, with a population exodus even more spectacular than the current one. A scenario all the more sombre in that it would correspond to a form of “Lebanonization” (as in Lebanon, with confrontations based on regions) of the conflict, which would be more multi-gang than binary. The extreme right-wing (narco-) paramilitaries demobilized in Colombia and present in the Andes, as well as the pseudo-left guerrillas of Llanos (South), would have as much chance of joining with representatives of the MUD as with the PSUV, for pragmatic commercial reasons.

    This interview was first published on the CQFD site, and subsequently on the site A l’encontre.


    Note by A l’encontre

    According to the AFP of September 16th, 2017: “Under the auspices of the Dominican government and the United Nations, the government and the opposition agreed on Thursday in Santo Domingo to the creation of a group of friendly countries to lead future negotiations. They will meet again on September 27th. The Venezuelan opposition added to these talks the respect of certain conditions, among which were an”electoral calendar“including the presidential election at the end of 2018, the release of 590”political prisoners“, the”respect“of the Parliament whose powers were confiscated by the Constituent Assembly and the lifting of sanctions that prevent some oppositionists from standing in elections.”

    Moreover, to give the appearance of independence against the dollar, Maduro asserted, two days ago, that sales of oil would be denominated in Chinese renminbi; which is, in fact, a demand of Beijing.

    According to the AFP of September 14th, 2017: “Confronted with an unprecedented food and economic crisis, Venezuela seems determined to remedy its shortages. The government, led by President Maduro, announced on Wednesday that a new urban agriculture plan will be put in place by October 4th. This includes the ”rabbit plan“ whose aim is to develop the breeding of the rodent and encourage the inhabitants to eat it.” There is a cultural problem because we were taught that rabbits were cute animals, Agriculture Minister Freddy Bernal said on a television show this week. “A rabbit is not a pet. It is two and a half kilograms of high-protein, cholesterol-free meat.”

    Footnotes

    [1] In this system, rural communes of 10,000 inhabitants have the same weight as cities with 800,000 inhabitants, with a corporate provision that excludes more than 5 million citizens.

    [2] Such as General Baduel, who supported Chávez against the putsch in 2002, but opposed the “socialist” reform of the 2007 Constitution, passed through decree-laws. Or the conservative Leopoldo Lopez, who was sentenced to 13 years in prison, considered as being “responsible” for the forty deaths that occurred during the 2014 movement.

    [3] From the tear-gas, flash-balls and lead shot fired at point-blank range by the gendarmes, to the bullets fired by the paramilitaries on motorcycles by their side, through military trials, mutilation of detainees and the hunt for young men in buildings adjoining the barricades.

    [4] Including a few cases, highlighted and instrumentalized by the regime, of Chavists who were lynched or burnt alive –- against a background of settling of accounts and/or incitement by plainclothes police.

    [5] The anti-IMF riots of the Caracazo in 1989 are the typical example. The memory of the thousands of deaths from repression served as a banner for Chávez to take centre stage during his failed putsch in 1992.

     

  • Joanne Landy, 1941-2017

    Image

    Joanne Landy, long-time prominent member of the New Politics editorial board, co-founder and co-director of the Campaign for Peace & Democracy, former executive director of the New York chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program, and a leading voice for a democratic foreign policy and socialism from below, has died. All the movements she enriched and inspired with her wisdom, her sharp political analysis, and her humane values for more than half a century are in her debt and have suffered a great loss. We mourn her passing.

    Details on a memorial service will be forthcoming. Below are some tributes and remembrances, most recent on the top.

    [Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières]

    Joanne Landy, 1941-2017 – Cofondatrice, de la Campaign for Peace and Democracy, toujours solidaire

    dimanche 22 octobre 2017

    Joanne Landy nous a quitté ce 14 octobre 2017, à New York. Militante de gauche dès ses jeunes années (Independent Socialist Clubs of America, Democratic Socialists of America …). Collaboratrice de plusieurs médias progressiste), comme New Politics ou Against the Current… Elle était la cofondatrice, en 1982, de la Campaign for Peace and Democracy (CPD).

    La CPD (initialement Campaign for Peace and Democracy/East and West (CPD/EW) a mené des campagnes d’information et de soutien aux luttes sociales et démocratiques « à l’Est comme à l’Ouest » et notamment pour Solidarnosc en Pologne ou les démocrates chiliens, et participé aux actions contre les armes nucléaires et pour le désarmement, au mouvement END (European Nuclear Disarmement) et à l’idée – et la pratique- de la « détente par en bas » selon laquelle une paix réelle est durable ne peut être fondée sur la réalpolitique des gouvernements mais sur l’alliance des mouvements de bases au-delà des frontières. De 1984 à 1996 elle anime la revue Peace and Democracy News.

    En 1990 elle avait contribué à la création du réseau Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly (HCA), dont fait partie l’Assemblée européenne des citoyens (AEC) en France.

    Après 1989 et la fin de la guerre froide CPD (qui a laissé tomber la mention Est Ouest) s’engage contre l’imposition des « thérapies de choc » néolibérales, notamment à l’est, et des nouveaux nationalismes « populistes », contre les agressions militaires en particulier américaines, et israéliennes, et sera aux coté des résistants aux nouvelles guerres de dislocations notamment en Yougoslavie, ou, plus récemment des mouvements des printemps arabes….

    (Pour en savoir plus cf. http://www.cpdweb.org/)

    Toujours solidaire et active jusqu’à ses derniers jours, Joanne n’a cessé d’être aussi engagée dans les lutte sociales (elle a été membre active de l’Association des médecins pour le service de santé) et démocratique dans son propre pays.

    Bernard Dreano (CEDETIM/AEC)

    [Ravi Malhotra]

    Although I had been an avid reader of New Politics since 1992 and a keen follower of her writings, I first encountered Joanne in the early 2000s when I published an article on disability rights in New Politics. She was generous and thoughtful, reflecting the best values of the independent socialist left. Although as a Canadian, I could only travel to Manhattan sporadically, I tried to connect with her whenever I could. I was so grateful when she chaired a well-attended session on disability rights that New Politics hosted at NYU, featuring contributors to a forum I had published on the topic in New Politics. I was also delighted to be able to share with her an ancient issue of New Politics that featured a book review by the late Phyllis Jacobson that she required at one point. Fiercely principled yet down to earth, Joanne taught me much about national self-determination movements and much else. I will miss her.

    Ravi Malhotra, Sponsor, New Politics

    [Jason Schulman]

    Joanne Landy, long-time editorial board member of New Politics and a co-founder of the Campaign for Peace and Democracy, and a genuinely decent person, died on October 14, just shy of her 76th birthday. She had been fighting cancer for many months and then, shortly before her death, suffered a stroke. Her passing is a genuine loss not only for NP and CPD but for the entire democratic socialist left.

    Having served on NP's editorial board for several years, I can honestly say that Joanne was one of the nicest and most principled people I've ever met. She was a veteran of the Third Camp, Neither-Washington-Nor-Moscow wing of the American revolutionary left, embodied in U.S. socialist journals like NP and Against the Current. She'd passed through various socialist organizations—the Young Socialist League and Young People's Socialist League in the 1950s, the Independent Socialist Clubs of America in the 1960s, Democratic Socialists of America in the 1980s— without ever noticeably changing her political views, particularly her support of working-class political independence and opposition to authoritarianism of any stripe. Though firm in her beliefs she was never sectarian and was truly a fun person to work with. She also played a key role in Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP).

    NP held a celebration of Joanne's life and work this past June. She received a tribute from Polish political activists (and rock musicians), a nod to her consistent support for democratic socialist dissidents during Poland's Stalinist years, from Jacek Kuroń and Karol Modzelewski in the 1960s to the early Solidarność of the 1980s. A speech she gave in 2012 on the Lessons of 1989 at the Left Forum can be found here.

    Joanne is irreplaceable but it was an honor to know her and work with her. Rest in peace, my friend and comrade.

    Jason Schulman, New Politics co-editor; member, Democratic Socialists of America (NYC)

    [Campaign for Peace and Democracy]

    Dear friends of the Campaign,

    It is with the deepest sorrow that I have to report that Joanne Landy, the Co-Director of the Campaign for Peace and Democracy and one of its two founder (as the Campaign for Peace and Democracy/East and West) in 1982, died on October 14th, two weeks after suffering a massive stroke. She was just a few minutes shy of her 76th birthday. Tributes to Joanne and information about the future of the Campaign will follow shortly. As for now, I join with all of you in mourning the passing of a great, tireless fighter against war, repression, and social injustice. We are unlikely ever to see her equal.

    In grief and solidarity,

    Tom Harrison

    [Havaar: Iranian Initiative Against War, Sanctions, and State repression] 

    We always knew she was really with us—

    In memory of Joanne Landy

    We are a group of activists who worked closely with Joanne Landy in Havaar: Iranian Initiative Against War, Sanctions, and State Repression. She was a founding member of Havaar, which emerged out of a fusion between members of Occupy Wall Street’s global justice working group and Iranian diasporic groups focused on solidarity with democratic and feminist organizing in Iran. Joanne showed up when we put out a call for solidarity with Iranians opposed to economic sanctions and threats of war, and the repression carried out by their own government. She won our trust because of her sincere commitment to self-determination for the Iranian people. We were a motley crew of folks from different backgrounds with differing levels of political experience. Joanne threw her lot in with us and was resolute in her conviction that what we did together was important and necessary work.

    Joanne came to play a unique and invaluable role in our organization. She was among the most consistent of our members, rarely missing a meeting or event, despite her age and declining health. It is hard to find adequate words to describe the difference her presence made. We were incredibly fortunate to have someone with a living memory of anti-war and Left organizing going back decades, someone with a tremendous depth of political knowledge and strategy, someone whose moral-ethical compass would come to inspire us all. Throughout her passionate and uninterrupted organizing efforts for the Campaign for Peace and Democracy, Joanne collaborated with grassroots initiatives from Poland, Russia, Mexico, Greece, Syria and Iran, to name only a few, always with the goal of bridging progressive movements in the U.S. with other struggles from around the world.

    When we went into politically contentious situations, for example challenging those in the anti-war movement who in the name of “anti-imperialism” refused to criticize the repression carried out by the Iranian government, she made the most principled arguments in favor of a kind of internationalist anti-imperialism that would never sacrifice the democratic demands and aspirations of ordinary people. We always knew she was with us and would have our backs no matter what.

    Even though her age made her a contemporary of many of our parents, she fit in easily in our group, with her combination of political seriousness, lightheartedness and humor. She celebrated birthdays with us, grieved with us and danced with us. She somehow knew exactly how much and when to weigh in and to step back, utilizing her vast experience to gently guide us and support us in leading and shaping the organization. Her humble, generous spirit infused our meetings.

    Joanne was one of those special, rare people who embody what real activism is: it was never about her ego, she was truly committed to justice and solidarity. She never assumed she had a monopoly on the truth. Instead, she listened, and was eager to hear our stories, revise her ideas, and learn from us too. She was curious and open. She would ask many nuanced questions from her fellow activists with different points of view to get the most accurate picture of things. She was present! She was there before others showed up, whether for a street protest, a public event or a meeting. And she was truly accountable, never failing to deliver what she signed up for. Joanne knew how to put things in context and, rather than adhering to old dogmas, continued to re-think ways to battle injustice and imagine a better world. Never, ever did she give in to despair. She always wanted us to keep going, to figure out our next steps, to put our politics into action in the world. We will forever remember her continual efforts to breathe wind into our sails.

    We only wish we had met her sooner and known her longer. But for the brief years of our intergenerational experiment in Havaar, she became our beloved friend and comrade. We will never forget her beautiful way of being, her calm manner, her fierce devotion to justice everywhere and unfailing solidarity with those on the receiving end of violence. We will miss her deeply and can only hope to carry on her legacy of nuanced and principled opposition to all forms of oppression, without apology.

    In loving memory,

    Ali Abdi
    Mohammad Asgari
    Saara Azadi
    Ausoo
    Setareh Danesh
    Carrie Fox
    Sara Hosseini
    Ali Issa
    Geoff Johnson
    Camilo Lund
    Manijeh Nasrabadi
    Udi Pladott
    Sadra Shahab
    Shaya Shirabadi
    Jeanne K. Strole
    Leyli Yousef
    Sina Zekavat

    [International Socialist Review]

    Dear comrades,

    The Editorial Board of the International Socialist Review is writing to express our condolences and sympathy to you and all who worked with Joanne Landy in the wake of her death. Joanne was a truly wonderful person and a tireless leader in the Campaign for Peace and Democracy, New Politics, and countless activist projects.

    Many of us collaborated with her on political efforts all the way back to the early 1960s. She was an internationalist who fought against all imperialisms and all states that oppressed their peoples, in the hopes of building a new and democratic society throughout the world.

    She set a non-sectarian model for activists. Even when she sharply disagreed, she argued in a friendly, often funny, and clear manner without ever demeaning other activists. And she always searched for ways to collaborate with other forces without for a moment compromising her principles.

    She will be sorely missed by the left, especially those in the tradition of socialism from below. The best way to honor her is to take up the torch for social justice she carried for decades and continue the struggle.

    All our solidarity,
    Ashley Smith for the Board of the International Socialist Review

     

  • #MeToo

    Image

    The #MeToo campaign on social media, women sharing of experiences of sexual harassment, shows how a new generation of women, with male supporters, demands that we examine systemic sexual oppression.  We  will undoubtedly hear complaints that #Me2 is unwarranted. One predictable trope from the Right is what we heard in response to Trump’s pawing and groping: "These are personal matters, not issues that our society has to address. This is life. Get over it." 

    With breathtaking hypocrisy, right-wing pundits also argue that all of these social issues distract us from what really counts: jobs and the economy.  I’m hoping we don’t hear from folks who self-identify as “Left” that #MeToo is another example of a kind of “identity politics” distracting us from the over-riding problems, economic inequality, unemployment, or another kind of social oppression that is far more damaging. Really? After all these years we still have to explain how all forms of oppressions are inter-related and embedded in capitalist economic, social and power relations?

    Others have explained more fully then I will here why struggling successfully for human dignity in a capitalist society necessarily involves looking at what happens to people at work. That’s where we spend a lot of our time together. That’s where we have to challenge capitalism’s drive for profit and the employer’s control over how we define our needs as workers and human beings. My #MeToo story occurs at work. It happened in 1980, when most of us didn't have the language to describe sexual harassment, even those of us who had been activists in the women’s liberation movement (a.k.a. second-wave feminism).  I was 30, recently moved from California, starting a new job as an English teacher in a high school that had a very high salary and very small classes, in an affluent white suburb of New York. 

    At the first faculty meeting of the school year, the male principal asked both new teachers to stand so he could introduce us as new colleagues. I was introduced as "the young, attractive, new addition to the English department." Hearing this, a male teacher in the English departmentmade an inaudible comment to those seated near him, and the principal, assuming it was a sexual remark (though it was not), gave the teacher a jocular pseudo-scolding: “Mr. X, calm down.” Widespread laughter followed, but when it died down, I said something like "I was also considered a really good English teacher in the five years I worked in California."

    Later that first day of school, the principal interrupted my class, clearly embarrassed, to apologize — for Mr. X’s remark. After hearing his apology, I observed that the principal hadn't mentioned the (male) chemistry teacher's appearance in the introduction, yet my appearance had been the way I was described. The principal said "I guess I'm a male chauvinist pig." I smiled and said, "I guess I'm not."

    That was it for the job. Nothing I did was right though nothing I did was wrong. As a probationary teacher I had no rights. The (male) president of the local union was supportive and intervened prudently when he could, but probationary teachers are completely vulnerable. He commented he had never in his career seen a new teacher treated as I was. After two months of anxiety and stress that took a toll on my health, I looked for another teaching job and found one I thought I would like. In January I gave the principal two weeks notice and walked out at semester's end. Before I left a colleague remarked that I looked like a younger version of the principal’s wife, but it wasn't until YEARS later that a light bulb went off: Wow, this was a case of sexual harassment in the workplace. Yup, #MeToo.

    Before this episode I had received nothing but excellent evaluations, from supervisors, colleagues, and students. Though I understood I had been nailed for standing up for my rights and there was likely a sexual component of the power struggle, I wasn't able to name the experience as sexual harrassment at work. What I learned was that no matter how well you do your job, the boss can "get you" for something. No one is safe from a supervisor’s prejudice, peccadillos, or abuse of power. That’s why we all need unions and strong protections against employers’ unbridled exercise of authority and authoritarianism. That's why teachers need to have due process – objective evaluation of evidence they are/not doing their jobs well.

    #MeToo is about defending human dignity. That’s what unions are about too.  It’s the same struggle. Punto final.

     

  • Some Lessons of the Hurricane

    Image(Normally my writing, especially when facing new situations,is the result of discussions with my comrades. But these days we are practically incommunicado. That’s why even more than in other cases, this article is entirely my responsibility. And, at the same time, I write with incomplete informatioin, the result of the same lack of communication, and therefore everything that I write is, even more than usual, subject to future correction. – RB)

    Crises raise new, sharp problems that unveil and accentuate both the admirable and the negative aspects of the societies they affect. They also pose new tasks and offer new perspectives on already established plans. The case of Puerto Rico and the effect and response to the strike by Hurricane María is no exception.

    We begin with the admirable: the presence of solidarity, of community, and of generosity that continues to exist in our country in spite of three decades of neoliberal practices and depredations that served private interests over public interests, put competition above collaboration, egoism above community, immediate gains above long-term considerations, and fragementation above democratic integration.

    I could give dozens of examples: the ride they’ve given me when walking to some event (because of lack of gasoline), the food they’ve given me on trust (because I had no cash), the coffee offered by my neighbors, the use of a hotplate loaned to me to warm food so I could give my baby something to eat, the doctors and other health personnel working in a hospital that had been left without electricity (when we had to go to the emergency room the day after the hurricane).

    There is no doubt that our people understand and feel, despite everything, that human relationships, even with unknown people, are more valuable and should be more valuable than the cold connection of cash.  

    But there are problems and challenges which demand reflection: we cannot leave to one side the most urgent tasks, but neither can we fail to analyze the situation, above all if from the beginning we want to reconstruct a Puerto Rico which is different and better. That reconstruction has begun and we cannot leave reflection for later.           

    To begin with the most immediate issue. There is no doubt that the preparations for response to the disaster were inadequate. We can’t ask for miracles. But without a doubt, it was necessary to have a plan or plans to maintain the water supply, food, health services and the provision of fuel necessary for all of this, being aware of a predictable and anticpated collapse of the electric system. Was such a plan and foresight possible? Without a doubt, at least to a greater degree than we have been able to observe. The reality is that we had already had the experiences of hurricanes Andrew and Katrina, experiences that were not adequately taken advantage of. (We will return to the roots of this lack of foresight.) But it is certain that the plans, as good as they may have been, could not solve everything. There are other problems certainly that also had to be attended to, but those are not emergency plans. For example: gasoline and health.

    The desperate search for gasoline, with the chaos and uncertainly that we have lived, is the result, in the last analysis, of our nearly absolute dependence on the private automobile as our means of transport, which has so often been criticized for environmental and urban planning reaons.

    Readers should think how different our situation in which we found ourselves would have been with a dense and efficient network of mass transportation; constructing such a system would be a difficult task, but without a doubt it would permit and guarantee the reestablishment of access and of movement to people much more rapidly than trying to provide gasoline to millions (yes, millions) of automobiles.

    That is, the hurricane’s strike accentuated the necessity that had already been proposed before the hurricane. Let’s not forget this as we reconstruct. (Ironically, one of the reasons that mass transportant had been and continues to be suggested is because of the necessity of reducing the burning of gasoline in order to deal with the threat of climate change, one of the effects of which is precisely an increase in the frequency of extreme events such as a Category 5 hurricane.)

    Another example is our health care system. I shouldn’t say a system. We had a system until the decade of the 1990s. It was a logically designed system, with diagnostic and treatment centers and primary, secondary and tertiary care facilities in a kind of pyramid. It had its weaknesses and should have been improved, but it was a minimally coherent system. In a crisis such as this, it could prepare, engage and coordinate, once again with basic coherence and efficiency throughout the country.

    But that system no longer exists; what exists now is the fragmented, chaotic and disarticulated result of privatization. The task of preparing and responding to the crisis is therefore much more difficult. (One of the more unfortunate experiences has been a pharmacy which refused to fulfill an existing prescription for my baby because the system was down and for that reason they couldn’t bill my health care plan.) 

    The lack of foresight and the inadequacy of the initial response also falls on FEMA (the Federal Emergency Managment Agency). Since Katrina, the inadequacy of this agency has been demonstrated; it is an apparatus that functions, if not with the logic of business as usual, with that of disaster as usual.

    Wasn’t it perhaps foreseeable that the electrical and communications systems would collapse and that dozens of large generators for hospitals and other key points would be necessary, for example for reestablishing communications between physicians? Neither the government of Puerto Rico nor FEMA took into account the hard lesson that reality had taught us. Puerto Rico is an island, different than Louisiana, Texas or Florida, and it needs special plans for a situation like this, not the usual model used in other places.

    Those of us on the island immediately realized the inadequacy of the response, but the great majority of us didn’t then have, and still don’t have, many means of protesting. Here the diaspora, Puerto Rico outside of Puerto Rico, had played a key role in criticizing the situation and in demanding that Puerto Rico not be abandoned to fate and that it receive the support of all people as the circumstances demand. Thanks to this, it generated a scandal beyond Puerto Rico and the response improved.

    I am not a member of her party and I did not vote for her, but in the same way we have to applaud the protests of the mayor of San Juan. Before she complained he had shown a complete indifference to the Puerto Rican situation.

    The response of Trump, both obnoxious and rude, was to be expected. In one of his first tweets he had the indecency to mention the payment of the debt, and now he attacks the Puerto Rican workers who according to him are lazy (something that some people repeat in Puerto Rico, and finding themselves on the side of Trump, perhaps they may pause to reflect.)

    But what should be expected of this gentleman? Trump represents political reaction and the negation of all that is good, decent and generous in humanity, including the part of humanity that inhabits the United States. His planned visit, as someone said to me waiting in a line, is a bother; any resource used to take care of that is one resource less for the recovery. His visit will not help the situation nor coordinate the recovery. It’s a photo-op. We have to declare that this racist individual is not welcome in Puerto Rico. The era has now passed when when the governing bodies depend upon his favor and grace, to be gained by the good behavior of the subjects.

    Now, thanks to these protests protests both inside and outside Puerto Rico, more resources for reconstruction have begun to arrive. The greater part of this help, a considerable part, is arriving via the military. We now have a photo of generals directing reconstruction.

    On the one hand, we must take advantage of any aid and support we that we can in this moment of extreme need. But this too gives us pause for reflectoin. There are three things to note. First, it is unfortunate that the budget for resources to deal with these situations are in the hands of the miiltary and not of civilian agencies. But this isn’t strange; it is typical of the priorities of most governments, including the United States, in the world in which we live.

    Much more is spent, much, much more, on the military apparatus than on education or social well-being. They can maintain an enormous arsenal, but not provide universal health care. This military apparatus isn’t the savior of people affected by disaster; it is an apparatus that normally scoops up an enormous quantity of the resources that should be used for other ends.

    The fact that we received support by way of the military doesn’t mean that we have to turn a blind eye to the bitter and dark side of this reality. Nor do we forget it for a second. Redouble our struggle for other priorities in Pueero Rico, in the United States, and in the world.

    In the second place, it remains interesting that following the huricane’s strike (and the denunciations and demands mentioned), multi-million dollar resources to attend to Puerto Rico’s reconstructions did appear. But, why now and not before? For some time now we have argued the need for substantial federal assistance for the reconstruction of Puerto Rico (in general and, among other things, in order to transform the energy system). Why was it necessary to wait for a natural-social disaster in ordere to take measures such as these?

    We have to say the same things about the laws [the restrictions imposed by the Jones Act] of maritime commerce: how many times has it been argued that it was necessary to eliminate them in order to contribute to economic recovery? If eliminating them now helps the recovery, why maintain them in the future?

    Ironically, the hurricane resulted in things being done (federal support for reconstruction, suspension of the maritime commerce laws) that for some time many of us have proposed as necessary (although not necessarily in the form they now take). I’ll take up the third reflection on the military aspect for later.

    Now that Trump himself has raised the issue of the debt in one of his tweets, and now that the president of the Control Committee [over Puerto Rico’s finances, created under the PROMESA Act] has proposed that now many things must be rethought, we have something to say about this. In a few words: anyone who attempted to recover payment of the debt in these circumstance commits a crime against humanity.

    Hurricane María — in addition to destroying housing, workshops, businesses, and infrastructure — destroyed the debt. It is now not only necessary to revoke PROMESA [Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act – an act of the U.S. Congress] but also to annul the debt.

    The legal doctrine for this is clear: force majeure, a fundamental change in circumstance and a state of necessity, which I don’t have enough electricity in my computer battery to explain here, but which applies perfectly to the case of Puerto Rico after María (see Eric Toussaint and Demain Millet, Debt, the IMF and the World Bank [New York: Monthly Review, 2010, pages 246-47]). How is it possible to think about collecting this debt, which was unpayable and unsustainable?

    Nothing of what is needed will be possible without complaints here and in the disapora and from our allies outside of Puerto Rico: all the movements for social justice in the United States and in the world. Here, as I said, the hurricane’s strike has led to what is necessary now and in the future: mobilization, denunciation here and outside to demand the means of economic reconstruction, above all the [cancellation of the] debt and federal support to which we have a right and which Congress owes us (among other things, as corresponds to the situation in a territory over which it maintains colonial control).

    The disastrous privatization of our health care system, the inability to undertake seriously a planned economic development according to the necessities of the country, is the other face of this culture with its lack of foresight, whose consequences we are living. If the invisible hand of the market and competetion arrange everything efficiently, then why plan? Why look ahead?

    This private management, which is also disconnected from the productive apparatus, from an infrastructure that has been for some time now and every day more social and interdependent, in normal conditions generates inequality, corruption and environmental destruction (in the case of Puerto Rico it also generates a one-sided economy, incapable of promoting employment, etc.)

    These normal results become, in a crisis, converted into chaos. One has to be struck by the declaration of a telephone company executive: “It is not the time to compete.” Only acting as a collaborative network can we advance. What we really need are social, collaborative responses to our problems, now, and also in the Puerto Rico that we want to reconstruct.

    And here I return to the thrid point that I wanted to make above about the issue of the millitary role in reconstruction: the other advantage that this apparatus has, which has admirers and even worshipers, is that it is an integrated, planned, coordinate system, in which the parts act (or are supposed to act, I’m not going to idealize) not in compeition but rather in collaboration with the others.

    The problem, of course, is that this is a centralized, authoritarian apparatus whose essential ends are destructive (I don’t refer to the intentions of many rank-and-file soldiers, who have become part of the armed forces for a vareity of reasons, but to the apparatus).

    But the admiration for efficiency of the army is a form of admiration for this functioning that doesn’t obey the sacrosanct laws of the market and of competetition. We take the best from this — planning, integrated coordination of resources — and we mix them in the future not with a military and authoritarian management, but with one which is civilian and democratic.

    I don’t doubt that the same voices who insisted before María that Puerto Rico couldn’t resolve its own problems, that we had to put them in the hands of the Control Committee so that it could give us the appropriate punishment — I don’t doubt, I repeat, that these voices, will now double down, demanding that we put oursleves in the hands of other federal agencies, including the army, so that they can do for us what we cannot do for ourselves, given that we are incompetent.

    There is no point debating with them. They are incorrigible. What we have to do is take from all of this the good and the bad, the lessons for the reconstruction that we want and need.

    Now that we are yearning — myself included — for a minimal return to normality, we will not allow this feeling to be be manipulated in the future, so that when electricity arrives we think that everything is continuing and will continue as before.

    I hear with some anxiety the announcement in the press that experts are coming to bring and share their experience with Katrina in New Orleans. While, of course, we should learn what we can, one has to remember that the Katrina recovery was used to privatize schools, eliminate labor rights, displace communities, and to gentrify (I think the word in Spanish is “aburgesar,” that is, to bourgeoisify) neighborhoods. The use of disasters to push these agendas is typical of what Naomi Klein in her famous book called The Shock Doctrine.

    To a certain degree, the proposals made before María remain valid, since María sharpened to a degree the extreme problems that already existed: the need for a plan for economic reconstruction, the need to renegotiate the debt, the need for federal assistance for reconstruction, the need for a democratic reorganization of the government and public services, the need for transportation and public health and renewable energy, the need to revoke PROMESA, the need for mobilization both within and outside of Puerto Rico to achieve all of this.

    While it hasn’t been mentioned, I don’t want to leave in the inkwell or on the keyboard the unequal effects of the disaster: those who are worse off are those who had less before María. Reconstrucion should be a reconstruction that leads to greater equality.

    It’s important to note that economic reconstruction will be the greatest need. A question in the near future will be the reaction of the great corporations that generate huge profits in Puerto Rico (and pay few taxes) after the hurricane. Will they continue operating here? I that that at least some of them will perhaps decide to leave.

    In a priave economy, as we know, these decisions that affect the whole community or country are taken without regard to anything but the profits of the companies involved. Once again, if Puerto Rico already needed a new economy, the hurricane’s blow has only accentuated the situation.

    The situation in Puerto Rico today reminds us of the beginning of the decade of the 1930s: battered by terrible hurricanes (San Felipe and San Ciprián) and engulfed by an economic depression. We got out of that crisis thanks to great movement for social justice that proposed agrarian reform, the creation of public services, labor rights, economic reconstruction, and national self-determination, and which also searched for allies outside of Puerto Rico.

    The leader of the greatest of these movements, the Popular Democratic Party, later abandonded all that it had defended. We are constructing today the equivalent of those movements and those alliances. We have the steadfastness that others lacked to remain true to the program that the country needs. This steadfastness can only arise from the working people organized in defense of their interests.

    This organization is today weak, fragmented, and battered: reconstructing it is the fundamental task for the reconstruction that we need. We hope that the hurricane may also have swept away the obstacles of division, sectarianism and personal ambitions that have held us back. My greatest desire is for the safety, security and recovery of all the men and women across the length and breadth of Puerto Rico.

    * Rafael Bernabe, spokesperson for the Working Peoples Party (PPT), was that party’s candidate for governor of Puerto Rico in the 2016 elections. He is the. He is the co-author with César Ayala of Puerto Rico in the American Century: A History since 1898 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2017). 

    Translated by Dan La Botz

    Photo by Time magazine.