Friday, October 09, 2015

The Young Women With Long-Ironed Hair- With Joan Baez, Mimi Farina, And Judy Collins In Mind

The Young Women With Long-Ironed Hair- With Joan Baez, Mimi Farina, And Judy Collins In Mind
 




The Young Women With Long-Ironed Hair- With Joan Baez, Mimi Farina, And Judy Collins In Mind
 

Laura Perkins was talking to her daughter, Emily Andrews one afternoon in April when she went to visit her and the grandkids after returning from Florida where she had spent the winter. (Emily the first born girl from her first of three marriages who now had a couple of kids of her own although she has retained as is the “new style,” post-‘60s new style anyway, of women retaining their maiden name kept  Andrews in the bargain although Laura gave that name up minute one after the divorce which was messy and still a source of hatred when Emily’s father’s name is mentioned and thereafter kept her maiden name through the subsequent two marriages and divorces). During the conversation Laura commented to Emily having not seen her for a while on how long and straight she was keeping her hair these days which reminded her of the old days back in the romantic early 1960s when she used to hang around the Village in New York at the coffeehouses and folk clubs listening to lots of women folksingers like Carolyn Hester, Jean Redpath, Thelma Gordon, Joan Baez, Sissy Dubois and a bunch of others whose names she could just then not remember but whose hair was done in the same style including her own hair then.

Laura looked wistfully away just then touching her own now much shortened hair (and colored, how much and for how long only her hairdresser knew and she was sworn to a secret oath even the CIA and Mafia could admire in the interest of not giving  into age too much) while Emily explained how she came to let her hair grow longer and straighter (and her own efforts to keep it straighter) against all good reason what with two kids, a part-time accounting job and six thousand other young motherhood things demanded of her that would dictate that one needed a hair-do that one could just run a comb through.       

“Ma, you know how you are always talking about the old folk days, about the days in the Village and later in Harvard Square after you moved up here to go to graduate school at BU, minus Dad’s part which I know you don’t like to talk about for obvious reasons. You also know, and we damn made it plain enough although you two never took it seriously, back when we were kids all of us hated the very sound of folk music, stuff that sounded like something out of the Middle Ages [which actually some of it was, at least the rudiments] and would run to our rooms when you guys played the stuff in you constant nostalgia moments. Well one day I was in Whole Foods and I hear this song over their PA system or whatever they call it, you know those CDs they play to get you through the hard-ass shopping you need to do to keep the renegade kids from starvation’s door. The song seemed slightly familiar, folkie familiar, so I asked at the customer service desk who was singing the song and its name which I couldn’t quite remember. Of course the young clerk knew from nothing but a grey-haired guy, an old Cambridge radical type, a professor-type not that I think about probably teaching English Lit, a guy you see in droves when you are in Harvard Square these doddering along looking down at the ground like they have been doing for fifty years, standing in the same line said it was Judy Collins doing Both Sides Now.  

That information, and that tune stuck in my head, got me thinking about checking out the song on YouTube which I did after I got home, unpacked the groceries and unpacked the kids. The version I caught was one of her on a Pete Seeger’s Rainbow Quest series that was on television back then which I am sure you and Dad knew about and she had this great looking long straight hair. I was envious. Then I kind of got the bug, wanted to check out some other folkie women whose names I know by heart, thank you, and noticed that Joan Baez in one clip taken at the Newport Folk Festival along with Bob Dylan singing With God On Our Side, God-awful if you remember me saying that every time you put it on the record-player, had even longer and straighter hair than Judy Collins. There she was all young, beautiful and dark-skinned Spanish exotic, something out of a Cervantes dream with that great hair. So I let mine grow and unlike what I heard Joan Baez, and about six zillion other young women did, including I think you, to keep it straight using an iron I went to Delores over at Flip Cuts in the mall and she does this thing to it every couple of months. And no I don’t want you to give me your folk albums, please, to complete the picture because the stuff still sounds like it was from the Middle Ages.”        

Laura laughed a little at that as Emily went out the door to do some inevitable pressing shopping. After dutifully playing with Nick and Nana for a couple of hours while Emily went to get some chores done at the mall sans the kids who really are a drag on those kinds of tasks and after having stayed for supper when Sean got home from work she headed to her own home in Cambridge (a condo really shared with her partner, Sam Lowell, whom she knew in college, lost track of and then reunited with after three husbands at a class reunion). When she got home Sam, working on some paper of his, something about once again saving the world which was his holy mantra these days now that he was semi-retired from his law practice was waiting, waiting to hear the latest Nick and Nana stories instead she told him Emily’s story. Then they started talking about those old days in the 1960s when both she and he (he in Harvard Square having grown up in Carver about thirty miles south of Boston) imbibed in that now historic folk minute which promised, along with a few other things, to change the world a bit. Laura, as Sam was talking, walked to a closet and brought out a black and white photograph from some folk festival in 1967 which featured Joan Baez, her sister Mimi Farina, who had married Richard Farina, the folk-singer/song-writer and Judy Collins on stage at the same time. All three competing with each other for the long straight hair championship. Here’s part of what was said that night, here’s how Laura put it:    

“Funny how trends get started, how one person, or a few start something and it seems like the whole world follows, or the part of the world that hears about the new dispensation anyway, the part you want to connect with. Remember Sam how we all called folk the “new dispensation” for our generation which had begun back in the late 1950s, early 1960s, slightly before our times when we caught up with it in college in 1964. So maybe it started in reaction to the trend when older guys started to lock-step in gray flannel suits. That funny Mad Men, retro-cool today look, which is okay if you pay attention to who was watching the show. In the days before Jack and Bobby Kennedy put the whammy on that fashion and broke many a haberdasher’s heart topped off by not wearing a soft felt hat like Uncle Ike and the older guys.”

“Funny too it would be deep into the 1960s before open-necks and colors other than white for shirts worked in but by then a lot of us were strictly denims and flannel shirts or some such non-suit or dress combination. Remember even earlier when the hula-hoop fad went crazy when one kid goofing off threw a hard plastic circle thing around his or her waist and every kid from Portland, Maine to Portland, Oregon had to have one, to be tossed aside in some dank corner of the garage after a few weeks when everybody got into yo-yos or Davey Crockett coonskin caps. Or maybe, and this might be closer to the herd instinct truth, it was after Elvis exploded onto the scene and every guy from twelve to two hundred in the world had to, whether they looked right with it or not, wear their sideburns just a little longer, even if they were kind of wispy and girls laughed at you for trying to out-king the “king” who they were waiting for not you. I know I did with Jasper James King who tried like hell to imitate Elvis and I just stepped on his toes all dance when he asked me to dance with him on It’s Alright, Mama.”  

“But maybe it was, and this is a truth which we can testify to when some girls, probably college girls like me, now called young women but then still girls no matter how old except mothers or grandmothers, having seen Joan Baez on the cover of Time (or perhaps her sister Mimi on some Mimi and Richard Farina folk album cover)got out the ironing board at home or in her dorm and tried to iron their own hair whatever condition it was in, curly, twisty, or flippy like mine, whatever  don’t hold me to all the different hairstyles to long and straight strands. Surely as strong as the folk minute was just then say 1962, 63, 64, they did not see the photo of Joan on some grainy Arise and Sing folk magazine cover, the folk scene was too young and small back in the early days to cause such a sea-change.”

 Sam piped up and after giving the photograph a closer look said, “Looking at that photograph you just pulled out of the closet now, culled I think from a calendar put out by the New England Folk Archive Society, made me think back to the time when I believe that I would not go out with a girl (young woman, okay) if she did not have the appropriate “hair,” in other words no bee-hive or flip thing that was the high school rage among the not folk set, actually the social butterfly, cheerleader, motorcycle mama cliques. Which may now explain why I had so few dates in high school and none from Carver High. But no question you could almost smell the singed hair at times, and every guy I knew liked the style, liked the style if they liked Joan Baez, maybe had some dreamy sexual desire thing about hopping in the hay, and that was that.”                   

“My old friend Bart Webber, a guy I met out in San Francisco  when I went out West with old Peter Markin in our hitchhike days with whom if you remember I re-connected with via the “magic” of the Internet a few years ago, told me a funny story when we met at the Sunnyville Grille in Boston one time about our friend Julie Peters who shared our love of folk music back then (and later too as we joined a few others in the folk aficionado world after the heyday of the folk minute got lost in the storm of the British invasion). He had first met her in Harvard Square one night at the CafĂ© Blanc when the place had their weekly folk night (before every night was folk night at the place when Eric Von Schmidt put the place on the map by writing Joshua Gone Barbados which he sang and which Tom Rush went big with) and they had a coffee together. That night she had her hair kind of, oh he didn’t know what they called it but he thought something like beehive or flip or something which highlighted and enhanced her long face. Bart thought she looked fine. Bart, like myself, was not then hip to the long straight hair thing and so he kind of let it pass without any comment.”

“Then one night a few weeks later after they had had a couple of dates she startled him when he picked her up at her dorm at Boston University to go over the Club Blue in the Square to see Dave Van Ronk hold forth in his folk historian gravelly-voiced way. She met him at the door with the mandatory straight hair although it was not much longer than when he first met her which he said frankly made her face even longer. When Bart asked her why the change Julie declared that she could not possibly go to Harvard Square looking like somebody from some suburban high school not after seeing her idol Joan Baez (and later Judy Collins too) with that great long hair which seemed very exotic, very Spanish.”

“Of course he compounded his troubles by making the serious mistake of asking if she had her hair done at the beauty parlor or something and she looked at him with burning hate eyes since no self-respecting folkie college girl would go to such a place where her mother would go. So she joined the crowd, Sam got used to it and after a while she did begin to look like a folkie girl, and started wearing the inevitable peasant blouses instead of those cashmere sweaters or starched Catholic school shirt things she used to wear.”     

“By the way Laura let’s be clear on that Julie thing with Bart back in the early 1960s since his Emma goes crazy every time anybody, me, you, Bart, Frankie Riley, Jack Callahan mentions any girl that Bart might have even looked at in those days. Yeah, even after almost forty years of marriage so keep this between us. She and Bart went “Dutch treat” to see Dave Van Ronk at the Club Blue. They were thus by definition not on a heavy date, neither had been intrigued by the other enough to be more than very good friends after the first few dates but folk music was their bond. Just friends despite persistent Julie BU dorm roommate rumors what with Bart hanging around all the time listening to her albums on the record player they had never been lovers. A few years later she mentioned that Club Blue night to me since I had gone with them with my date, Joyell Danforth, as we waited to see Pete Seeger and Arlo Guthrie with us to see if I remembered Van Ronk’s performance and while I thought I remembered I was not sure.

I asked Julie, “Was that the night he played that haunting version of Fair and Tender Ladies with Eric Von Schmidt backing him up on the banjo?” Julie had replied yes and that she too had never forgotten that song and how the house which usually had a certain amount of chatter going on even when someone was performing had been dead silent once he started singing.”

As for the long-ironed haired women in the photograph their work in that folk minute and later speaks for itself. Joan Baez worked the Bob Dylan anointed “king and queen” of the folkies routine for a while for the time the folk minute lasted. Mimi (now passed on) teamed up with her husband, Richard Farina, who was tragically killed in a motorcycle crash in the mid-1960s, to write and sing some of the most haunting ballads of those new folk times (think Birmingham Sunday). Julie Collins, now coiffured like that mother Julie was beauty parlor running away from and that is okay, still produces beautiful sounds on her concert tours. But everyone should remember, every woman from that time anyway, should remember that burnt hair, and other sorrows, and know exactly who to blame. Yeah, we have the photo as proof.           

“What it’s like to live, and grow as a human being: transitioning in a military prison.” Chelsea shares her story on Medium

“What it’s like to live, and grow as a human being: transitioning in a military prison.” Chelsea shares her story on Medium

October 7th, 2015 by the Chelsea Manning Support Network

With her Guardian op-eds and Twitter account, Chelsea Manning has continued to find ways to speak out even while serving her 35-year prison sentence in Fort Leavenworth, KS. Today (Oct. 7), Chelsea expanded her presence onto the media platform, Medium, where she will continue to share more of her personal story. Discover Chelsea on Medium here.

Military Haircuts

My first post about what it’s like to live, and grow as a human being: transitioning in a military prison.

by Chelsea E. Manning

medium_chelsea_border

The last few weeks have been particularly challenging for me. For the first time in years, I felt like giving up… then, I found my “second wind” to be human.
I wasn’t sure I was ever going to write this article. Recently, on the evening of September 18, I finally decided that maybe I should quit, to give up on everything and everyone: my family, my friends, my supporters, my court-martial appeal, and my other legal battles — even my articles for the Guardian and my Medium debut. Basically, I nearly surrendered.
You see, that evening I found out that the military was going to force me to keep my hair cut very short, to the “male” hair standard.
I didn’t take the news well. I felt sick. I felt sad. I felt gross — like Frankenstein’s monster wandering around the countryside avoiding angry mobs with torches and pitch forks.
I wanted to run away. I wanted to close the door to my cell, turn out the lights, and shun the world outside. I did exactly that. And then I cried, and cried, sniffled a little bit, and then cried some more. This went on until around midnight.
I wanted to cry myself to sleep on the concrete floor, but a guard came by twice and started asking me if I was okay. “Yes, I’m fine,” I said. I was not okay, though. It wasn’t his fault; he was just a young guy, maybe 20 years old, I thought to myself.
Then I started to think really dark thoughts. You know, “emo”-goth stuff, like “black isn’t dark enough of a color for me.”
After five years — and more — of fighting for survival, I had to fight even more. I was out of energy.
I called Chase Strangio, my ACLU lawyer, and I cried. As my legal counsel, he represents me in this lawsuit to challenge the hair policy that makes and treats me like a monster or a problem. But I just wanted love and support, and someone to cry to when I was feeling alone. He did such a wonderful job just listening to me.
After feeling devastated, humiliated, hurt, and rejected — and after wanting to give up on the world — I found my “second wind” of sorts.
I can make it just a little longer. I just hope it’s not too much longer.

I hope to use this platform as a place to document my experience and share my story and, maybe even begin a conversation. Going through such a seismic, existential shift in my life — transitioning in a military prison —presents real, meaningful, and daily challenges. I want to hear your thoughts and questions so we can continue to have a dialogue. I also look forward to reading the stories you are brave enough to share with the world so we can understand each other and define ourselves on our own terms.

Chelsea Manning Defense Fund information

Chelsea Manning Defense Fund information

Your donation allows us to fight for Chelsea Manning
chelsea_logo_2
Now that Chelsea’s legal appeals are finally underway, your support is needed more than ever. Our legal team of Nancy Hollander and Vincent Ward are preparing to argue numerous issues before the military courts of appeal–issues that we fully expect can significantly reduce Manning’s 35 year prison sentence. However, it’s more challenging than ever to raise those needed funds without the high-profile media coverage of an upcoming trial. We are currently focusing on paying for Chelsea’s critical upcoming legal appeal hearing before the US Army Court of Criminal Appeals.
How to donate to the Chelsea Manning Defense Fund
How to donate to Chelsea Manning’s legal expenses exclusively
  • Check or money order | sent via postal mail | not tax-deductible
    Payable to: “IOLTA/Manning”
    Mail to: Courage to Resist, 484 Lake Park Ave #41, Oakland CA 94610, USA
  • Online via the Freedom of the Press Foundation
    Limited time online campaign.


Fiscal reports


Background and the various ways to donate

The Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning Defense Fund is hosted by Courage to Resist (http://couragetoresist.org) in collaboration with the Chelsea Manning Support Network. Courage to Resist is a fiscally sponsored project of the Alliance for Global Justice (AfGJ) non-profit organization.
Funding Chelsea Manning’s chosen legal defense team has always been our top priority. In the wake of the outrageous 35 year prison sentence decreed by military judge Colonel Denise Lind, we believe that the final outcome will depend on not only on legal arguments, but on public opinion as we enter into pardon and clemency petitions, as well as the appeals process.
The majority of donations are made to the Chelsea Manning Defense Fund either online via our primary credit card gateway (https://co.clickandpledge.com/sp/d1/default.aspx?wid=38591), or postal mailed to us via check. In either of these situations, donors receive a tax-deduction for their contribution. However, when folks mail a check, we save credit card processing fees that amount to 2.75-4% of each online donation. Checks payable to “Courage to Resist/AFGJ” can be mailed to Courage to Resist, 484 Lake Park Ave #41, Oakland CA 94610, USA–please note “Chelsea Manning” on the check’s memo line.
PayPal
Some folks have problems with our primary donation gateway, especially friends trying to use credit cards outside of the USA. We encourage those folks to try donating via PayPal (https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=VDTDZV62A23KW). However, these PayPal transactions are not tax-deductible. Our relationship with PayPal has been “complicated” to put it mildly. On January 29, 2011, PayPal restricted access to our account based on the “need for additional information.” After a month of trying to find a possible resolution with senior PayPal staff, we issued a statement on February 24, 2011, regarding the situation. After thousands of supporters signed a petition and contacted PayPal in protest, our account was restored without explanation.
The Chelsea Manning legal trust account is managed by her lead appeals attorney Nancy Hollander, under regulation of the Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts (IOLTA) Program and the American Bar Association. 100% of contributions directly offset Chelsea’s ongoing legal expenses. Any funds remaining at the end of her legal jeopardy would become hers with interest. However, these IOLTA contributions are not tax-deductible. Checks payable to “IOLTA / Manning” can be mailed to Courage to Resist, 484 Lake Park Ave #41, Oakland CA 94610, USA. These checks are deposited into Chelsea’s IOLTA account at the Dubuque Bank & Trust, Dubuque, Iowa. We can provide wire transfer information upon request for larger contributions.

From The Partisan Defense Committee-Mumia Abu Jamal Update- Mumia’s Life in Danger-Court Blocks Medical Treatment—Free Him Now

Workers Vanguard No. 1075
2 October 2015
 
Mumia’s Life in Danger-Court Blocks Medical Treatment—Free Him Now!
 
On September 18, federal magistrate judge Karoline Mehalchick issued a recommendation that the district court deny the urgent medical treatment requested by Mumia Abu-Jamal, America’s foremost class-war prisoner. Mumia has been gravely ill since March, when he was rushed to the hospital on the verge of a diabetic coma. For months prior, he suffered debilitating skin rashes over 70 percent of his body. Ever since, prison officials have resisted Mumia’s efforts to obtain adequate medical treatment—including testing for obvious underlying conditions. Mumia had tested positive for the hepatitis C antibody over three years ago, but nothing was done to determine whether the infection was active. When blood tests were finally performed in July, they revealed a diagnosis of active hepatitis C, a condition that can be fatal if not treated, but prison officials continue to deny him the necessary care.
The capitalist state has targeted Mumia since his teenage years in the 1960s, when he was a spokesman for the Black Panther Party. In the 1970s, Mumia worked as a journalist in Philadelphia, where he was known as the “voice of the voiceless” and exposed the racist Philly police vendetta against MOVE, the largely black back-to-nature group he came to support. Mumia was framed up for the 1981 killing of a Philadelphia police officer, Daniel Faulkner. Police and prosecutors manufactured evidence to convict him, including by terrorizing witnesses and concocting a fake confession two months after his arrest. Following a 1982 trial, Mumia was sentenced to death explicitly for his political views. The courts have time and again refused to consider evidence proving Mumia’s innocence, including the sworn confession of Arnold Beverly that he, not Mumia, shot and killed Faulkner. In 2011, the Philadelphia district attorney’s office dropped its longstanding effort to legally lynch Mumia, instead condemning him to the “slow death row” of life without parole.
In the recommendation, Mehalchick declared with stunning cruelty that Mumia will not be “irreparably harmed” by withholding treatment. She further stated that the interests of the Department of Corrections would be damaged because ordering the treatment Mumia has requested would deny his jailers “an opportunity to treat Abu-Jamal’s hepatitis C in accordance with their own established protocols.” But as prison staff told Mumia in July, they have no protocol for treating hepatitis C!
According to the judge, immediate treatment is not warranted, “especially given the fact that it often takes significant time for hepatitis C to progress.” In Mumia’s case, the disease has already progressed: tests performed over the last several months have revealed “significant fibrosis” (scarring) and deteriorated function of the liver. Other long-term effects of the disease, some of which Abu-Jamal has already experienced, include skin sores, inflammation of the kidneys and type 2 diabetes. He has also reportedly lost 25 pounds in recent months and is confined to the SCI Mahanoy prison infirmary. The state seems intent to allow the disease to “progress” until Mumia is dead.
Medical neglect of those incarcerated in America’s dungeons is widespread. One in six prison inmates is infected with hepatitis C. Although a drug regimen approved by the Food and Drug Administration has a success rate of 95 percent, prison officials are reluctant to shell out for the costly drugs. This grotesque treatment of prisoners is exacerbated many times over for those, like Mumia, locked away for fighting against this racist capitalist order.
The Partisan Defense Committee, a class-struggle, non-sectarian legal and social defense organization associated with the Spartacist League, has long fought for his freedom. Key to Mumia’s defense is the support of organized labor. Unions including the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 10, the Oakland Education Association, the New York Metro Area Postal Union and the National Writers Union have recently issued statements demanding that Mumia be given the medical treatment he desperately needs.
In a September 16 letter to the Pennsylvania Secretary of Corrections, the PDC declared: “As this is a matter of life and death, we demand that Mumia Abu-Jamal be released immediately so that he can secure appropriate treatment.” We urge union militants, fighters for black freedom and student activists to demand freedom now for Mumia Abu-Jamal. Send letters of protest to Secretary John Wetzel, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 1920 Technology Parkway, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050.

A View From The Left-British Labour Party Elections-Corbyn Landslide, Blairite Backlash

Workers Vanguard No. 1075
2 October 2015
 
British Labour Party Elections-Corbyn Landslide, Blairite Backlash
 
The following article has been reprinted from Workers Hammer No. 232 (Autumn 2015), newspaper of the Spartacist League/Britain.
 
Jeremy Corbyn’s stunning victory in the Labour leadership election, and the campaign that achieved it, have opened a new chapter in British politics. For the first time in decades, a Labour Party leader describes himself as a socialist and has declared himself on the side of the working class, oppressed minorities and all those striving for social justice, to the horror of the bourgeoisie and their political creatures, including those in the Labour Party itself. In his acceptance speech to the party grandees on 12 September, Corbyn repeated proudly that Labour is “organically linked” to the trade unions. He proclaimed his determination to fight the Tories’ anti-trade union bill which aims to further shackle the unions.
Two decades ago, Tony Blair declared his intention to “modernise” the party by dumping the union link, thus to transform Labour into an outright capitalist party like the U.S. Democratic Party. This process has been protracted, not least because the party tops wanted to keep the trade-union donations which remain the party’s main source of funding. Meanwhile, the pro-capitalist leadership of the unions clung to Labour under Blair and his successors Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband. Finally, in March 2014, a special party conference voted to disaffiliate the trade unions over a period of five years. For some years, Labour has been moribund as a reformist party of the working class. Now that is changing, as hundreds of thousands have signed up or rejoined the party in order to support a party leader who unambiguously upholds the trade-union link. In a delightful irony, the new members were eligible to vote for the party leader courtesy of new rules adopted at the 2014 conference.
Corbyn trounced his opponents—Andy Burnham, Liz Kendall and Yvette Cooper—winning nearly 60 per cent of the vote. In so doing, Corbyn has delivered a body blow to the Blair project and has reawakened working-class expectations towards Labour.
The day after his victory was announced, bourgeois newspapers headlined “Red and Buried,” “Bye Bye Labour,” and “Leader Nightmare,” predicting “extremism,” mayhem and ruin for the Labour Party, and for the country if Labour were to win the next general election. From Tory [Conservative Party] prime minister David Cameron came the none too subtle warning that Corbyn’s victory means Labour is now a “threat to our national security, our economic security.” In other words, Corbyn is not committed to NATO or to continuing Britain’s slavish military support to U.S. imperialism. Furthermore, he does not kowtow to the City of London financiers. Corbyn’s appointment of Labour leftist John McDonnell as shadow chancellor is for the Financial Times, mouthpiece of the City, an outrage against the sacred right to private property: McDonnell’s “cavalier disregard for property rights,” they rant in a 15 September editorial, “violates basic tenets of natural justice.”
Corbyn’s opponents in the Blair-Brown wing of the party—the majority of MPs [Members of Parliament], and party leaders past and present—have likewise been screaming their heads off about a Corbyn-led Labour Party becoming “unelectable.” Doubtless the coming period will see multiple bitter clashes between these two camps. The schism within the Labour Party mirrors the two opposing classes in bourgeois society. Corbyn has consistently emphasised his commitment to party unity, but those MPs who are deeply hostile to Corbyn’s politics would be only too willing to see him ousted. While the major trade unions all backed Corbyn, some elements of the union bureaucracy are leery of his left-wing politics and could easily join with those who would depose him.
The vast majority of Labour MPs in July refused to vote against the Tories’ latest welfare-cutting bill, which increases the immiseration of the poor. Tom Watson, the newly elected deputy party leader, like the majority of Labour MPs, supported the invasion of Iraq, wholeheartedly supports NATO and opposes Corbyn’s stance of scrapping the Trident nuclear missile system. Within one day of Corbyn’s victory announcement eight shadow cabinet ministers had resigned their posts, one tweeting his resignation as Corbyn concluded his acceptance speech.
Chuka Umunna, a key Blairite, resigned from the shadow cabinet the next day, citing Corbyn’s hesitation over whether Labour should campaign for Britain to stay in the European Union (EU). Corbyn has since made it clear that he is not likely to support a British exit and promotes the illusion of the EU creating a “social Europe” in which workers rights are protected. The EU is an inherently unstable bloc aimed at improving the competitive edge of its dominant members, chiefly Germany, vis-Ă -vis their imperialist rivals, centrally Japan and the U.S. The EU has always been a mechanism for the capitalist rulers to maximise the rate of exploitation of the working class. We oppose the EU on principle from an internationalist perspective, as opposed to the nationalist, chauvinist opposition of UKIP [UK Independence Party]. We call for working-class struggle in every European country against the bosses. In the planned referendum asking if Britain should stay in the EU or exit, we would vote for Britain to exit.
The Spartacist League welcomed the Corbyn campaign, distributing a 12 August leaflet to campaign rallies around the country [see “Jeremy Corbyn: Tony Blair’s Nightmare!” WV No. 1073, 4 September]. The leaflet noted that Corbyn addresses issues that are in the interests of working people. At the same time we said that although the campaign’s chief demands are supportable, the fundamental issues facing the exploited and oppressed cannot be solved within the framework of Corbyn’s old Labour parliamentary reformism, which has always upheld the capitalist system.
The State—Organ of Class Rule
Corbyn opposed the U.S./British invasion of Iraq—for which Blair remains widely despised—as well as the occupation of Afghanistan. But what really makes him unfit to lead Her Majesty’s Opposition, never mind to become prime minister, in the eyes of the British (and U.S.) capitalist rulers is Corbyn’s history of opposing the U.S.-led NATO military alliance. Corbyn is chairman of the Stop the War Coalition, a campaign initiated by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), which seeks to persuade British imperialism not to automatically support the U.S. in its wars and occupations. This was summed up during the Iraq war in the caricature of Blair as “Bush’s poodle.”
Britain’s staunch military support to U.S. imperialism is a product of British imperialism’s long decline to the level of a decrepit third-rate power which has little choice but to act as a junior partner to the U.S. The City of London, a world centre of finance capital, is a haven for U.S. (as well as German and Swiss) investment banks and plays second fiddle to Wall Street. Imperialist militarism and the dominance of finance capital will not be held to account by legislation in Parliament. It will take socialist revolution to rip the wealth out of the hands of the capitalists and bankers and overturn their system based on production for private profit.
Behind the governmental apparatus in all capitalist countries is the machinery of the state—cops, courts and military. Its function can be seen in the police brutality meted out to racial minorities, the deaths in state custody, disproportionately suffered by black, Asian and immigrant detainees. The capitalist state wages the “war on terror” which targets Muslims and serves as a pretext to enhance its repressive powers. Governments come and go, implementing policies dictated by the capitalists’ political and economic demands, but the machinery of the state remains. Its purpose is to preserve, ultimately through organised violence, capitalist class exploitation of the working people. All past experience of class struggle shows that fundamental change in the interests of the working class cannot be achieved by pressuring the “Mother of Parliaments” while leaving the capitalist state intact.
As Marxist historian Ralph Miliband, whom Corbyn hails, wrote in Parliamentary Socialism (1961), “Of political parties claiming socialism to be their aim, the Labour Party has always been one of the most dogmatic—not about socialism, but about the parliamentary system.” The idea that socialism can be achieved through Parliament rests on the illusion that exploiter and exploited, rich and poor, oppressor and oppressed, all have an equal vote in how society is run. But it is not the working people and minorities who control the mass media, the economy, or for that matter the cops, courts and military.
For example, Corbyn argues for reindustrialisation of the country, which indeed is necessary, as is regenerating Britain’s infrastructure wholesale, rebuilding its rusting manufacturing base and putting the population back into productive work. But finance capitalists will not opt to forgo the cool billions made through banking deals in favour of unknown returns on investment in reindustrialising the north of England. The bottom line for the capitalists is to invest where they can get the highest rate of return, and this cannot be changed through enacting legislation in Parliament.
The Westminster Parliament embodies the privileged status of finance capital afforded London and the southeast of England by the capitalist rulers who are contemptuous of the de-industrialised areas of northern England as well as of Scotland and Wales. As Marxists we oppose the so-called United Kingdom which incorporates the Orange statelet in Northern Ireland. Down with the monarchy, the House of Lords and the established churches! We support the right of self-determination for Scotland and Wales. Our programme is for a voluntary federation of workers republics in the British Isles within a Socialist United States of Europe.
What Kind of Party Does the Working Class Need?
Thousands of youth throughout the country, previously alienated by the cesspit of mainstream politics, were drawn to Corbyn’s campaign. As a young supporter quoted by Seumas Milne in the Guardian (5 August) explained: “People say he is an old leftwinger or an old Marxist but to my generation his ideas seem quite new.”
Corbyn is not and does not claim to be a revolutionary Marxist. His victory represents a welcome upheaval in British political life, opening up a political debate into which Marxist revolutionaries can intervene. Yet in a “Letter to a Jeremy Corbyn supporter,” the SWP’s Charlie Kimber commented that: “The real danger is that Corbyn supporters are plunged into internal party struggles rather than struggles at work and in working class areas,” adding that “the crucial question is to march, protest, occupy and strike together against the Tories” (Socialist Worker, 12 September). Contrary to Kimber’s “fight the right” philistinism, we Marxists see a longed-for opportunity for political struggle and debate—about socialism, and the means to achieve it.
The fundamental question posed in Britain today is: what kind of party is needed to represent the interests of the working class and oppressed, independently of and in opposition to the capitalists? The Labour Party was founded at the beginning of the 20th century by the trade-union bureaucracy in order to gain a voice in Parliament. Born out of the class division in society, the party’s formation was an expression, at the organisational level, of working-class independence from the bourgeois Liberals. Yet despite its base consisting of the organised working class, the programme of the Labour Party was pro-capitalist. As such, the Labour Party exemplified what Russian Revolution leader V.I. Lenin termed a bourgeois workers party, having a working-class base saddled with a pro-capitalist leader ship and programme. Lenin stressed that the Labour Party was not the political arm of the trade-union movement, but the party of the pro-imperialist trade-union bureaucracy. In a 1920 debate in the Communist International, Lenin said:
“Regarded from this point of view, the only correct one, the Labour Party is a thoroughly bourgeois party, because, although made up of workers, it is led by reactionaries, and the worst kind of reactionaries at that, who act quite in the spirit of the bourgeoisie.”
This was an apt description of then-Labour leaders such as Arthur Henderson, who had helped line up the working class in support of British imperialism during World War I.
The Labour Party’s claim to be “socialist” was belatedly introduced in 1918, with the adoption of Clause IV. This was an attempt to deflect the radicalising effect of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, consoling the workers with the illusion that the British road to “socialism” was through standing for elections to Parliament. The parliamentary road assumed collaboration—open or covert—with the capitalist ruling class on matters of “national interest.” Loyalty to the monarch was taken for granted—witness the hysteria over whether Corbyn will kneel before the Queen so that he can join her secretive Privy Council, and sing “God Save the Queen” on state occasions.
In the period following World War II, when the Labour leadership again supported British imperialism, Labour’s formal commitment to “common ownership of the means of production” came to be associated with the nationalisation of industry under capitalism and the introduction of welfare measures such as the National Health Service. Far from an attempt to introduce “socialism,” the nationalisations of coal, steel and other basic industries by the Clement Attlee Labour government were in reality giant capitalist bailouts designed to help British capitalism compete in the world market. In that sense they were no more “socialist” than the bailout of the banks carried out under Labour prime minister Gordon Brown following the 2008 banking crisis.
The traditional Labour Party that Corbyn seeks to reconstitute prided itself on being a “broad church,” meaning that it had room for a wide spectrum of political currents and opinions. In practice this meant that the right wing predominated, while the left bowed to it for the sake of unity. In today’s terms, reconstituting the “broad church” means Corbyn’s supporters will co-exist side by side with the Blairites including Tony Blair himself, who many regard as a war criminal over Iraq. Within the Corbyn camp, the “broad church” means that while Corbyn himself is a defender of the rights of immigrants, his deputy Tom Watson wants the party to pander to ex-Labour voters who turned to UKIP. This can only mean making concessions to UKIP’s vile anti-immigrant racism. In the old Labour Party, bloc affiliation by the trade unions meant that the most advanced layers of the class were submerged into the most backward ones. Mass reformist parties are inevitably tinged with chauvinism, based on the dominant ethnic grouping and tied to the defence of the interests of its own ruling class.
A Leninist party, by contrast, consists only of the most politically advanced, class-conscious elements of the working class and oppressed which can translate the historic interests of the proletariat into the fight for socialist revolution. Such a party would champion the cause of the multiethnic working class and fight against all manifestations of oppression—racism, discrimination against women and all forms of chauvinism.
The Bolshevik Party of Lenin and Trotsky, which led the Russian proletariat to power in the October 1917 Revolution was a party of a new type, sharply breaking from the European social-democratic parties of the time. Cohering the advanced elements of the proletariat together with declassed intellectuals, the Bolshevik party acted as a “tribune of the people” taking up the struggles of all: workers and the unemployed, women, the poor peasantry, the millions composing the downtrodden national minorities. The Bolsheviks’ purpose was to render the working class conscious of its historic task—the seizure of power through proletarian revolution and the establishment of a workers state. They saw their fight as part of the necessary worldwide revolution, to bring about the international socialist order that Marx and Engels envisioned.
Jeremy Corbyn believes that the poverty, injustice and degradation inflicted on whole swathes of the population are not necessary, and he is right. But to eliminate those ills requires not a government based on the bosses’ parliament, but a government based on workers councils, which expropriates the bourgeoisie as a class. A revolutionary workers party must be rooted in the understanding that only through mass mobilisation in struggle can the workers fight for their own interests and act in defence of all the oppressed. Socialist revolutions especially in the advanced capitalist countries including Britain will establish rationally planned economies based on an international division of labour. The development of the productive forces, ripped out of the clutches of the capitalist bloodsuckers, will open the road to the creation of a classless, egalitarian socialist society.

A View From The Left-Cancel the Debt!-U.S. Colonialism Chokes Puerto Rico-For the Right of Independence!-Free Oscar Lopez Rivera Too!

Workers Vanguard No. 1075
2 October 2015
 
Cancel the Debt!-U.S. Colonialism Chokes Puerto Rico-For the Right of Independence!
 

After declaring Puerto Rico to be in a “death spiral” of unpayable debt totaling $72 billion, Governor Alejandro GarcĂ­a Padilla on September 9 unveiled a five-year economic plan that amounts to more misery and crippling austerity for the Puerto Rican masses. Already this year, Puerto Ricans have been hit with a sales tax increase (from 7 to 11.5 percent), strict water rationing, school closures and rising costs for gas and utilities, while the profit-hungry U.S. creditors and bankers demanded interest payments on their loans in full. Like a nail in the coffin, Padilla’s “Fiscal and Economic Growth Plan” is an all-sided assault on health care, education, union rights and the overall standard of living.
Puerto Rico’s current debt crisis is a direct consequence of U.S. colonial domination. For the last 117 years, the U.S. rulers have pillaged and exploited the island’s land and labor—from the early sugar barons who did away with the coffee, tobacco and fruit harvests in order to use the colony as an oversized plantation, to the post-World War II capitalists who transformed it into a cheap-labor manufacturing base for American corporations. For the last several decades, U.S. businesses have benefited from a litany of tax breaks, while Puerto Rico was forced to borrow from speculators to build local infrastructure and cover the costs of pensions and social services. By the time of the global financial crisis that began in 2007-08, Puerto Rico was already in a deep recession, and the government was unable to repay the bonds it had issued. Wall Street predators and hedge fund vultures soon swooped in to buy up the devalued bonds on the cheap and cash in on Puerto Rican debt.
With an economy tied to the U.S. dollar and the island governed by laws dictated by the U.S. Congress, Puerto Rico has virtually no room to maneuver around the junta of bankers and colonialists who call the shots. The American overlords control the territory’s currency, foreign relations, banks, communications, trade relations and shipping. There have been a number of protests against the threatened austerity measures, including on September 11 when WV and Espartaco salesmen attended a rally in San Juan of thousands of public-sector workers and others against Padilla’s plan. Workers in the U.S., squeezed and exploited by the same capitalist ruling class that is choking the Puerto Rican masses, have a clear interest as well in opposing the debt peonage of America’s largest colony. What is needed is joint class struggle by workers on the mainland and the island to halt the rulers’ vicious attacks, beginning with the demand: Cancel the debt!
With talk of a looming default, bourgeois politicians have been debating what legal framework to set up in order to renegotiate the debt while forcing austerity down the throats of the Puerto Rican masses. When the Puerto Rican government attempted to enact a bankruptcy law for the island, U.S. federal courts declared the proposal unconstitutional. New York governor Andrew Cuomo and others have called to extend Chapter 9 bankruptcy law to Puerto Rico’s municipalities. To see what that would mean, just look at bankrupted Detroit. Under that city’s financial restructuring plan, backed by the Obama administration, municipal workers’ pensions were looted and social services slashed. Meanwhile, under Governor Padilla’s September 9 plan, a financial control board would oversee the implementation of draconian measures resembling those in the infamous Krueger report issued in June by former International Monetary Fund officials.
Padilla’s plan includes restricting minimum-wage increases for workers under 25, tightening welfare eligibility, gutting job protections like seniority, cutting paid vacation days for public-sector workers and issuing a freeze on new hiring and collective bargaining. Subsidies for the University of Puerto Rico are being slashed while the collapsing health care system is facing more cuts. Public transportation is slated to be privatized and the island’s electrical utility, PREPA, could be deregulated.
Puerto Ricans already suffer from impoverishment: at least 45 percent of the population lives below the poverty line, and the per capita income is around $15,000, less than half that of the poorest state, Mississippi. At the same time, workers and the unemployed are saddled with high costs for consumer goods, in no small part due to a shakedown provision of the Jones Act. Enacted almost a century ago, this protectionist legislation mandates that every product that enters or leaves Puerto Rico must be carried on a U.S. ship, or face high tariffs and fees that are then passed on to the Puerto Rican population. The tiny Caribbean island—which relies heavily on imports, including 85 percent of its food—is a dumping ground for U.S. products.
Enduring the weight of national oppression and colonial repression, Puerto Ricans have formal citizenship but are treated by the U.S. rulers with racist contempt as second-class citizens. Residents of the island are used as cannon fodder in U.S. imperialist wars, though they cannot vote in federal elections and have no voting representation in Congress. With few natural resources and now skeletal industry in the colony, the main employer is the government. As jobs and opportunities dry up, a growing emigration from the island threatens to leave an aging and vulnerable population behind. As many as half a million Puerto Ricans have left in the last decade. Today, the total number of Puerto Ricans living in the U.S. far exceeds the island’s 3.5 million inhabitants.
While there is deep resentment over Puerto Rico’s status as a U.S. commonwealth, this anger is contradictory and does not translate into broad support for independence. The majority of Puerto Ricans fear that independence would come at a painful cost—specifically, that they would relinquish the benefits of U.S. citizenship, such as the right to live and work on the mainland. Under capitalist rule, an independent Puerto Rico would continue to be dominated economically by U.S. imperialism, while being forced to compete on the world capitalist market with other small, resource-poor Caribbean islands. Meanwhile, statehood, or direct annexation to the U.S., would aggravate racist nativist hostility toward Puerto Ricans. It would also accelerate the tendency of English to replace Spanish on the island, ultimately threatening the national identity of the Puerto Rican people.
As forthright opponents of U.S. imperialism, we would favor the independence of Puerto Rico in order to take a stand against American colonial domination and fight against chauvinism in the U.S. Likewise, we seek to undercut the nationalist leaders of the Puerto Rican working class, who preach class collaboration with the island’s capitalists in the name of national unity. Ending Puerto Rico’s formal subjugation would help move beyond the question of the island’s status vis-Ă -vis the American behemoth and could clear the road for revolutionary internationalist class struggle. However, the wishes of the population are an important factor for Marxists in determining how to get the national question off the agenda, and we are against forcing annexation or independence upon the island’s population. Therefore, we champion the right of independence for Puerto Rico.
National Oppression and Colonial Subjugation
Since the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, the U.S. rulers have claimed the Americas and the Caribbean as their own fiefdom. With the advent of the imperialist epoch, the American bourgeoisie grabbed Puerto Rico—along with other Spanish colonies Cuba, Guam and the Philippines—during the 1898 Spanish-American War. During the Cold War, Puerto Rico was a staging ground for U.S. aggression in the Caribbean—from the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961 to the Dominican Republic in 1965 and Grenada in 1983. While the two largest military bases, Vieques and Roosevelt Roads, have closed, the Coast Guard, National Guard and other U.S. troops still remain on the island.
For decades, U.S. forces carried out brutal state repression and crackdowns against Puerto Rican trade unionists, nationalists and others deemed dissidents. The island’s 1948 Gag Law, widely used against the independence movement, was modeled on the federal Smith Act of 1940 that made it a criminal offense to advocate the revolutionary overthrow of the government. Using the island as a testing ground for carrying out infiltration, disruption and provocation, federal agents have viciously targeted Puerto Rican independentistas for imprisonment and political assassination. We demand freedom for Puerto Rican independence activists like Oscar LĂłpez Rivera who are imprisoned in the U.S. All U.S. troops and federal agents out of Puerto Rico now!
Starting in the late 1940s, Puerto Rico’s status became a thorn in the side of the U.S. ruling class. In colonies across the globe, independence struggles were being waged to shake off their respective yokes. The subjugation of Puerto Rico was, along with Jim Crow segregation in the South, a source of embarrassment to the American rulers, who postured as defenders of “democracy” against their Cold War rival, the Soviet Union. To provide the illusion of Puerto Rican self-government, Washington in 1952 labeled the island a “commonwealth”—also termed a Free Associated State (Estado Libre Asociado), as local elections and a constitution were introduced. Puerto Rico, it was claimed, was no longer a colony, even as the U.S. Congress continued to exercise complete authority over the territory.
Under this new form of U.S. colonial rule, a fresh layer of local henchmen and middlemen loyal to U.S. capital came to the fore, including Puerto Rico’s first elected governor, Luis Muñoz MarĂ­n. His Popular Democratic Party (PPD), today led by Governor Padilla, continues to support commonwealth status. Muñoz MarĂ­n promoted the federal government’s Operation Bootstrap, a postwar industrialization plan to entice U.S. businesses through tax exemptions and cheap labor (including for a period by waiving federal minimum-wage requirements).
With the 1959 Cuban Revolution, U.S. imperialism tried to prop up Puerto Rico as a free-market miracle and bulwark against Communism in the Caribbean. The Cuban Revolution led to the expropriation of the U.S. and Cuban capitalists and the creation of a deformed workers state. Despite the rule of a bureaucratic caste led by Fidel Castro, the Cuban Revolution, with crucial Soviet military and economic aid, resulted in enormous gains for the country’s working masses, including guaranteed housing, free health care and education. Following the revolution, a substantial number of gusano Cuban capitalists fled to Puerto Rico, soon becoming a reactionary tool for the local establishment’s promotion of American anti-Communist interests.
By the early 1990s, with the counterrevolutionary destruction of the Soviet Union, the American ruling class no longer saw an interest in providing indirect subsidies to the businesses used to showcase Puerto Rico’s economic development—mainly in electronics and pharmaceuticals. In the course of phasing out Section 936 tax incentives, there was an exodus of U.S. operations, with the number of manufacturing jobs falling by almost half since 1996. The outflow of capital worsened conditions of poverty and unemployment, making Puerto Ricans even more dependent on federal programs and benefits.
Today, the Obama administration’s easing of relations with Cuba has Governor Padilla and other bourgeois politicians in Puerto Rico bemoaning the possibility of losing out in the competition for U.S. investment and tourism dollars. At the same time, Puerto Rican entrepreneurs have been working alongside the White House to help foster American influence in the Cuban workers state.
Increased commercial and financial ties to U.S. corporations pose the very real danger of strengthening the internal forces for capitalist counterrevolution within Cuba. Nonetheless, from our standpoint as revolutionary Marxists, Cuba has the right to enter into diplomatic and economic relations with any capitalist country it chooses, not least to try to overcome its very real economic isolation. We demand an end to the U.S. economic embargo that aims to starve the small island, and we call for U.S. out of Guantánamo.
As Trotskyists, we stand for the unconditional military defense of the Cuban workers state against the threat of domestic counterrevolution and imperialist attack. Yet the necessary defense of Cuba against the imperialists is undermined by the nationalist program of the ruling Havana bureaucracy, which embraces the false Stalinist dogma of building “socialism in one country.” The ultimate answer to Cuba’s economic backwardness is proletarian revolution across the globe—not least in the imperialist U.S.—that integrates the island into an internationally planned economy. We fight for proletarian political revolution to oust the Stalinist bureaucracy and establish a regime based on workers democracy and committed to this fight for world socialism.
A Revolutionary, Working-Class Perspective
The struggle for the liberation of Puerto Rico must be waged along the axis of proletarian internationalism. In the U.S., we fight to mobilize the multiracial working class against the racist chauvinism fomented by the American bourgeoisie and echoed by the trade-union leaders, which pits sectors of workers against one another. Much of the social power of the Puerto Rican working class is found in the U.S., in heavy metropolitan concentrations in the Northeast and South, and represented in hospital, transit and other unions. These Puerto Rican workers, along with Dominicans, Haitians and others from the region now residing in the U.S., can form a living link to the class struggle of the proletariat in the Caribbean.
In Puerto Rico, the working class has shown the will and interest to fight back against the recent onslaught of attacks, including through work stoppages and strikes by teachers and transit workers. Back in 2010, a two-month student strike at the University of Puerto Rico (UPR) against budget cuts and tuition hikes was supported by key sectors of the working class. That strike, along with subsequent struggles at the UPR, electrified the island and demonstrated the link between the right to education and the fight against job layoffs.
Puerto Rican workers must reject the perspective offered up by the trade-union bureaucracy, which counsels workers to make sacrifices in the so-called national interest. Addressing the debt crisis, an August 22 assembly of leaders and delegates from various trade unions representing teachers, public-sector workers and others adopted a resolution demanding “unity of all sectors of society” to renegotiate the debt. Outlining an entirely legalistic strategy, the resolution declared a commitment “to contribute to solving the problems of Puerto Rico” and recommended measures such as reorganizing the Treasury Department and amending the tax code.
In Puerto Rico, the union leadership’s main mechanism for class collaboration is through nationalist ideology, which means chaining the exploited and oppressed to the local capitalist rulers, largely through the bourgeois PPD. Many workers view this party, which is connected to the Democratic Party in the U.S., as the “lesser evil” to the right-wing, pro-statehood New Progressive Party (PNP). In 2012, PPD governor Padilla was elected on just such a basis after the prior PNP government headed by Luis Fortuño became widely despised for its corrupt mismanagement and massive austerity, including the firing of tens of thousands of public employees, union-busting attacks and a drive to privatize public services. Right after coming into office, Padilla proved his allegiance to Wall Street by promoting new tax incentives to attract private investment. Now he is the ringleader for the next round of vicious austerity.
Puerto Rico is a vivid confirmation of the need for a program that centers on proletarian class independence from all wings of the capitalists. This requires a political break from nationalist bourgeois and petty-bourgeois forces. In the economically backward countries, the bourgeoisies are too weak, corrupt and dependent on the imperialists to resolve essential tasks such as breaking the stranglehold of imperialism. Only through the proletarian seizure of power can there be liberation from imperialist domination and the basis laid to eradicate poverty.
A victorious workers revolution in the U.S., in which class-conscious Puerto Rican workers can play a vanguard role, would immediately grant Puerto Rico independence and massive amounts of economic aid, establishing relations on the basis of its freedom to exercise national self-determination. But the spark of revolution could also come from the colonial or neocolonial countries. Workers struggle in Puerto Rico against U.S. colonial domination could inspire the multiracial working class on the mainland in the revolutionary overthrow of U.S. imperialism.
Only a socialist federation (or federations) of the Caribbean, in the context of world socialist revolution making possible international collectivized planning, can open the road to qualitative economic development for Puerto Rico and neighboring countries that today are under the imperialist boot. For this perspective to become a reality, Trotskyist parties must be built in Puerto Rico and the U.S. as part of a reforged Fourth International, the world party of socialist revolution

A View From The Left-Blood, Sweat and Tiers-Auto Workers Oppose Sellout Contract -Victory To The Autoworkers

Workers Vanguard No. 1075
2 October 2015
 
Blood, Sweat and Tiers-Auto Workers Oppose Sellout Contract
 

SEPTEMBER 28—As we go to press, members of the United Auto Workers (UAW) are voting in large numbers against the rotten contract that union officials worked out with Fiat Chrysler. Workers are rightly furious at the union tops for their broken promises, chiefly to get rid of the hated two-tier wage system, a blatant affront to the basic union principle of equal pay for equal work. UAW head Dennis Williams and his negotiating team not only failed to (in his words) “bridge the gap,” but bent over backward to accommodate management, abandoning the expected 25 percent cap on second-tier workers and introducing third and fourth tiers for Mopar parts workers and axle operators. As one worker at Detroit’s Mack Avenue Engine Complex said to the Detroit Free Press, “They promised to get rid of the two tier system and they did just the opposite and created a bunch of tiers.”
Defiant UAW members should throw the contract back in the faces of the union bureaucrats and prepare for a fight for higher wages, good benefits and an end to tiers. Many workers, wanting to get something back for the sacrifices foisted on them in recent years, especially as part of the 2009 bailout of the auto bosses, have shown a willingness to bring their social power to bear by shutting down production. As the clock ticked down to the expiration of the contract at midnight on September 14, many workers were itching to walk out; when the clock struck twelve, UAW members at one parts plant in California reportedly downed tools, only to be told the contract had been extended. In the lead-up to the contract vote at the Fiat Chrysler plant in Belvidere, Illinois, one worker, expressing widespread sentiment, told WV: “If you don’t stand up, you will continue to be pushed down.”
The unions are supposed to be instruments of struggle for the everyday needs of workers; wages, benefits and working conditions are ultimately decided by the relationship of class forces whose interests are irreconcilable. For the workers to prevail, they must make use of the class-struggle weapons that built the UAW and other industrial unions in the first place. A hard-fought battle would deliver a much-needed blow against the attacks on working people across the country.
But Williams and the rest of the union misleaders push the lie that there can be some sort of partnership between the workers and the class enemy. The union bureaucracy subordinates the interests of workers to the profitability of the companies, as Williams made clear last December when he outlined his aims in the contract negotiations: “It is about how we keep the companies competitive.” The UAW bureaucracy also reveals its allegiance to the bosses by its longstanding support to the Democratic Party, one of the dual parties of capitalist rule in this country.
The disastrous results for the union came to a head in the 2009 bailout engineered by the administration of Democratic president Barack Obama with the full cooperation of the union misleaders (who poured some $5 million into Obama’s election campaign). Massive concessions were imposed on auto workers, including a no-strike clause that only expired this year. By destroying the livelihoods of working people and eliminating tens of thousands of jobs, the auto industry was reshaped to make it once again a source of tremendous profits for Wall Street.
The UAW bureaucracy’s perspective of class collaboration has today resulted in a contract that contains multiple tiers and two other giant steps backward for the union: the expansion of profit sharing and the shifting of health care costs from the company to some sort of co-op overseen by the union. Profit sharing gives up wage hikes today for possible (and overall lower) payouts in the future. The worst part is that such schemes, which aim to get workers to “willingly” go along with speedup, obscure the fundamental truth that the capitalists generate profits by exploiting the workers.
Details on the health care co-op ploy are sketchy and workers are correctly worried. The bottom line is that it will let the company off the hook for providing health care and place all liability on the union. The UAW tops are holding up as a model the Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (VEBA) trust fund covering retiree health care. Under such trust funds, benefits are entirely at the mercy of the stock and bond markets; it’s like having a 401(k) instead of a defined-benefit pension plan. In the contract summary, the UAW bureaucrats state that a central aim is to “reduce costs in an innovative and sustainable way,” that is, to help the company shaft the workers. One of the big costs the union tops are trying to help the company avoid is the so-called Cadillac tax that Obama’s Affordable Care Act will impose on employer-paid health plans.
The UAW bureaucrats have made a living helping the auto bosses cut labor costs. In the 2007 contract, these labor lieutenants of capital agreed to the slashing of wages to boost the profits of the greedy capitalists who had driven the auto companies to the brink of bankruptcy. It was this contract that codified the two-tier wage structure at the Big Three assembly plants (tiers had previously existed in parts plants). Workers hired after 2007 earn wages of between $15.78 and $19.28 an hour while working alongside top-tier workers paid $28 an hour. While the new contract proposes larger raises for the lower-tier workers, the gap between the top tier and new hires will still be more than $10 an hour. The auto bosses expect all the top-tier workers to retire or die off in a few years, reducing the top level of pay to that of the second tier.
For years, the UAW bureaucracy has justified its sellouts by stoking fears of jobs moving overseas while invoking “America First” protectionism. At the start of contract negotiations in July, shortly after going to the White House to complain to Obama that free-trade agreements are hurting U.S. manufacturing, Williams declared: “Mexico continues to be an issue for us.” The U.S. automakers, like their German and Japanese competitors, always seek to maximize productivity and minimize costs, whether that means making cars in Detroit or Mexico or the U.S. South.
While the protectionist union bureaucracy portrays foreign workers as competitors, if not outright enemies, the way to advance workers’ interests is for the unions to struggle jointly with their foreign counterparts in concrete acts of international labor solidarity. From the standpoint of working-class internationalism, the growth of the proletariat in the Third World means the growth of international allies of the U.S. working class. The burgeoning auto plants of Mexico are integral to auto production in North America, posing the possibility of and necessity for joint labor action between U.S. and Mexican auto workers.
Joint action by workers across national borders, especially when they work for the same company, would clearly be to the benefit of all the workers. A recent series of strikes in Brazil by thousands of auto workers against GM, Ford, Volkswagen and Mercedes provided one such opportunity. The automakers were beaten back in their efforts to force through mass layoffs; if the UAW had mobilized in solidarity, it would have strengthened the union’s hand in negotiations with the Big Three here.
Similarly, a winning fight to improve the lot of workers at the Big Three could boost stalled UAW and other union organizing efforts elsewhere, including in the open shop South, where the low wages for auto workers are an ongoing threat to UAW members. There is an urgent need for a mass, militant struggle to organize the South. This task requires tackling head-on the anti-black racism that has long served the capitalists in dividing workers and weakening their struggles.
The policies of the pro-capitalist UAW bureaucrats undercut the very notion of a union as a vehicle for the defense of the common interests of the workers against the capitalists. What is needed is a new, class-struggle union leadership to mobilize the social power of the working class independently of the bosses and their political representatives, including the Democrats. Such a leadership, forged in the course of strikes and other class battles, would have the union take up vitally necessary struggles, including for permanent jobs for all workers in the plants, equal pay for equal work and a shorter workweek with no loss in weekly pay to create more jobs.
The working class needs its own party—a revolutionary workers party—to fight for its class interests. Such a party would struggle not only for the immediate economic needs of the working class, but also seek to lead broader struggles against the depredations of capitalism, from racial oppression and anti-immigrant bigotry to imperialist war. Through these struggles, a workers party would imbue the class with revolutionary consciousness of its real power and interest in sweeping away capitalism and establishing a workers government.