Click on the headline to link to the Socialist Alternative (CWI) website.
In Calculated Move, Obama Supports Gay Marriage – Step up the Struggle for Equality
May 10, 2012
By Ramy Khalil
Yesterday, in a historic victory for the gay and lesbian rights movement, President Obama came out in favor of same-sex marriage rights. This is the first time that a President of the United States has publicly stated his support for equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians, and comes on the heels of a number of other legislative victories for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people.
With Obama and other leading figures in the Democratic Party now openly embracing same-sex marriage rights, popular support for LGBTQ equality is set to increase further. However, this should not be a moment for the activist movement to sit back and wait for the politicians to act on their newfound convictions. Instead, it’s vital that activists seize this moment to urgently press forward the struggle full legal quality for LGBTQ people at the federal, state, and local levels. We must make clear that words are not enough, and step up our calls for real policy changes to end the continuing violence and legalized persecution facing LGBTQ people.
The Democratic Party and leaders of affiliated organizations, such as the Human Rights Campaign and MoveOn, are attempting to portray Obama's change in his public position as a true act of political courage. It is clear, however, that this change is a politically calculated move designed to boost his own re-election campaign and those of other Democratic politicians this election year.
Public support for equal rights for LGBTQ people has been surging in recent years. In 2004, a Pew Poll showed 60% opposition to same-sex marriage, but this week Pew released a new poll showing only 43% in opposition. Crucially, a new Gallup poll from May 3-6, 2012, shows that independent swing voters favor same-sex marriage rights by a huge 17% margin.
Obama and the Democratic Party leadership have trailed, not led, shifts in public opinion and the struggle for LGBTQ equality. On the contrary, changing public attitudes are overwhelmingly due to the grassroots organizing, militant activism, and greater visibility of LGBTQ people in society. In the past, and often to this day, LGBTQ people who came out of the closet would be disowned by their families, fired from their jobs, arrested, bullied, beaten up, and sometimes even killed. Despite this intense persecution, millions of LGBTQ have defied dominant social norms by coming out of the closet.
Most importantly, the movement organized itself politically, building rallies, boycotts, and protests to demand full equality immediately. In October 2009, for example, activists organized a National Equality March on Washington demanding same-sex marriage rights and full equality under all aspects of the law, which drew at least 150,000 people.
For millions of ordinary people, gay and straight, it has been clear for years, decades in fact, that any couple who wants to get married should have the legal right to do so, regardless of their sexual preference. But it has taken until now, 2012, for the leading Democratic Party politicians to finally say they support marriage equality, only after a majority of Americans came to that conclusion first! Until yesterday, President Obama supported "back of the bus" civil unions rather than full same-sex marriage rights, and many Democratic politicians still refuse to take a stand in favor of full marriage equality.
Both political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, are also exploiting this wedge issue from different angles for their own electoral gain. While Republican and Democratic politicians argue with each over same-sex marriage and other cultural wedge issues such as abortion and immigration, they are both attempting to divert working-class anger away from unpopular economic policies, such as high gas prices, tax breaks for millionaires, and budget cuts in social programs.
No, President Obama and the Democratic Party have not played a leadership role. LGBTQ activists have led, and Obama and the Democratic Party have followed for their own cynical reasons.
***************
Same-Sex Marriage Battles Heat Up in 2012
Mar 16, 2012
By Ramy Khalil and Kate Devlin
(Note: This article was published in March 2012.)
The legalization of same-sex marriage is shaping up to be a major battleground in the 2012 elections.
Due to the activism and greater visibility of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people, support for LGBTQ rights has been surging. As of a year ago according to a May 2011 Gallup poll, 53% of Americans now believe “same-sex marriage should be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriage.”
In 2004 when President Bush was running for re-election, Republican strategists increased the turnout of conservative voters by placing initiatives to ban same-sex marriage on the ballot in 11 mostly rural states, where the initiatives passed by 60-70%. But now that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage rights, not only the Republican Party but also the Democratic Party is exploiting this wedge issue in states where they think it will benefit them.
In Washington State the Democratic Party has held the governor’s seat and a majority of both chambers of the state legislature for years. In order to divert attention away from their unpopular budget cuts to social services, on February 13, 2012 they finally legalized granting same-sex marriage licenses starting in June. Right-wing groups have vowed to try to reinstate the marriage ban through a ballot initiative in November.
Democratic Party leaders haven’t supported same-sex marriage rights until now that a majority of Americans support it. Even now the Democratic Party is only supporting equal marriage rights in certain states where they calculate it will work to their political advantage. President Obama and many Democratic politicians still advocate “back-of-the-bus” civil unions instead of full marriage equality.
The Democratic Party has never used their authority and access to the media to play a leadership role in the struggle for LGBTQ rights. The LGBTQ rights movement has always led, and the Democratic Party has always followed, often apologetically. Democratic politicians have even attacked LGBTQ rights at times. It was President Clinton, for instance, who implemented “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and eagerly supported the Defense of Marriage Act.
But this year both corporate parties are exploiting this wedge issue from different angles for their own electoral gain and to divert working-class anger away from unpopular economic policies, such as layoffs, home foreclosures, tax breaks for millionaires, and budget cuts in social programs.
On March 1 the Democratic-majority Maryland legislature and the Democratic governor legalized same-sex marriage. On February 16, the Democratic-majority New Jersey legislature also approved same-sex marriage, but the Republican Governor Christie vetoed it.
Right-wing groups have placed a measure on the ballot in Minnesota this November to enshrine the ban on same-sex marriage into the state constitution. The Republican-majority New Hampshire legislature is considering repealing its 2009 same-sex marriage law. In May 2012, citizens in North Carolina will vote on a ballot measure referred to them by the Republican-majority legislature to ban same-sex marriage AND civil unions.
On February 7, a Federal appeals court in California ruled Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Proposition 8 amended California’s constitution in 2008 to ban same-sex marriage after it had been legal for six months. This new ruling could open the way for the resumption of same-sex marriage in California, though the ruling could also be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
So far, eight states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage, and ten states have legalized civil unions. This year may be the first year when voters approve same-sex marriage by a state popular referendum. However, given the large war chests that right-wing religious groups have and the fickle support of the Democratic Party, there is absolutely no guarantee of victory.
In order to win these battles, we need to demand nothing less than full marriage equality from all politicians – Republicans and Democrats. In October 2009 there was a march on Washington, DC demanding full equality which drew at least 150,000 people. Now younger, uncompromising activists are arguing for another mass march on Washington in May or October. However, more traditional established groups favor focusing resources on lobbying corporate-controlled politicians instead.
LGBTQ activist Robin Tyler defended the march idea, saying, “massive street actions historically have made a difference in the U.S. and elsewhere in prodding political leaders and governments to take action they would otherwise be unwilling to take. If you think mass actions do not work, look at what is happening in Egypt.” (Washington Blade, 2/18/11)
To win our rights, we clearly need to build a determined grassroots movement through marches on Washington, massive educational outreach campaigns, and student walk-outs. We can multiply our power by building coalitions with unions, Occupy, and civil rights groups to demand passage of the Employee Non-Discrimination Act and living-wage jobs and healthcare for all.
We will get the results faster, though, when we break with the Democratic Party and join with our allies to run independent, anti-corporate candidates and build a new working-class party that fights unequivocally for the interests of LGBTQ people, workers, and all oppressed groups.
==========================================================================================================
Correction: A sentence about North Carolina above was corrected so it now reads: "In May 2012, citizens in North Carolina will vote on a ballot measure referred to them by the Republican-majority legislature to ban same-sex marriage AND civil unions." The print edition mistakenly says "In November the Republican-majority North Carolina legislature will vote on referring a measure to ban civil unions to the voters as a ballot initiative."
Socialist Alternative, P.O. Box 45343, Seattle WA 98145
Phone: (206)526-7185
Comments? Suggestions for improving our web page? Please email info@SocialistAlternative.org
Saturday, May 12, 2012
From The Pages Of The Socialist Alternative Press-Greece: Political earthquake sees pro-austerity parties’ support collapse — Left presented with big opportunities
Click on the headline to link to the Socialist Alternative (CWI) website.
Greece: Political earthquake sees pro-austerity parties’ support collapse — Left presented with big opportunities
May 9, 2012
By socialistworld.net
Following the recent elections in Greece, which saw two out of three voters vote against pro-austerity parties and a big swing to left parties, Niall Mulholland spoke to Andros Payiatsos, from Xekinima (CWI in Greece).
What do the election results represent?
The parliamentary election results in Greece were a political earthquake, a crushing repudiation of the pro-austerity parties and the ‘Troika’ (International Monetary Fund, European Union and European Central Bank). This follows years of austerity measures that have led to a collapse in living standards, 51% youth unemployment and mass poverty.
The outgoing government coalition parties suffered a massive collapse in support. The traditional conservative party, New Democracy, fell from just over 33% in 2009 to 18.85% (108 MPs, which includes the 50 seat bonus received by the first party, according to Greek electoral law). Pasok, the traditional social democratic party, crashed from 43.9 percent in the last elections to 13.18% (41 seats). In the past three decades, the combined vote of the two “ruling” parties varied between 75% and 85% of the vote. Laos, the small right wing party that joined New Democracy and Pasok in the austerity coalition for a few months, lost all its MPs.
The biggest gains went to the broad left, Syriza (Coalition of the Radical Left), which rose from 4.6% to 16.78% (52 seats). The communist party (KKE) won 8.48% (26 MPs). The Democratic Left, which split from Syriza in 2010 on a more right wing path, but which also attacked austerity cuts, won 6.1%.
This major swing to the left by Greek voters shows the huge potential for a bold socialist alternative to the capitalist crisis and austerity cuts.
However, serving as a warning to the workers’ movement, the neo-fascist Golden Dawn, exploiting the anti-cuts mood and issues over immigration, picked up 6.97%. For the first time, this far right party entered parliament, with 21 MPs. The Independent Greeks, a recent right wing nationalist split from New Democracy, also entered parliament, with 10.6% (33 MPs).
While the election results revealed a polarisation along left and right lines, many workers and youth saw no viable alternative on offer and simply did not vote for any party. Abstention was much higher than predicted, at a record 35%, and ‘blank’ and invalid votes stood at 2.4%.
Leader of Democratic Left party, Fotis Kouvelis, (left) and leader of the Left Coalition party Alexis Tsipras, Athens 8 May 2012
Why did Syriza gain so many votes?
Syriza gained support over the last two weeks of the election campaign mainly by appealing for a ‘Left government’ against the Troika’s ‘memorandum’.
The supporters of Xekinima pioneered the call for a Left ‘united front’ and for a vote for the parties of the left, over the last months. Unlike Syriza leaders, Xekinima did not call for a ‘renegotiation’ of the crushing austerity measures, but for a Left government to carry out a programme to defend working people. This would include repudiating the debt, stopping all cuts, nationalising the main banks and industries, under democratic workers’ control and management, and fighting for a socialist Europe, as opposed to the bosses’ EU - breaking with the diktat of the Troika and capitalism, in general.
The other main forces on the Left in Greece, the communist party (KKE) and Antarsya (the Anti-capitalist Left Cooperation) both took a sectarian attitude and rejected Syriza’s ‘left unity’ proposal. Yet if the left had formed an electoral bloc, they would probably now be in a position to form a government! With millions of workers yearning for an anti-cuts left government, the KKE and Antarsya paid for their approach in the polls. Their votes remain virtually stagnant: the KKE rose by just 1% (under 19,000) to 8.48% (26 MPs) and Antarsya finished on 1.19%, with no MPs.
Can a new government be formed?
Under the Greek constitution, New Democracy, as the largest party, was given three days to try to form a new government. But its leader, Antonis Samaras, announced on Monday after just a few hours that his party had failed in its bid to create a “national salvation” government.
Given the unambiguous anti-austerity verdict of the electorate, no parties entering a coalition government can do so without at least pledging to renegotiate the ‘memorandum’ with the Troika.
The Troika may be prepared to re-negotiate over aspects of the memoranda and to make some minor concessions. But the Troika will not agree to end its central demands for huge debt repayments from Greece, which can only come at the cost of yet more enormous cuts to welfare, jobs and living standards. The question of Greek membership of the eurozone and even the EU will, most probably, quickly be placed on the agenda.
Greek politics is entering very stormy waters. The invitation to form a government fell to Syriza, the second biggest party. If it fails, the initiative goes to Pasok, and if that fails, to the Greek president, who can try to assemble a coalition.
The combined strength of the Syriza and the KKE, even together with the Democratic Left, in parliament is not enough to form a majority government and, to date, the KKE has refused to accept Syriza’s proposal.
Failure to form a new government would eventually lead to new elections. The ruling class has additional reasons to dread this prospect, as most probably it will lead to Syriza becoming the largest party.
What must the left do now?
Alexis Tsipras, the Syriza leader, said he will strive to form a “left-wing coalition” to reject the "barbaric" measures associated with the EU/IMF bailout deal.
Xekinima (CWI Greece) supports the call for a left government coalition but it must be a government fully committed to opposing all austerity cuts and the bosses’ EU, rejecting the debt repayments and carrying out pro-worker policies, not ‘renegotiating’ for ‘milder’ cuts and ‘more generous’ loan repayments, which still means a lowering of Greek living standards. The Syriza leadership must oppose any coalition or co-operation with the bosses’ parties, which would be a disastrous trap.
Celebration after the election: Alexis Tsipras, the head of Greece’s Syriza party
There is now a great opportunity for Syriza to publicly put forward a programme for a workers’ government. It is true that according to parliamentary arithmetic the left do not have enough MPs to form such a government. Furthermore, the KKE leadership has, so far, refused to co-operate with Syriza. But huge pressure needs to come from trade unionists, social movement activists and the rank and file of the KKE and Syriza, to insist that both parties reject sectarianism and any ‘cuts-lite’ policies based on ‘re-negotiated’ austerity. The workers’ movement activists want genuine left unity, preparing the ground to form a new left government in the near future.
A programme to unite Syriza and the KKE around opposition to all austerity measures and the EU diktats, for cancellation of the debt and nationalisation of the main banks and industries under democratic workers’ control and for socialist change, as the basis of a workers’ government, would win widespread support from the working class, youth and ruined middle class. It would inspire a resurgence of mass action in the workplaces and communities.
If an attempt is made to form yet another cuts-making coalition, based around Pasok and ND, the left and workers’ movement needs to organise mass opposition, including general strikes and workplace occupations, to stop such attempts, which have no mandate.
Last weekend’s election makes clear that a majority government of the left is possible. If new elections take place in June, the left parties will have a great opportunity to win a majority. This requires the left parties adopting socialist policies – a rejection of the debt repayments and a struggle to break with the bosses’ EU and the profit-system. It also means a strong united front of the left and workers’ movement against the threat of the neo-fascist and far right.
If the left fails to offer a viable socialist alternative, the far right can partially fill the space and grow, and the ruling class will also seek to deploy more authoritarian measures against the workers’ movement resisting cuts.
Socialist Alternative, P.O. Box 45343, Seattle WA 98145
Phone: (206)526-7185
Comments? Suggestions for improving our web page? Please email info@SocialistAlternative.org
Greece: Political earthquake sees pro-austerity parties’ support collapse — Left presented with big opportunities Printer-Friendly
E-Mail This
May 9, 2012
By socialistworld.net
Following the recent elections in Greece, which saw two out of three voters vote against pro-austerity parties and a big swing to left parties, Niall Mulholland spoke to Andros Payiatsos, from Xekinima (CWI in Greece).
What do the election results represent?
The parliamentary election results in Greece were a political earthquake, a crushing repudiation of the pro-austerity parties and the ‘Troika’ (International Monetary Fund, European Union and European Central Bank). This follows years of austerity measures that have led to a collapse in living standards, 51% youth unemployment and mass poverty.
The outgoing government coalition parties suffered a massive collapse in support. The traditional conservative party, New Democracy, fell from just over 33% in 2009 to 18.85% (108 MPs, which includes the 50 seat bonus received by the first party, according to Greek electoral law). Pasok, the traditional social democratic party, crashed from 43.9 percent in the last elections to 13.18% (41 seats). In the past three decades, the combined vote of the two “ruling” parties varied between 75% and 85% of the vote. Laos, the small right wing party that joined New Democracy and Pasok in the austerity coalition for a few months, lost all its MPs.
The biggest gains went to the broad left, Syriza (Coalition of the Radical Left), which rose from 4.6% to 16.78% (52 seats). The communist party (KKE) won 8.48% (26 MPs). The Democratic Left, which split from Syriza in 2010 on a more right wing path, but which also attacked austerity cuts, won 6.1%.
This major swing to the left by Greek voters shows the huge potential for a bold socialist alternative to the capitalist crisis and austerity cuts.
However, serving as a warning to the workers’ movement, the neo-fascist Golden Dawn, exploiting the anti-cuts mood and issues over immigration, picked up 6.97%. For the first time, this far right party entered parliament, with 21 MPs. The Independent Greeks, a recent right wing nationalist split from New Democracy, also entered parliament, with 10.6% (33 MPs).
While the election results revealed a polarisation along left and right lines, many workers and youth saw no viable alternative on offer and simply did not vote for any party. Abstention was much higher than predicted, at a record 35%, and ‘blank’ and invalid votes stood at 2.4%.
Leader of Democratic Left party, Fotis Kouvelis, (left) and leader of the Left Coalition party Alexis Tsipras, Athens 8 May 2012
Why did Syriza gain so many votes?
Syriza gained support over the last two weeks of the election campaign mainly by appealing for a ‘Left government’ against the Troika’s ‘memorandum’.
The supporters of Xekinima pioneered the call for a Left ‘united front’ and for a vote for the parties of the left, over the last months. Unlike Syriza leaders, Xekinima did not call for a ‘renegotiation’ of the crushing austerity measures, but for a Left government to carry out a programme to defend working people. This would include repudiating the debt, stopping all cuts, nationalising the main banks and industries, under democratic workers’ control and management, and fighting for a socialist Europe, as opposed to the bosses’ EU - breaking with the diktat of the Troika and capitalism, in general.
The other main forces on the Left in Greece, the communist party (KKE) and Antarsya (the Anti-capitalist Left Cooperation) both took a sectarian attitude and rejected Syriza’s ‘left unity’ proposal. Yet if the left had formed an electoral bloc, they would probably now be in a position to form a government! With millions of workers yearning for an anti-cuts left government, the KKE and Antarsya paid for their approach in the polls. Their votes remain virtually stagnant: the KKE rose by just 1% (under 19,000) to 8.48% (26 MPs) and Antarsya finished on 1.19%, with no MPs.
Can a new government be formed?
Under the Greek constitution, New Democracy, as the largest party, was given three days to try to form a new government. But its leader, Antonis Samaras, announced on Monday after just a few hours that his party had failed in its bid to create a “national salvation” government.
Given the unambiguous anti-austerity verdict of the electorate, no parties entering a coalition government can do so without at least pledging to renegotiate the ‘memorandum’ with the Troika.
The Troika may be prepared to re-negotiate over aspects of the memoranda and to make some minor concessions. But the Troika will not agree to end its central demands for huge debt repayments from Greece, which can only come at the cost of yet more enormous cuts to welfare, jobs and living standards. The question of Greek membership of the eurozone and even the EU will, most probably, quickly be placed on the agenda.
Greek politics is entering very stormy waters. The invitation to form a government fell to Syriza, the second biggest party. If it fails, the initiative goes to Pasok, and if that fails, to the Greek president, who can try to assemble a coalition.
The combined strength of the Syriza and the KKE, even together with the Democratic Left, in parliament is not enough to form a majority government and, to date, the KKE has refused to accept Syriza’s proposal.
Failure to form a new government would eventually lead to new elections. The ruling class has additional reasons to dread this prospect, as most probably it will lead to Syriza becoming the largest party.
What must the left do now?
Alexis Tsipras, the Syriza leader, said he will strive to form a “left-wing coalition” to reject the "barbaric" measures associated with the EU/IMF bailout deal.
Xekinima (CWI Greece) supports the call for a left government coalition but it must be a government fully committed to opposing all austerity cuts and the bosses’ EU, rejecting the debt repayments and carrying out pro-worker policies, not ‘renegotiating’ for ‘milder’ cuts and ‘more generous’ loan repayments, which still means a lowering of Greek living standards. The Syriza leadership must oppose any coalition or co-operation with the bosses’ parties, which would be a disastrous trap.
Celebration after the election: Alexis Tsipras, the head of Greece’s Syriza party
There is now a great opportunity for Syriza to publicly put forward a programme for a workers’ government. It is true that according to parliamentary arithmetic the left do not have enough MPs to form such a government. Furthermore, the KKE leadership has, so far, refused to co-operate with Syriza. But huge pressure needs to come from trade unionists, social movement activists and the rank and file of the KKE and Syriza, to insist that both parties reject sectarianism and any ‘cuts-lite’ policies based on ‘re-negotiated’ austerity. The workers’ movement activists want genuine left unity, preparing the ground to form a new left government in the near future.
A programme to unite Syriza and the KKE around opposition to all austerity measures and the EU diktats, for cancellation of the debt and nationalisation of the main banks and industries under democratic workers’ control and for socialist change, as the basis of a workers’ government, would win widespread support from the working class, youth and ruined middle class. It would inspire a resurgence of mass action in the workplaces and communities.
If an attempt is made to form yet another cuts-making coalition, based around Pasok and ND, the left and workers’ movement needs to organise mass opposition, including general strikes and workplace occupations, to stop such attempts, which have no mandate.
Last weekend’s election makes clear that a majority government of the left is possible. If new elections take place in June, the left parties will have a great opportunity to win a majority. This requires the left parties adopting socialist policies – a rejection of the debt repayments and a struggle to break with the bosses’ EU and the profit-system. It also means a strong united front of the left and workers’ movement against the threat of the neo-fascist and far right.
If the left fails to offer a viable socialist alternative, the far right can partially fill the space and grow, and the ruling class will also seek to deploy more authoritarian measures against the workers’ movement resisting cuts.
Socialist Alternative, P.O. Box 45343, Seattle WA 98145
Phone: (206)526-7185
Comments? Suggestions for improving our web page? Please email info@SocialistAlternative.org
Greece: Political earthquake sees pro-austerity parties’ support collapse — Left presented with big opportunities
May 9, 2012
By socialistworld.net
Following the recent elections in Greece, which saw two out of three voters vote against pro-austerity parties and a big swing to left parties, Niall Mulholland spoke to Andros Payiatsos, from Xekinima (CWI in Greece).
What do the election results represent?
The parliamentary election results in Greece were a political earthquake, a crushing repudiation of the pro-austerity parties and the ‘Troika’ (International Monetary Fund, European Union and European Central Bank). This follows years of austerity measures that have led to a collapse in living standards, 51% youth unemployment and mass poverty.
The outgoing government coalition parties suffered a massive collapse in support. The traditional conservative party, New Democracy, fell from just over 33% in 2009 to 18.85% (108 MPs, which includes the 50 seat bonus received by the first party, according to Greek electoral law). Pasok, the traditional social democratic party, crashed from 43.9 percent in the last elections to 13.18% (41 seats). In the past three decades, the combined vote of the two “ruling” parties varied between 75% and 85% of the vote. Laos, the small right wing party that joined New Democracy and Pasok in the austerity coalition for a few months, lost all its MPs.
The biggest gains went to the broad left, Syriza (Coalition of the Radical Left), which rose from 4.6% to 16.78% (52 seats). The communist party (KKE) won 8.48% (26 MPs). The Democratic Left, which split from Syriza in 2010 on a more right wing path, but which also attacked austerity cuts, won 6.1%.
This major swing to the left by Greek voters shows the huge potential for a bold socialist alternative to the capitalist crisis and austerity cuts.
However, serving as a warning to the workers’ movement, the neo-fascist Golden Dawn, exploiting the anti-cuts mood and issues over immigration, picked up 6.97%. For the first time, this far right party entered parliament, with 21 MPs. The Independent Greeks, a recent right wing nationalist split from New Democracy, also entered parliament, with 10.6% (33 MPs).
While the election results revealed a polarisation along left and right lines, many workers and youth saw no viable alternative on offer and simply did not vote for any party. Abstention was much higher than predicted, at a record 35%, and ‘blank’ and invalid votes stood at 2.4%.
Leader of Democratic Left party, Fotis Kouvelis, (left) and leader of the Left Coalition party Alexis Tsipras, Athens 8 May 2012
Why did Syriza gain so many votes?
Syriza gained support over the last two weeks of the election campaign mainly by appealing for a ‘Left government’ against the Troika’s ‘memorandum’.
The supporters of Xekinima pioneered the call for a Left ‘united front’ and for a vote for the parties of the left, over the last months. Unlike Syriza leaders, Xekinima did not call for a ‘renegotiation’ of the crushing austerity measures, but for a Left government to carry out a programme to defend working people. This would include repudiating the debt, stopping all cuts, nationalising the main banks and industries, under democratic workers’ control and management, and fighting for a socialist Europe, as opposed to the bosses’ EU - breaking with the diktat of the Troika and capitalism, in general.
The other main forces on the Left in Greece, the communist party (KKE) and Antarsya (the Anti-capitalist Left Cooperation) both took a sectarian attitude and rejected Syriza’s ‘left unity’ proposal. Yet if the left had formed an electoral bloc, they would probably now be in a position to form a government! With millions of workers yearning for an anti-cuts left government, the KKE and Antarsya paid for their approach in the polls. Their votes remain virtually stagnant: the KKE rose by just 1% (under 19,000) to 8.48% (26 MPs) and Antarsya finished on 1.19%, with no MPs.
Can a new government be formed?
Under the Greek constitution, New Democracy, as the largest party, was given three days to try to form a new government. But its leader, Antonis Samaras, announced on Monday after just a few hours that his party had failed in its bid to create a “national salvation” government.
Given the unambiguous anti-austerity verdict of the electorate, no parties entering a coalition government can do so without at least pledging to renegotiate the ‘memorandum’ with the Troika.
The Troika may be prepared to re-negotiate over aspects of the memoranda and to make some minor concessions. But the Troika will not agree to end its central demands for huge debt repayments from Greece, which can only come at the cost of yet more enormous cuts to welfare, jobs and living standards. The question of Greek membership of the eurozone and even the EU will, most probably, quickly be placed on the agenda.
Greek politics is entering very stormy waters. The invitation to form a government fell to Syriza, the second biggest party. If it fails, the initiative goes to Pasok, and if that fails, to the Greek president, who can try to assemble a coalition.
The combined strength of the Syriza and the KKE, even together with the Democratic Left, in parliament is not enough to form a majority government and, to date, the KKE has refused to accept Syriza’s proposal.
Failure to form a new government would eventually lead to new elections. The ruling class has additional reasons to dread this prospect, as most probably it will lead to Syriza becoming the largest party.
What must the left do now?
Alexis Tsipras, the Syriza leader, said he will strive to form a “left-wing coalition” to reject the "barbaric" measures associated with the EU/IMF bailout deal.
Xekinima (CWI Greece) supports the call for a left government coalition but it must be a government fully committed to opposing all austerity cuts and the bosses’ EU, rejecting the debt repayments and carrying out pro-worker policies, not ‘renegotiating’ for ‘milder’ cuts and ‘more generous’ loan repayments, which still means a lowering of Greek living standards. The Syriza leadership must oppose any coalition or co-operation with the bosses’ parties, which would be a disastrous trap.
Celebration after the election: Alexis Tsipras, the head of Greece’s Syriza party
There is now a great opportunity for Syriza to publicly put forward a programme for a workers’ government. It is true that according to parliamentary arithmetic the left do not have enough MPs to form such a government. Furthermore, the KKE leadership has, so far, refused to co-operate with Syriza. But huge pressure needs to come from trade unionists, social movement activists and the rank and file of the KKE and Syriza, to insist that both parties reject sectarianism and any ‘cuts-lite’ policies based on ‘re-negotiated’ austerity. The workers’ movement activists want genuine left unity, preparing the ground to form a new left government in the near future.
A programme to unite Syriza and the KKE around opposition to all austerity measures and the EU diktats, for cancellation of the debt and nationalisation of the main banks and industries under democratic workers’ control and for socialist change, as the basis of a workers’ government, would win widespread support from the working class, youth and ruined middle class. It would inspire a resurgence of mass action in the workplaces and communities.
If an attempt is made to form yet another cuts-making coalition, based around Pasok and ND, the left and workers’ movement needs to organise mass opposition, including general strikes and workplace occupations, to stop such attempts, which have no mandate.
Last weekend’s election makes clear that a majority government of the left is possible. If new elections take place in June, the left parties will have a great opportunity to win a majority. This requires the left parties adopting socialist policies – a rejection of the debt repayments and a struggle to break with the bosses’ EU and the profit-system. It also means a strong united front of the left and workers’ movement against the threat of the neo-fascist and far right.
If the left fails to offer a viable socialist alternative, the far right can partially fill the space and grow, and the ruling class will also seek to deploy more authoritarian measures against the workers’ movement resisting cuts.
Socialist Alternative, P.O. Box 45343, Seattle WA 98145
Phone: (206)526-7185
Comments? Suggestions for improving our web page? Please email info@SocialistAlternative.org
Greece: Political earthquake sees pro-austerity parties’ support collapse — Left presented with big opportunities Printer-Friendly
E-Mail This
May 9, 2012
By socialistworld.net
Following the recent elections in Greece, which saw two out of three voters vote against pro-austerity parties and a big swing to left parties, Niall Mulholland spoke to Andros Payiatsos, from Xekinima (CWI in Greece).
What do the election results represent?
The parliamentary election results in Greece were a political earthquake, a crushing repudiation of the pro-austerity parties and the ‘Troika’ (International Monetary Fund, European Union and European Central Bank). This follows years of austerity measures that have led to a collapse in living standards, 51% youth unemployment and mass poverty.
The outgoing government coalition parties suffered a massive collapse in support. The traditional conservative party, New Democracy, fell from just over 33% in 2009 to 18.85% (108 MPs, which includes the 50 seat bonus received by the first party, according to Greek electoral law). Pasok, the traditional social democratic party, crashed from 43.9 percent in the last elections to 13.18% (41 seats). In the past three decades, the combined vote of the two “ruling” parties varied between 75% and 85% of the vote. Laos, the small right wing party that joined New Democracy and Pasok in the austerity coalition for a few months, lost all its MPs.
The biggest gains went to the broad left, Syriza (Coalition of the Radical Left), which rose from 4.6% to 16.78% (52 seats). The communist party (KKE) won 8.48% (26 MPs). The Democratic Left, which split from Syriza in 2010 on a more right wing path, but which also attacked austerity cuts, won 6.1%.
This major swing to the left by Greek voters shows the huge potential for a bold socialist alternative to the capitalist crisis and austerity cuts.
However, serving as a warning to the workers’ movement, the neo-fascist Golden Dawn, exploiting the anti-cuts mood and issues over immigration, picked up 6.97%. For the first time, this far right party entered parliament, with 21 MPs. The Independent Greeks, a recent right wing nationalist split from New Democracy, also entered parliament, with 10.6% (33 MPs).
While the election results revealed a polarisation along left and right lines, many workers and youth saw no viable alternative on offer and simply did not vote for any party. Abstention was much higher than predicted, at a record 35%, and ‘blank’ and invalid votes stood at 2.4%.
Leader of Democratic Left party, Fotis Kouvelis, (left) and leader of the Left Coalition party Alexis Tsipras, Athens 8 May 2012
Why did Syriza gain so many votes?
Syriza gained support over the last two weeks of the election campaign mainly by appealing for a ‘Left government’ against the Troika’s ‘memorandum’.
The supporters of Xekinima pioneered the call for a Left ‘united front’ and for a vote for the parties of the left, over the last months. Unlike Syriza leaders, Xekinima did not call for a ‘renegotiation’ of the crushing austerity measures, but for a Left government to carry out a programme to defend working people. This would include repudiating the debt, stopping all cuts, nationalising the main banks and industries, under democratic workers’ control and management, and fighting for a socialist Europe, as opposed to the bosses’ EU - breaking with the diktat of the Troika and capitalism, in general.
The other main forces on the Left in Greece, the communist party (KKE) and Antarsya (the Anti-capitalist Left Cooperation) both took a sectarian attitude and rejected Syriza’s ‘left unity’ proposal. Yet if the left had formed an electoral bloc, they would probably now be in a position to form a government! With millions of workers yearning for an anti-cuts left government, the KKE and Antarsya paid for their approach in the polls. Their votes remain virtually stagnant: the KKE rose by just 1% (under 19,000) to 8.48% (26 MPs) and Antarsya finished on 1.19%, with no MPs.
Can a new government be formed?
Under the Greek constitution, New Democracy, as the largest party, was given three days to try to form a new government. But its leader, Antonis Samaras, announced on Monday after just a few hours that his party had failed in its bid to create a “national salvation” government.
Given the unambiguous anti-austerity verdict of the electorate, no parties entering a coalition government can do so without at least pledging to renegotiate the ‘memorandum’ with the Troika.
The Troika may be prepared to re-negotiate over aspects of the memoranda and to make some minor concessions. But the Troika will not agree to end its central demands for huge debt repayments from Greece, which can only come at the cost of yet more enormous cuts to welfare, jobs and living standards. The question of Greek membership of the eurozone and even the EU will, most probably, quickly be placed on the agenda.
Greek politics is entering very stormy waters. The invitation to form a government fell to Syriza, the second biggest party. If it fails, the initiative goes to Pasok, and if that fails, to the Greek president, who can try to assemble a coalition.
The combined strength of the Syriza and the KKE, even together with the Democratic Left, in parliament is not enough to form a majority government and, to date, the KKE has refused to accept Syriza’s proposal.
Failure to form a new government would eventually lead to new elections. The ruling class has additional reasons to dread this prospect, as most probably it will lead to Syriza becoming the largest party.
What must the left do now?
Alexis Tsipras, the Syriza leader, said he will strive to form a “left-wing coalition” to reject the "barbaric" measures associated with the EU/IMF bailout deal.
Xekinima (CWI Greece) supports the call for a left government coalition but it must be a government fully committed to opposing all austerity cuts and the bosses’ EU, rejecting the debt repayments and carrying out pro-worker policies, not ‘renegotiating’ for ‘milder’ cuts and ‘more generous’ loan repayments, which still means a lowering of Greek living standards. The Syriza leadership must oppose any coalition or co-operation with the bosses’ parties, which would be a disastrous trap.
Celebration after the election: Alexis Tsipras, the head of Greece’s Syriza party
There is now a great opportunity for Syriza to publicly put forward a programme for a workers’ government. It is true that according to parliamentary arithmetic the left do not have enough MPs to form such a government. Furthermore, the KKE leadership has, so far, refused to co-operate with Syriza. But huge pressure needs to come from trade unionists, social movement activists and the rank and file of the KKE and Syriza, to insist that both parties reject sectarianism and any ‘cuts-lite’ policies based on ‘re-negotiated’ austerity. The workers’ movement activists want genuine left unity, preparing the ground to form a new left government in the near future.
A programme to unite Syriza and the KKE around opposition to all austerity measures and the EU diktats, for cancellation of the debt and nationalisation of the main banks and industries under democratic workers’ control and for socialist change, as the basis of a workers’ government, would win widespread support from the working class, youth and ruined middle class. It would inspire a resurgence of mass action in the workplaces and communities.
If an attempt is made to form yet another cuts-making coalition, based around Pasok and ND, the left and workers’ movement needs to organise mass opposition, including general strikes and workplace occupations, to stop such attempts, which have no mandate.
Last weekend’s election makes clear that a majority government of the left is possible. If new elections take place in June, the left parties will have a great opportunity to win a majority. This requires the left parties adopting socialist policies – a rejection of the debt repayments and a struggle to break with the bosses’ EU and the profit-system. It also means a strong united front of the left and workers’ movement against the threat of the neo-fascist and far right.
If the left fails to offer a viable socialist alternative, the far right can partially fill the space and grow, and the ruling class will also seek to deploy more authoritarian measures against the workers’ movement resisting cuts.
Socialist Alternative, P.O. Box 45343, Seattle WA 98145
Phone: (206)526-7185
Comments? Suggestions for improving our web page? Please email info@SocialistAlternative.org
From The Pages Of The Socialist Alternative Press-Vote No to Austerity in Irish referendum
Click on the headline to link to the Socialist Alternative (CWI) website.
From The Pages Of The Socialist Alternative Press-Obama's War in Afghanistan is a Disaster
Click on the headline to link to the Socialist Alternative (CWI) website.
Obama's War in Afghanistan is a Disaster
Apr 27, 2012
By Patrick Darby
In January 2012, a video published on websites such as Youtube revealed four U.S. Marines urinating on dead Taliban fighters. On February 20, U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan incinerated several Qur’ans, leading to weeks of protest that left six U.S. military personnel and 30 Afghans dead. Three weeks later, U.S. Staff Sergeant Robert Bales went on an unprovoked killing spree that left 17 Afghan civilians dead, mostly children. On April 18, the L.A. Times published photos of U.S. soldiers playing with Afghan corpses and laughing.
Ultimately, Obama, as the Commander in Chief, is responsible for these atrocities. Without the continued presence of the U.S. in Afghanistan, these incidents – just two among hundreds – would not have occurred. According to a March 12 study by The Guardian, Afghan civilian deaths rose from 2,038 in 2010 to 2,332 in 2011, a clear manifestation of Obama’s deadly policies.
Bales was on his fourth tour of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, he had possibly suffered a minor traumatic brain injury after a roadside bomb detonated. He also was suffering from possible PTSD symptoms.
This begs the question of why a possibly brain-damaged man with psychological issues was forced into a fourth tour of duty and given a gun. The military, however, has claimed it didn’t know about those issues. The question, then, is how did such symptoms go unnoticed?
Both incidents have heavily strained U.S. relations with Afghanistan, and calls for the U.S. to speed up its withdrawal have intensified. Afghan President Hamid Karzai called for an accelerated U.S. withdrawal. A March 21-25 NY Times/CBS poll found that 69% of Americans think the U.S. should withdraw from Afghanistan, a sharp increase from the 53% who wanted to end the decade-old war four months ago. 1,974 American soldiers have been killed during operations, and over 13,000 Afghan civilians were killed between 2006 and 2011.
As long as the U.S. continues to occupy Afghanistan, atrocities will continue, and the death toll will continue to rise. Bales’ killing spree is the symptom of a larger problem – an overstrained, overstressed U.S. military. The horrors of war take an incredible toll on the mind, but with a shortage of soldiers and two wars spanning a decade, the military has sent and will continue to send soldiers unfit for duty back to the war zone.
Another underlying cause of the recent U.S. atrocities is the dehumanization of the Afghan people. Afghans are often referred to with racial slurs or sometimes ignored altogether. The idea that Muslims are not people, but “terrorists” or “towelheads,” has infiltrated not just U.S. society, but the military as well.
It is not an accident, either. Historically, “enemies” have always been dehumanized. In the Vietnam War, the Vietnamese were “Charlies” or “gooks.” In World War II, the Japanese were “Japs” and regarded as subhuman. This pattern of dehumanization is not limited to the United States, of course, nor to recent history. As long as there is systemic racism prevalent in our society and in the military, atrocities are not just likely, but inevitable. And as long as we live in a global capitalist system where governments have to compete to control resources and increase corporate profits, wars and the systemic racism that comes with them are also inevitable.
The war in Afghanistan was launched after 9/11 under the stated goal of ending Al Qaeda’s terrorism. Ten years later, it is clear that the real U.S. motive behind continuing the war is to expand U.S. imperialism into the energy- and resource-rich region. The U.S. government hopes not to leave until it constructs a reliable pro-U.S. government, police, and military in Afghanistan. It has, however, utterly failed to do so.
The U.S. puppet Hamid Karzai and his central government are intensely corrupt, supported by various brutal warlords and drug traffickers. The war-torn country is still mired in wretched poverty and crumbling infrastructure. Seventy-seven percent of the population has no access to safe drinking water, around 9 million Afghans are living in utter destitution (another 9 million live barely above poverty), and the literacy rate is around 24% (http://csis.org/publication/agriculture-food-and-poverty-afghanistan).
The war has been and will continue to be a catastrophic failure, not just for the Afghan people, but for the United States. Obama tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan, and despite the presence of about 90,000 U.S. soldiers, the mightiest military in the world, backed by the most advanced technology in the world, has failed to achieve any sort of concrete victory against the rag-tag insurgency.
President Obama has also dramatically increased the number of drone strikes into Pakistan, despite their repeated protests. These strikes have killed thousands, including civilians and children. President Bush may have begun the war in Afghanistan and the drone strikes, but Obama has continued them enthusiastically.
The war in Afghanistan alone has cost over $500 billion. Instead of using that money to continue an unpopular war that has killed tens of thousands and ravaged the country, we could be implementing universal health care for every American and rebuilding crumbling infrastructure, fighting poverty, or switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. Instead of bombing Afghanistan, we could be rebuilding schools and hospitals in the war-ravaged country. All of those uses would be far more productive and humane than continuing to spend hundreds of billions on war and death.
Socialist Alternative, P.O. Box 45343, Seattle WA 98145
Phone: (206)526-7185
Comments? Suggestions for improving our web page? Please email info@SocialistAlternative
Obama's War in Afghanistan is a Disaster
Apr 27, 2012
By Patrick Darby
In January 2012, a video published on websites such as Youtube revealed four U.S. Marines urinating on dead Taliban fighters. On February 20, U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan incinerated several Qur’ans, leading to weeks of protest that left six U.S. military personnel and 30 Afghans dead. Three weeks later, U.S. Staff Sergeant Robert Bales went on an unprovoked killing spree that left 17 Afghan civilians dead, mostly children. On April 18, the L.A. Times published photos of U.S. soldiers playing with Afghan corpses and laughing.
Ultimately, Obama, as the Commander in Chief, is responsible for these atrocities. Without the continued presence of the U.S. in Afghanistan, these incidents – just two among hundreds – would not have occurred. According to a March 12 study by The Guardian, Afghan civilian deaths rose from 2,038 in 2010 to 2,332 in 2011, a clear manifestation of Obama’s deadly policies.
Bales was on his fourth tour of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, he had possibly suffered a minor traumatic brain injury after a roadside bomb detonated. He also was suffering from possible PTSD symptoms.
This begs the question of why a possibly brain-damaged man with psychological issues was forced into a fourth tour of duty and given a gun. The military, however, has claimed it didn’t know about those issues. The question, then, is how did such symptoms go unnoticed?
Both incidents have heavily strained U.S. relations with Afghanistan, and calls for the U.S. to speed up its withdrawal have intensified. Afghan President Hamid Karzai called for an accelerated U.S. withdrawal. A March 21-25 NY Times/CBS poll found that 69% of Americans think the U.S. should withdraw from Afghanistan, a sharp increase from the 53% who wanted to end the decade-old war four months ago. 1,974 American soldiers have been killed during operations, and over 13,000 Afghan civilians were killed between 2006 and 2011.
As long as the U.S. continues to occupy Afghanistan, atrocities will continue, and the death toll will continue to rise. Bales’ killing spree is the symptom of a larger problem – an overstrained, overstressed U.S. military. The horrors of war take an incredible toll on the mind, but with a shortage of soldiers and two wars spanning a decade, the military has sent and will continue to send soldiers unfit for duty back to the war zone.
Another underlying cause of the recent U.S. atrocities is the dehumanization of the Afghan people. Afghans are often referred to with racial slurs or sometimes ignored altogether. The idea that Muslims are not people, but “terrorists” or “towelheads,” has infiltrated not just U.S. society, but the military as well.
It is not an accident, either. Historically, “enemies” have always been dehumanized. In the Vietnam War, the Vietnamese were “Charlies” or “gooks.” In World War II, the Japanese were “Japs” and regarded as subhuman. This pattern of dehumanization is not limited to the United States, of course, nor to recent history. As long as there is systemic racism prevalent in our society and in the military, atrocities are not just likely, but inevitable. And as long as we live in a global capitalist system where governments have to compete to control resources and increase corporate profits, wars and the systemic racism that comes with them are also inevitable.
The war in Afghanistan was launched after 9/11 under the stated goal of ending Al Qaeda’s terrorism. Ten years later, it is clear that the real U.S. motive behind continuing the war is to expand U.S. imperialism into the energy- and resource-rich region. The U.S. government hopes not to leave until it constructs a reliable pro-U.S. government, police, and military in Afghanistan. It has, however, utterly failed to do so.
The U.S. puppet Hamid Karzai and his central government are intensely corrupt, supported by various brutal warlords and drug traffickers. The war-torn country is still mired in wretched poverty and crumbling infrastructure. Seventy-seven percent of the population has no access to safe drinking water, around 9 million Afghans are living in utter destitution (another 9 million live barely above poverty), and the literacy rate is around 24% (http://csis.org/publication/agriculture-food-and-poverty-afghanistan).
The war has been and will continue to be a catastrophic failure, not just for the Afghan people, but for the United States. Obama tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan, and despite the presence of about 90,000 U.S. soldiers, the mightiest military in the world, backed by the most advanced technology in the world, has failed to achieve any sort of concrete victory against the rag-tag insurgency.
President Obama has also dramatically increased the number of drone strikes into Pakistan, despite their repeated protests. These strikes have killed thousands, including civilians and children. President Bush may have begun the war in Afghanistan and the drone strikes, but Obama has continued them enthusiastically.
The war in Afghanistan alone has cost over $500 billion. Instead of using that money to continue an unpopular war that has killed tens of thousands and ravaged the country, we could be implementing universal health care for every American and rebuilding crumbling infrastructure, fighting poverty, or switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. Instead of bombing Afghanistan, we could be rebuilding schools and hospitals in the war-ravaged country. All of those uses would be far more productive and humane than continuing to spend hundreds of billions on war and death.
Socialist Alternative, P.O. Box 45343, Seattle WA 98145
Phone: (206)526-7185
Comments? Suggestions for improving our web page? Please email info@SocialistAlternative
From The Pages Of The Socialist Alternative Press-Why I Fight: The Foreclosure Crisis in Minnesota
Click on the headline to link to the Socialist Alternative (CWI) website.
Why I Fight: The Foreclosure Crisis in Minnesota Printer-Friendly
E-Mail This
Apr 27, 2012
By Chris Gray
Chris Gray works for Minneapolis Public Schools, coordinates the Occupy Homes Canvassing Committee, and is a leading organizer in Socialist Alternative MN.
It’s been five years since the housing bubble burst, sending millions of working-class homeowners into foreclosure and economic devastation. While banks got bailed out, the hard-won assets and savings of working-class communities were wiped out. But now, with the encouragement and confidence of the Occupy movement behind them, homeowners are beginning to fight back in a serious way.
On January 7, I spoke at an Occupy Homes community forum in the cafeteria of the elementary school where I work. The room was filled with over 150 “occupiers,” teachers, and community members prepared to launch into the then-uncharted territory of foreclosure and eviction defense.
I explained how one out of ten students at my school qualify as “homeless or highly mobile.” They do not have a stable place to sleep. The effects of this permeate through every aspect of the school. Kids need passes to the nurse so they can nap, teachers keep bananas in their desks, and office staff store clean clothes in cabinets. Ultimately, these solutions are band-aids on the malignant afflictions caused by the short-sighted, profit-driven decisions of the big banks.
Since 2007, almost 3,000 Minneapolis families a year have been foreclosed on, with the crisis disproportionately impacting communities of color. It is well documented that access to housing and food dramatically affect a student’s test scores, so foreclosures undoubtedly contribute to the dramatic racial achievement gap in Minnesota, which is among the highest in the country. In addition, due to the loss of 4,000 students from the district, foreclosures have cost Minneapolis Public Schools over $150 million since 2006 (Neighborhoods Organizing for Change, 2011).
In the zip code around my school, 55407, 19 percent of all homes have been foreclosed on. It is also home to Bobby Hull, who stood up against the banks with Occupy Homes MN and in February won back his home in a nationally acclaimed victory. Across town, in a predominantly African-American neighborhood where 51 percent of the homes have been foreclosed on since 2007, lives Monique White, a single African-American mother fighting to save her home from US Bank. She recently confronted CEO Richard Davis, in front of thousands of US Bank shareholders, demanding a meeting with him – which he was forced to accept.
People are quickly learning that an economic struggle against the banks turns into a political struggle against corporate politicians. Calls for a moratorium on foreclosures are growing. Most recently, community pressure pushed the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to unanimously vote for a (non-binding) moratorium on foreclosures and evictions in the city after a study found a staggering 84% of all foreclosures there were “illegal or were missing crucial documentation” (Huffington Post, 4/11/12).
Undoubtedly this same widespread fraud and illegality exists in Minnesota, but so far government officials have mainly looked the other way. The mayors and elected sheriffs continue to send law enforcement in to evict families at the banks’ bidding, while almost no resources go to fighting white-collar crime. That’s why in Minneapolis we are demanding Mayor Rybak reprioritize police resources away from carrying out evictions. The mayor’s inaction and his public friendship with US Bank CEO Richard Davis clarify his role as an agent of the 1% in the eyes of an increasing number of people.
As people see that the toxic effects of the foreclosure crisis ooze into every aspect of life, they realize the breadth and depth of the economic crisis. But a growing number of homeowners and community members are finding a united voice in struggles like Occupy Homes.
**************
Lessons from Occupy Homes Printer-Friendly
E-Mail This
Apr 25, 2012
By Ty Moore
Ty Moore is on the Organizers Table of Occupy Homes MN and is the Midwest Organizer for Socialist Alternative
Occupy Wall Street changed the conversation. Now the challenge is to change the system (or at least win tangible reforms). So, as spring brings with it a fresh round of Occupy-inspired protests and campaigns, the central question facing the movement is how to transform mass support into mass action.
A large majority of the public – 77%, according to a December Pew Poll – agrees with the basic premise of Occupy Wall Street that big corporations and the 1% have too much power. But across the country, most Occupy events remain small and Occupy groups have failed to sink roots into working-class communities most impacted by Wall Street’s class war policies.
One of the exceptions to this trend is Occupy Homes Minnesota, a growing community campaign against foreclosures that is increasingly looked to as a national model. In a few short months, the campaign met with impressive success (see article in Justice 82).
After Occupy Homes forced Bank of America to renegotiate to keep Bobby Hull in his home, and mounted pressure campaigns delaying the foreclosure process of several others, more and more homeowners have approached us to fight back. We have consciously been building the foundations for a powerful, mass campaign and are poised to dramatically expand in the coming months.
This article is an attempt to draw lessons from our experiences that will help inform strategy discussions among Occupy activists across the country.
Bread-and-Butter Battles
When police repression and winter weather broke up Occupy Minneapolis, Occupy Homes MN was launched to re-gather the most serious activists around a bold mass strategy to fight foreclosures.
Our initial goals were twofold: First, to accelerate the momentum of Occupy by shifting gears into tangible bread-and-butter battles against the big banks. Second, to construct a vehicle for working-class communities to channel their rage at Wall Street into a powerful movement capable of forcing concessions from the 1%.
We recognized that, while mass sympathy existed for Occupy Wall Street, as long as concrete struggle remained limited to holding parks and plazas against police repression, there would be no hope for mass involvement. Instead, it would be necessary to re-position the movement to fight budget cuts, layoffs, racist police policies, and other real injustices meted out by the 1% and their political servants. The foreclosure crisis seemed like a clear place to start.
A Compelling Vision
One of the widely recognized keys to Occupy Wall Street’s success was their creation of a compelling story. The slogan “We are the 99%” caught on like wildfire. Similarly, the early emphasis in Occupy Homes was about building a compelling narrative.
We were extremely fortunate to have Monique White come forward among the early homeowners asking for help. Her story as a hardworking single mother who lost her job due to state budget cuts resonated with the experiences of millions. Moreover, as a black woman living in the most heavily foreclosed-upon neighborhood in the state, her struggle spoke to the ongoing legacy of racism in the banking and housing industry.
Real resources were put into ensuring Monique’s story would be told well and widely. Professional videos were produced, a serious social media apparatus was built, and careful attention to messaging was emphasized.
Using the occupation of Monique’s home as a model, a vision for a mass campaign was projected. At rallies, public forums, and campaign meetings we repeatedly explained our goal of getting hundreds of foreclosure victims like Monique to publicly pledge to stay in their homes until the banks renegotiated a fair deal. We publicly warned that any attempt to evict Monique or other homeowners would be met with mass resistance.
Building Capacity
On the basis of this clear vision, we appealed for supporters to energetically plug into a coherent campaign plan to transform the vision into reality. This has meant reaching out beyond the “usual suspects” of the Occupy activists and long-standing left circles.
A systematic canvassing campaign in neighborhoods most impacted by foreclosures was initiated, alongside outreach to community groups, churches, trade unions, and other potential allies. Energetic students recruited for an “Occupy Spring Break” initiative remained active and brought the campaign to their campuses. Important ties in the Latino and African-American communities have been established.
Implementing our campaign plan required building a solid leadership team that could quickly draw lessons, gauge progress, and propose tactical changes to the wider campaign as needed. The anti-leadership, anti-structure mood in Occupy had to be challenged. Many of the most serious activists, frustrated at the dysfunction of the General Assemblies, began informally meeting to discuss a strategy.
In a conscious effort to build a cohesive leadership team across ideological, racial, and other barriers, systematic “one-to-one” discussions are encouraged to build trust, to explore areas where we agree and disagree, and on this basis to work out a common vision for Occupy Homes.
Important weaknesses and debates over democratic process continue within Occupy Homes MN, but in practice we have established a self-confident, politically representative, and effective leadership team capable of mobilizing the energy and ideas of larger numbers of people.
We are now gearing up for a major new campaign this summer, aimed at building a statewide network, expanding the number of public homeowner campaigns into the hundreds and popularizing the demand for an across-the-board principal reduction for underwater homeowners and a foreclosure moratorium.
The Need for Demands
From the first days of Occupy Wall Street, outspoken opposition to adopting clear demands dominated the movement. Some argued that demands for reform undermined the revolutionary spirit of Occupy. Others worried demands were divisive. And as long as the main practical goal was to simply maintain physical occupations of parks and plazas, the problems with these arguments were less apparent.
Once the movement shifted into a real class struggle with the banks over tangible assets – people’s homes – the whole discussion rapidly changed. Several immediate problems arose from Occupy Homes’ lack of a program to solve the housing crisis.
Far from being more revolutionary, the lack of demands reduced the campaign to essentially fighting house-by-house. One week we’d demand US Bank offer Monique a fair deal; next week we’d demand Bank of America negotiate with Bobby. But how could this work once we brought hundreds of homeowners into the campaign?
The only way to beat the power of the banks is to build a mass movement around clear demands for collective solutions. Demands help popularize clear goals for the movement and provide protection from politicians watering down or diverting our struggles. They allow movements to establish the terms of debate and to expose the wider agendas of those in power.
Through this process, working people begin to feel their collective power, to see the corrupt role of the 1% and their governing institutions, and to recognize the need to challenge capitalism as a whole.
The discussion on a program for Occupy Homes MN is ongoing, but three basic demands on three clear targets were agreed for outreach materials. First, a call on the banks to renegotiate mortgages to levels homeowners can afford. Second, for state authorities to pass an immediate moratorium on foreclosures. Third, for the mayor and sheriff to stop sending police to evict families at the banks’ behest.
Avoiding Co-Optation
Since Occupy Wall Street rose into the national spotlight last fall, attempts to co-opt the movement have been made by various liberal groups aligned with the Democratic Party.
The biggest OWS national day of action was called for November 17 last year and was effectively organized in coalition with SEIU (Service Employees’ International Union). But when SEIU’s President Mary Kay Henry used the occasion to publicly endorse Obama’s re-election campaign and his anemic jobs bill, many occupiers were justifiably enraged. More recently, MoveOn.org spearheaded the impressive “99% Spring” initiative, drawing thousands into “direct action trainings” which, in reality, were part of their 2012 campaign to elect Democrats.
The mistake made by many in Occupy, however, is to simply avoid working with unions or liberal groups. Occupy Homes took the approach of active coalition with more established community groups, while maintaining political independence and a mass movement strategy.
An important test came when Occupy Homes organized a confrontation with Minneapolis Democratic Mayor R.T. Rybak, urging him not to send police to evict Monique White. We initially got seven of nine city councilors to sign a petition with the same demand. Following the action, leaders in SEIU who had donated money and significant human resources to Occupy Homes put pressure on activists to stop publicly calling out the mayor. Their ties to the mayor and wider Democratic Party, they argued, could be used for behind-the-scenes negotiations instead.
This failed strategy of refusing to put public demands on the mayor has been tested. SEIU and others have campaigned against foreclosures for over a year already, but the mayor and his police were completely left off the hook for their complicity in the housing crisis and have continued evictions with political impunity. In reality, elected officials are far more vulnerable to public pressure than the monolithic banks. Collective solutions to the foreclosure crisis will require policy changes by local, state, and federal governments. And since both parties are funded and controlled by the big banks, achieving political change means placing demands on both parties.
Occupy Homes, while maintaining a working relationship with SEIU leaders, rejected their approach and has continued to protest the mayor’s use of police resources for the bankers’ profit-driven agenda.
Socialist Alternative has been involved from the early days of the campaign, with members involved in both strategic planning and day-to-day work. It has been an inspiring and educational experience for us, and all involved. Moving forward, we must closely study similar campaigns across the country and internationally, including the mass household tax boycott led by our Irish affiliate organization. The goal must be to build an ever-growing, constantly learning movement that can win tangible victories for working people and, even more importantly, train a new generation of community fighters to carry the struggle against capitalism forward.
**********
Occupy Homes Protest Forces Delay of Sheriff Sale Printer-Friendly
E-Mail This
Apr 10, 2012
By Ty Moore
We republish here a press release from Occupy Homes MN following a successful campaign to stop US Bank from auctioning off the Vinje family's home. Thanks to all Socialist Alternative members across the country who participated in the national call-in campaign to US Bank VP Tom Joyce. -Ty Moore
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupy Homes Protest Forces Delay of Sheriff Sale
US Bank buckles under pressure, delaying sale of veteran John Vinje's home until May 29th
After a week of escalating pressure demanding US Bank postpone the sheriff’s sale of John and Lucinda Vinje’s home, Occupy Homes won another 11th hour victory today. John Vinje led a contingent of 50 Occupy Homes MN supporters into the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office Civil Division where the sale was to take place at 11:00am this morning. Speeches, chants, and song filled the marbled hallways in the ground floor of city hall. No potential buyers were seen entering the courtroom the entire time, and just after 11:30am it was announced that US Bank had delayed the sale to May 29th.
Following the victory, John said: “This shows that the power is now with the people, and not with large, monolithic corporations, like US Bank. Homeowners throughout Minnesota facing foreclosure, facing sheriff's sales, should get together with their community and demand a postponement and renegotiation. They should get connected with Occupy Homes because we can save homes throughout the state of Minnesota when we all work together.”
Today’s action followed a week of escalating pressure on US Bank, including a national call-in campaign aimed to VP Tom Joyce, and a march on US Bank CEO Richard Davis’ mansion on April 7th. Ty Moore, an organizer with Occupy Homes explained: “We’ve got the banks scrambling already, but this fight is just beginning. John’s victory, following Monique and Bobby’s victories, is sending a message. Minnesota homeowners aren’t going to leave their homes quietly and in shame anymore. It’s the banks and CEOs like Richard Davis who should be ashamed!”
Occupy Homes MN achieved national media attention after winning Bobby Hull’s foreclosed home back after US Bank bought his property at a sheriff sale, and repeatedly delaying the eviction of Monique White, who also received her original mortgage through US Bank. John and Lucinda Vinje are among a growing number of homeowners joining together through Occupy Homes to fight back against the unjust and illegal banking practices behind the foreclosure crisis.
John and Lucinda Vinje bought their home in 2008, the first house either of them had ever owned. John is an Air Force veteran now working as a security guard, and Lucinda has worked a government job for ten years. But when financial difficulties caused them to fall behind on payments by just two months, US Bank refused their request to repay their arrears in installments and immediately began foreclosure proceedings. Meanwhile, Lucinda has been forced into "medical retirement" due to a chronic condition, adding financial strain on the family.
If US Bank would renegotiate their mortgage to current market value as the Vinje’s request, they could afford the payments. After six months of delays, in March US Bank offered them a measly $97 less on their monthly payments. Both John and Lucinda have worked their entire lives, but now stand to lose the only home they have ever owned.
Socialist Alternative, P.O. Box 45343, Seattle WA 98145
Phone: (206)526-7185
Comments? Suggestions for improving our web page? Please email info@SocialistAlternative.org
Why I Fight: The Foreclosure Crisis in Minnesota Printer-Friendly
E-Mail This
Apr 27, 2012
By Chris Gray
Chris Gray works for Minneapolis Public Schools, coordinates the Occupy Homes Canvassing Committee, and is a leading organizer in Socialist Alternative MN.
It’s been five years since the housing bubble burst, sending millions of working-class homeowners into foreclosure and economic devastation. While banks got bailed out, the hard-won assets and savings of working-class communities were wiped out. But now, with the encouragement and confidence of the Occupy movement behind them, homeowners are beginning to fight back in a serious way.
On January 7, I spoke at an Occupy Homes community forum in the cafeteria of the elementary school where I work. The room was filled with over 150 “occupiers,” teachers, and community members prepared to launch into the then-uncharted territory of foreclosure and eviction defense.
I explained how one out of ten students at my school qualify as “homeless or highly mobile.” They do not have a stable place to sleep. The effects of this permeate through every aspect of the school. Kids need passes to the nurse so they can nap, teachers keep bananas in their desks, and office staff store clean clothes in cabinets. Ultimately, these solutions are band-aids on the malignant afflictions caused by the short-sighted, profit-driven decisions of the big banks.
Since 2007, almost 3,000 Minneapolis families a year have been foreclosed on, with the crisis disproportionately impacting communities of color. It is well documented that access to housing and food dramatically affect a student’s test scores, so foreclosures undoubtedly contribute to the dramatic racial achievement gap in Minnesota, which is among the highest in the country. In addition, due to the loss of 4,000 students from the district, foreclosures have cost Minneapolis Public Schools over $150 million since 2006 (Neighborhoods Organizing for Change, 2011).
In the zip code around my school, 55407, 19 percent of all homes have been foreclosed on. It is also home to Bobby Hull, who stood up against the banks with Occupy Homes MN and in February won back his home in a nationally acclaimed victory. Across town, in a predominantly African-American neighborhood where 51 percent of the homes have been foreclosed on since 2007, lives Monique White, a single African-American mother fighting to save her home from US Bank. She recently confronted CEO Richard Davis, in front of thousands of US Bank shareholders, demanding a meeting with him – which he was forced to accept.
People are quickly learning that an economic struggle against the banks turns into a political struggle against corporate politicians. Calls for a moratorium on foreclosures are growing. Most recently, community pressure pushed the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to unanimously vote for a (non-binding) moratorium on foreclosures and evictions in the city after a study found a staggering 84% of all foreclosures there were “illegal or were missing crucial documentation” (Huffington Post, 4/11/12).
Undoubtedly this same widespread fraud and illegality exists in Minnesota, but so far government officials have mainly looked the other way. The mayors and elected sheriffs continue to send law enforcement in to evict families at the banks’ bidding, while almost no resources go to fighting white-collar crime. That’s why in Minneapolis we are demanding Mayor Rybak reprioritize police resources away from carrying out evictions. The mayor’s inaction and his public friendship with US Bank CEO Richard Davis clarify his role as an agent of the 1% in the eyes of an increasing number of people.
As people see that the toxic effects of the foreclosure crisis ooze into every aspect of life, they realize the breadth and depth of the economic crisis. But a growing number of homeowners and community members are finding a united voice in struggles like Occupy Homes.
**************
Lessons from Occupy Homes Printer-Friendly
E-Mail This
Apr 25, 2012
By Ty Moore
Ty Moore is on the Organizers Table of Occupy Homes MN and is the Midwest Organizer for Socialist Alternative
Occupy Wall Street changed the conversation. Now the challenge is to change the system (or at least win tangible reforms). So, as spring brings with it a fresh round of Occupy-inspired protests and campaigns, the central question facing the movement is how to transform mass support into mass action.
A large majority of the public – 77%, according to a December Pew Poll – agrees with the basic premise of Occupy Wall Street that big corporations and the 1% have too much power. But across the country, most Occupy events remain small and Occupy groups have failed to sink roots into working-class communities most impacted by Wall Street’s class war policies.
One of the exceptions to this trend is Occupy Homes Minnesota, a growing community campaign against foreclosures that is increasingly looked to as a national model. In a few short months, the campaign met with impressive success (see article in Justice 82).
After Occupy Homes forced Bank of America to renegotiate to keep Bobby Hull in his home, and mounted pressure campaigns delaying the foreclosure process of several others, more and more homeowners have approached us to fight back. We have consciously been building the foundations for a powerful, mass campaign and are poised to dramatically expand in the coming months.
This article is an attempt to draw lessons from our experiences that will help inform strategy discussions among Occupy activists across the country.
Bread-and-Butter Battles
When police repression and winter weather broke up Occupy Minneapolis, Occupy Homes MN was launched to re-gather the most serious activists around a bold mass strategy to fight foreclosures.
Our initial goals were twofold: First, to accelerate the momentum of Occupy by shifting gears into tangible bread-and-butter battles against the big banks. Second, to construct a vehicle for working-class communities to channel their rage at Wall Street into a powerful movement capable of forcing concessions from the 1%.
We recognized that, while mass sympathy existed for Occupy Wall Street, as long as concrete struggle remained limited to holding parks and plazas against police repression, there would be no hope for mass involvement. Instead, it would be necessary to re-position the movement to fight budget cuts, layoffs, racist police policies, and other real injustices meted out by the 1% and their political servants. The foreclosure crisis seemed like a clear place to start.
A Compelling Vision
One of the widely recognized keys to Occupy Wall Street’s success was their creation of a compelling story. The slogan “We are the 99%” caught on like wildfire. Similarly, the early emphasis in Occupy Homes was about building a compelling narrative.
We were extremely fortunate to have Monique White come forward among the early homeowners asking for help. Her story as a hardworking single mother who lost her job due to state budget cuts resonated with the experiences of millions. Moreover, as a black woman living in the most heavily foreclosed-upon neighborhood in the state, her struggle spoke to the ongoing legacy of racism in the banking and housing industry.
Real resources were put into ensuring Monique’s story would be told well and widely. Professional videos were produced, a serious social media apparatus was built, and careful attention to messaging was emphasized.
Using the occupation of Monique’s home as a model, a vision for a mass campaign was projected. At rallies, public forums, and campaign meetings we repeatedly explained our goal of getting hundreds of foreclosure victims like Monique to publicly pledge to stay in their homes until the banks renegotiated a fair deal. We publicly warned that any attempt to evict Monique or other homeowners would be met with mass resistance.
Building Capacity
On the basis of this clear vision, we appealed for supporters to energetically plug into a coherent campaign plan to transform the vision into reality. This has meant reaching out beyond the “usual suspects” of the Occupy activists and long-standing left circles.
A systematic canvassing campaign in neighborhoods most impacted by foreclosures was initiated, alongside outreach to community groups, churches, trade unions, and other potential allies. Energetic students recruited for an “Occupy Spring Break” initiative remained active and brought the campaign to their campuses. Important ties in the Latino and African-American communities have been established.
Implementing our campaign plan required building a solid leadership team that could quickly draw lessons, gauge progress, and propose tactical changes to the wider campaign as needed. The anti-leadership, anti-structure mood in Occupy had to be challenged. Many of the most serious activists, frustrated at the dysfunction of the General Assemblies, began informally meeting to discuss a strategy.
In a conscious effort to build a cohesive leadership team across ideological, racial, and other barriers, systematic “one-to-one” discussions are encouraged to build trust, to explore areas where we agree and disagree, and on this basis to work out a common vision for Occupy Homes.
Important weaknesses and debates over democratic process continue within Occupy Homes MN, but in practice we have established a self-confident, politically representative, and effective leadership team capable of mobilizing the energy and ideas of larger numbers of people.
We are now gearing up for a major new campaign this summer, aimed at building a statewide network, expanding the number of public homeowner campaigns into the hundreds and popularizing the demand for an across-the-board principal reduction for underwater homeowners and a foreclosure moratorium.
The Need for Demands
From the first days of Occupy Wall Street, outspoken opposition to adopting clear demands dominated the movement. Some argued that demands for reform undermined the revolutionary spirit of Occupy. Others worried demands were divisive. And as long as the main practical goal was to simply maintain physical occupations of parks and plazas, the problems with these arguments were less apparent.
Once the movement shifted into a real class struggle with the banks over tangible assets – people’s homes – the whole discussion rapidly changed. Several immediate problems arose from Occupy Homes’ lack of a program to solve the housing crisis.
Far from being more revolutionary, the lack of demands reduced the campaign to essentially fighting house-by-house. One week we’d demand US Bank offer Monique a fair deal; next week we’d demand Bank of America negotiate with Bobby. But how could this work once we brought hundreds of homeowners into the campaign?
The only way to beat the power of the banks is to build a mass movement around clear demands for collective solutions. Demands help popularize clear goals for the movement and provide protection from politicians watering down or diverting our struggles. They allow movements to establish the terms of debate and to expose the wider agendas of those in power.
Through this process, working people begin to feel their collective power, to see the corrupt role of the 1% and their governing institutions, and to recognize the need to challenge capitalism as a whole.
The discussion on a program for Occupy Homes MN is ongoing, but three basic demands on three clear targets were agreed for outreach materials. First, a call on the banks to renegotiate mortgages to levels homeowners can afford. Second, for state authorities to pass an immediate moratorium on foreclosures. Third, for the mayor and sheriff to stop sending police to evict families at the banks’ behest.
Avoiding Co-Optation
Since Occupy Wall Street rose into the national spotlight last fall, attempts to co-opt the movement have been made by various liberal groups aligned with the Democratic Party.
The biggest OWS national day of action was called for November 17 last year and was effectively organized in coalition with SEIU (Service Employees’ International Union). But when SEIU’s President Mary Kay Henry used the occasion to publicly endorse Obama’s re-election campaign and his anemic jobs bill, many occupiers were justifiably enraged. More recently, MoveOn.org spearheaded the impressive “99% Spring” initiative, drawing thousands into “direct action trainings” which, in reality, were part of their 2012 campaign to elect Democrats.
The mistake made by many in Occupy, however, is to simply avoid working with unions or liberal groups. Occupy Homes took the approach of active coalition with more established community groups, while maintaining political independence and a mass movement strategy.
An important test came when Occupy Homes organized a confrontation with Minneapolis Democratic Mayor R.T. Rybak, urging him not to send police to evict Monique White. We initially got seven of nine city councilors to sign a petition with the same demand. Following the action, leaders in SEIU who had donated money and significant human resources to Occupy Homes put pressure on activists to stop publicly calling out the mayor. Their ties to the mayor and wider Democratic Party, they argued, could be used for behind-the-scenes negotiations instead.
This failed strategy of refusing to put public demands on the mayor has been tested. SEIU and others have campaigned against foreclosures for over a year already, but the mayor and his police were completely left off the hook for their complicity in the housing crisis and have continued evictions with political impunity. In reality, elected officials are far more vulnerable to public pressure than the monolithic banks. Collective solutions to the foreclosure crisis will require policy changes by local, state, and federal governments. And since both parties are funded and controlled by the big banks, achieving political change means placing demands on both parties.
Occupy Homes, while maintaining a working relationship with SEIU leaders, rejected their approach and has continued to protest the mayor’s use of police resources for the bankers’ profit-driven agenda.
Socialist Alternative has been involved from the early days of the campaign, with members involved in both strategic planning and day-to-day work. It has been an inspiring and educational experience for us, and all involved. Moving forward, we must closely study similar campaigns across the country and internationally, including the mass household tax boycott led by our Irish affiliate organization. The goal must be to build an ever-growing, constantly learning movement that can win tangible victories for working people and, even more importantly, train a new generation of community fighters to carry the struggle against capitalism forward.
**********
Occupy Homes Protest Forces Delay of Sheriff Sale Printer-Friendly
E-Mail This
Apr 10, 2012
By Ty Moore
We republish here a press release from Occupy Homes MN following a successful campaign to stop US Bank from auctioning off the Vinje family's home. Thanks to all Socialist Alternative members across the country who participated in the national call-in campaign to US Bank VP Tom Joyce. -Ty Moore
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupy Homes Protest Forces Delay of Sheriff Sale
US Bank buckles under pressure, delaying sale of veteran John Vinje's home until May 29th
After a week of escalating pressure demanding US Bank postpone the sheriff’s sale of John and Lucinda Vinje’s home, Occupy Homes won another 11th hour victory today. John Vinje led a contingent of 50 Occupy Homes MN supporters into the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office Civil Division where the sale was to take place at 11:00am this morning. Speeches, chants, and song filled the marbled hallways in the ground floor of city hall. No potential buyers were seen entering the courtroom the entire time, and just after 11:30am it was announced that US Bank had delayed the sale to May 29th.
Following the victory, John said: “This shows that the power is now with the people, and not with large, monolithic corporations, like US Bank. Homeowners throughout Minnesota facing foreclosure, facing sheriff's sales, should get together with their community and demand a postponement and renegotiation. They should get connected with Occupy Homes because we can save homes throughout the state of Minnesota when we all work together.”
Today’s action followed a week of escalating pressure on US Bank, including a national call-in campaign aimed to VP Tom Joyce, and a march on US Bank CEO Richard Davis’ mansion on April 7th. Ty Moore, an organizer with Occupy Homes explained: “We’ve got the banks scrambling already, but this fight is just beginning. John’s victory, following Monique and Bobby’s victories, is sending a message. Minnesota homeowners aren’t going to leave their homes quietly and in shame anymore. It’s the banks and CEOs like Richard Davis who should be ashamed!”
Occupy Homes MN achieved national media attention after winning Bobby Hull’s foreclosed home back after US Bank bought his property at a sheriff sale, and repeatedly delaying the eviction of Monique White, who also received her original mortgage through US Bank. John and Lucinda Vinje are among a growing number of homeowners joining together through Occupy Homes to fight back against the unjust and illegal banking practices behind the foreclosure crisis.
John and Lucinda Vinje bought their home in 2008, the first house either of them had ever owned. John is an Air Force veteran now working as a security guard, and Lucinda has worked a government job for ten years. But when financial difficulties caused them to fall behind on payments by just two months, US Bank refused their request to repay their arrears in installments and immediately began foreclosure proceedings. Meanwhile, Lucinda has been forced into "medical retirement" due to a chronic condition, adding financial strain on the family.
If US Bank would renegotiate their mortgage to current market value as the Vinje’s request, they could afford the payments. After six months of delays, in March US Bank offered them a measly $97 less on their monthly payments. Both John and Lucinda have worked their entire lives, but now stand to lose the only home they have ever owned.
Socialist Alternative, P.O. Box 45343, Seattle WA 98145
Phone: (206)526-7185
Comments? Suggestions for improving our web page? Please email info@SocialistAlternative.org
From The Pages Of The Socialist Alternative Press-The Struggle for Immigrants' Rights
Click on the headline to link to the Socialist Alternative (CWI) website.
The Struggle for Immigrants' Rights
Apr 30, 2012
By Anh Tran
Although May Day, also known as International Workers’ Day, has traditionally been a celebration of labor movements worldwide, it acquired a unique character in the United States in 2006 when millions of immigrants took to the streets in over 150 cities. This culminated in the largest strikes, boycotts, and protests in decades for immigrants’ rights. Immigrants have continued to reinvigorate the May 1 tradition since, and we should expect no different this year.
May Day demonstrators have fought against deportation and anti-immigration legislation such as Arizona’s SB 1070 and Alabama’s HB 46, but the question of what we should be fighting for has been far less clear in the political discourse of the movement. Both the left and the right, as well as past May Day demonstrators, have called for “immigration reform,” but what does this really mean?
A division exists in the Republican Party over immigration policy. There are those who advocate for a full-scale militarization of the border, no legalization, crackdowns on employers who hire undocumented workers, and mass deportations. Others seek to regulate and even legalize what they see as a necessary flow of immigrant labor. The latter view predominates among the ruling elite and Congress.
During the 2008 elections, Obama championed the cause of immigration reform, which was one reason why he obtained 67% of the Latino vote (Pew Research Center, 12/2011). But as he has since demonstrated, the liberal agenda of immigration reform is sometimes indistinguishable from right-wing views. Obama has deported more immigrants in a two-year period than any other president (Reuters, 9/2011), averaging to about 1,100 deportations per day (Huffington Post, 8/2011). The notorious E-Verify system started under Bush’s administration has been expanded under Obama (Committee on the Judiciary, 8/2011). Obama further militarized the U.S.-Mexican border by tripling the number of intelligence analysts working there and sending 1,200 National Guard troops, which resulted in increased deaths (NY Times, 5/2010). Obama deployed drones to patrol the skies (whitehouse.gov, 5/2011) and continued to fund the War on Drugs (whitehouse.gov, 2/2012).
Free Trade Policies
Obama also enacted a free trade treaty with Colombia (Boston Globe, 4/2012), continuing the disastrous policies of trade liberalization which have overwhelmingly benefited U.S. big businesses and increased poverty throughout Latin America: for example, by putting small-scale farmers out of work and propelling them to migrate into urban slums.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was passed by another Democratic president, Bill Clinton. This legislation has accelerated immigration from Mexico to the U.S. due to the halving of Mexico’s real wages and the loss of millions of Mexican jobs as businesses collapsed from being unable to compete with less expensive U.S. goods. This became possible when NAFTA ended subsidies for farmers in Mexico but not for agribusinesses in the U.S.
Where jobs along the border were created in the “maquiladoras,” assembly plants, workers endured sweatshop conditions and their job security was tied to the U.S. market, which would plummet during recessions (Charlip & Burns, 2011). The two million workers who have been driven out of agriculture and the countless others who live in dire poverty from low wages are among those who cross the border hoping to feed their families (commondreams.org).
The Politics of Immigration “Reform”
“Immigration reform” as promoted by both Republicans and Democrats has served the purpose of maintaining tight control over the activity and activism of immigrants and solidifying the second-class status of immigrant workers. For example, a deal was made between Democrat and Republican senators under George W. Bush to grant work visas to undocumented immigrants if they met strict requirements. It also barred undocumented workers from obtaining jobs, increased border security and, most telling of all, it created restrictions on visa eligibility for relatives outside of the immediate family unless they had advanced skills and education (USA Today, 5/2007).
Thus, immigration was transformed from a family-based system to a merit-based system designed to meet the needs of U.S. employers by limiting immigration to those who could help America compete in the global economy. The provision for a guest-worker program creates a large semi-permanent pool of exploitable immigrant labor and allows the ruling elite to summon and dismiss these workers at will. This makes unionization almost impossible and justifies their horrific working conditions.
Other proposed paths to citizenship for undocumented persons as a result of the “reform” process will end up benefiting the U.S. corporate war machine more than they do immigrant communities. Many immigrants’ rights activists are increasingly recognizing the limits of the Dream Act, which promises citizenship to undocumented youth in return for military service or completion of a college degree (dreamact.info). Given the extreme educational inequalities confronted by young people of color, increasing tuition costs, cuts to federal grants for students, record levels of youth unemployment, and generally higher levels of poverty among undocumented families, the ability to afford a college education is out of the question.
Survey and research studies show that Latino youth are much more likely to serve in active military duty than white youth (migrationpolicy.org) and much more likely to drop out of college than white youth (Pew Research Center, 6/2004). The military option becomes the most plausible path to citizenship for the majority of undocumented youth, turning the Dream Act into a de facto military draft.
Full Legalization for All!
We should reject the immigration reform policies of the Democrats and Republicans and, instead, call for full legalization and citizenship rights for all undocumented persons. Otherwise, U.S. society will continue to reap the benefits of undocumented labor while denying these workers legal protections and basic human rights.
Not only do undocumented workers hold jobs essential to the U.S. economy, but they also pay, on average, $80,000 more in taxes over their lifetimes than they consume through government services. Between 1996 and 2003, undocumented workers paid over $90 billion in taxes (USA Today, 4/2008). They contribute $8.5 billion in Social Security and Medicare taxes each year, most of which they will never be able to claim (NY Times, 5/2011). In 2010, undocumented immigrants paid $11.2 billion in taxes, more than top-profiting U.S. banks and corporations that even received bailouts from our pockets (politicususa.org, 4/2011). Although the right wing scapegoats immigrants for the economic recession, the real blame lies with Wall Street, enabled as it was by the unjust economic, political, and social structures under capitalism.
Because undocumented workers work for lower wages and in worse conditions than other workers, real protection for immigrants via full legal rights – leading to less low-level competition to drive down wages overall – would raise working standards for everyone.
Giving immigrants full legal rights is now off the political agenda for the two major parties. Yet, in 1986, Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act into law, granting amnesty to three million immigrants who had entered the U.S. before 1982 (npr.org, 7/2010). Despite certain reactionary provisions in the bill, the fact that the amnesty component was agreed upon by a conservative Republican president shows, today, how far both parties have moved to the right.
Building a United Movement
Immigrants’ rights movements have won significant reforms over past decades. But the movement today must build a united movement for full legal rights among wider layers of the working class and other social movements, or else it will have to continue to rely on the two major parties to negotiate and renegotiate the terms of immigrants’ indentured servitude. This strategy is needed today more than ever due to the deep crisis of the economy and the capitalist system, which drives both parties to exploit immigrants for cheap labor.
A movement of immigrants united with the broader working class can also combat the ruling elite’s attempts to fractionalize workers via arbitrary competition along racial or immigration lines. Fighting for immigrants’ rights should take place in the context of fighting for workers’ rights and ending the oppressive power structures of capitalism, a system built on racism and the exploitation of certain social groups in order to increase profits. A movement united toward this end will ensure that one social group will not be left behind as another is favored in the workplace or gains more rights in the wider society, and that victories secured by political movements will be sustainable.
Unions have a crucial role to play in a united movement, as seen in the effectiveness of campaigns by Unite HERE, SEIU, and UFCW to recruit and mobilize immigrant workers over the past few years. However, immigrant workers can play a much larger role than just increasing union membership. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, immigrants were at the forefront of building trade unions and bringing socialist ideas and traditions of radical struggle into the American labor movement. Today, their radical ideas and militancy can, as seen during May Day, help revive the labor movement, redevelop the activist layer of workers, combat union bureaucratization, and build independent working-class parties that represent people of all colors.
Socialist Alternative, P.O. Box 45343, Seattle WA 98145
Phone: (206)526-7185
Comments? Suggestions for improving our web page? Please email info@SocialistAlternative
The Struggle for Immigrants' Rights
Apr 30, 2012
By Anh Tran
Although May Day, also known as International Workers’ Day, has traditionally been a celebration of labor movements worldwide, it acquired a unique character in the United States in 2006 when millions of immigrants took to the streets in over 150 cities. This culminated in the largest strikes, boycotts, and protests in decades for immigrants’ rights. Immigrants have continued to reinvigorate the May 1 tradition since, and we should expect no different this year.
May Day demonstrators have fought against deportation and anti-immigration legislation such as Arizona’s SB 1070 and Alabama’s HB 46, but the question of what we should be fighting for has been far less clear in the political discourse of the movement. Both the left and the right, as well as past May Day demonstrators, have called for “immigration reform,” but what does this really mean?
A division exists in the Republican Party over immigration policy. There are those who advocate for a full-scale militarization of the border, no legalization, crackdowns on employers who hire undocumented workers, and mass deportations. Others seek to regulate and even legalize what they see as a necessary flow of immigrant labor. The latter view predominates among the ruling elite and Congress.
During the 2008 elections, Obama championed the cause of immigration reform, which was one reason why he obtained 67% of the Latino vote (Pew Research Center, 12/2011). But as he has since demonstrated, the liberal agenda of immigration reform is sometimes indistinguishable from right-wing views. Obama has deported more immigrants in a two-year period than any other president (Reuters, 9/2011), averaging to about 1,100 deportations per day (Huffington Post, 8/2011). The notorious E-Verify system started under Bush’s administration has been expanded under Obama (Committee on the Judiciary, 8/2011). Obama further militarized the U.S.-Mexican border by tripling the number of intelligence analysts working there and sending 1,200 National Guard troops, which resulted in increased deaths (NY Times, 5/2010). Obama deployed drones to patrol the skies (whitehouse.gov, 5/2011) and continued to fund the War on Drugs (whitehouse.gov, 2/2012).
Free Trade Policies
Obama also enacted a free trade treaty with Colombia (Boston Globe, 4/2012), continuing the disastrous policies of trade liberalization which have overwhelmingly benefited U.S. big businesses and increased poverty throughout Latin America: for example, by putting small-scale farmers out of work and propelling them to migrate into urban slums.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was passed by another Democratic president, Bill Clinton. This legislation has accelerated immigration from Mexico to the U.S. due to the halving of Mexico’s real wages and the loss of millions of Mexican jobs as businesses collapsed from being unable to compete with less expensive U.S. goods. This became possible when NAFTA ended subsidies for farmers in Mexico but not for agribusinesses in the U.S.
Where jobs along the border were created in the “maquiladoras,” assembly plants, workers endured sweatshop conditions and their job security was tied to the U.S. market, which would plummet during recessions (Charlip & Burns, 2011). The two million workers who have been driven out of agriculture and the countless others who live in dire poverty from low wages are among those who cross the border hoping to feed their families (commondreams.org).
The Politics of Immigration “Reform”
“Immigration reform” as promoted by both Republicans and Democrats has served the purpose of maintaining tight control over the activity and activism of immigrants and solidifying the second-class status of immigrant workers. For example, a deal was made between Democrat and Republican senators under George W. Bush to grant work visas to undocumented immigrants if they met strict requirements. It also barred undocumented workers from obtaining jobs, increased border security and, most telling of all, it created restrictions on visa eligibility for relatives outside of the immediate family unless they had advanced skills and education (USA Today, 5/2007).
Thus, immigration was transformed from a family-based system to a merit-based system designed to meet the needs of U.S. employers by limiting immigration to those who could help America compete in the global economy. The provision for a guest-worker program creates a large semi-permanent pool of exploitable immigrant labor and allows the ruling elite to summon and dismiss these workers at will. This makes unionization almost impossible and justifies their horrific working conditions.
Other proposed paths to citizenship for undocumented persons as a result of the “reform” process will end up benefiting the U.S. corporate war machine more than they do immigrant communities. Many immigrants’ rights activists are increasingly recognizing the limits of the Dream Act, which promises citizenship to undocumented youth in return for military service or completion of a college degree (dreamact.info). Given the extreme educational inequalities confronted by young people of color, increasing tuition costs, cuts to federal grants for students, record levels of youth unemployment, and generally higher levels of poverty among undocumented families, the ability to afford a college education is out of the question.
Survey and research studies show that Latino youth are much more likely to serve in active military duty than white youth (migrationpolicy.org) and much more likely to drop out of college than white youth (Pew Research Center, 6/2004). The military option becomes the most plausible path to citizenship for the majority of undocumented youth, turning the Dream Act into a de facto military draft.
Full Legalization for All!
We should reject the immigration reform policies of the Democrats and Republicans and, instead, call for full legalization and citizenship rights for all undocumented persons. Otherwise, U.S. society will continue to reap the benefits of undocumented labor while denying these workers legal protections and basic human rights.
Not only do undocumented workers hold jobs essential to the U.S. economy, but they also pay, on average, $80,000 more in taxes over their lifetimes than they consume through government services. Between 1996 and 2003, undocumented workers paid over $90 billion in taxes (USA Today, 4/2008). They contribute $8.5 billion in Social Security and Medicare taxes each year, most of which they will never be able to claim (NY Times, 5/2011). In 2010, undocumented immigrants paid $11.2 billion in taxes, more than top-profiting U.S. banks and corporations that even received bailouts from our pockets (politicususa.org, 4/2011). Although the right wing scapegoats immigrants for the economic recession, the real blame lies with Wall Street, enabled as it was by the unjust economic, political, and social structures under capitalism.
Because undocumented workers work for lower wages and in worse conditions than other workers, real protection for immigrants via full legal rights – leading to less low-level competition to drive down wages overall – would raise working standards for everyone.
Giving immigrants full legal rights is now off the political agenda for the two major parties. Yet, in 1986, Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act into law, granting amnesty to three million immigrants who had entered the U.S. before 1982 (npr.org, 7/2010). Despite certain reactionary provisions in the bill, the fact that the amnesty component was agreed upon by a conservative Republican president shows, today, how far both parties have moved to the right.
Building a United Movement
Immigrants’ rights movements have won significant reforms over past decades. But the movement today must build a united movement for full legal rights among wider layers of the working class and other social movements, or else it will have to continue to rely on the two major parties to negotiate and renegotiate the terms of immigrants’ indentured servitude. This strategy is needed today more than ever due to the deep crisis of the economy and the capitalist system, which drives both parties to exploit immigrants for cheap labor.
A movement of immigrants united with the broader working class can also combat the ruling elite’s attempts to fractionalize workers via arbitrary competition along racial or immigration lines. Fighting for immigrants’ rights should take place in the context of fighting for workers’ rights and ending the oppressive power structures of capitalism, a system built on racism and the exploitation of certain social groups in order to increase profits. A movement united toward this end will ensure that one social group will not be left behind as another is favored in the workplace or gains more rights in the wider society, and that victories secured by political movements will be sustainable.
Unions have a crucial role to play in a united movement, as seen in the effectiveness of campaigns by Unite HERE, SEIU, and UFCW to recruit and mobilize immigrant workers over the past few years. However, immigrant workers can play a much larger role than just increasing union membership. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, immigrants were at the forefront of building trade unions and bringing socialist ideas and traditions of radical struggle into the American labor movement. Today, their radical ideas and militancy can, as seen during May Day, help revive the labor movement, redevelop the activist layer of workers, combat union bureaucratization, and build independent working-class parties that represent people of all colors.
Socialist Alternative, P.O. Box 45343, Seattle WA 98145
Phone: (206)526-7185
Comments? Suggestions for improving our web page? Please email info@SocialistAlternative
From The Pages Of The Socialist Alternative Press-A Cry for Freedom - The Struggle Against Racism and Capitalism
Click on the headline to link to the Socialist Alternative (CWI) website.
A Cry for Freedom - The Struggle Against Racism and Capitalism
Apr 27, 2012
By Eljeer Hawkins, Harlem, New York
Troy Davis, Trayvon Martin, Anna Brown, Kenneth Chamberlain, Sr., Reika Boyd, and countless others have joined the long and gut-wrenching list of victims of police violence, vigilante justice, and state-sponsored lynching. These events confirm for working people and the poor, particularly people of color, that the declaration of a “post-racial” America after Obama’s election was a fallacy.
President Barack Obama has not alleviated racism. In fact, his administration has continued the attack on civil liberties, criminalizing dissent while presiding over mass deportations of immigrants. The Obama administration has continued the war on drugs, and defended strip searches for potential suspects. Taking over the reins as chief executive officer of the U.S. empire, Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan and dropped bombs on innocents in Pakistan.
At home, he has overseen the continued decay of a capitalist system that demands scapegoats for its failures, resulting in growing racist attacks, xenophobia, and sexism. This capitalist system is based on maximizing profits for a tiny – mainly white and male – ruling elite that relies on propaganda, violence, and divide-and-rule methods to maintain its power and influence.
Economic Wastelands
Workers and youth of color have been left with depressionary conditions since the onset of the economic crisis in 2008. The United for a Fair Economy annual report states, “In 2010, the median family income of Black and Latino families was a mere 57 cents to every dollar of White median family income,” (State of the Dream 2012: The Emerging Majority). The level of poverty has sent black and brown communities into a deeper state of despair in the richest nation in the world. According to State of the Dream, “In 2010, poverty rates among Blacks (25.7%) and Latinos (25.4%) were more than two and a half times the White poverty rate.”
In every major category –access to health care, housing, education, employment opportunities – workers and youth of color exceed the national average, lacking the basic necessities of survival and development. The working class, poor, and communities of color are the victims of Wall Street’s agenda. Black communities were especially targeted by the real estate industry looking to extract further profits by processing sub-prime loans. Workers and youth, particularly youth of color, are trapped in the vicious cycle of dilapidated housing, dead-end service jobs, extreme violence, and a failing – increasingly privatized – education system.
A History of Violence
This period has a historical link to the post-Civil War period, 1880-1930, of black criminalization, mass immigration, endemic lynching, poverty, debt peonage, and chain gangs that placed black people and the poor in a colonial status under the Jim Crow segregationist system. Black workers and youth were denied their humanity, unworthy of help, evil, and deemed biologically prone to criminality. These ideas were developed by the white ruling elite and their institutions to extract super-profits from Black labor and to perpetuate a “divide and rule” policy.
This fostered an inferiority complex among black people and cultivated a false superiority complex for those defined as white based on skin color, despite also being exploited as workers and poor people. By dividing the working class and poor along racial and class lines, the white ruling elite prevented united struggle while extracting their extra pound of flesh through the exploitation of cheap black labor. While segregation is a thing of the past, and there have been steps forward in the fight against racism, the capitalist system continues and dominates the realm of ideas.
What flows from this is the present-day stereotyping, profiling, and denial of humanity for the outcast “other” black, and now also Latino, Asians, Muslim etc., who are to be watched, contained, and controlled. This is the American reality that still remains today.
An April 6 Gallup/USA Today poll states, “51 percent of Black people said Zimmerman is ‘definitely guilty,’ while only 10 percent of White people believe he’s guilty,” (newsone.com).
The New Jim Crow
Alongside oppression must come subjugation. The Stop and Frisk New York Police Department (NYPD) policing tactic from 2004-2011 has targeted four million working people, poor, and youth of color in the NYPD’s insidious system of criminalizing black and Latino workers and youth. Blacks and Latinos combined make up 87% of those stopped, beginning a dizzying whirlwind into the criminal justice system that could cost them their jobs and homes, and brand them with the scarlet letter of “criminal.”
In 2011, the 685,724 stops by the NYPD can be attributed to ten precincts throughout New York City in so-called “high crime” and burgeoning gentrified neighborhoods. 88 percent of those stopped are found innocent of any crime.
There are 2.5 million prisoners in the U.S., predominantly black and brown; this doesn’t include 300,000 immigrants held in detention centers.
Fearing that worsening economic and social conditions will spur increased struggles, the police state apparatus has ramped up surveillance, social control, and human warehousing to combat increasing political dissent by workers and youth, most recently seen in the Occupy movement.
Chaos or Community: Los Angeles to Cincinnati
This April 29 marks the twentieth anniversary of the Los Angeles Riots that followed the acquittal of four police officers in the brutal beating, filmed on a camcorder, of Rodney King on March 3, 1991.
The ingredients of the explosion were police violence, racism, cancerous government neglect, poverty, shifts in industry, labor market competition, and the arrival of new, non-white immigrants, resulting in interethnic and cultural animosity. The not guilty verdict was the match that ignited the dynamite of frustration that would last for four days. It would be nine years later, in 2001, that another city would erupt: Cincinnati.
The response to Trayvon Martin’s death at the hands of the self-appointed neighborhood watch patroller and son of a retired state Supreme Court magistrate, George Zimmerman, has been powerful and inspiring. It was through social media, black radio, and the Martin family that Trayvon has become known to the world. Trayvon has become our generation’s Emmett Till. Emmett Till was lynched and brutally beaten in 1955 for allegedly whistling at a white woman. The fourteen-year-old black youth from Chicago was visiting family in Mississippi. The Emmett Till lynching was a major factor in launching the modern day civil rights movement.
Independent organized demonstrations throughout the country consisting of families and children, and solidarity messages of support globally, have highlighted collective action and the fury of working people and people of color that another black boy was gunned down like an animal in the street. This spontaneous movement has expressed downright disgust with the “Stand Your Ground” corporate legislation, the police, and the judicial cover-up to protect George Zimmerman from arrest. Mass pressure forced Florida district attorney and special prosecutor Angela Corey to arrest and charge George Zimmerman with second-degree murder.
The question that stands before our communities is: If justice is not served, will we see a replay of the events in L.A. or Cincinnati, or can we direct this anger into a powerful movement for liberation? If we stop our grassroots organizing, a Los Angeles or Cincinnati explosion will surely take place. We must keep in mind that the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, with its platform of economic justice, was born in October 1966 after the Watts Riots of 1965. The time is now to construct independent community organizations that will fight back against racial and class oppression, organizing block by block and school by school.
A New Vision Must Be Forged
“Our objective is complete freedom, complete justice, complete equality, by any means necessary.” -Malcolm X, December 20, 1964
If this is to be our Emmett Till moment, we must build a sustained movement of social struggle for economic justice, social uplift, and political independence - ending the abusive relationship with the two-party system, particularly with the Democratic Party. We need to build a political party of the working class, poor, and people of color. Obama and the Democratic Party are looking to capitalize as the lesser of two evils in November, in the same way that Bill Clinton did following the L.A. Riots in 1992. President Obama’s weak and empty comment on the Trayvon Martin case was satisfying for some, but the point must be stated: Obama and Wall Street’s agenda has led to the death of many Trayvon Martins around the world.
It will be the working class, poor, and people of color suffering under the American nightmare of capitalism and racism that will provide the revolutionary change that is needed. But they will need to develop a new body of leadership not tied ideologically or financially as is the black mis-leadership in the Democratic Party.
We need a militant and uncompromising movement organized around a program that speaks to the needs of the 99 percent. Only through militant social struggle based on true human cooperation, solidarity, and democratic socialism can we finally begin to destroy the edifice of racial and class oppression that U.S. capitalism is built upon.
Socialist Alternative, P.O. Box 45343, Seattle WA 98145
Phone: (206)526-7185
Comments? Suggestions for improving our web page? Please email info@SocialistAlternative
A Cry for Freedom - The Struggle Against Racism and Capitalism
Apr 27, 2012
By Eljeer Hawkins, Harlem, New York
Troy Davis, Trayvon Martin, Anna Brown, Kenneth Chamberlain, Sr., Reika Boyd, and countless others have joined the long and gut-wrenching list of victims of police violence, vigilante justice, and state-sponsored lynching. These events confirm for working people and the poor, particularly people of color, that the declaration of a “post-racial” America after Obama’s election was a fallacy.
President Barack Obama has not alleviated racism. In fact, his administration has continued the attack on civil liberties, criminalizing dissent while presiding over mass deportations of immigrants. The Obama administration has continued the war on drugs, and defended strip searches for potential suspects. Taking over the reins as chief executive officer of the U.S. empire, Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan and dropped bombs on innocents in Pakistan.
At home, he has overseen the continued decay of a capitalist system that demands scapegoats for its failures, resulting in growing racist attacks, xenophobia, and sexism. This capitalist system is based on maximizing profits for a tiny – mainly white and male – ruling elite that relies on propaganda, violence, and divide-and-rule methods to maintain its power and influence.
Economic Wastelands
Workers and youth of color have been left with depressionary conditions since the onset of the economic crisis in 2008. The United for a Fair Economy annual report states, “In 2010, the median family income of Black and Latino families was a mere 57 cents to every dollar of White median family income,” (State of the Dream 2012: The Emerging Majority). The level of poverty has sent black and brown communities into a deeper state of despair in the richest nation in the world. According to State of the Dream, “In 2010, poverty rates among Blacks (25.7%) and Latinos (25.4%) were more than two and a half times the White poverty rate.”
In every major category –access to health care, housing, education, employment opportunities – workers and youth of color exceed the national average, lacking the basic necessities of survival and development. The working class, poor, and communities of color are the victims of Wall Street’s agenda. Black communities were especially targeted by the real estate industry looking to extract further profits by processing sub-prime loans. Workers and youth, particularly youth of color, are trapped in the vicious cycle of dilapidated housing, dead-end service jobs, extreme violence, and a failing – increasingly privatized – education system.
A History of Violence
This period has a historical link to the post-Civil War period, 1880-1930, of black criminalization, mass immigration, endemic lynching, poverty, debt peonage, and chain gangs that placed black people and the poor in a colonial status under the Jim Crow segregationist system. Black workers and youth were denied their humanity, unworthy of help, evil, and deemed biologically prone to criminality. These ideas were developed by the white ruling elite and their institutions to extract super-profits from Black labor and to perpetuate a “divide and rule” policy.
This fostered an inferiority complex among black people and cultivated a false superiority complex for those defined as white based on skin color, despite also being exploited as workers and poor people. By dividing the working class and poor along racial and class lines, the white ruling elite prevented united struggle while extracting their extra pound of flesh through the exploitation of cheap black labor. While segregation is a thing of the past, and there have been steps forward in the fight against racism, the capitalist system continues and dominates the realm of ideas.
What flows from this is the present-day stereotyping, profiling, and denial of humanity for the outcast “other” black, and now also Latino, Asians, Muslim etc., who are to be watched, contained, and controlled. This is the American reality that still remains today.
An April 6 Gallup/USA Today poll states, “51 percent of Black people said Zimmerman is ‘definitely guilty,’ while only 10 percent of White people believe he’s guilty,” (newsone.com).
The New Jim Crow
Alongside oppression must come subjugation. The Stop and Frisk New York Police Department (NYPD) policing tactic from 2004-2011 has targeted four million working people, poor, and youth of color in the NYPD’s insidious system of criminalizing black and Latino workers and youth. Blacks and Latinos combined make up 87% of those stopped, beginning a dizzying whirlwind into the criminal justice system that could cost them their jobs and homes, and brand them with the scarlet letter of “criminal.”
In 2011, the 685,724 stops by the NYPD can be attributed to ten precincts throughout New York City in so-called “high crime” and burgeoning gentrified neighborhoods. 88 percent of those stopped are found innocent of any crime.
There are 2.5 million prisoners in the U.S., predominantly black and brown; this doesn’t include 300,000 immigrants held in detention centers.
Fearing that worsening economic and social conditions will spur increased struggles, the police state apparatus has ramped up surveillance, social control, and human warehousing to combat increasing political dissent by workers and youth, most recently seen in the Occupy movement.
Chaos or Community: Los Angeles to Cincinnati
This April 29 marks the twentieth anniversary of the Los Angeles Riots that followed the acquittal of four police officers in the brutal beating, filmed on a camcorder, of Rodney King on March 3, 1991.
The ingredients of the explosion were police violence, racism, cancerous government neglect, poverty, shifts in industry, labor market competition, and the arrival of new, non-white immigrants, resulting in interethnic and cultural animosity. The not guilty verdict was the match that ignited the dynamite of frustration that would last for four days. It would be nine years later, in 2001, that another city would erupt: Cincinnati.
The response to Trayvon Martin’s death at the hands of the self-appointed neighborhood watch patroller and son of a retired state Supreme Court magistrate, George Zimmerman, has been powerful and inspiring. It was through social media, black radio, and the Martin family that Trayvon has become known to the world. Trayvon has become our generation’s Emmett Till. Emmett Till was lynched and brutally beaten in 1955 for allegedly whistling at a white woman. The fourteen-year-old black youth from Chicago was visiting family in Mississippi. The Emmett Till lynching was a major factor in launching the modern day civil rights movement.
Independent organized demonstrations throughout the country consisting of families and children, and solidarity messages of support globally, have highlighted collective action and the fury of working people and people of color that another black boy was gunned down like an animal in the street. This spontaneous movement has expressed downright disgust with the “Stand Your Ground” corporate legislation, the police, and the judicial cover-up to protect George Zimmerman from arrest. Mass pressure forced Florida district attorney and special prosecutor Angela Corey to arrest and charge George Zimmerman with second-degree murder.
The question that stands before our communities is: If justice is not served, will we see a replay of the events in L.A. or Cincinnati, or can we direct this anger into a powerful movement for liberation? If we stop our grassroots organizing, a Los Angeles or Cincinnati explosion will surely take place. We must keep in mind that the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, with its platform of economic justice, was born in October 1966 after the Watts Riots of 1965. The time is now to construct independent community organizations that will fight back against racial and class oppression, organizing block by block and school by school.
A New Vision Must Be Forged
“Our objective is complete freedom, complete justice, complete equality, by any means necessary.” -Malcolm X, December 20, 1964
If this is to be our Emmett Till moment, we must build a sustained movement of social struggle for economic justice, social uplift, and political independence - ending the abusive relationship with the two-party system, particularly with the Democratic Party. We need to build a political party of the working class, poor, and people of color. Obama and the Democratic Party are looking to capitalize as the lesser of two evils in November, in the same way that Bill Clinton did following the L.A. Riots in 1992. President Obama’s weak and empty comment on the Trayvon Martin case was satisfying for some, but the point must be stated: Obama and Wall Street’s agenda has led to the death of many Trayvon Martins around the world.
It will be the working class, poor, and people of color suffering under the American nightmare of capitalism and racism that will provide the revolutionary change that is needed. But they will need to develop a new body of leadership not tied ideologically or financially as is the black mis-leadership in the Democratic Party.
We need a militant and uncompromising movement organized around a program that speaks to the needs of the 99 percent. Only through militant social struggle based on true human cooperation, solidarity, and democratic socialism can we finally begin to destroy the edifice of racial and class oppression that U.S. capitalism is built upon.
Socialist Alternative, P.O. Box 45343, Seattle WA 98145
Phone: (206)526-7185
Comments? Suggestions for improving our web page? Please email info@SocialistAlternative
From The Pages Of The Socialist Alternative Press-Fighting Leadership Needed to Rebuild the Labor Movement
Click on the headline to link to the Socialist Alternative (CWI) website.
Fighting Leadership Needed to Rebuild the Labor Movement
Apr 30, 2012
By Alan Jones
While we are allegedly in a “recovery,” mass layoffs and corporate bankruptcies are occurring in sector after sector of the workforce, including the postal service, American Airlines, Archer Daniels Midland, Kodak, and Procter & Gamble. Unemployment remains at a staggering 24 million when part-timers who want full-time work are included.
While the mass media is screaming about employment gains, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that there has been a net loss of over 5 million jobs since the financial crash of 2008. Poverty and near-poverty rates have reached record levels across the country while bosses place wages and benefits on the chopping block.
Labor unions are facing a vicious attack on an unprecedented scale not only by Republicans, but also by Democrats in Congress and many statehouses. 2011 saw right-wing governors in Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio attempt to pass legislation to strip the unions of collective bargaining rights. In Congress, prominent Republicans have called for the abolition of the National Labor Relations Board, which oversees union representation elections and labor laws.
In January of this year, the unionization rate fell to 11.8% of the workforce – from 35% in the 1950s – with only 6.9% of workers in the private sector and 37% of public sector workers belonging to a union. Last year, the number of unionized public sector workers surpassed the number of unionized private sector workers for the first time.
In the auto industry, where longtime union workers are making $29 per hour with defined benefit pensions, new union hires are now making $14 per hour with defined contribution pensions and contracts that do not allow for pay to increase beyond $19 per hour. This represents a new pattern where union and non-union plants are now cutting wages and benefits across the board. Many corporations are moving production from Canadian factories and plants into the U.S. to take advantage of the low wages.
In the public sector, the fiscal crisis of several states has opened the door for a savage attack on workers, with nurses, teachers, fire fighters, government workers, and bus drivers accused of being “privileged.” In the last year there have been huge attacks, especially by Republican governors and legislatures, attempting to strip workers of collective bargaining rights – and often succeeding.
While the unions were successful in repealing the legislation in Ohio, many other states, including Indiana in February, have recently passed anti-union “right to work” laws, with more coming up in states like Minnesota, New Hampshire, and West Virginia. The so-called “right to work” laws, now enacted in 21 states, enable employees covered by private sector contracts to opt out of union membership and dues payments, severely undermining the unions.
While polls show that unions continue to be popular with workers, unionizing efforts have been largely dropped by both the AFL-CIO and the Change to Win federations who, despite the fact that they have over 16 million members and huge resources, have been largely ineffective, mostly concentrating on voter registrations for the Democrats. (See the page 3 article on the AFL-CIO’s endorsement of Obama.)
Occupy Enters the Scene
The Occupy movement has played an important role in mobilizing street protests and exposing the policies of Wall Street and corporate America. It also played an important role in supporting the struggles of the longshore workers in Longview, WA and the Los Angeles port drivers, and in building other West Coast port actions, including the shutdown of the port of Oakland in December of last year.
Although Occupy activists should not work unilaterally and need to find a way of coordinating better with union members and other workers, these actions have helped put the idea of mass, determined, militant collective action – traditions from the 1930s labor struggles that built the unions – back into the discussion about how to fight the bosses.
The protests immediately provoked a major debate in the movement and created tensions – within AFL-CIO West Coast labor councils as well as the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) – between those that supported the bold action and those that opposed it.
In many ways, the Occupy movement has provided a challenge to the conservative union leaders in the U.S., who have been observing the attacks on workers without lifting a finger to organize an effective fight-back. The Occupy movement has inspired a new generation of young people who want to build a dynamic, powerful movement of working people, relying on our power to protest, organize, and disrupt business as usual.
This vision is not shared by most union leaders today, whose conservative outlook has been shaped by a period of huge setbacks for labor as well as by salaries and benefits that are 5 to 10 times those of an average union member. For example, AFSCME president Gerald McEntee took home $479,328 in 2009, and AFT president Randi Weingarten got $428,384 in salary and benefits. While the typical union member in the US made $48,000 in 2008, the number of union officials earning over $150,000 tripled between 2000 and 2008!
By failing to lead a generalized fight-back against attacks of the bosses over the last 30 years, the present leadership has weakened the whole tradition of struggle in the unions. More and more, the current union leaders are reduced to spending billions of dollars and mobilizing members to get Democrats elected – a party that has sided with the 1% again and again.
What is needed to reverse the situation for workers and the labor movement is exactly what the Occupy movement has demonstrated: bold, mass, militant direct actions and strikes that utilize the power of organized workers. This can rebuild fighting traditions in the unions and also inspire other workers to join unions.
While some labor leaders have supported the Occupy movement with some donations and organizing marches here and there, their support is still pervaded by the same old conservative methods and policies, with the aim of controlling the movement. This can be seen most clearly with SEIU trying to corral the movement into support for Obama and toothless, ineffective protests.
Potential Powerful Challenge
Despite the ambiguous and conservative role played by the leaders, an important section of rank-and-file union members and non-unionized workers is enormously inspired by and attracted to the ideas of struggle that have re-emerged with the Occupy movement. This shows the potential for building a powerful challenge to the conservative policies of the present union leaders and for rebuilding the labor movement on the basis of fighting policies and determined mass action: occupations, mass actions, and general strikes; organizing the unorganized; defiance of crippling anti-union laws; and building a mass workers’ party to defend the interests of all working people.
This possibility will only be fully realized if Occupy activists, socialists, and rank-and-file union members develop clear fighting demands to rally workers, at the same time systematically organizing inside the existing union structures to transform the unions into militant, democratic workers’ organizations and reclaim them from the conservative bureaucrats. This can be done by building mass opposition caucuses to rally around demands such as leaders making the same amount as the members they represent, campaigning for fighting policies, waging campaigns against concessionary contracts and budget cuts, and building a new political party of workers to end the hopeless reliance on the Democrats.
Socialist Alternative, P.O. Box 45343, Seattle WA 98145
Phone: (206)526-7185
Comments? Suggestions for improving our web page? Please email info@SocialistAlternative.org
Fighting Leadership Needed to Rebuild the Labor Movement
Apr 30, 2012
By Alan Jones
While we are allegedly in a “recovery,” mass layoffs and corporate bankruptcies are occurring in sector after sector of the workforce, including the postal service, American Airlines, Archer Daniels Midland, Kodak, and Procter & Gamble. Unemployment remains at a staggering 24 million when part-timers who want full-time work are included.
While the mass media is screaming about employment gains, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that there has been a net loss of over 5 million jobs since the financial crash of 2008. Poverty and near-poverty rates have reached record levels across the country while bosses place wages and benefits on the chopping block.
Labor unions are facing a vicious attack on an unprecedented scale not only by Republicans, but also by Democrats in Congress and many statehouses. 2011 saw right-wing governors in Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio attempt to pass legislation to strip the unions of collective bargaining rights. In Congress, prominent Republicans have called for the abolition of the National Labor Relations Board, which oversees union representation elections and labor laws.
In January of this year, the unionization rate fell to 11.8% of the workforce – from 35% in the 1950s – with only 6.9% of workers in the private sector and 37% of public sector workers belonging to a union. Last year, the number of unionized public sector workers surpassed the number of unionized private sector workers for the first time.
In the auto industry, where longtime union workers are making $29 per hour with defined benefit pensions, new union hires are now making $14 per hour with defined contribution pensions and contracts that do not allow for pay to increase beyond $19 per hour. This represents a new pattern where union and non-union plants are now cutting wages and benefits across the board. Many corporations are moving production from Canadian factories and plants into the U.S. to take advantage of the low wages.
In the public sector, the fiscal crisis of several states has opened the door for a savage attack on workers, with nurses, teachers, fire fighters, government workers, and bus drivers accused of being “privileged.” In the last year there have been huge attacks, especially by Republican governors and legislatures, attempting to strip workers of collective bargaining rights – and often succeeding.
While the unions were successful in repealing the legislation in Ohio, many other states, including Indiana in February, have recently passed anti-union “right to work” laws, with more coming up in states like Minnesota, New Hampshire, and West Virginia. The so-called “right to work” laws, now enacted in 21 states, enable employees covered by private sector contracts to opt out of union membership and dues payments, severely undermining the unions.
While polls show that unions continue to be popular with workers, unionizing efforts have been largely dropped by both the AFL-CIO and the Change to Win federations who, despite the fact that they have over 16 million members and huge resources, have been largely ineffective, mostly concentrating on voter registrations for the Democrats. (See the page 3 article on the AFL-CIO’s endorsement of Obama.)
Occupy Enters the Scene
The Occupy movement has played an important role in mobilizing street protests and exposing the policies of Wall Street and corporate America. It also played an important role in supporting the struggles of the longshore workers in Longview, WA and the Los Angeles port drivers, and in building other West Coast port actions, including the shutdown of the port of Oakland in December of last year.
Although Occupy activists should not work unilaterally and need to find a way of coordinating better with union members and other workers, these actions have helped put the idea of mass, determined, militant collective action – traditions from the 1930s labor struggles that built the unions – back into the discussion about how to fight the bosses.
The protests immediately provoked a major debate in the movement and created tensions – within AFL-CIO West Coast labor councils as well as the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) – between those that supported the bold action and those that opposed it.
In many ways, the Occupy movement has provided a challenge to the conservative union leaders in the U.S., who have been observing the attacks on workers without lifting a finger to organize an effective fight-back. The Occupy movement has inspired a new generation of young people who want to build a dynamic, powerful movement of working people, relying on our power to protest, organize, and disrupt business as usual.
This vision is not shared by most union leaders today, whose conservative outlook has been shaped by a period of huge setbacks for labor as well as by salaries and benefits that are 5 to 10 times those of an average union member. For example, AFSCME president Gerald McEntee took home $479,328 in 2009, and AFT president Randi Weingarten got $428,384 in salary and benefits. While the typical union member in the US made $48,000 in 2008, the number of union officials earning over $150,000 tripled between 2000 and 2008!
By failing to lead a generalized fight-back against attacks of the bosses over the last 30 years, the present leadership has weakened the whole tradition of struggle in the unions. More and more, the current union leaders are reduced to spending billions of dollars and mobilizing members to get Democrats elected – a party that has sided with the 1% again and again.
What is needed to reverse the situation for workers and the labor movement is exactly what the Occupy movement has demonstrated: bold, mass, militant direct actions and strikes that utilize the power of organized workers. This can rebuild fighting traditions in the unions and also inspire other workers to join unions.
While some labor leaders have supported the Occupy movement with some donations and organizing marches here and there, their support is still pervaded by the same old conservative methods and policies, with the aim of controlling the movement. This can be seen most clearly with SEIU trying to corral the movement into support for Obama and toothless, ineffective protests.
Potential Powerful Challenge
Despite the ambiguous and conservative role played by the leaders, an important section of rank-and-file union members and non-unionized workers is enormously inspired by and attracted to the ideas of struggle that have re-emerged with the Occupy movement. This shows the potential for building a powerful challenge to the conservative policies of the present union leaders and for rebuilding the labor movement on the basis of fighting policies and determined mass action: occupations, mass actions, and general strikes; organizing the unorganized; defiance of crippling anti-union laws; and building a mass workers’ party to defend the interests of all working people.
This possibility will only be fully realized if Occupy activists, socialists, and rank-and-file union members develop clear fighting demands to rally workers, at the same time systematically organizing inside the existing union structures to transform the unions into militant, democratic workers’ organizations and reclaim them from the conservative bureaucrats. This can be done by building mass opposition caucuses to rally around demands such as leaders making the same amount as the members they represent, campaigning for fighting policies, waging campaigns against concessionary contracts and budget cuts, and building a new political party of workers to end the hopeless reliance on the Democrats.
Socialist Alternative, P.O. Box 45343, Seattle WA 98145
Phone: (206)526-7185
Comments? Suggestions for improving our web page? Please email info@SocialistAlternative.org
From The Pages Of The Socialist Alternative Press-Lessons for Today: When a Socialist and Labor Leader Won a Million Votes
Click on the headline to link to the Socialist Alternative (CWI) website.
Lessons for Today: When a Socialist and Labor Leader Won a Million Votes Printer-Friendly
E-Mail This
Apr 25, 2012
By Emily McArthur
“In the gleam of every bayonet and the flash of every rifle, the class struggle was revealed.” So wrote Eugene Debs about his confrontation with violent police oppression while defending the right of workers to unionize for fair pay as a fighting union leader. This past year has seen many people – young and old, employed and unemployed – radicalized at the hands of “non-lethal” instruments of oppression: the sting of pepper spray and the flash of rubber bullets.
Debs’ response to an institutionalized disregard for the needs of working people was to tirelessly run for president on the Socialist Party ticket. 2012 marks the centennial of his most successful Presidential run, and there are many lessons to be gleaned from his campaign that stood for working people against the politics of Democrats and Republicans.
The years preceding the 1912 election season saw a newly globalized economy failing to meet the needs of working people. Textile workers in Lawrence, MA were working fifty-six-hour weeks for pay that kept them in tenement buildings that were openly referred to as “firetraps.” A doctor who examined many of the mill workers stated that, “because of malnutrition, work strain and occupational diseases, the average mill worker’s life was over twenty-two years shorter than the manufacturer,” which is a clinical way of saying that workers were dying for the bosses’ profit. In response to falling wages and mass factory closings, workers went out on strike to demand fair pay.
Globally, workers were striking in New York, Michigan, and Chicago, Illinois, emboldened by the strikes of coal workers across England, miners in New Zealand, and cross-industry strikes in Australia. The 1905 uprising of the Russian working class inspired millions worldwide as workers encountered the realities of capitalism: backbreaking work for starvation wages. With this backdrop, Debs ran on a platform that provided a real challenge to the “controlling oligarchy of wealth” and the “legislative representatives of the Republican and Democratic parties [that] remain faithful servants of the oppressors.”
Raising Consciousness
Across the American landscape that was having its resources and soil literally sapped dry by capitalist expansion, Debs tirelessly campaigned from coast to coast on his Red Express train. For the tired and hungry masses, Debs was a necessary amplification of their own voices. Standing on a platform in opposition to capitalist candidates Wilson, Roosevelt and Taft, Debs was able to bring the needs of working people – which had long been hidden away in collapsing tenements and dangerous factories – onto the national stage. The most tangible result of this third party presidential campaign was the wave of success in local elections: 136 cities elected members from the Socialist Party ticket.
Local working-class candidates were pushed out of obscurity and into state legislatures on the crest of a wave of consciousness. This wave was created by mass a mass outpouring of anger, and it was empowered by channeling support behind other Socialist Party candidates with a shared platform. The presidency of Woodrow Wilson was pushed further left by the growing politicization of the population in favor of child labor laws, anti-trust laws, and an eight hour day for railroad workers. These were all major platforms of Debs’ campaign which had successfully engaged and empowered important sections of American populace.
Relevance a Century Later
Today the two major parties offer a choice based mainly on social issues. Both will continue with the economic status quo that has meant foreclosure, hunger, diminishing social services and nonexistent job prospects for the 99% of America. Obama has gotten larger campaign contributions from Wall Street than any other preceding candidate, and Romney can’t go a week without a public gaffe showing his completely out of touch ignorance of the financial realities faced by the American people. The only candidate who openly speaks about the war is Ron Paul, and the overwhelming popularity of this antiwar stance has managed to blur over his otherwise racist, sexist, anti-worker agenda for many of his anti-establishment supporters.
With the looming elections of November, Democrats will likely run a lesser-evilism campaign, contrasting their stance on women’s and LGBT issues to the obvious bigotry of the Republican Party. However, with Democrats in office, the attacks on these groups have continued unabated. Debs publicly asserted during his campaign that, “I’d rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don’t want and get it.” Unfortunately, no electoral campaign this year has the high profile or clear working-class base that Eugene Debs had a century ago.
Internationally, the Socialist Party in Ireland, Socialist Alternative’s sister organization, is an excellent example of the kind of campaign we need with elected, accountable candidates who only accept the average wage of the people they represent. The three elected candidates continuously use their time in parliament to fight against austerity measures, question the agenda of bailing out banks before people, and demand quality social services for Ireland. This is possible in the United States, as well. In the wake of overflowing anger embodied in massive strikes by Verizon workers and the wide sympathy for Occupy protests, huge sections of the American populace realize that the two parties are not working for them.
The 2012 election could provide an opportunity to put the needs of working people on the stage with Obama and Romney, further exposing the inadequacy of these candidates and offering the option to actually vote for something we want and need. Socialist Alternative member Kshama Sawant is running for Washington State Senate, and Socialist Alternative will be supporting other independent left candidates throughout the country - including a left independent candidate for president - while building movements and putting forward a democratic socialist alternative to war, poverty, racism, sexism, homophobia and environmental destruction.
Socialist Alternative, P.O. Box 45343, Seattle WA 98145
Phone: (206)526-7185
Comments? Suggestions for improving our web page? Please email info@SocialistAlternative.org
*************
On The 100th Anniversary Of The 1912 Presidential Election- From The Pen Of Early American Socialist Leader Eugene V. Debs-
http://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/
Click on the headline to link to the Eugene V. Debs Marxist Internet Archive website article listed in the headline..
Markin comment on this From The Pen Of Eugene V. Debs series:
The Political Evolution of Eugene V. Debs
For many reasons, the most important of which for our purposes here are the question of the nature of the revolutionary party and of revolutionary leadership, the Russian Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 was a turning point in the international labor movement. In its aftermath, there was a definitive and I would argue, necessary split, between those leftists (and here I use that term generically to mean socialists, communists, anarchists, syndicalists and the like) who sought to reform the capitalist state from within and those who saw that it needed to be destroyed “root and branch” and new institutions established to create a more just society. This division today continues, in truncated form to be sure, to define the contours of the question. The heroic American pre- World War II socialist labor leader and icon, Eugene V. Debs, contained within his personal political trajectory all the contradictions of that split. As will be described below in more detail we honor Debs for his generosity of socialist spirit while at the same time underscoring that his profile is, in the final analysis, not that of something who could have led a proletarian revolution in the earlier part of the 20th century.
Debs was above all others except, perhaps, “Big Bill” Haywood in the pre-World War I movement. For details of why that was so and a strong biographic sketch it is still necessary to go Ray Ginger’s “The Bending Cross: A Biography of Eugene V. Debs”. I will review that effort in this space at a later time. For now though let me give the highlights I found that every serious labor militant or every serious student of socialism needs to think through.
If history has told us anything over the past one hundred and fifty years plus of the organized labor movement it is that mere trade union consciousness under conditions of capitalist domination, while commendable and necessary, is merely the beginning of wisdom. By now several generations of labor militants have passed through the school of trade unionism with varying results; although precious few have gone beyond that to the class consciousness necessary to “turn the world upside down” to use an old expression from the 17th century English Revolution. In the late 19th when American capitalism was consolidating itself and moving onto its industrial phases the landscape was filled with pitched class battles between labor and capital.
One of those key battles in the 1890’s was led by one Eugene V. Debs and his American Railway Union against the mammoth rail giant, The Pullman Company. At that time the rails were the key mode of transportation in the bustling new industrial capitalist commerce. At that time, by his own reckoning, Debs saw the struggle from a merely trade unionist point of view, that is a specific localized economic struggle for better wages and conditions rather than taking on the capitalist system and its state. That strike was defeated and as a result Debs and others became “guests” of that state in a local jail in Illinois for six months or so. The key conclusion drawn from this ‘lesson’, for our purposes, was that Debs personally finally realized that the close connection between the capitalists and THEIR state (troops, media, jails, courts) was organic and needed to be addressed.
Development of working class political class consciousness comes in many ways; I know that from my own personal experiences running up against the capitalist state. For Debs this “up close and personal” confrontation with the capitalist drove him, reluctantly at first and with some reservations, to see the need for socialist solutions to the plight of the workingman (and women). In Debs’ case this involved an early infatuation with the ideas of cooperative commonwealths then popular among radicals as a way to basically provide a parallel alternative society away from capitalism. Well again, having gone thorough that same kind of process of conversion myself (in my case 'autonomous' urban communes, you know, the “hippie” experience of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s); Debs fairly quickly came to realize that an organized political response was necessary and he linked up his efforts with the emerging American Socialist Party.
Before World War I the major political model for politically organizing the working class was provided by the Marxist-dominated German Social Democratic Party. At that time, and in this period of pre-imperialist capitalist development, this was unquestionably the model to be followed. By way of explanation the key organizing principle of that organization, besides providing party discipline for united action, was to create a “big tent” party for the social transformation of society. Under that rubric the notion was to organize anyone and everyone, from socialist-feminists, socialist vegetarians, pacifists, municipal reformers, incipient trade union bureaucrats, hard core reformists, evolutionary socialists and- revolutionaries like Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg who we honor to this day. The American Social Party that Debs joined exhibited all those tendencies (and some even more outlandish) of the German model. And as long as no great events acted to disrupt the “unity” of this amorphous formation the various tensions within the organization concerning reform or revolution were subdued for a time. Not forever though.
Various revolutionary tendencies within the workers’ movement have historically had opposing positions concerning parliamentary politics: what to do politically while waiting for the opportune moment to take political power. The controversy centered (and today centers around) whether to run for elective executive and/or legislative offices. Since World War I a very strong argument has developed that revolutionaries should not run for executive offices of the capitalist state on the principle that we do not want to be responsible for the running of the capitalist state. On the other hand running for legislative office under the principle of acting as “tribunes of the people” continues to have validity. The case of the German revolutionary social democrat Karl Liebknecht using his legislative office to denounce the German war effort DURING the war is a very high-level expression of that position. This question, arguably, was a little less clears in the pre-war period.
If Eugene V. Debs is remembered politically today it is probably for his five famous runs for the American presidency (one, in 1920, run from jail) from 1900 to 1920 (except 1916). Of those the most famous is the 1912 four- way fight (Teddy Roosevelt and his “Bull Moose” Party providing the fourth) in which he got almost a million votes and something like 5 percent of the vote- this is the high water mark of socialist electoral politics then and now. I would only mention that a strong argument could be made here for support of the idea of a revolutionary (and, at least until the early 1920’s Debs considered himself, subjectively, a revolutionary) running for executive office- the presidency- without violating political principle (of course, with the always present proviso that if elected he would refuse to serve). Certainly the issues to be fought around- the emerging American imperial presence in the world, the fierce wage struggles, the capitalist trustification and cartelization of industry, the complicity of the courts, the struggle for women’s right to vote, the struggle against the emerging anti- black Jim Crow regime in the South would make such a platform a useful propaganda tool. Especially since Debs was one of the premier socialist orators of the day, if perhaps too flowery and long-winded for today’s eye or ear.
As the American Socialist Party developed in the early 20th century, and grew by leaps and bounds in this period, a somewhat parallel development was occurring somewhat outside this basically parliamentary movement. In 1905, led by the revolutionary militant “Big Bill” Haywood and with an enthusiastic (then) Debs present probably the most famous mass militant labor organization in American history was formed, the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW, Wobblies). As it name denotes this organization stood as, in effect, the nucleus of the industrial unionism that would win the day among the unorganized in the 1930’s with the efforts of the CIO. But it also was, as James P. Cannon an early IWW organizer noted in one of his books, the nucleus of a revolutionary political party. One of the reasons, among others, for its demise was that it never was able to resolve that contradiction between party and union. But that is an analysis for another day.
What is important to note here is that organization form fit in, very nicely indeed, with Debs’ notions of organizing the unorganized, the need for industrial unionization (as opposed to the prevailing narrow craft orientation of the Samuel Gompers-led AFL). Nevertheless Debs, to his credit, was no “dual unionist”, that is, committed to ignoring or going around the AFL and establishing “revolutionary” unions. This question of “boring from within” organized labor or “dual unions” continues to this day, and historically has been a very thorny question among militants faced with the bureaucratic inertia of the trade union bureaucracy. Debs came down on the side of the angels on this one (even if he later took unfavorable positions on IWW actions).
Although Debs is probably best known for his presidential runs (including that one from Atlanta prison in 1920 that I always enjoy seeing pictures of the one where he converses with his campaign staff in his cell) he really should be, if he is remembered for only one thing, remembered for his principled opposition to American war preparedness and eventual entry into World War I in 1917. Although it is unclear in my mind how much of Debs’ position stemmed from personal pacifism, how much from Hoosier isolationism (after all he was the quintessential Midwestern labor politician, having been raised in and lived all his life in Indiana) and how much was an anti-imperialist statement he nevertheless, of all major socialist spokesmen to speak nothing of major politicians in general , was virtually alone in his opposition when Woodrow Wilson pulled the hammer down and entered American forces into the European conflict.
That, my friends, should command respect from almost everyone, political friend or foe alike. Needless to say for his opposition he was eventually tried and convicted of, of all things, the catch-all charge of sedition and conspiracy. Some things never change. Moreover, that prison term is why Debs had to run from prison in 1920.
I started out this exposition of Debs’ political trajectory under the sign of the Russian Revolution and here I come full circle. I have, I believe, highlighted the points that we honor Debs for and now to balance the wheel we need to discuss his shortcomings (which are also a reflection of the shortcomings of the internationalist socialist movement then, and now). The almost universal betrayal of its anti- war positions of the pre-war international social democracy, as organized in the Second International and led by the German Party, by its subordination to the war aims of its respective individual capitalist governments exposed a deep crevice in the theory and practice of the movement.
As the experiences of the Russian revolution pointed out it was no longer possible for reformists and revolutionaries to coexist in the same party. Literally, on more than one occasion, these formally connected tendencies were on opposite sides of the barricades when the social tensions of society exploded. It was not a pretty sight and called for a splitting and realignment of the revolutionary forces internationally. The organizational expression of this was the formation, in the aftermath of the Russian revolution, of the Communist International in 1919. Part of that process, in America, included a left-wing split (or purge depending on the source read) and the creation, at first, of two communist organizations. As the most authoritative left-wing socialist of the day one would have thought that Debs would have inclined to the communists. That was not to be the case as he stayed with the remnant of the American Socialist Party until his death in the late 1920’s.
No one would argue that the early communist movement in America was not filled with more than its share of political mistakes, wild boys and just plain weirdness but that is where the revolutionaries were in the 1920’s. And this brings us really to Debs’ ultimate problem as a socialist leader and why I made that statement above that he could not lead a proletarian revolution in America, assuming that he was his desire. Debs had a life-long aversion to political faction and in-fighting. I would agree, as any rational radical politician would, that faction and in-fighting are not virtuous in and of themselves and are a net drain on the tasks of propaganda, recruitment and united front actions that should drive left-wing political work. However, as critical turning points in the international socialist movement have shown, sometimes the tensions between the political appetites of supposed like-minded individuals cannot be contained in one organization. This question is most dramatically posed, of course, in a revolutionary period when the tensions are whittled down to choices for or against the revolution. One side of the barricade or the other.
That said, Debs’ personality, demeanor and ultimately his political program of trying to keep “big tent” socialist together tarnished his image as a socialist leader. Debs’ positions on convicts, women, and blacks, education, religion and government. Debs was no theorist, socialist or otherwise, and many of his positions would not pass muster among radicals today. I note his economic determinist argument that the black question is subsumed in the class question. I have discussed this question elsewhere and will not address it here. I would only note, for a socialist, his position is just flat out wrong. I also note that, outside his support for women’s suffrage and working women’s rights to equal pay his attitude toward women was strictly Victorian. As was his wishy-washy attitude toward religion. Eugene V. Debs, warts and all, nevertheless deserves a fair nod from history as the premier American socialist of the pre-World War I period.
Lessons for Today: When a Socialist and Labor Leader Won a Million Votes Printer-Friendly
E-Mail This
Apr 25, 2012
By Emily McArthur
“In the gleam of every bayonet and the flash of every rifle, the class struggle was revealed.” So wrote Eugene Debs about his confrontation with violent police oppression while defending the right of workers to unionize for fair pay as a fighting union leader. This past year has seen many people – young and old, employed and unemployed – radicalized at the hands of “non-lethal” instruments of oppression: the sting of pepper spray and the flash of rubber bullets.
Debs’ response to an institutionalized disregard for the needs of working people was to tirelessly run for president on the Socialist Party ticket. 2012 marks the centennial of his most successful Presidential run, and there are many lessons to be gleaned from his campaign that stood for working people against the politics of Democrats and Republicans.
The years preceding the 1912 election season saw a newly globalized economy failing to meet the needs of working people. Textile workers in Lawrence, MA were working fifty-six-hour weeks for pay that kept them in tenement buildings that were openly referred to as “firetraps.” A doctor who examined many of the mill workers stated that, “because of malnutrition, work strain and occupational diseases, the average mill worker’s life was over twenty-two years shorter than the manufacturer,” which is a clinical way of saying that workers were dying for the bosses’ profit. In response to falling wages and mass factory closings, workers went out on strike to demand fair pay.
Globally, workers were striking in New York, Michigan, and Chicago, Illinois, emboldened by the strikes of coal workers across England, miners in New Zealand, and cross-industry strikes in Australia. The 1905 uprising of the Russian working class inspired millions worldwide as workers encountered the realities of capitalism: backbreaking work for starvation wages. With this backdrop, Debs ran on a platform that provided a real challenge to the “controlling oligarchy of wealth” and the “legislative representatives of the Republican and Democratic parties [that] remain faithful servants of the oppressors.”
Raising Consciousness
Across the American landscape that was having its resources and soil literally sapped dry by capitalist expansion, Debs tirelessly campaigned from coast to coast on his Red Express train. For the tired and hungry masses, Debs was a necessary amplification of their own voices. Standing on a platform in opposition to capitalist candidates Wilson, Roosevelt and Taft, Debs was able to bring the needs of working people – which had long been hidden away in collapsing tenements and dangerous factories – onto the national stage. The most tangible result of this third party presidential campaign was the wave of success in local elections: 136 cities elected members from the Socialist Party ticket.
Local working-class candidates were pushed out of obscurity and into state legislatures on the crest of a wave of consciousness. This wave was created by mass a mass outpouring of anger, and it was empowered by channeling support behind other Socialist Party candidates with a shared platform. The presidency of Woodrow Wilson was pushed further left by the growing politicization of the population in favor of child labor laws, anti-trust laws, and an eight hour day for railroad workers. These were all major platforms of Debs’ campaign which had successfully engaged and empowered important sections of American populace.
Relevance a Century Later
Today the two major parties offer a choice based mainly on social issues. Both will continue with the economic status quo that has meant foreclosure, hunger, diminishing social services and nonexistent job prospects for the 99% of America. Obama has gotten larger campaign contributions from Wall Street than any other preceding candidate, and Romney can’t go a week without a public gaffe showing his completely out of touch ignorance of the financial realities faced by the American people. The only candidate who openly speaks about the war is Ron Paul, and the overwhelming popularity of this antiwar stance has managed to blur over his otherwise racist, sexist, anti-worker agenda for many of his anti-establishment supporters.
With the looming elections of November, Democrats will likely run a lesser-evilism campaign, contrasting their stance on women’s and LGBT issues to the obvious bigotry of the Republican Party. However, with Democrats in office, the attacks on these groups have continued unabated. Debs publicly asserted during his campaign that, “I’d rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don’t want and get it.” Unfortunately, no electoral campaign this year has the high profile or clear working-class base that Eugene Debs had a century ago.
Internationally, the Socialist Party in Ireland, Socialist Alternative’s sister organization, is an excellent example of the kind of campaign we need with elected, accountable candidates who only accept the average wage of the people they represent. The three elected candidates continuously use their time in parliament to fight against austerity measures, question the agenda of bailing out banks before people, and demand quality social services for Ireland. This is possible in the United States, as well. In the wake of overflowing anger embodied in massive strikes by Verizon workers and the wide sympathy for Occupy protests, huge sections of the American populace realize that the two parties are not working for them.
The 2012 election could provide an opportunity to put the needs of working people on the stage with Obama and Romney, further exposing the inadequacy of these candidates and offering the option to actually vote for something we want and need. Socialist Alternative member Kshama Sawant is running for Washington State Senate, and Socialist Alternative will be supporting other independent left candidates throughout the country - including a left independent candidate for president - while building movements and putting forward a democratic socialist alternative to war, poverty, racism, sexism, homophobia and environmental destruction.
Socialist Alternative, P.O. Box 45343, Seattle WA 98145
Phone: (206)526-7185
Comments? Suggestions for improving our web page? Please email info@SocialistAlternative.org
*************
On The 100th Anniversary Of The 1912 Presidential Election- From The Pen Of Early American Socialist Leader Eugene V. Debs-
http://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/
Click on the headline to link to the Eugene V. Debs Marxist Internet Archive website article listed in the headline..
Markin comment on this From The Pen Of Eugene V. Debs series:
The Political Evolution of Eugene V. Debs
For many reasons, the most important of which for our purposes here are the question of the nature of the revolutionary party and of revolutionary leadership, the Russian Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 was a turning point in the international labor movement. In its aftermath, there was a definitive and I would argue, necessary split, between those leftists (and here I use that term generically to mean socialists, communists, anarchists, syndicalists and the like) who sought to reform the capitalist state from within and those who saw that it needed to be destroyed “root and branch” and new institutions established to create a more just society. This division today continues, in truncated form to be sure, to define the contours of the question. The heroic American pre- World War II socialist labor leader and icon, Eugene V. Debs, contained within his personal political trajectory all the contradictions of that split. As will be described below in more detail we honor Debs for his generosity of socialist spirit while at the same time underscoring that his profile is, in the final analysis, not that of something who could have led a proletarian revolution in the earlier part of the 20th century.
Debs was above all others except, perhaps, “Big Bill” Haywood in the pre-World War I movement. For details of why that was so and a strong biographic sketch it is still necessary to go Ray Ginger’s “The Bending Cross: A Biography of Eugene V. Debs”. I will review that effort in this space at a later time. For now though let me give the highlights I found that every serious labor militant or every serious student of socialism needs to think through.
If history has told us anything over the past one hundred and fifty years plus of the organized labor movement it is that mere trade union consciousness under conditions of capitalist domination, while commendable and necessary, is merely the beginning of wisdom. By now several generations of labor militants have passed through the school of trade unionism with varying results; although precious few have gone beyond that to the class consciousness necessary to “turn the world upside down” to use an old expression from the 17th century English Revolution. In the late 19th when American capitalism was consolidating itself and moving onto its industrial phases the landscape was filled with pitched class battles between labor and capital.
One of those key battles in the 1890’s was led by one Eugene V. Debs and his American Railway Union against the mammoth rail giant, The Pullman Company. At that time the rails were the key mode of transportation in the bustling new industrial capitalist commerce. At that time, by his own reckoning, Debs saw the struggle from a merely trade unionist point of view, that is a specific localized economic struggle for better wages and conditions rather than taking on the capitalist system and its state. That strike was defeated and as a result Debs and others became “guests” of that state in a local jail in Illinois for six months or so. The key conclusion drawn from this ‘lesson’, for our purposes, was that Debs personally finally realized that the close connection between the capitalists and THEIR state (troops, media, jails, courts) was organic and needed to be addressed.
Development of working class political class consciousness comes in many ways; I know that from my own personal experiences running up against the capitalist state. For Debs this “up close and personal” confrontation with the capitalist drove him, reluctantly at first and with some reservations, to see the need for socialist solutions to the plight of the workingman (and women). In Debs’ case this involved an early infatuation with the ideas of cooperative commonwealths then popular among radicals as a way to basically provide a parallel alternative society away from capitalism. Well again, having gone thorough that same kind of process of conversion myself (in my case 'autonomous' urban communes, you know, the “hippie” experience of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s); Debs fairly quickly came to realize that an organized political response was necessary and he linked up his efforts with the emerging American Socialist Party.
Before World War I the major political model for politically organizing the working class was provided by the Marxist-dominated German Social Democratic Party. At that time, and in this period of pre-imperialist capitalist development, this was unquestionably the model to be followed. By way of explanation the key organizing principle of that organization, besides providing party discipline for united action, was to create a “big tent” party for the social transformation of society. Under that rubric the notion was to organize anyone and everyone, from socialist-feminists, socialist vegetarians, pacifists, municipal reformers, incipient trade union bureaucrats, hard core reformists, evolutionary socialists and- revolutionaries like Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg who we honor to this day. The American Social Party that Debs joined exhibited all those tendencies (and some even more outlandish) of the German model. And as long as no great events acted to disrupt the “unity” of this amorphous formation the various tensions within the organization concerning reform or revolution were subdued for a time. Not forever though.
Various revolutionary tendencies within the workers’ movement have historically had opposing positions concerning parliamentary politics: what to do politically while waiting for the opportune moment to take political power. The controversy centered (and today centers around) whether to run for elective executive and/or legislative offices. Since World War I a very strong argument has developed that revolutionaries should not run for executive offices of the capitalist state on the principle that we do not want to be responsible for the running of the capitalist state. On the other hand running for legislative office under the principle of acting as “tribunes of the people” continues to have validity. The case of the German revolutionary social democrat Karl Liebknecht using his legislative office to denounce the German war effort DURING the war is a very high-level expression of that position. This question, arguably, was a little less clears in the pre-war period.
If Eugene V. Debs is remembered politically today it is probably for his five famous runs for the American presidency (one, in 1920, run from jail) from 1900 to 1920 (except 1916). Of those the most famous is the 1912 four- way fight (Teddy Roosevelt and his “Bull Moose” Party providing the fourth) in which he got almost a million votes and something like 5 percent of the vote- this is the high water mark of socialist electoral politics then and now. I would only mention that a strong argument could be made here for support of the idea of a revolutionary (and, at least until the early 1920’s Debs considered himself, subjectively, a revolutionary) running for executive office- the presidency- without violating political principle (of course, with the always present proviso that if elected he would refuse to serve). Certainly the issues to be fought around- the emerging American imperial presence in the world, the fierce wage struggles, the capitalist trustification and cartelization of industry, the complicity of the courts, the struggle for women’s right to vote, the struggle against the emerging anti- black Jim Crow regime in the South would make such a platform a useful propaganda tool. Especially since Debs was one of the premier socialist orators of the day, if perhaps too flowery and long-winded for today’s eye or ear.
As the American Socialist Party developed in the early 20th century, and grew by leaps and bounds in this period, a somewhat parallel development was occurring somewhat outside this basically parliamentary movement. In 1905, led by the revolutionary militant “Big Bill” Haywood and with an enthusiastic (then) Debs present probably the most famous mass militant labor organization in American history was formed, the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW, Wobblies). As it name denotes this organization stood as, in effect, the nucleus of the industrial unionism that would win the day among the unorganized in the 1930’s with the efforts of the CIO. But it also was, as James P. Cannon an early IWW organizer noted in one of his books, the nucleus of a revolutionary political party. One of the reasons, among others, for its demise was that it never was able to resolve that contradiction between party and union. But that is an analysis for another day.
What is important to note here is that organization form fit in, very nicely indeed, with Debs’ notions of organizing the unorganized, the need for industrial unionization (as opposed to the prevailing narrow craft orientation of the Samuel Gompers-led AFL). Nevertheless Debs, to his credit, was no “dual unionist”, that is, committed to ignoring or going around the AFL and establishing “revolutionary” unions. This question of “boring from within” organized labor or “dual unions” continues to this day, and historically has been a very thorny question among militants faced with the bureaucratic inertia of the trade union bureaucracy. Debs came down on the side of the angels on this one (even if he later took unfavorable positions on IWW actions).
Although Debs is probably best known for his presidential runs (including that one from Atlanta prison in 1920 that I always enjoy seeing pictures of the one where he converses with his campaign staff in his cell) he really should be, if he is remembered for only one thing, remembered for his principled opposition to American war preparedness and eventual entry into World War I in 1917. Although it is unclear in my mind how much of Debs’ position stemmed from personal pacifism, how much from Hoosier isolationism (after all he was the quintessential Midwestern labor politician, having been raised in and lived all his life in Indiana) and how much was an anti-imperialist statement he nevertheless, of all major socialist spokesmen to speak nothing of major politicians in general , was virtually alone in his opposition when Woodrow Wilson pulled the hammer down and entered American forces into the European conflict.
That, my friends, should command respect from almost everyone, political friend or foe alike. Needless to say for his opposition he was eventually tried and convicted of, of all things, the catch-all charge of sedition and conspiracy. Some things never change. Moreover, that prison term is why Debs had to run from prison in 1920.
I started out this exposition of Debs’ political trajectory under the sign of the Russian Revolution and here I come full circle. I have, I believe, highlighted the points that we honor Debs for and now to balance the wheel we need to discuss his shortcomings (which are also a reflection of the shortcomings of the internationalist socialist movement then, and now). The almost universal betrayal of its anti- war positions of the pre-war international social democracy, as organized in the Second International and led by the German Party, by its subordination to the war aims of its respective individual capitalist governments exposed a deep crevice in the theory and practice of the movement.
As the experiences of the Russian revolution pointed out it was no longer possible for reformists and revolutionaries to coexist in the same party. Literally, on more than one occasion, these formally connected tendencies were on opposite sides of the barricades when the social tensions of society exploded. It was not a pretty sight and called for a splitting and realignment of the revolutionary forces internationally. The organizational expression of this was the formation, in the aftermath of the Russian revolution, of the Communist International in 1919. Part of that process, in America, included a left-wing split (or purge depending on the source read) and the creation, at first, of two communist organizations. As the most authoritative left-wing socialist of the day one would have thought that Debs would have inclined to the communists. That was not to be the case as he stayed with the remnant of the American Socialist Party until his death in the late 1920’s.
No one would argue that the early communist movement in America was not filled with more than its share of political mistakes, wild boys and just plain weirdness but that is where the revolutionaries were in the 1920’s. And this brings us really to Debs’ ultimate problem as a socialist leader and why I made that statement above that he could not lead a proletarian revolution in America, assuming that he was his desire. Debs had a life-long aversion to political faction and in-fighting. I would agree, as any rational radical politician would, that faction and in-fighting are not virtuous in and of themselves and are a net drain on the tasks of propaganda, recruitment and united front actions that should drive left-wing political work. However, as critical turning points in the international socialist movement have shown, sometimes the tensions between the political appetites of supposed like-minded individuals cannot be contained in one organization. This question is most dramatically posed, of course, in a revolutionary period when the tensions are whittled down to choices for or against the revolution. One side of the barricade or the other.
That said, Debs’ personality, demeanor and ultimately his political program of trying to keep “big tent” socialist together tarnished his image as a socialist leader. Debs’ positions on convicts, women, and blacks, education, religion and government. Debs was no theorist, socialist or otherwise, and many of his positions would not pass muster among radicals today. I note his economic determinist argument that the black question is subsumed in the class question. I have discussed this question elsewhere and will not address it here. I would only note, for a socialist, his position is just flat out wrong. I also note that, outside his support for women’s suffrage and working women’s rights to equal pay his attitude toward women was strictly Victorian. As was his wishy-washy attitude toward religion. Eugene V. Debs, warts and all, nevertheless deserves a fair nod from history as the premier American socialist of the pre-World War I period.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)