Blog

  • 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.

     

                

  • Trump’s Nuclear Threats Against North Korea and Iran Pose Existential Crisis for Humanity

    ImageU.S. President Donald Trump crossed to new stage in the annals of warmongering in his United Nations speech of September 19 when he declared, “The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.” This threat to incinerate an entire nation of 25 million people amounts to nothing less than genocide. At the UN itself, the speech was met with stunned silence, with one major exception, vigorous applause from the militaristic Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu.

    During these same weeks, Trump has also been threatening to tear up the Iran nuclear agreement by refusing to certify that the Iranian regime is in compliance, even though it is. If he decertifies the agreement in October, as expected, this will open the door for the U.S. Congress to issue new sanctions against Iran.  Congress, which is full of Netanyahu supporters, including virtually all Republicans plus many neocons in the Democratic Party like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, would likely vote for such sanctions.  This would effectively end the Iran nuclear agreement, setting the stage for a military confrontation between the U.S. and Iran in the Persian Gulf.

    What is noteworthy about this new stage of U.S. imperialism is its utterly degenerate character. The former talk of human rights, freedom, the community of nations, or other ideological fig leafs has vanished, replaced by that of America First and the open threat of genocide.  As Marx wrote at the time of the Bonapartist coup in France of 1852, “it seems that the state has merely reverted to its oldest form, to the shameless, bare-faced rule of sword and cross.”  And while Trumpism shares many features with Bonapartism, not least its contempt for democracy, one key difference is that Trump heads a nuclear superpower that has the capacity to literally destroy the entire world.

    As the U.S. economy continues its long decline since the 1970s, the appearance of Trump as president constitutes a marker in that decline.  At the same time, his bellicose language seems aimed at compensating at a military-political level the ground that the U.S. has lost economically to China and other emerging powers.  Of course, the U.S. remains the world’s largest economy, plus its military power remains by far the strongest in the world, with one major rival, Russia, at least in terms of the number of nuclearly armed missiles at its disposal.

    Still, the wild gyrations of Trump are not a sign of strength, but of fundamental weakness in a U.S. political system where the liberal wing of the ruling classes had so alienated large swaths of the population that a sexist, racist demagogue could squeak out a victory, also made possible by the opportunistic support of the conservative wing of those ruling classes.  And of course, four decades of economic stagnation played a major part in alienating from the ruling elites much of the population, whether those who actually voted for Trump, or those who stayed home rather than vote for more of the same.

    What of North Korea and Iran, their bellicosity and their repression of their citizens? North Korea fits and even exceeds the normal definition of a totalitarian state-capitalism. It is a regime where the working class is ruthlessly exploited, sometimes under direct state compulsion. It also denies even the slightest political or cultural freedom to its population. The Iranian regime is a reactionary theocracy that has been forced to loosen its authoritarian controls somewhat in the face of mass opposition.  Yet it remains essentially a clerical dictatorship where labor activists, feminists, and all form of dissenters are regularly imprisoned, tortured, and subjected to medieval physical punishments like flogging.

    Unlike the U.S., however, neither of these regimes has the capacity to destroy the world, or even its neighbors. Although it is true that North Korean artillery could probably level Seoul, the capital of U.S-supported South Korea, North Korea’s nuclear weapons do not yet have a delivery system, while Iran’s nuclear program had not even been fully weaponized when it was frozen as part of the U.S.-UN nuclear agreement.  Iran has, of course, intervened in Syria and Lebanon in support of some very reactionary forces, but that is not an existential threat to the region, let alone the world.

    Both of these regimes, especially North Korea, have also engaged in incendiary rhetoric against the U.S. and its allies.  However, the main difference between these threats and those of Trump is that neither North Korea nor Iran has the capacity to actually carry out its threats.  Especially in the case of North Korea, the threats are part of the same rhetorical repertoire the regime has been using for decades as a negotiating ploy.

    Another factor that links Iran and North Korea and that makes the situation so dire is that if Trump tears up the agreement with Iran, this would give North Korea little confidence that the U.S. would abide by any agreement it struck with the Trump administration.  This only deepens the danger of war in East Asia.

    Trump’s threats and actions against North Korea and Iran may spin out of control, plunging the world into a conflict that could call our very existence into question.  This is why we need to use all our strength to mobilize against these war threats, to stay the hand of a U.S imperial behemoth that is being led by a demagogue with neofascist inclinations, a man who expresses open admiration for war and violence.

    In so doing, we need to call for the abolition of all nuclear weapons, starting with world and regional powers like the U.S., Russia, Britain, France, and Israel. We need also to abolish the capitalist system that gave rise to these weapons of mass destruction.

    Stop Trump’s War Threats against North Korea and Iran!

    Abolish All Nuclear Weapons and the Capitalist System that Produced Them!

    Approved as a Statement of the Steering Committee of the International Marxist-Humanist Organization

  • Zapatistas Put Forward Indigenous Woman for President

    ImageThe Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN), which led an armed uprising in Mexico’s southern-most state of Chiapas in 1994, and which has since then spent its time organizing autonomous communities in that state, is now putting forward an indigenous woman candidate for president in the 2018 elections. The Zapatistas hold the Mexican government and the country’s political parties in utter disdain, both for their corruption and for their disregard for the people they supposedly represent. The Zapatistas also reject elections and voting on principle. So, while they are putting forward health worker María de Jesús Partricio for president, they are not actually trying to elect her.

    Chosen as candidate by the EZLN and by 1,500 delegates to the National Indigenous Congress (CNI), María de Jesús Partricio of the Nahua people is not a prominent national figure, but rather a traditional healer who workers at La Casa de Salud Calli Tecolhuacateca Tochán, a community health center in Tuxpan, Jalisco.

    Born on December 23, 1963 in the Nahua community of Tuxpan, Jalisco, she is the mother of three children. She was working at a health clinic in Chiapas in January 1994 when the EZLN led its armed uprising in Chiapas and she subsequently became involved in the movement. In 2001, the Zapatistas chose her to speak to the joint houses of the Mexican Congress, her first political speech. Today she speaks out against discrimination against indigenous people and women, and denounces the killing and imprisonment of so many people in the country.

    Even now, however, the EZLN’s candidate says she is not running to win, but to promote the concerns of the country’s underdogs. Marichuy, as she is known, says that she is taking the step of running for president of Mexico in order to defend the lives of the indigenous people and of all Mexicans from a system that it is destroying them. She has told the press, “We are not a political party. We are not going to vote and be election watchers. This is about rebuilding our country.” She is clear: “The objective is not to win. We want to organize ourselves, to organize our communities.”

    Carlos González, a spokesman for the National Indigenous Congress (CNI) says that they have no interest whatsoever in the election, except “to crash the election party and ruin it.” For the last twenty years, Subcomandante Marcos and other EZLN leaders have expressed their contempt for the corrupt Mexican political system and for all of the political parties, including those on the left. Unlike the small parties of the Marxist left in Mexico, the EZLN and the CNI express no interest in political campaigns as a way to build a revolutionary political party.

    Others Are Running to Win

    While the Zapatistas may not care about winning, millions of Mexicans do think that who runs the country is important and they plan to vote. And there are candidates who are running to win.

    Andrés Manuel López Obrador of the left-of-center Movement for National Renovation, or MORENA Party, currently leads in the polls. He ran twice before as candidate of the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) in 2006 and again in 2012. He was probably the actual winner in the 2006 election, but much like Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas, founder of the PRD who probably won the 1998 election, was kept from the presidency through electoral fraud. A populist politician with moderately leftist program, he has matained a hold on about a third of all Mexican voters for a decade.

    The candidate of the National Action Party (PAN) will likely be Margarita Zavala, wife of former PAN president Felipe Calderón (2006-2012) who launched the war on the drug cartels that has taken tens of thousands of lives and led to widespread human rights violations by he military and the police. Were she to win, she would be the country’s first woman president.

    The sitting president, Enrique Peña Nieto of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), is ineligible to run, because Mexico’s constitution does not permit presidential reelection. The PRI’s likely candidates are Secretary of Foreign Relations Luis Videgaray or Secretary of the Interior Miguel Ángel Osorio Chong.

    Recent polls report that López Obrador has the support of 33 percent of the electorate, Zavala of 27 percent, and Osorio Chong only 13 percent. If he is to win, however, López Obrador will have to overcome not only the other major parties and hostile media, but election fraud. The establishment will do everything it can to keep him from taking office.This campaign seems to be principally a reaffirmation of the EZLN’s rejection of Mexico’s authoritarian political system, its corrupt parties, and of their devious leaders. This campaign may also be another attempt following several past failures to project the EZLN as a political force beyond parts of Chiapas and even to give it a national presence.

    A Propaganda Campaign

    The EZLN’s public statements suggest that it is not so much interested in politics as in propaganda, and not concerned with seizing power, but rather with building its autonomous communities, called caracoles (snails). So far this strategy has led to the creation of about 30 autonomous communities involving several thousand indigenous people in Chiapas, wih a few tenuous communities in other locations. There is no census of how many people actually live in these communities.

    Whatever their success at the local level, which remains unclear, the autonomous communities have not proven very effective in changing the national balance of power or in projecting the EZLN a a force on the national level. The EZLN remains largely isolated both geographically and politically, much as it has been since February 1994 when the armed conflict in Chiapas was halted.

  • Puerto Rico: Belonging To, But Not Part Of

    Image

    “We’re American citizens. How can Trump turn his back on us?” This is one of the pleas I’m hearing over and over again about the humanitarian crisis in Puerto Rico caused by Hurricane Maria. While it is a distasteful display of colonialist racism that the Trump administration takes its time to decide how much help Puerto Rico deserves, after pulling out the stops for Miami and Houston, ostensibly because there’s not “a really big ocean” separating them from Washington, it’s kind of par for the course. Our citizenship has always been second-class.

    Going back as far as the 1901 case Downes v. Bidwell, decided by some of the judges who ruled on Plessy v. Ferguson, a new colonial turn of phrase entered the American vocabulary. Puerto Rico should not be considered fit for becoming a state in the Union, but would be instead an “unincorporated territory” “belonging to, but not part of,” the United States. Belonging to, but not part of. Separate, but also not equal. Sort of.

    We were bodies, then, that should not mix with the body of white America, for we were already stained with mixture, through both our fraught tropical sweatbox of consensual and non-consensual unions, and the legacy of our Iberian antecedents, who had been festooned in Moorish veils of uncertain North African origin. Unwashed bodies, unworthy bodies, and like the body of Homer Plessy — the Louisiana Creole passenger booted from the whites-only section of the train — a body marked for destruction, the object of violence, literal and figurative.

    So it is no coincidence that, weeks after Charlottesville, and the many other spectacles of implied and literal violence that have marked the Trump reign, the mainstream media has apoplectically ping-ponged between the Colin Kaepernick-inspired National Anthem kneeling protests and the tragedy of tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans root-shocked and desesperados by a landscape of twigs where Ceiba trees grew, zinc roofs shattered into shards, and a simmering, rising tide of noxious, contaminated water flowing through what were once quaint Caribbean towns. The kneeling protests staged by African American athletes were a silent rejection of internal colonialism, while the Shock Doctrine military-P3 complex that's about to overtake Puerto Rico is the end game of a century or so of external colonialism.

    Even complaints about Trump’s slow-motion doddering on Maria from well-meaning, proud Puerto Ricans who had served in the U.S. military, insisting that their sacrifice deserved respect, seemed to forget that the Civil Rights Movement in the mid-20th century had been significantly motivated by the angry disappointment African American and Mexican-American soldiers endured when they returned home to Jim Crow segregation and dehumanization after having fought in the Good War of Tom Brokaw’s Greatest Generation. This is 2017, we often claim, how can this be? It’s because the language of “belonging to, but not a part of,” and “separate but equal,” has never been formally written out of the narrative that is still America.

    So here we were, vulnerable in our beautiful brown bodies, at the intersection of mainland and island, diaspora and isleñidad, and perhaps the ruling dialectic of the late-capitalist world system, debt and crisis. The debt, all $147 or so billion of it, is of course, a fiction, but the crisis is all too real. The privatization frenzy promised by PROMESA, the congressionally-authorized debt collection agency, is poised to accelerate at unimaginable speed once the spin of the Trump casino government roulette wheel picks out the winning bids. Planeloads of desperate Boricuas will evacuate to Central Florida, Texas, and beyond, while prime beach real estate is gobbled up by billionaires like John Paulson.

    While it is the only possible humanitarian solution, a rescinding of the debt seems highly unlikely, and its nagging accumulated weight will be used to institute a permanent state of crisis. A major motif of this crisis is the infrastructure, which — like our bodies, subjected to violence — was exposed, poorly maintained. Electrical cables ran along haphazardly installed posts crisscrossing the island, constantly failing for years before the storm, and are now lay fallen like the mass casualties of war. Collapsed like the stick-figure balloons that advertise car washes, Puerto Rico’s infrastructure is in a grand mal seizure.

    To perform the crisis mode, the military phase has already begun with the deployment of U.S. Army North deputy commander Richard C. Kim, and under-the-radar DOD private contract firms like Strategic Response Partners, who have already been spotted on San Juan streets. Despite some favorable reports of remote mountain area rescues and deployments to deliver diesel gas for electric generators and restore cell towers, the fragile fabric of this island society has frayed almost completely. And the reality show ethos of the current administration continues to distract: Trump has even invited Jenniffer González, the effervescent Resident Commissioner, or non-voting representative to Congress from Puerto Rico’s right-wing pro-statehood party, on Air Force One to discuss his plans, presumably alongside Omarosa Manigault, if she’s not fired yet.

    While we need to continue to fight for debt relief, the calls for a military presence — more to help restore infrastructure than to stop and frisk looters, imagined and real — and massive federal investment for the rebuild will be made, from my heart at least, reluctantly. The absolute destruction that has been visited on the island has temporarily rendered pro-independence politics untenable. Of course they must reappear in time, but for now we have to insist that the U.S. take economic responsibility for miring Puerto Ricans in debt (with considerable help from the the island's political and banking elites) and putting them in the path of an extreme atmospheric event fueled by the protracted sluggishness to react to climate change and fossil fuel addiction.

    Hurricane Maria has been compared to Katrina because of the extent of the damage and suffering, and its potential to illustrate that Trump, as Kanye West famously suggested about George W., doesn’t care about black and brown people. But New Orleans emerged from the storm with some areas decimated, others intact. Maria has spread its destruction in egalitarian fashion across an entire island about the length and width of Massachusetts, and made it a deforested, barren wasteland, at least for now. It is not so much a disaster area as it is a disaster nation. A nation of bleak, hot, humid, thirsty radio silence.

    Puerto Rico weathered the loss of electric power for months on end after hurricanes in the 80s and 90s, and although arduous, it was not often life-threatening. Most horrific now are the health threats, the homelessness, the months of rationing, potential environmental disasters, and what will most likely continue as a lingering problem in many remote corners of the island: the inability to communicate. Puerto Ricans now send messages to radio stations and social media in the hopes that someone might hear them, like a NASA probe filled with recordings of Louis Armstrong, gamelan music, and Glenn Gould launched into deep space on the remote chance that someone will listen. The lack of communication with hospitals, mountain towns, buried seaside shacks, is also artificially lowering the death count, which hovers between 15 and 20.

    Of course we know, after centuries of colonialism, that we are resilient. AF. And when one hears the peculiar sing-song of the Puerto Rican lilting, consonant-dropping Afro-Caribbean language on the fluttering airwaves, it’s clear that the will to survive is strong. It’s embedded in the mountains, the same ones that have stood for centuries without wavering, against the shearing winds that coalesce off the coast of West Africa and spin chaotically into the Northeastern peaks of the Luquillo Range.

    I can hear those disembodied spirits of Puerto Rico holding a press conference right now, near the damaged radio towers of the El Yunque National Rainforest. They’re saying “We’re doing a great job, an amazing job a tremendous job, for an island in the middle of an ocean.” And no one thinks they’re lying.

    First published on the Verso Books blog.

    *Ed Morales is an author and journalist who has written for The Nation, The New York TimesRolling Stone, the Village Voice, and the Guardian, among many others. He is the author of Living in Spanglish (St. Martins) and The Latin Beat (Da Capo Press), and Latinx: The New Force in American Politics and Culture, forthcoming from Verso. He is currently a lecturer at Columbia University’s Center for the Study of Ethnicity and Race, and a fellow of a new working group studying the Puerto Rico debt crisis at the Center for the Study of Social Difference.

  • On Reforms and Revolutions

    Image

    This August a hundred years ago, Lenin began to pen The State and Revolution in exile once more following a crippling defeat. Just one month prior, workers had risen and laid siege to government posts, but didn’t know what to do beyond that. History didn’t come down from above and give them a revolutionary society. This became obvious after the government sent troops to quell the uprising. The Bolsheviks, for their part, were caught off guard, and the workers’ movement underwent yet another cycle of repression.

    Lenin’s work is no doubt a significant text that lays down an actual material proposal for realizing revolutionary transition that would abolish the state. Lenin developed a concrete theory that traced the history of autonomous worker struggle so as not to fall into the same trap of mysticism as those that conjure idealist utopian fantasies of reformism or spontaneous revolution.

    It was through a critical lens of the working-class’s past that Lenin was able to develop a glimpse of socialism’s revolutionary future.

    Leading up to the Democratic Socialists of America’s historic convention this August, Bhaskar Sunkara wrote in the New York Times that we have three roads before us. We can take the train of history and either get off on Singapore Station and deepen the crippling neoliberalism we know. We can get off at the Budapest Station and deepen the taste of fascism we witnessed in Charlottesville. Or we can get off at Lenin’s Finland Station armed with the a critical understanding of the past, and try our hand at democratic socialism.

    If we want to take Finland Station seriously, it behooves us to take Lenin’s example. The question of strategy is particularly salient in our times, especially given the rise of Democratic Socialists of America. The rise of the DSA marks a critical development in the composition of social forces within the current cycle of struggles. However, if it is to develop into a vehicle that wishes to get us to Finland Station through means of developing a non-reformist reform program, then the question of autonomy must be at the very heart of this strategy.

    That is, non-reformist reforms will hardly be such if they don’t also develop the autonomous power of workers and other structurally oppressed social sectors.

    Autonomy and the Russian Revolution

    Prior to drafting The State and Revolution, Lenin had long been writing about the prefigurative forms that socialism would take. No doubt, the search for these prefigurative forms of self-government were central to the revolutionary socialist tradition. This is why the spontaneous development of worker councils across Western Europe consumed the attention not only of Lenin, but of Antonio Gramsci and Rosa Luxemburg as well. To them, these were the key embryonic organs through which they saw socialism stemming. These were institutions that prefigured the new world in the shell of the old.

    In Russia, the soviets first sprang as a spontaneous development in the failed 1905 revolution. While these organs were ultimately crushed, they were resurrected in the build up to the February Revolution. In the aftermath, these revolutionary organs held so much weight, so much popular power, that these counter-institutions had become vital to the (re)production of everyday life. The bourgeois parliamentary state was thus forced to recognize their legitimacy and share power with them. Lenin recognized this relational state in which counter-power institutions maintained an autonomous position from the state while nonetheless sharing power with it as one of dual power.

    For Lenin, the role of the party was not only to defend these embryonic manifestations of the beginnings of a revolutionary society, but to remove barriers from its path to take full operational control of society as a means to develop self-governance. The autonomy of these institutions could not be threatened by either the state or the revolutionary party. The final moment of revolution then was one in which the stalemate between the two poles of power would break, in which social transformation would give rise to political revolution as a means to deepen social transformation, its limits defined by capitalism and the bourgeois state.

    Developing a Strategy of Non-Reformist Reforms

    DSA’s task today is to help foment and defend the advance of the working-class and other oppressed social sectors in a struggle for democratic socialism. And the conquest of reforms, surely, must be central part of this struggle. As Joseph M. Schwartz and Bhaskar Sunkara argue, these reforms must be of such a character that they move towards a break with the capitalist system. Citing André Gorz, they argue that a strategy should be developed in which one reform after another is conquered such that a total departure from capitalism develops.

    According to their prescription, one would think then that a non-reformist reform program is the sum of its reforms. However, what is excluded from this proposal is the very question of autonomy. If alternative institutions and organs are not developed alongside and in step with this process, then both capital and the state will nonetheless retain operational control of society’s basic (re)productive functions.

    As Gorz reminds us, what is critical is that the reforms develop in “such a way as to build up within the factories and the cities organs of direct popular power, such as workers’ councils and citizens’ councils.” It is through such that the rifts necessary to prefigure the break from capitalism come forth.

    If we want reforms to have revolutionary potential, we have to build a pole of autonomous power that in turn begins to wield operational control of society’s (re)productive power. If this autonomous complex of institutions and organs is not developed, then both capital and the state will simply reconstitute itself through the absorption of autonomous power into its own ordering and logic.

    If we do not keep an eye on the maintenance and development of autonomy, the New Deal of tomorrow will not be defined on the terms struck between the soviets and the provisional government in February of 1917, but rather on the terms delivered by the state’s total reabsorption of autonomous strength to maintain the order of exploitation.

    Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was a direct response to the growing power of striking workers. However, this did maneuver worked to decompose rather than to strengthen the autonomy of the working-class. Aside from higher wages – no doubt beneficial to many workers – the family wage was developed as a means to decompose the industrial strength of female wage-earners. The advent of housewife-ization served to disconnect the growing economic strength of women as they increasingly moved into industrial work since the Civil War. The exclusion of people of color from the compromise of the New Deal’s benefits was critical to further dividing the fighting workforce and maintaining a racialized social order. To be sure, the New Deal maintained the racialized division of labor in which people color served as both the reserve army of labor and as an ever useful folk devil to frequently conjure as a public enemy in times of political or economic crisis. All the while, the New Deal developed a series of laws that, while recognizing the rights of organized labor on the one hand, served to also inhibit its autonomous power in a way that allowed labor to be controlled through law and regulation on the other.

    Unlike the February revolution that developed a compromise on the explicit terms of labor, the New Deal developed a compromise on the explicit terms of capital. Whereas the February Revolution allowed the autonomy of the working-class to be maintained, the New Deal functioned to decompose and partition working-class autonomy.

    This lesson from history has to shape our development of a non-reformist reform strategy and push us to reinforce and secure the strength of autonomous organs and institutions.

    Today there are prefigurative forms across the terrain of social struggle. Campuses form worker councils through left union caucuses. Neighborhood assemblies are flourishing in cities like Seattle. Citizens’ initiatives like Cooperation Jackson are redefining the terms of electoral politics. The autonomous security provided by Redneck Revolt reminds us of the defense committees of yesteryear’s Barcelona. Discourses coming out of #BlackLivesMatter and transformative justice collectives provide a glimpse of a world without police.

    Our job should be to bolster these initiatives and organs, defend them, and find a way to weave them together into a common complex that prefigures tomorrow’s socialism today.

    The power to implement non-reformist reforms are generated through counter-institutions, defined by their transformative and democratic character. In turn, these counter-institutions must be brought together to form a common complex, complimenting each other’s work and seizing the (re)productive functions of society. It is through such that autonomous counter-power is not only developed and maintained, but become popularly recognized. It is their ability to have a material consequence in the functions of everyday life that they develop into a legitimate and necessary power.

    What gives a reform actual revolutionary substance then is that the power it generates stays on the outside of the constituted structures of capitalism and the state. No doubt, the ability to develop such autonomy is dependent on the degree of strength it develops, and at a nascent stage of recomposition of militant left forces, the ability to take operational control will be limited. But this must be part of long-game strategy. Eventually, points of conflict will necessarily arise so that these prefigurative structures become threatened by a sudden maneuver of the state. Within such a conjuncture, one of two possibilities remain – autonomous power is crushed and reconstituted, or they enter into a relation of dual-power.

    It is only through developing a genuinely democratic and autonomous counter-power that the tracks we travel do indeed get us to Finland.

    Antje Dieterich and Daniel Gutiérrez are members of DSA, currently living in Berlin. Both are involved in developing a sanctuary city initiative in Berlin called Solidarity City Berlin. Antje holds a PhD from Freie Universität Berlin in Latin American History, and Daniel is a PhD candidate of North American Studies at Freie Universität. Antje has been published in ROAR magazine, while both have been published in Jacobin and Upping the Anti.

    Victor Hertzfeld lives in San Diego and is a member of the Democratic Autonomy Federation. He has been involved in developing a left alliance in San Diego called Collective Resistance San Diego that includes the Party for Socialism and Liberation, Redneck Revolt, Colectivo Zapatista, and the Industrial Workers of the World. He studied political science and law across the University of California. Victor has been published in Upping the Anti.

  • No Trump, No War, No Way!

    Image

    From the Steering Committee of Solidarity

    If it weren’t frightening, it would be funny: “Big Twit Calls Out Rocket Man,” as Donald Trump ramps up his insults and threats of war against North Korea. Let’s look at some of the issues behind the antics and escalating rhetoric.

    It’s really impossible to assess the chances of an actual war on the Korean peninsula, but while it may be a low-probability event its consequences would be utterly catastrophic. All the establishment media, of course, breathlessly consider whether the North Korean regime and its “beloved leader” Kim Jong-un are a direct threat to the United States — as if U.S. imperialism didn’t threaten North Korea and a whole bunch of other countries. It’s simply taken as given that rich and powerful states have an inherent right to self-defense and security, and others don’t.

    Let’s start with the general observation about nuclear weapons. Ultimately they will either be abolished — as a United Nations agreement supported by 120 member nations calls for — or they’ll inevitably proliferate. If anything, it’s rather remarkable that they haven’t spread further already; but in addition to the original nuclear Great Powers, nuclear-armed states now include India and Pakistan as well as Israel, and now DPRK (North Korea). South Africa under apartheid had a secret nuclear weapons program — in collaboration with Israel — but renounced it in the 1990s when the African National Congress took power.

    If Donald Trump carries through on his idiotic threats to blow up the P5+1 (the five permanent UN Security Council members, plus Germany) deal with Iran, that regime might undertake its own rush toward developing nuclear weapons capability. That would likely soon be followed by Saudi Arabia and probably others. Which potential confrontation is really the most dangerous? None of us know, and we don’t want to find out the hard way.

    Moving to today’s immediate crisis, it’s true that the North Korean regime is in the running for the world’s most brutal. It’s a nationalist autarky flying a “Communist” flag of regional convenience, its ruling military-political elite headed by a family dynasty, where much of the population periodically starves and internal purges are carried out by liquidating the victims with anti-aircraft weaponry. But that is not the fundamental reason why North Korea is pursuing what its rulers rather grandly call “strategic nuclear equilibrium” with the world’s greatest superpower. Kim Jong-un’s ego may play a role, but that’s not the decisive factor either — any more than Donald Trump’s serious personality disorders are the driving force of U.S. imperialism.

    We need to remind ourselves that the horrible Korean War of the late 1940s and early ‘50s never formally ended. The truce that ended the fighting in 1953, after much of the country was destroyed and the U.S. and Chinese militaries had fought to a bloody draw, left tens of thousands of U.S. troops stationed in South Korea. The U.S. presence remains a threat both to North Korea and China, and needs to be removed!

    More recently, the North Korean leadership sees the examples of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya and Saddam Hussein Iraq – both of whom had been on friendly terms with Western governments and intelligence services — who gave up their plans to develop nuclear weapons capability, and got whacked when the imperial godfathers found it expedient to dump them. These have been promoted as “victories” for righteous American power. In fact, they are a warning to small countries they’d better develop some kind of “asymmetric” retaliatory capability.

    Since North Korea has always been on the U.S. official enemies list (remember George W. Bush’s “axis of evil“), all the more reason then for its regime to seek strategic deterrence. Its massive artillery has been aimed for decades at Seoul, the capital and heart of South Korea, in a game of Mutual Assured Destruction on the peninsula. But what North Koreans also remember, although Americans long ago forgot, is that during the Korean War the United States bombed the place to smithereens until there were no military targets left, then bombed North Korea’s dikes — so the regime has long sought a strategic balance of terror against the U.S. itself.

    With the protection of its ally China no longer assured, now that China has strong economic relations with South Korea, the United States and the West in general, Pyongyang has gone for the ultimate nuclear option. That might well prove to be a suicidal choice, but it has its own insane logic within the larger massive insanity of a global system on the edge of self-destruction.

    Where does this leave us? In the complex crosscurrents of regional and global geopolitics, the South Korean government (fortunately) opposes the stationing of U.S. nuclear weapons on its territory. The majority of the South Korean population is antiwar — understandably not wishing to be potentially vaporized in a holocaust brought on by outside powers. The newly elected South Korean president Moon Jae-in is looking for openings for de-escalation and dialogue, and has allocated $8 million for aid (to be distributed through UNICEF) to children facing starvation in the North. This is both a humanitarian and political gesture, opposed by the United States whose policy is to draw South Korea into Washington’s increasingly confrontational stance.

    China and Russia are trying to ratchet up economic and diplomatic pressure on North Korea to freeze its bomb and ballistic missile tests, while also calling for the United States and other powers to de-escalate and engage in negotiations with the North. None of these regimes are in any way progressive, but in one way or another, negotiations are the only actual alternative to a slide toward catastrophe. There’s no need to have any illusions about North Korea in order to recognize the importance of demanding “no war” and dismantling the U.S. military presence. We, the people of the United States, have no “place at the table” or any means of shaping the terms of negotiations. We do have our voices, and we need to use them.

    We have to tell the Congress and our fellow Americans that we’re not only sick of Donald Trump’s antics and border walls and white supremacy, but we’re sick of the endless wars that Democrats and Republicans alike are continuing in Afghanistan and Iraq and Syria and Yemen, the ever-growing military budget that’s eating us alive, and climate change denial that threatens to end human civilization even without nuclear war.

    The $700 billion U.S. military budget passed the Senate by a vote of 89-8. (If that’s bipartisanship, can we please have our gridlock back?) Is there a bigger waste of money right now, at a time when Houston, Florida, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands need to be rebuilt — as well as all the Caribbean nations pulverized by nature’s message about what climate chaos is bringing? We need to recognize that among all the retrograde and reactionary regimes at play in this crisis, the government of our own imperialist state is the most dangerous. It’s a threat not only to North Korea but to our survival. No Trump, no war, no way!

    For further reading at International Viewpoint see Tadashi Kinoshita’s Before building peaceful workers’ state in the Korean Peninsula. Among the U.S. groups organizing against the war drive, we recommend the initiatives of CodePink.

     

  • Concession Fatigue in Connecticut

    Image

    For the third time in eight years, public sector workers in Connecticut have voted for concessions. State employees have sacrificed a total of $7 billion to close budget deficits in 2009, 2011, and now 2017.

    With Connecticut existing in a perpetual state of red ink, the unions’ State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition (SEBAC) opened its 2011-2022 agreement and negotiated a new deal that will save the state $1.5 billion in the next two years and $24 billion over 20 years.

    SEBAC, made up of 15 unions representing 34 bargaining units and 46,000 employees, was created by statute in 1986 to negotiate pensions and health care. (Connecticut is one of only four states where public sector pensions and health care are collectively bargained; in others the legislature sets terms unilaterally.) Contracts covering all other issues are negotiated separately by each union.

    Last month 83 percent of voting union members agreed to three years of wage freezes, increased pension contributions, higher health care premiums, furlough days, and the creation of a 401 (k)-pension blend for new hires.

    In exchange for these givebacks, the unions received a four-year guarantee of no layoffs and a five-year extension of the structure of the pension and health care system until 2027. And they were assured that each bargaining unit’s local contract would be accepted by the legislature.

    Although the concessions were clear, it’s the politics behind the agreement that are troubling.

    INEQUALITY & AN UNFAIR TAX STRUCTURE

    Public employees were forced to the table because the state budget faced a $5 billion shortfall over two years, conservative forces were resurgent and vocal in their anti-union rhetoric, and the state’s Democratic Party was paralyzed by poor leadership and a fear of raising taxes. With Democratic Governor Dan Malloy (elected by the unions) threatening 4,200 layoffs, concessions were a foregone conclusion.

    How did Connecticut, one of the wealthiest states in the country, get into a budget mess so bad that state workers were forced to solve it? The answer is that Connecticut is one of the most unequal states in the nation.

    Connecticut’s wealth is staggering. Last year, it ranked second in the nation for the number of millionaire households, with 7.4 percent of all the state’s households in that club. This year, the state had 17 billionaires, 12 of whom live in one town, Greenwich.

    Business has also prospered, despite complaints to the contrary. A 2016 survey of Connecticut business reported that profits were at a 10-year high, and in 2017 alone, tax breaks to companies totaled $707 million. Connecticut insurance giant Aetna reported that it made $15.5 billion in profit in its second quarter alone.

    This wealth, however, is not shared by all Connecticut residents.

    In 2013 Connecticut ranked second nationally in income inequality, with average incomes of the top 1 percent an obscene 42.6 times greater than those of the bottom 99 percent. Over the past 30 years, incomes of the top 1 percent grew 290.8 percent, while those in the bottom 99 percent increased by only 14.5 percent.

    Connecticut also has one of the worst school achievement gaps, with black and Latino students scoring much lower than whites on standardized tests.

    Not surprisingly, the state’s tax structure reflects the interests of its wealthy residents. Corporate tax rates are some of the lowest in the country, and the top marginal rate of its income tax is less than in most neighboring states.

    Since the 2008 recession, the state’s job growth has been sluggish and wages have declined. As a result, income and sales tax revenue collected from workers has fallen. This leaves Connecticut reliant on tax receipts from the super-rich. But because of the relatively low tax rate on corporations and the wealthy, when there is volatility in financial markets (as there has been in international hedge funds), the state cannot collect enough revenue to balance the budget, and like clockwork, social services, education, and public sector jobs go on the chopping block.

    The budget also suffers from a huge unfunded liability for state workers’ pensions, a consequence of politicians lowering taxes on the rich. In order to offset tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy in the 1980s and 1990s, lawmakers worked out earlier concession deals with SEBAC, permitting the state to contribute less to pay off the liability than was mandated by a 55-year agreement made in the 1970s.

    PUBLIC EMPLOYEES AS PUBLIC ENEMY

    As in other states, right-wing organizations such as the Yankee Institute, the Connecticut Business and Industry Association, and the State Government Leadership Foundation have pushed an anti-labor agenda that depicts public employees as the public enemy, with state workers painted as the main cause of budget problems.

    These groups have bolstered the GOP in the legislature, reducing the Democratic majority to just seven seats in the House, with an 18-18 tie in the Senate. In the most recent legislative session, emboldened Republicans attacked collective bargaining, introducing more than 100 bills against it and against public employees; 70 of these received a public hearing, though none got out of committee.

    But it is labor’s so-called friends who have hurt it the most. Governor Malloy uses SEBAC concession deals like an ATM, as he refuses to address Connecticut’s unequal tax structure. The Democratic Party does little other than asking that workers “do their part” for the state. Three conservative Democrats, demanding “systemic reform,” threatened to scuttle the recent concessions deal because it was not harsh enough. Progressive voices in the state are too weak and divided to lead change.

    Both Democrats and Republicans argue that raising taxes to solve the state’s budget crises will cause corporations and the wealthy to flee the state, despite no evidence to support this claim. In fact, the number of millionaires and billionaires has increased in the past eight years. GE and Aetna both said that it was not taxes, but access to a highly educated workforce and better lifestyles in Boston and New York, that prompted their moves.

    TOWARD WISCONSIN?

    Compared to other states, Connecticut has high levels of unionization, yet labor is struggling to influence state politics and public opinion. Despite a number of large and progressive unions, there is little evidence of a labor movement in the state.

    Because every SEBAC agreement has been reopened, Connecticut public employees (and their politicians) know that they will pay again in the future. SEBAC did not set out a Plan B, or a political strategy to end this downward spiral.

    SEBAC leaders are very concerned about a Republican takeover of the state in the next electoral cycle. In trying to derail “the express train to Wisconsin” (as SEBAC calls it), labor relies on other entities instead of mobilizing its own members. SEBAC leaders are happy to join in coalitions with other progressive groups to pressure, or elect, politicians, such as the social justice, consumer, and faith-based organizations in the “Due Justice” coalition, and they are thinking of resurrecting the Legislative & Electoral Action Program group. But SEBAC does nothing on its own and does not sufficiently mobilize union members to participate in those coalitions.

    To keep the state from looking like Wisconsin, SEBAC will have to change the way it operates. The political space for concession deal after concession deal is narrowing; the unions cannot kick the can down the road indefinitely. SEBAC needs to change if state workers are to defend their wages, pensions, and health care.

    First, SEBAC is reluctant to fight on its own now as it has at different times in its past when it pushed progressive legislation (pay equity for women) and fought demands for wage freezes (from Republican Governor John Rowland in 2002). SEBAC needs to rediscover its own fighting spirit and voice.

    Second, SEBAC is too far removed from its own rank-and-file members. Workers do not understand how it works or its legal purpose. It is too leadership-driven, with little opportunity for state workers to be involved. Last month’s concessions, for example, were a top-down affair with all the details worked out without membership input.

    Finally, public sector workers in Connecticut are atomized and disconnected from one another, with employees in one bargaining unit having little interaction with those in another. If rank-and-file workers were not so isolated, they could force their respective union leaders to work better together on their behalf.

    Concessionary bargaining will not keep Connecticut from moving toward Wisconsin. Only collective action by union members can accomplish that.

    Originally posted at Labor Notes.

  • Racist Societal Views of The Black Male Body

    Image

    This work is a creative nonfiction work which highlights the imperialist white supremacist capitalist colonial gaze of the Black male body, conventional beauty standards, systemic weightism, and instances of subversion against these oppressive norms in appreciating my body for the way it is.

    Sophomore year in high school, I started exercising in the school gym after school almost seven days a week. I willed myself to motivation to start doing it. I didn’t know how to start, but I knew the schemata to exercise: you spend thirty minutes to two hours running outside, or on a treadmill, and lifting a few dumbbells in repetitions of ten to fifteen. And after two weeks of doing that, I started to see results. I created my own strict routine and discipline. I lowered my food intake. I only drank water. Ritually, I stopped eating at 6:00 PM every day. And that worked for a while.

    Whenever my mom, or my aunts would make food, sometimes they’d ask me if I wanted to eat. I’d militantly say no. I always took account of the time. Say it were thirty minutes past the designated time I decided to stop eating for the day; I’d punished myself with twice as much exercise the following day. So in the gym, men: from freshmen, juniors, some seniors to a few sophomores commended me for my perseverance in keeping up with exercising and losing weight with questions like, “how’d you do it?”

    For a while I was brought to have lost this weight. I even felt like my depression was lifted off my shoulders for a while. Previously, I had the idea that exercise would be what would alleviate my stress. Years later, I soon understood that exercise keep me moving, but in no way did relentless exercising mean the suspension of my mental illnesses.

    At first, I used to believe everything was changed because of volition—sheer individual conscious decision, that ‘willpower’ was center to what ameliorated, destroyed, or abolished all things permanently. I previously thought will was what would allow me to will my mental illness away, that will is what would advance my exertion toward losing weight, but will isn’t everything.

    This logic was horribly flawed, antiquated, rigid, arrogant, and was actually in part of my upbringing, imposing onto myself the expectations of how I thought society and my family, viewed this logic, how I thought they viewed me. It was toxic, untrue. It didn’t make any sense. Sadly, for whatever I didn’t believe did not become a reality, was a result in unmerciful victimized self-blame onto myself.

    “Why isn’t this working? I lost weight? Shouldn’t my depression be gone?” would be the nature of my internal dialogue. This was what my train of thinking was like for a long time, unknowingly did I felt overstressed and worried about not following their expectations. Not feeling that my mental illnesses had gone away made me worry of what, for example, my mother and my aunts would believe of me. Excessively did I make my interpretations of how they would feel about me not feeling ‘happy’ from having lost weight an invented belief that floated over my worries.

    It was long after Monroe Woodbury High School, after SUNY Orange, that I learned that maybe what influenced me to exercise was not what I wanted. Jokingly, Broly the Legendary Super Saiyan was my influence for wanting to be brawny. A former friend or two I had who would slap my arms and yell to me that I was ‘too big.’ I used to laugh and take these sayings with lightheartedness. My aspiration to be so-called ‘big’ wasn’t really a thing to me anymore. I think what it was, was that I thought that if I was this size, I would be attractive.

    I did gain some of the weight back at some point, and lost it nearly as quickly as I gained it back. I read somewhere that losing weight quickly after gaining it is prone to me experiencing severe heart conditions. That wasn’t the main cause of me gaining the weight back the third or fourth time. It was more indifference.

    Little thoughts here and there appreciating my body in the state that it was, and sometimes disliking it, disliking my own body so much that whenever I put underwear or pants on, I’d make sure the sides of my stomach were above the pant line over my the sides of my stomach fat. Other times, I’d leave it right at the pant line. It was never consistent. Even now, while I’ve been away at SUNY New Paltz, I’ve gained a bit of weight, but it wasn’t so much sadness that overcame me.

    It was more indifference again, like, what was wrong with my body? Nothing was wrong with it? I still had muscle from when I used to exercise strenuously as I first started back during my sophomore year in high school. Don’t get me wrong, I think I’m attractive, sometimes in the colloquially bastardized sense of the word, narcissistic, like “shit, I look good.”

    I’d admire how I look when I look my deltoids and my arms, but I guess I’ve learned to start appreciating the all of my Black body, too. And while I should be exercising more often, something affects me differently when I visit the gym than how it did years ago. I’ve learned that when I was appreciated for my arms, my muscularity, by non-Black people, I was being racistly objectified.

    And with time, I guess, I became afraid of having exercised to reach that level of physique again? To avoid looking like a racial archetype? I love my Black body, but I would become disoriented as soon as some covertly or overtly racist white person would objectify me. They would even desexualize me via their white racist imagination with this whitewashed assumption that I am somehow…”not like other Black men.”

    These people are whom I call covert racists, and what I also call white supremacist credentials: morality, virtue, intelligence, accomplishments, and mostly our labor. Whenever a white man or white woman says they love Black men, or praises a Black man, alive and or dead for our accomplishments, academic, artistic, philosophical, linguistic, physical, spiritual, or otherwise, we are worshipped for our service, under their Whiteness, as if we are indebted to it. White people value Black male life insofar as we subject ourselves to their racist credentials.

    They love our Black male bodies and our creations, but look over the fact that we’re human, BLACK HUMANS. Thus in these regards, white people objectify me, whether it be my Black body, my Black dick, or my natural Black hair, making these verbally sexual advances to justify in their minds that I am nothing more than their racist object, and they whitewash and tokenize me to make themselves feel safe, yet, irrefutably, they perceive me as less a ‘danger’ insofar as I am not being unapologetically Black and resistant.

    Digressing back to my experiences in going to the gym, I viewed it differently. It wasn’t just me, a Black man, going to the gym, exercising then leaving. It was weird as well walking in there sometimes. I wasn’t looking at my physique as if it needed to be “corrected.”

    Before, I ascribed self-worth to my muscularity, but I also learned that at the same time, it was dangerous because of the Black and white male symbiotic homosocial activity that took place there. Whether a man lifted two fifty pound dumbbells with ease and he sounded these weird grunts as if he was plummeting toward his death, or a man looming over another man, voyeuristically observing him as he attempted to bench press 145+ pounds in three to four sets of ten, it was all the same. I wasn’t there looking to be better or stronger-looking than the next man exercising. I’d be there to take care of my Black body.

    And it’s so easy to get caught up in long-winded competitive talk about what muscles in my body I’m working out on, or what my technique was, or that I even cared about these things now than I did as an eighteen-year-old teenager. I’m not saying exercise is unimportant, or that a Black man making himself fit is wrong. I’m saying there will always be sociopolitical implications that follow the choices a Black man would make in how his representation might be used against him in imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchal culture. It’s important to be aware of what my Black body is getting itself into, whether it be in the gym, at the gas station, in a classroom, everywhere.

    My views changed drastically. I don’t believe that my weight determines my worth, and I’m not saying this to earn SJW points. I’m saying this because it’s wrong, ignorant, and fat-phobic to think in that way. I might be overweight, but over time, I’ve honestly come to like my body in the shape that it is. How muscular or refined my face might look shows only how much effort I’m putting into my exercise and that I’m obviously dedicated to fitness, yes, of course, but it doesn’t define my Black beauty.

    Aestheticism (noun.) — the belief that our main efforts in life should be focused on creating and enjoying beauty, in all its forms.

  • Social Democracy Is Good. But Not Good Enough.

    Image

    We need a socialism that goes beyond capitalism. And not just for moral reasons.

    John Judis has all the right intentions. He’s looking at the resurgence of openly democratic socialist currents in the United States with a mix of excitement and trepidation. Excitement, because he knows how desperately the country’s workers need social reforms. Trepidation, because he worries that the new left might fall into the familiar traps of insularity and sectarianism.

    But while Judis wants us to change society for the better, his response to the failures of twentieth-century state socialism would lead us into the dead end of twentieth-century social democracy.

    In his New Republic essay “The Socialism America Needs Now,” Judis makes a passionate plea for the rebuilding of a social-democratic movement — or what he calls “liberal socialism.” He contends that the welfare state and democratic regulation of a capitalist economy should be the end goal for socialists, as past efforts at top-down nationalization and planning yielded the repressive societies and stagnant economies of the Soviet bloc. In contrast, Judis argues, the Scandinavian states are dynamic capitalist economies that are still far more equitable and humane than the United States.

    For him, socialism — democratic control over workplaces and the economy — consists of “old nostrums” whose days have past.

    Of course, we urgently need the reforms that Judis and the movement around Bernie Sanders advocate for. No democratic socialist could oppose efforts to guarantee public provision of basic needs and take key aspects of economic and social life like education, health care, and housing out of the market. It would, as Judis writes, “bring immeasurable benefit to ordinary Americans.”

    But we have moral reasons to demand something more. After all, we can’t have real political democracy without economic democracy. Corporations are “private governments” that exercise tyrannical power over workers and society writ large. The corporate hierarchy decides how we produce, what we produce, and what we do with the profits that workers collectively make.

    To embrace radical democracy is to believe that any decision that has a binding effect on its members — say, the power to hire or fire or control over one’s work hours — should be made by all those affected by it. What touches all, should be determined by all.

    At minimum, we should demand an economy in which various forms of ownership (worker-owned firms, as well as state-owned natural monopolies and financial institutions) are coordinated by a regulated market — an economy that enables society to be governed democratically. In an undemocratic capitalist economy, managers hire and fire workers; in a democratic socialist economy, workers would hire those managers deemed necessary to build a content and productive firm.

    They Won't Let Us Keep Nice Things

    This, however, isn’t a debate about the contours of the world we would like to see. While Judis rejects the desire of socialists (and the historic goal of social democracy itself) to create a radical democracy after capitalism, he does so largely on pragmatic grounds. The old vision, for him, is “not remotely viable.”

    Yet history shows us that achieving a stable welfare state while leaving capital’s power over the economy largely intact is itself far from viable. Even if we wanted to stop at socialism within capitalism, it’s not clear that we could.

    Since the early 1970s, the height of Western social democracy, corporate elites have abandoned the postwar “class compromise” and sought to radically restrict the scope of economic regulation. What capitalists grudgingly accepted during an exceptional period of postwar growth and rising profits, they would no longer.

    The past forty years have witnessed an ideological and political war against once-powerful labor movements and the welfare states they helped build. This bipartisan class war advocated for the four “d”s of neoliberalism: deregulating the economy, decreasing progressive taxation; decreasing the scope of public goods; and decreasing the power of organized labor.

    Corporations also moved their investment in production to newly industrializing nations or lower-wage regions and automated much of the higher-skilled manufacturing that remained. The focus of corporate profitability shifted to the FIRE economy (finance, insurance, and real estate), an economy based heavily on speculation and a low-wage service economy that mostly serves the richest earners.

    So did it have to end this way? Could the old welfare state not only have survived but been expanded? Yes, but that would have required pushing back against capital’s power to withhold investment. Simply put, that would have required a more radical socialism.

    Many of the last generation’s social democrats knew that capital would disinvest from societies that enjoyed strong social rights. Back in the 1970s and ‘80s there were important attempts to gain greater control over capital to prevent just that.

    Left social democrats in the Swedish labor federation advanced the Meidner Plan, which would have taxed corporate profits over a twenty-five-year period to achieve social ownership of major Swedish corporations. The Socialist-led and Communist-supported government in France under François Mitterrand from 1981 to 1983 nationalized 25 percent of French industry overnight and radically expanded labor rights (mandating collective bargaining in firms of fifty workers or more).

    Of course, these attempts and others were defeated. France faced a real capital strike, whereas the Swedish Social Democrats pulled back from adopting the Meidner Plan out of fears of such a strike. The lag in corporate investment created a recession in France that led to a major conservative victory in the 1985 parliamentary elections. Mitterrand had to denationalize firms and adopt budgetary austerity.

    Judis mentions in passing social democracy’s rightward lurch over the past thirty years. But he fails to mention the extent of its neoliberalization or the historical lesson we must draw: when capital goes on the offensive, either labor must do the same or it will be forced to retreat.

    In short, Judis writes out of history the conscious corporate offensive against constraints on its power.  To sustain even the modest reforms he sees as the horizon of socialism, we need to legitimate a greater role for democratic and state regulation of capital.

    Private capital simply refuses to invest in those goods needed to overcome radical inequality: affordable housing, mass transit, alternative energy, and job retraining. Capital is often reluctant to risk heavy investment in natural monopolies that almost inevitably come under state regulation or ownership (no company would invest in a competing alternative energy grid). Judis does not speak of the climate crisis, yet there is no road to solving it short of massive public investment and control over utilities.

    Of course, the United States is the place where “social democracy in one country” would be the most economically viable. Our domestic market is as large as the European Union’s, and we control our own global currency. We are a wealthy society that could easily afford universal health, elder, and child care, as well as high quality education for all. But on the road to achieving those nice things, corporations would resist and deploy their most powerful tactic: the capital strike.

    Social democrats like Judis refuse to grapple with this, causing them at key moments to sound the retreat and accommodate capitalist forces, eroding the very reforms they hope to preserve.

    To chart a different course, we would need a militant labor movement and a mass socialist presence strengthened by accumulated victories, looking to not merely tame but overcome capitalism. A socialism that refuses to deal with the “old nostrums about ownership and control of the means of production” will not only fall short of our democratic expectations of what a just society would look like — it will doom us to failure.

    *Joseph M. Schwartz is an elected leader of the Democratic Socialists of America, and professor of political science at Temple University.

    *Bhaskar Sunkara is the founding editor of Jacobin.

     

  • Why we need labor unions and why they need critical friends

    ImageLabor Day 2017 is a sobering moment for people who care about human dignity, social justice, peace, and a life-sustaining environment. While powerful elites who control government so as to safeguard capitalism are driving civilization towards barbarism and the planet to extinction, Trump’s election has spurred widespread protests. Vigorous social movements are challenging Trump’s and the GOP’s retrograde policies and politics: corrupt, xenophobic, racist, misogynist, malevolent. Sparked by Bernie Sanders’ campaign, we’re seeing a new embrace of socialism, especially among younger activists.

    A militant labor movement is essential to sustain and win the hard-fought battles that loom and to create a mass socialist movement that can help create and power an alternative to capitalism’s destruction. Unions can call on the resources of millions of workers, organized at the workplace, in capitalism’s heart. Labor’s potential power, sustained in good part by public employee unions, explains the Right’s stunningly brazen announcement of its plan to destroy government unions and with it, the Left. For the same reasons the Right wants to eliminate the collective voice of workers on the job, we need to defend it: Unionization plants the seeds of democracy on the job, challenging the bosses’ unfettered control.

    Being a friend of unions means “showing up” for struggles unions organize for dignity on the job and in the community. Janus v. AFSCME, coming up to the U.S. Supreme Court, may abolish a union’s right to have everyone who benefits from a union’s representation share the cost. Public employee unions are mounting a campaign against it and need our support. The often invisible  job actions, protests, and boycotts unions organize deserve to be publicized. Read Labor Notes to learn about the many struggles ignored by corporate media. Booking a hotel? Check to be sure it’s socially responsible, paying its workers, often immigrant women, a living wage with benefits. On campus? Help graduate students who are organizing unions to win a contract. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce calls a $15 hourly wage inflated. Unions call it a bottom line for the country that is the richest the world has ever seen. Help the unions fighting for these low-wage workers hyper-exploited by corporations and billionaires who are dismantling legal protections. Inquire when you see workers on a picket line. Ask the workers about the issues, find out what you can do to help – and do it. Every picket line is a chance for us to educate ourselves about what unions do to protect workers’ dignity.

    Labor sorely needs friends now. Kim Moody explains why labor is in big trouble and worse is likely in store: Union membership is down again, having dropped another quarter-million members from 2015 to 2016, to 14.6 million members. The Right’s attacks on collective bargaining for public employees have had their effect. But Moody also proposes what labor can and should do differently to defeat the onslaught against unions and working people. The other part of being a critical friend is frank analysis about what’s not working and why.

    Unions are “thin-skinned” about criticism and often resort to a “circle the wagons” strategy when they should learn from mistakes. Union officials can fire staff and suppress internal dissent, but they can’t so easily dismiss supporters. Union members struggling to democratize their unions need our support, and top-down mergers carried out to preserve union resources will make those internal battles all the more important. A key criticism we should make of and to unions is about organized labor’s initial involvement with Trump. Their at-best ambiguous relationship disoriented members who had worked against Trump and undercut credibility and legitimacy with social justice activists who are labor’s natural allies. Though a group of hardy activists protested their unions’ actions, the  Building Trades should have been called out by other unions for embracing Trump, playing footsy with a President who proudly counts on fascists and White supremacists as his base. The AFL-CIO’s resignation from Trump’s manufacturing council should never have been needed. It should never have joined.

    There’s no way we can develop a program and mass movement to contest capitalism without taking on labor’s complicity with policies it should oppose. Hurricane Harvey highlights the human cost of capitalism’s climate-change denial. Houston should be rebuilt in a way that supports human needs and the environment, rather than what the big money controlling Trump, the GOP, and many Democrats pushed in New Orleans post-Katrina. To their credit, many unions criticize Trump and help organize much-needed resistance on single policies, notably immigration issues. At the same time they also scurry to cut deals privately, as AFT President Weingarten has done with Trump’s Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos.

    Being a critical friend means being there when you’re needed. The sharper our critique, the stronger should be the support we provide. Step up and speak out! This Labor Day you can help fight capitalism and build socialism by becoming a critical friend to US unions. Help make it the social movement we all need.

  • A Tale Of Many Cities: Potholes in the Road To Municipal Reform

    Image

    Juan Gonzalez. Reclaiming Gotham: Bill de Blasio and The Movement to End America’s Tale of Two Cities.  New York: New Press, 2017.

    There is no better role model for aspiring radical scribes than Juan Gonzalez. The country’s leading Latino journalist is cohost of Democracy Now!, a former columnist for the New York Daily News, and twice winner of the Polk Award for his investigative reporting. Not many veterans of campus and community struggles in the Sixties and workplace organizing in the 1970s later moved into mainstream journalism with such distinction, Gonzalez has managed to combine daily newspapering with continued dedication to the cause of labor and minority communities.

    As a New York Daily News staffer for two decades, Gonzalez broke major stories on city hall corruption, police brutality, and the toxic exposure of cops, firefighters, and construction workers involved in 9/11 attack rescue or cleanup work. When he wasn’t cranking out twice-a-week columns, he helped lead a big Newspaper Guild strike and wrote four books including Harvest of Empire, a history of Latinos in America.

    Gonzalez’s movement background and intimate knowledge of New York City politics makes him an ideal chronicler of the unexpected rise (and near fall) of Bill de Blasio as a city hall reformer. In Reclaiming Gotham: Bill de Blasio and The Movement to End America’s Tale of Two Cities the author situates New York City’s current mayor within a “new generation of municipal leaders” whose election reflects a broader “grassroots urban political revolt” throughout the United States. In that political cohort, however, de Blasio’s personal history as a Central America solidarity activist and, in the 1980s, “an often disheveled admirer of socialist ideas” makes him fairly unique.

    Gonzalez reports that, under de Blasio, poor and working class New Yorkers have received a $21 billion “infusion of income and economic benefits” in the form of “universal free pre-kindergarten and after school programs, long overdue wage increases for municipal workers, paid sick leave for all, and a virtual freezing of tenant rents.” He believes the mayor’s sweeping pre-K initiative — deemed impossible by Governor Andrew Cuomo and other critics—“should be judged one of the truly extraordinary educational accomplishments of any municipal government in modern US history.” 

    Although critics of the mayor, on the left, may disagree, Gonzalez argues that de Blasio has presided over the “most left-leaning government in the history of America’s greatest city.”  Yet, New York remains in thrall to private real estate capital to such a degree that affordable housing for the non-wealthy is still shrinking, rent stabilization offers insufficient protection against displacement, and the mayor’s “build-or-preserve” housing plan, incented by tax breaks for developers and neighborhood rezoning, won’t provide enough below market rate units to meet future need. (For details on this on-going housing crisis, see this.

    Two decades of mayoral rule by Rudy Giuliani and then Michael Bloomberg certainly lowered the bar for judging their unexpected successor. Reclaiming Gotham draws on Gonzalez’s own past Daily News exposes of, their shady insider deals, costly privatization schemes, and condoning of police misconduct. Between 1993 to 2013, conservative, business-friendly policies made it much harder for “the vast majority of longtime city residents in the outer-boroughs” to find “living wage jobs, affordable dwellings, decent public schools, or even city parks they can use.”

    Nevertheless, when de Blasio, a former school board member and city councilor from Brooklyn, announced his candidacy for mayor, “few political experts gave him any chance of victory.” Much union money flowed to two leading rivals: City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, a Bloomberg enabler who watered down paid sick leave legislation, and former city comptroller Bill Thompson.  Both stumbled on the campaign trail while de Blasio, then serving as NYC Public Advocate, tapped into anti-corporate sentiment magnified by Occupy Wall Street, plus mounting concern about “stop and frisk” and other forms of police abuse.

    At the polls in November 2013, a long-overdue backlash against the Bloomberg-Giuliani era had broader impact. As Gonzalez reports: “Voters chose an even more radical African-American woman, Letitia James to replace de Blasio as public advocate…and they propelled nearly twenty candidates into the city council who had been backed by a small yet influential left-oriented third party, the Working Families Party.”

    After this sweeping collective victory, de Blasio told a British Labour Party audience that he “became mayor because everyday New Yorkers were hungry for a clean break from the status quo.” He declared himself uninterested in “policies of timid maintenance” and announced his intention “to take dead aim at the crisis of our time, economic inequality.  

    There were many obstacles in his path. Among them was a nervous Wall Street; its always reliable corporate tool in Albany, Governor Andrew Cuomo (also backed by the WFP); the charter school and landlord lobby; state legislators united in their bi-partisan disdain for any reform emanating from downstate; and the rabid hostility of local media outlets and NYC police union leaders.

    One New York?

    To make local progress, de Blasio relied heavily on a post-campaign “brain trust” of mixed provenance, including “skilled technocrats with decades of experience managing major public agencies” and “a slew of progressive labor and community activists.” Among the latter were close associates of Jonathan Rosen, de Blasio’s friend and campaign policy advisor, whose consulting firm, BerlinRosen, represents “some of the city’s biggest real estate companies, all of which have major business interactions with city government.” (The firm’s co-founder, Valerie Berlin, is a former staffer for ACORN, a past de Blasio ally that became BerlinRosen’s first client.) By styling himself as public relations man, Rosen skirted legal requirements that lobbyists register with the city and file annual reports on their clients and contacts with city agencies.

    De Blasio’s “core group,” as Gonzalez calls it, decided to fight fire with fire. They created “an outside lobbying force to push through and publicize the mayor’s major reforms.”  The Campaign for One New York and United for Affordable NYC both took advantage of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision permitting the solicitation of “unlimited donations to indirectly support a candidate’s policies and thus avoid individual restrictions on campaign contributions.” Before Campaign for One New York was shuttered in March 2016, it “raised more than $4 million, much of it from wealthy donors and unions doing business with the city.”

    According to Gonzalez, de Blasio was seriously mistaken in his belief that “he could fight the system while also depending on key figures within the system; that he could seamlessly combine grassroots neighborhood activists and labor leaders of all stripes with a major wing of the Democratic Party’s neoliberal “growth” machine of consultants, lobbyists, and wealthy donors, many of whom typically regard proximity to political power as a way to make money, not matter who is in charge.”

    Blinded by Hack Behavior?

    Reclaiming Gotham, explores whether the mayor, in light of this problematic coalition, should be deemed a “radical outsider, a “political insider,” or some combination of both? De Blasio’s backing of Hillary Clinton’s presidential primary campaign didn’t strengthen his “radical” credentials. In 2016, “the crisis of our time” produced an insurgent candidate who is still a socialist (although less disheveled than he used to be). Bernie Sanders was mayor of his state’s largest city, defended the Sandinistas like de Blasio once did, and, today, is “far closer in viewpoint to the mayor than Hillary.”

    Nevertheless, de Blasio displayed little personal hunger for “a clean break with the status quo.” He briefly delayed endorsing Clinton, and according to the author, that “put unexpected pressure on her to align  more with Sanders program”—a feint to the left more likely motivated by her mounting primary losses. The Working Families Party, which helped elect de Blasio, polled its own rank-and-file supporters and, based on those multi-state results, endorsed Sanders. Few WFP-backed city councilors or allied unions followed its lead. Only three Democrats out of forty-eight on the council supported Bernie. Even seventeen out of nineteen Progressive Caucus members on the council backed Clinton, calling their own anti-establishment credentials, on national issues, into question.

    Of greater concern, from a local public policy standpoint, is de Blasio’s complicity with consultant-driven schemes that triggered “massive year long investigations into pay-to-play corruption in New York’s city hall and allegations of campaign finance law violations.” As one friend of Bill told Gonzalez, “he is blinded about hack behavior and the influence of people who get paid a lot of money to influence him.”

    Although the mayor claimed vindication when state and federal prosecutors decided not to seek indictments, a published summary of the evidence uncovered by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance reveals “startling details of how de Blasio and those around him had resorted to the same kind of dark money fundraising and skirting of campaign spending limits that Democrats often accuse Republicans of employing.”

    The mayor’s A-team, inside and outside of city hall, undermined his own putative reform agenda by soliciting donations from wealthy favor seekers, then intervening with public agencies on their behalf, and trying to evade campaign fundraising limits in a failed bid to regain Democratic Party control over the New York state senate (via spending on consultants like BerlinRosen). As a result, Gonzalez reports:

    “The mayor was hounded for more than a year by press accounts that depicted him as corrupt, and during that time he was unable to enact the kind of bold reforms that marked his first two years in office. The damage to his reputation among some voters was likely to endure.”

    Gonzalez himself no doubt breathed his own sigh of relief when Vance concluded that de Blasio did not personally profit from any city action on behalf of privileged contributors. The uplifting narrative of Reclaiming Gotham would have become far muddier amid indictments, pending trials, and a 2017 mayoral race full of Democratic primary challengers and general election foes seeking to oust a scandal-scarred incumbent.

    The Consultant Class Survives

    The author expresses some sympathy for mayoral associates who incurred “tens of millions of dollars in legal fees responding to subpoenas” and “sitting through lengthy interviews with investigators form two separate probes.” Yet somehow, amid all this travail, BerlinRosen’s young co-founder Jonathan Rosen and his wife, Debbie, chief of staff to de Blasio’s budget director, plunked down $2.5 million for a summer home in Montauk last June. BerlinRosen now profitably serves corporate clients, labor unions, non-profits, and politicians not just in New York City, but Washington, DC and Los Angeles as well. According to Crain’s New York Business, the firm’s “team of strategists is in the middle of campaigns shaping public policy in the city, the state, and increasingly the country.”

    I expect that other Reclaiming Gotham readers will similarly conclude that real Bernie Sanders-style progressives (or those trying to run even further to the left?) should not employ people with such divided loyalties. If your campaign helpers (and later city hall staff) include members of a “new class” of political consultants as dollar-driven and ethically-challenged as their old-school predecessors, you and they will not be creating a “radical experiment” in “people’s government.” In fact, any policy advice, dispensed by such strategists—particularly on housing and development issues–will reflect the interests of their current business clients far more than any past personal ties to labor or community organizing.

    Under de Blasio, nimble practitioners of “pay to play” were quick to monetize their city hall access and influence — all to advance the “progressive agenda,” of course. Gonzalez’s account of this activity brings to mind the Teamster election scandal twenty years ago that did bring down the most left-leaning administration in that union’s history. Teamster President Ron Carey, a reformer backed by Teamsters for a Democratic Union, made the mistake of employing headquarters staffers and political consultants who decided that illegal campaign fundraising and money-laundering “donor swaps” were necessary for Carey to beat  an election opponent named James Hoffa.  

    The results for Teamster reform were disastrous. They included Carey’s removal from office, Hoffa’s eventual election (and continuing presidency), guilty pleas by the consultants responsible, the conviction and jailing of the union’s political director, and Carey’s own indictment on charges that federal prosecutors failed to prove at trial. Citizen Action, an ACORN-style group implicated in the scandal, collapsed soon afterwards, with its own previously admirable reputation ruined.

    The role of big money in electoral politics–whether it comes from entrenched foes of union reform or corporate interests long dominant in a major city–cannot be overcome by cutting corners.  Corporate influence in government (and related “hack behavior”) will not be reduced anywhere if other progressive candidates are unwilling to follow Bernie Sanders’s example of running “corporate-free” (and groups like the Working Families Party fail to make candidate rejection of business donations a pre-condition for their endorsement).

    In New York City, left-leaning candidates, who can develop a Sanders-style base of small donors, actually have a fighting chance to win. The city’s Campaign Finance Act rewards candidates, who accept spending limits and enhanced disclosure, with public funds, based on a 6 to 1 match, the most generous local formula in the nation and a model for cities or counties, in Oregon and Maryland, now trying to implement something similar. (For more on its salutary effect, see this.)

    Of course, New York remains a place where it’s hard to level the electoral playing field entirely when a billionaire media mogul like Michael Bloomberg can, as Gonzalez reminds us, spend $250 million of his own money to prevail in three straight mayoral elections, over-turning a previous two term-limit in the process. But, as demonstrated over the last decade, on a much smaller scale, in Richmond, California, local campaign finance reform, grassroots organization building, and real people power can still be a winning combination against foes as wealthy and powerful as Big Oil.

    Draining our many local swamps, of corporate influence or outright political corruption, is no easy task in municipalities of any size. Reclaiming Gotham includes thumbnail sketches of urban reformers in Richmond, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, Newark, Philadelphia, Austin, Texas and Jackson, Mississippi that illustrate the range of possibilities for bottom-up change in many different settings. The author’s deep understanding of how city hall works and for whom — under proprietors new and old — could not have been put to better and more timely use.

    The strength of Reclaiming Gotham lies in its granular detail about local politics and public policy-making, plus its nuanced assessment of progressive gains and setbacks. In the Trump era, we certainly need more “pockets of urban resistance,” developed, in part, through city hall take-overs. Yet, as the author concludes, “those who attain positions in government will inevitably disappoint a portion of their supporters, will inevitably exhibit human weakness and flaws, and some are bound to betray their followers all together.”

    When rank-and-file “supporters” and “followers” have organizational mechanisms to hold leaders accountable, either in unions or labor-backed political formations, the risk of such outcomes are somewhat reduced. But, when a big city mayoral candidate who progressives have championed gets elected, does much good, but less than expected on some fronts, what exactly is the grassroots mechanism for securing course correction during his second term? Perhaps we’ll find out, after Bill de Blasio, as expected, is re-elected in November and sworn in again next January. Let’s just hope that Bill Clinton won’t be doing the honors again, with Hillary at his side. These friends of the mayor symbolize, better than any other corporate Democrats, the “policies of timid maintenance” which de Blasio so disdained, in 2013, when speaking to a British Labour Party since rallied by a real agent of change (albeit one without a big city to run).

    *Steve Early is a former staff member of the Communications Workers of America, a union client of BerlinRosen. He belongs to the Richmond Progressive Alliance, a municipal reform group profiled in his new book, Refinery Town: Big Oil, Big Money, and the Remaking of An American City (Beacon Press, 2017). He can be reached at Lsupport@aol.com.