There is a basic lesson about capitalist (in)efficiency in this sad story.
by Rick Wolff
Banks are once again depressing the broader US economy. Its all collateral damage as they take care of their own business, making money and shoring up their balance sheets. This time the issue for them is how profitably to dispose of their accumulated homes acquired when they foreclosed on delinquent mortgages. They are selling those houses very cheaply, discounted well below prices for comparable properties, thereby depressing the housing prices for everyone across the nation. According to RealtyTrac, the online marketer of foreclosed properties, foreclosures 
accounted for 28% of all existing home sales in the first quarter of 2011. This weakens the so-called “recovery” and helps explain why the US housing market has already turned down again.
Here is the economic problem. When banks take homes because the owners cannot pay back the money borrowed to buy the homes, the banks have a problem. First, they now own an asset whose price is falling in most markets. Second, owning a home incurs expenses (maintenance, insurance, property taxes) the bank will need to pay. Third, banks make money by lending at interest, not by owning real estate; they must convert foreclosed homes into cash they can then lend.
Under the law, when a lender forecloses on a home owner, the lender can sell the home. The lender takes the proceeds up to the amount owed on that home. The lender must return to the foreclosed homeowner whatever portion of those proceeds exceeds what was owed to the bank. This creates a perverse incentive with bad social consequences.
To see the problem, suppose a bank has foreclosed on a home worth, say, $200,000 in today’s real estate market, that carries an outstanding mortgage balance of $150,000. If the bank puts the home on the market for $200,000, it may take months of waiting for the house to sell (incurring expenses for the bank). The bank can instead decide to speed the sale by offering the house at a discount from its actual market value, say, $175,000. At that price, the bank can still pay itself back the outstanding $150,000 owed on the house. It is the foreclosed homeowner who loses out by getting only $25,000 instead of the $50,000 if the home had sold for the full $ 200,000. It is also the broad housing market whose prices drop generally because of banks selling foreclosed properties at discounted cheaper prices.
According to RealtyTrac, the average US price charged on foreclosed homes when they are sold is 35% less than the price of a comparable, non-foreclosed home. In some states it is much higher: 53% in New York and 50% in Illinois, Ohio and Wisconsin.
The key point here is that normal, profit-maximizing business for the banks is once again bad for the larger economy. Before 2008, banks' profit-driven speculations in asset-backed securities, credit default swaps, etc. provoked the great crash and crisis of that year. Afterwards, bailout money poured by the government into banks was kept to help the banks recover rather than lent to US businesses and individuals to help them recover. Now, banks are taking care of their mortgage foreclosure business in a way that again damages the larger economy as they pursue their self-interest. Moreover, Realty-Trac estimates that it will take three years to sell off the inventory of foreclosed homes. That promises a long downward pressure on the US economy directly undercutting hopes for a broad-based recovery.
There is a basic lesson about capitalist (in)efficiency in this sad story. How convenient for the status quo that so few voices raise the obvious question: should we allow national economy recovery to be sabotaged in these ways?
from Rick Wolff's Blog
Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!
given the severity of the current round of budget cuts, it was hard not to feel as though some sort of apocalypse was actually underway...
by Billy Wharton
There should have been little surprise that the May 21st “Rapture” kooks were able to claim such a prominent place in the minds of so many New Yorkers. Sure, everyone understood that it wasn’t actually going to be judgment day. However, given the severity of the current round of budget cuts, it was hard not to feel as though some sort of apocalypse was actually underway, an economic one, if not one of the spiritual type. And, if the rapture was meant to welcome the “saved” to heaven, the budget cuts are designed to further extend the grip of the rich over New York City. The rest of us be damned – especially if we are not able to develop a political movement capable of providing a real challenge to the budget cutters.
Which Cut is the Deepest?
These cuts really do live up to the maxim that there is no more fat to be cut just bone. Take the public library system. Under assault by budget cutting politicians for years, the system reached a tipping point this week. The $199 million in cuts being handed down by Mayor Michael Bloomberg will result in 1,500 staff layoffs and will further reduce already shortened library hours. Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that Queens’s library branches will freeze the purchasing of new titles. Readers will be left to peruse the annals of the past or head out to one of the local Barnes and Noble branches that are increasingly acting as privatized spaces for the consumption of the marketable written word.
Simultaneously, the very instinct to read may be diminished further as neoliberal privatization marches forward in the education system. Charter schools are at the forefront of this effort, stripping resources and draining the brightest young people away from the public education system. For charter school mavens such as Harlem Children Zone’s Geoffrey Canada, the economic crisis of 2008 translated into a golden opportunity to rapidly expand his privatization effort. Canada and other charter school owners mobilized Federal and local political influence to open the floodgates for new charters and to further disable the public education system.
The firing of 6,000 teachers is just the beginning of the problems public education students and their parents will face. The announcement of cuts in funding to special education programs threatens to transform schools into little more than holding cells – one part in an institutional chain that leads directly into the prison industrial complex. Special Ed classes are slated to increase in size by 20% starting next year as a result of targeted cuts. High schools with separate Special Ed classes will increase from 12 students per class to 15 and those that place Special Ed students in regular classes will have to add 12 students per class instead of 10. These cuts will reduce the quality of instruction for those students who need it most and are certain to further demoralize teachers by pushing their tasks away from education and towards the disciplinary measures needed to keep order in crowded classrooms.
And the mainstream public education system is not the only target of the cuts. Adult Literacy and English for Speakers of Other Languages programs also face steep reductions in funding. Funding lines provided by the Department of Youth and Community Development are slated to be reduced by 50%, depriving many of the City’s community based GED and English Language programs of public funding. The result will be either the closure or reduction of offerings by these programs and the even deeper reliance on private sector funding. The abandonment of Adult Education by the public sector means that private philanthropic institutions will be able to further dictate the content and form of these programs. Much like their counterparts in the public education and public library systems, these vitals programs will become appendages to the broader ideological effort to place the logic of privatization and market-based evaluations at the center of society.
Strange Bedfellows
There has, of course, been a response that has produced some previously unlikely coalitions. The largest came on May 12th as a broad coalition of community organizations joined forces with the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) to organize a demonstration against the budget cuts that attracted more than 15,000 people. What made this demonstration different was the fact that the organizers proposed a clear target to plug the hole in the budget – Wall Street and the Banks. All told, more than 100 teachers opened street corner “classrooms” during the demonstration to send a unified message to protesters – “We must make the banks pay.” Proposals to make the finance sector pay its full tax bill were enthusiastically endorsed on May 12th and stand as a demand with the potential for popular support among all those who rely on public programs and services. The idea that mainstream unions and community organizations heavily reliant on private sector financing through foundations grants, would make such proposals would have been considered ludicrous just a year earlier.
Equally unexpected is the resistance put up by normally politically guarded National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Long separated from their radical contributions to the push for Civil Rights in the 1950s and 60s, the NAACP is now barely relevant to activist groups seeking to make social change. Yet, the rights group took the courageous step of a joining a lawsuit that aims to block 19 charter schools from “co-locating” themselves inside buildings currently operated by public schools. Co-location has been a key strategy employed by the charters as a means to squeeze out publicly operated competitors. The NAACP, as well as the UFT, understands this process as a part of the systematic miseducation of public school students, especially students of color.
For their trouble, NAACP became the target of a 2,000 person strong counter-protest organized by the previously mentioned Canada and other charter school owners. The demonstration was meant to show that the privatizers not only have the ear of powerful political allies like Bloomberg, but are able to mobilize popular support for their schemes. Strange days indeed, and a good reminder that radicals aiming to combat the cuts will need to clear through right-wing ideological lessons that have, after decades without opposition, claimed a space inside of popular common sense.
This makes the efforts of groups such as the Grassroots Education Movement (GEM) even more important. The recent release of their counter-documentary The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman stands as the clearest response the ideological assault of well-heeled school privatizers. Using the voices of rank-and-file teachers and public school parents, the film systematically dismantles arguments presented in the generously financed 2010 “documentary” Waiting for Superman. The Inconvenient Truth is still searching for a larger audience, confined, as yet, to circles of parents, activists and radicals who draw on it for energy to fight back against the privatizers.
What’s Missing? Moving Beyond Just Protest
The one piece that is noticeably absent from New York politics is any sense of broader goals for the future – an idea or ideas that move beyond just the defense of public institutions ravaged by decades of cuts and well past one-off taxation measures taken against banks and the wealthy. The lack of political vision comes as a consequence of the bankruptcy of liberal politics in the City, as liberals converted themselves into pro-market neoliberal politicians and left poor and working class people to fend for themselves.
The one political project still able to present alternative ideas is socialism. Or, more specifically, democratic socialism, a political philosophy that places human needs at the center of society and an economic system that calls for democracy as a fundamental principle of economic decision making. Both of these notions offer concrete political proposals badly needed by politics in the City, especially in this moment of budget cutting. Socialism has the ability to operate in two moments simultaneously – as a call for defense and resistance as well as a source for ideas about a democratic future.
But, socialism has been absent from New York politics for quite some time. This was evident in a recent article in the New York Times that examined three socialist groups – my own Socialist Party USA, the Democratic Socialists of America and the Communist Party USA – and could only marvel that each had managed to develop a web presence, missing the larger point about the critical need for a socialist inspired vision of the future to counter the bleak prospects for life offered by capitalism. Without ideas about how society might be transformed to place the great wealth generated by working people at the service of human development, the politics of protest and resistance will remain trapped in contexts created by capitalism itself.
More simply put, Democratic Socialism offers ideas that match the needs of the very people being targeted by the budget cutters. Where the privatizers see opportunities to open new markets, socialists understand the need for universal human rights to things like education, jobs and housing. While unionized workers are demonized as obstacles to balancing budgets, socialists seek to transcend unions by moving toward a system of democratic planning through worker and public ownership of business. And while corporations attempt to impose managerial discipline on classroom teachers and discipline students through testing, socialists see the bright possibilities for creating empowering classrooms guided by input and control exercised by teachers, parents and students. Socialism can help a protest movement shift from defensive measures to offensive proposals for a democratic society.
Overall, socialists strive for a world where, to borrow the words of the recently deceased Gil Scot-Heron, things like the “rapture” stunt “will no longer be so damn relevant.” Mobilizing the instinct to resist and combining this with the real needs and desires of regular New Yorkers can create a space for a new kind of democratic socialist politics. A politics of the heart as well as the mind, created through the political activity of poor and working class New Yorkers. A political force able to provide answers to the privatizers, the Bankers and the charter school owners. A political project whose absence from the New York City landscape has produced dire economic consequences.
***
Billy Wharton is a writer, activist and the editor of the Socialist WebZine. His articles have appeared in the Washington Post, the NYC Indypendent, Spectrezine and the Monthly Review Zine. He can be reached at whartonbilly@gmail.com.
Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!
we must guarantee employment for our residents, documented or not, and we must take action to make this happen
by Brandon Collins
Imagine a world where — instead of unemployment, under-employment, and poverty; instead of wages so low that people can’t afford to live where they work; and instead of 60-hour work weeks — everybody who wanted to work had a decent job, a living wage, prosperity, a 30-40 work week, and extra leisure time.
Sounds pretty good, right? How do we make it happen here?
Hint: It won’t be through tax breaks, or “business friendly” laws.
Another hint: It will be through an approach that puts human needs over the needs of business.
We do it by guaranteeing through law and by action the right of all residents to a job that pays a living wage.
First, a short analysis:
Our current economic system maintains a permanent level of unemployment and poverty. This is how a labor “market” works, simple supply and demand. Those who reap the benefits produced by a worker — the business owner — have a great incentive to keep labor costs down. But that’s not the only incentive. A more encompassing incentive is
built into a system based on having a market in human labor.
When workers go to work, they produce or perform work for a certain amount of money. They don’t call it a day and go home once what they’ve been producing brings in enough to pay for their needs. Workers produce a profit, that profit is the excess of the work they perform. Owners keep that excess and decide what to do with it. When there is a shortage of labor, the market demands that workers get paid more. When there is an excess of labor, wages go down and there is more unemployment.
Right now in this country, including Charlottesville, there is an excess of workers. This has happened for many reasons, but the bottom line is we have unemployment, under-employment, and people working 2 or 3 jobs. Now- one way to change this is through putting workers in direct control of the excess of their labor. This can be done by way of co-ops, being-your-own-boss, and democratizing the workplace.
However, we can’t do this legally (yet), nor would we want the state to be in charge rather than people. We can, however, change the nature of the Charlottesville labor market by guaranteeing a job at a decent wage for all city residents.
This would lead to an overall increase in wages for all workers in Charlottesville, and would also reduce the need for people to work 2nd and 3rd jobs, thus opening up more in-town positions for employment. The benefits of doing so could be immense: more home ownership, more family time, more leisure time, better health, less violence, more educational opportunities, increased city revenue, and the elimination of the need for poor folks to join the military, then kill and die in illegal wars.
But won’t employers just raise prices for customers?
One might think so, but here’s a quick analysis that suggests they won’t:
Because currently inflation-adjusted wages haven’t risen and productivity has remained the same (or even increased), the excess produced by workers has gotten bigger and business owners are getting more profit. When this is the case, one might think that the incentive to keep prices low will remain: after all, owners are still making more profit. It’s also important to consider that, in order for owners to do any business, workers need to earn enough to purchase goods and services — which, in any event, have been produced by the excess of their labor! The ugly truth of the old system is that owners have found a way both to make sure that wages stay low, and to enable us to be able to buy goods-
The magic word is “credit.” Credit is basically our labor stolen from us, and then lent back to us to buy the stuff we produced — with interest! In the current situation, however, credit is harder and harder for poor folks to get. It is also the case that in the current situation there’s an incentive for owners to keep prices down. I believe that if keeping prices down were the stated goal of city residents, then most businesses would continue to respect that, particularly those that might participate in a city-sponsored jobs program.
Despite all of the restrictions placed on the city by the state, and despite the codified law of market-based labor as the system in which Charlottesville must participate, I firmly believe that one of the most ambitious and necessary tools to move toward social transformation, democratization of the workplace, and the delivery of a modicum of human dignity and respect for those of us who do the real work and the real suffering in Charlottesville is to pass an ordinance that guarantees a job to any resident of Charlottesville, a job that pays a living wage — even for “tipped” wage employees.
Here’s how I think this might get started.
-We take an assessment of unemployment in Charlottesville, as well as under-employment. As we do this, we count heads, and take names.
-We simultaneously assess how many workplaces in Charlottesville pay a living wage ($11.44/hr or $4.40/hr for waitstaff).
-We open a city-sponsored “Jobs Center”.
-We work with the Virginia Employment Commission to ensure that the services that they offer can be obtained in Charlottesville, as there is currently no VEC office in town. That aspect will help with job searches and provide services for unemployment claims.
-As part of the Center’s mission, we invite all community business that pay at least a living wage to hire through the Center.
-The City of Charlottesville pays employees old and new a living wage for the many things that we need to accomplish. This includes greening the city, repairing infrastructure, and opening new parklands and gardens. The city begins a Public Works program so that, if workers coming to the Jobs Center can’t find work through a private employer, then they go to work directly for the city.
-As more people gain a living wage, more already-employed workers will begin to demand higher wages. Some will quit their jobs outright in favor of using the Jobs Center. Through this process, we will see an increase in wages across the board, especially if we are up front with employers about the City’s intention to guarantee employment at a livable wage. As wages increase, fewer workers will need to work 2nd and 3rd jobs, freeing up employment in the private sector.
-The city begins a program to give workers direct collective and democratic control over the work that they do. This would eventually take some of the burden off of the city as it transitions increasing numbers of workers into co-operative business of their own.
-As part of the Jobs Center mission, we train people and provide educational opportunities, including job skills and workforce development, perhaps through CATECH and PVCC.
-Many residents involved in social services and public housing could be directly employed by those agencies, especially since they often have in-depth knowledge of the communities that they serve and where they work.
-Restaurant workers are included in this process. $2.13 an hour is dehumanizing. We must demand at least $4.40/hour for tipped-wage employees.
-We keep accurate data on unemployment, under-employment, and wages throughout the process in order to maintain a program that works.
The long and short of it is that we must guarantee employment for our residents, documented or not, and we must take action to make this happen — through the private sector, through facilitating the creation of worker’s co-operatives, and by directly putting people to work improving our community.
At the turn of the last century, workers all over the United States began a movement for a 40-hour work week and an 8-hour work day. That concept was based on the notion that those hours should provide enough wages for a person or a family to live on. People were killed in the streets fighting for that idea. The “40 hour” part of the idea won the day, but the part that linked those 40 hours to fair pay has been lost. Employers do not hire for more than 40 hours per week, and, to avoid paying benefits, some refuse to schedule workers for more than 20 hours per week. Thus, many people go to work in 2nd and 3rd jobs. That is not 40 hours for fair pay, and it adds to unemployment. Unemployment adds to the welfare rolls, and then people are kicked off. This all happens because the system under which we base our society is built to keep things that way.
I believe that we must fundamentally change how our society works, and I fully believe that Charlottesville is a place where we can begin to make these changes. On City Council I will work hard to bring guaranteed employment to all residents of Charlottesville. I will base all of my decisions on what is for the benefit of the working class and oppressed people in our town. I further offer any and all help in labor activism of all sorts to demand workers rights, whether it is through local government, in the workplace, or on the streets!
Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!
Trader Joe's...is misinforming its customers in an effort to create doubt and gain advantage -- however short-lived -- in the campaign.
by Coalition of Immokalee Workers
Trader Joe's latest communiques on Campaign for Fair Food play fast and loose with the facts, show disturbing willingness to resort to innuendo, echoing darkest days of Burhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifger King campaign...
It seems that the longer Trader Joe's resists the Fair Food movement, the more its leadership -- from the CEO to the public relations department -- is determined to tarnish the company's reputation as an ethical, progressive grocer.
The latest public communications from Trader Joe's on the Campaign for Fair Food show a growing tendency to play fast and loose with the facts in a way that should be beneath a company that has won its loyal following on the basis of its ethical public image. Trader Joe's latest "Note to Our Customers," posted on its website, is full of head-scratching assertions of "facts" that are almost too easily debunked. To wit:
Trader Joe's statement: "We purchase (Florida tomatoes) through wholesalers who aggregate the product and package the tomatoes for shipment to our warehouses that supply our stores. These wholesalers have indicated to us that they have agreed to pass along an extra “penny per pound” to the workers who harvest these tomatoes."
Fact check: Trader Joe’s wholesalers have not agreed with the CIW to do anything. Over a month ago, two of Trader Joe's wholesalers called us, and we discussed various ways in which we might work together to achieve the purposes of the Fair Food Program. They indicated they would discuss each of the alternatives with Trader Joe’s, and get back to us. They never called again.
Trader Joe's statement: "Additionally, these wholesalers are willing to provide reasonable “audit” rights to the CIW or their agents to verify the pass through for all of their purchases."
Fact check: Again, Trader Joe’s wholesalers have not agreed with the CIW to do anything.
Given that an agreement requires two parties, and that in this case one of those parties is the CIW, it's almost unfathomable that a multi-billion dollar company like Trader Joe's would assert that agreements exist that -- and there's no other way to put it -- don't exist.
Yet the "Note" is a two-page compendium of equally puzzling and misleading statements, including a long, confounding passage on various provisions of the Fair Food agreement template that Trader Joe's attorneys requested from the CIW several months back.
We will be posting a comprehensive point-by-point response to the latest "Note to Our Customers" soon, because, unfortunately, while so much of the statement is patently wrong, Trader Joe's put a whole lot of misleading stuff out there and now someone has to debunk it.
From dishonest to downright dirty...
In the back and forth between corporations and social accountability movements, it is hardly uncommon for corporate communiques to twist the facts a little... or even, sometimes, a lot.
Trader Joe's efforts to paint a flattering picture for customers who question the company's position on the Campaign for Fair Food -- even when reality looks very, very different from the picture they are painting, as outlined above -- are pretty much par for the course when it comes to corporate "crisis management".
But what's decidedly not typical, and what so famously backfired for Burger King in 2008, is to go dirty, in this case to impugn the integrity -- with no facts to support the attacks -- of a farmworker community that has forged a new path for the Florida tomato industry. And unfortunately, Trader Joe's appears to be more than willing to employ the classic tools of innuendo -- oblique remarks, suggestive questions -- to imply that possibly, just possibly, the penny-per-pound funds are being mishandled.
You be the judge: In another recent Trader Joe's communication -- this one a letter, dated May 9th, to Fair Food activists in the Bay Area who had complained about their treatment at the hands of the store manager during a recent protest -- Trader Joe's Chairman and CEO Dan Bane wrote the following:
"We do not agree, however, to sign an agreement that requires us to pay directly to or negotiate our buying with an undefined activist middle group..."
So, according to the company's CEO, the CIW is demanding that Trader Joe's pay something directly either to the CIW or to some other shadowy intermediary.
It should go without saying at this point, but here it is again: The CIW is not asking Trader Joe's to pay a single penny to the CIW or to any other "activist group," and we have never asked any company to do that. The Fair Food premium goes from the buyers to the growers who distribute it to their workers through the payroll system. The payments, both in to the growers and out to the workers, are audited by an independent third party (as the Fair Food template agreement sent to Trader Joe’s makes clear). The money is never touched by the CIW or any other "undefined activist middle group."
The reason all this should go without saying is because the last time a company tried to claim that the CIW was enriching itself through the Campaign for Fair Food, here's what their CEO had to say when we finally reached an agreement:
"We are pleased to now be working together with the CIW to further the common goal of improving Florida tomato farmworkers' wages, working conditions and lives. The CIW has been at the forefront of efforts to improve farm labor conditions, exposing abuses and driving socially responsible purchasing and work practices in the Florida tomato fields. We apologize for any negative statements about the CIW or its motives previously attributed to BKC or its employees and now realize that those statements were wrong. Today we turn a new page in our relationship and begin a new chapter of real progress for Florida farmworkers." read more
Now let's return to the recent "Note to our Customers". The same web post that claimed that Trader Joe's suppliers had already reached non-existent agreements with the CIW also contained a passage questioning the breakdown of the Fair Food premium between the portion that goes to workers as a Fair Food bonus and the portion the growers can retain to cover the increased payroll tax costs associated with the bonus money paid to the workers.
[Quick refresher: The Fair Food premium is a surcharge of 1.5 cents per pound, with 1.3 cents going to the workers. The additional .3 cents is necessary for workers to receive a net penny per pound after a certain amount of tomatoes picked in the field are culled for size, damage, and appearance at the packinghouse. The remaining .2 cents goes to the growers to cover the payroll tax increase caused by the bonus. The 1.3 cents passed on to the workers is 87% of the 1.5 cent premium.]
That breakdown -- a standard part of the Fair Food program ever since the McDonald's agreement -- is clearly explained in the template agreement requested by Trader Joe's attorneys (clearly enough, at least, for eight other multi-billion dollar corporations and their armies of attorneys who helped write it and signed-off on it). Yet Trader Joe's not only feigns confusion in its web post, it then goes the extra step to ask the oblique question suggestive of foul play:
"The draft agreement says that “Trader Joe’s will require a Participating Grower to ‘pass through’ at least 87% of such Premium received from Trader Joe’s as additional net wage compensation for Qualifying Workers, using the Participating Grower’s normal payroll process.” We support the concept of getting the workers an extra penny per pound. We have no idea where or how 87% fits. We and our wholesalers are willing to pay the “penny per pound” but have no way to determine if such payment is actually getting to the individual worker. We wonder where the excess is supposed to go."
So it's starting to look like a pattern, and an intentional one at that. And the pattern is one of claiming that the money involved in the Fair Food program somehow goes missing, with shadowy activist groups or other unknown forces responsible for its disappearance. Trader Joe's knows better than that, but is misinforming its customers in an effort to create doubt and gain advantage -- however short-lived -- in the campaign.
Here's our advice to Trader Joe's: We would respectfully suggest that you drop the innuendo strategy before it goes any further. Bend the facts on the campaign all you like. We will happily debunk every misleading statement that your marketing department churns out, which will only make you look worse. But stop with the coy insinuations. As history teaches, that doesn't end well.
from CIW
Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!
In Spain, daily protests are rejecting the two party system and their attacks on public services.
by Matthew Andrews
May 23, 2011 - On Saturday, May 21st, protesters converged in Boston to support popular uprisings across the globe that are rejecting dictatorships, phony democracies, and the austerity measures they impose. Demonstrations began simultaneously at noon in Harvard Square, Cambridge, and Copley Square, Boston. The Harvard Square rally represented Iranian, Amazigh, Egyptian, Libyan, Moroccan, Syrian, Arab and Muslim community groups in the Boston area. The youthful crowd of about fifty protesters carried flags and banners representing their respective countries and movements.
With the aid of bull horns and boisterous voices from the ISO, protesters chanted for people to join in solidarity with the ousting of dictatorial regimes throughout the Middle East and North Africa.
A flyer being passed out read:
What started out as peaceful demonstrations in Tunisia and Egypt, has turned ugly and dangerous in Yemen, Syria and Libya. These are just three countries within the MENA (Middle East & North Africa) region fighting for their rights, hoping for a free, secure future. Iranians who have been protesting the fraudulent election of June 2009 which forced Ahmadinejad on them, have been severely suffering from the dictatorship of [the] Kahamenei regime since then.
We are protesting today in solidarity and support with the people of the MENA region; we protest here today to raise awareness, and help the voices of the oppressed to be heard. We are uniting to echo the voices of those who are living through terrible conditions but strive to have Democracy, Freedom, [and] Human Rights.
A similarly sized protest of Spaniards and their supporters in Copley Square called for solidarity with the May 15th movement, which like many of the new uprisings around the globe, is named after the date protests began there. In Spain, daily protests are rejecting the two party system and their attacks on public services. They are also raising deep questions about the structure, values, and priorities of consumer culture. Protests have reached such a level that they are stealing headlines from the May 22nd municipal elections.
Popular signs included “#spanishrevolution”, which is a also a key to following relevant discussions on twitter. Another sign read “toma la plaza” (take the plaza) which is also a Spanish language website, tomalaplaza.com, where protesters in Spain are coordinating and sharing information. Side by side in English and Spanish, the manifesto of a new broad unity formation, Democracia Real Ya (Real Democracy Now), was read to an attentive crowd on the steps of the Boston Public Library.
Included among the points made by the manifesto was:
• The priorities of any advanced society must be equality, progress, solidarity, freedom of culture, sustainability and development, welfare and people’s happiness.
• Democracy belongs to the people (demos = people, krátos = government) which means that government is made of every one of us. However, in Spain most of the political class does not even listen to us.
Politicians should be bringing our voice to the institutions, facilitating the political participation of citizens through direct channels that provide the greatest benefit to the wider society, not to get rich and prosper at our expense, attending only to the dictatorship of major economic powers and holding them in power through a bipartisanism headed by the immovable acronym PP & PSOE.
• The will and purpose of the current system is the accumulation of money, not regarding efficiency and the welfare of society. Wasting resources, destroying the planet, creating unemployment and unhappy consumers.
• We need an ethical revolution. Instead of placing money above human beings, we shall put it back to our service. We are people, not products. I am not a product of what I buy, why I buy and who I buy from.
On Dartmouth Street, a police truck with flashing blue lights kept an unsubtle eye on us.
The Spanish protesters then voted to wait for the MENA protesters who were en route to Copley Square in order to join forces. While many stayed and engaged in conversation, others lost patience and left. When the MENA protesters finally arrived, the combined numbers were not more than 70. But the unity chant, “We want justice, we want peace: Spain, Africa, the Middle East” re-energized everyone.
We were also briefly joined by a feminist march calling for abortion rights and the rejection of misogynistic culture. Chants of “One struggle, One fight!” briefly brought everyone together, but there was a lack of clarity about what to do next. After a few minutes the feminist group left while organizers of the merged MENA/Spain group attempted to mobilize a temporarily disengaged crowd to begin marching again.
Eventually the joint MENA/Spain group crossed Dartmouth Street, marched down Boylston Street, around the Boston Common, past Government Center, ending at Fanueil Hall under the bewildered gaze of mostly tourists.
With a final speak-out the rally concluded under the watchful eye of Faneuil Hall security forces.
The May 21st action was relatively small in comparison to the earlier rallies in solidarity with Egypt before Mubarak conceded power. But politically it was a breakthrough for unity to have common demands being made by a consciously international movement against multiple regimes, and an international economic and political system.
While we met many positive responses from people in the street, and very few negative ones, most onlookers seemed confused or indifferent. Many protesters bemoaned the media blackout which has kept people unaware of international events – especially in Spain, which is a society with many similarities to the US. During the show down in Madison between massive demonstrations and Governor Walker, solidarity demonstrations in Boston and across the country numbers in the thousands, joining Wisconsin's rejection of budget cuts and in defense of union rights. At these actions a rhetorical connection was made with the struggles in Egypt and Tunisia, but a real international perspective has yet to sink into popular consciousness.
International solidarity activists have shown that they can unite and create energetic protests with a politically sophisticated agenda. If these activists can create an organizational structure to sustain their unity, there is potential for joining forces with the mass struggles of native working class people. Such unity could inspire a more global and radical analysis of the economic crisis and the failures of US democracy, strengthening our domestic movement and ultimately providing more substantive solidarity to our brothers and sisters abroad.
from Open Media Boston
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!
Reich used military PSYOPS techniques to mold congressional and public opinion in favor of Reagan’s illegal Contra War to overthrow the Sandinistas
by Chuck Kaufman
May 31, 2011 - US Latin Americanist Cold Warriors and their far-right allies in the region kicked off a propaganda campaign in May to influence Congress and US citizens against Venezuela and fellow ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our Americas) countries. With declining attention being paid to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, neoconservatives and neoliberals want to turn our attention to rolling back social and economic advances in Latin America.
The campaign began with a Sunday, May 22, 2011, opinion piece in the Miami Herald penned by Reagan administration chief propagandist Otto Reich and continued with a Congressional briefing that he moderated on May 26. His premise in the Miami Herald article: “Dictatorships are being established in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua by an alliance of self-avowed ‘21st-century socialist’ leaders who utilize free elections to reach power and then set about destroying the very institutions of democracy that put them there.”
He claimed that ALBA, which is a trade agreement based on cooperation rather than competition, “has not only managed to survive as a retrograde movement in a modernizing hemisphere, but is now actively exporting its subversive model to neighboring countries.”
Background on Otto Reich
Reich knows a lot about subversion. As head of the Office of Public Diplomacy in the Reagan White House, Reich used military PSYOPS techniques to mold congressional and public opinion in favor of Reagan’s illegal Contra War to overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.
In a finding dated Sept. 30, 1987, the Comptroller-General of the U.S., a Republican appointee himself, found that efforts of Reich’s office were “prohibited, covert propaganda activities,” “beyond the range of acceptable agency public information activities….” He concluded that Reich’s office had violated “a restriction on the State Department’s annual appropriations prohibiting the use of federal funds for publicity or propaganda purposes not authorized by Congress.”
According to information compiled by the National Security Archive, a staff report by the House Foreign Affairs Committee concluded that “senior CIA officials with backgrounds in covert operations, as well as military intelligence and psychological operations specialists from the Department of Defense, were deeply involved in establishing and participating in a domestic political and propaganda operation run through an obscure bureau in the Department of State which reported directly to the National Security Council rather than through the normal State Department channels…Almost all of these activities were hidden from public view and many of the key individuals involved were never questioned or interviewed by the Iran/Contra Committees.”
Reich’s history calls into question his own democratic credentials, an issue which gained currency with his very public support for the June 28, 2009, military coup against democratically-elected President Manuel Zelaya in Honduras.
House of Representatives Briefing
The purpose of Reich’s Miami Herald piece was to call attention of the press and policymakers to a congressional briefing on May 26, in the Rayburn House Office Building provocatively entitled: “Legitimacy Lost: How 21st Century Socialism Subverts Democracy in Latin America.” The briefing, moderated by Reich, featured Ileana Ros- Lehtinen, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, fellow Florida Congressional Representative Connie Mack, chair of the Sub-Committee on the Western Hemisphere, and its ranking member Eliot Engel (D-NY), along with two panels of US and Latin American opponents of the democratic political and economic changes increasingly prevailing in Latin American elections.
By chance or design, on May 24, the State Department declared sanctions against Venezuela’s state-owned oil company for refusing to recognize US sanctions against Iran. Rep. Mack subsequently took credit for the sanctions.
The congressional briefing was sponsored by Americas Forum, which says it advocates for a “robust U.S. engagement within the Hemisphere.” An article on the organization’s web page headlined “Venezuelans could be forced to donate organs under 21st Century Socialism” reminds me of articles from my childhood with titles like “Communists Will Take Away Your Children”.
Hard-right former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar’s Fundacion Para el Analysis y los Estudios Sociales also co-sponsored, as did the Inter-American Institute for Democracy. Aznar's government posthumously granted a medal of Civil Merit to Melitón Manzanas, the head of the secret police in San Sebastián under the Fascist government of Francisco Franco (1936-1975). The Inter-American Institute for Democracy web site includes a report on a lecture they sponsored entitled, “BOLIVIA: The Path to a Plebiscitary Dictatorship”.
The Heritage Foundation and Hudson Institute, right-wing Washington think tank powerhouses also co-sponsored along with the Venezuelan opposition group Liberenlos Ya!, something called Secure Free Society which does not appear to have a web page, and finally the Center for Security Policy, which according to Wikipedia advocates a policy of "Peace through Strength," which "is notfor military might but a belief that America's national power must be preserved and properly used for it holds a unique global role in maintaining peace and stability."
None of the co-sponsoring organizations have what one would call stellar democracy credentials. All do hold in common authoritarian philosophies: the rule of elites under the hegemony of US leadership and of course, that democracy is inseparable from free market capitalism.
The speakers, led off by Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen, laid out a litany of complaints, half-truths and comments in the tradition of Arizona Senator John Kyl’s, “not intended to be a factual statemet”. The speakers proclaimed elected presidents Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, Rafael Correa, and Daniel Ortega as dictators. They reserved their strongest language for Chavez and worked hard to brand the word ALBA with a connotation approaching that of Al-Qaeda.
The attacks on ALBA would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that those making the charges hold positions capable of setting public policy and molding public opinion. ALBA is a cooperative trade agreement entered into by Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador and several small Caribbean island nations. Under ALBA, Venezuela trades oil to Cuba in exchange for Cuban doctors. It trades oil to Nicaragua in exchange for beef and black beans (which Nicaraguans won’t eat). Nicaragua trades beef and other food products to Cuba in exchange for doctors and literacy trainers. Cooperative trade is anathema to the neoliberal “free” trade ideology because it doesn’t force nations to compete and most importantly does not force down wages.
Ros-Lehtinen made the link clear when she used the briefing to criticize US “special interest groups” that stand in the way of signing free trade agreements, singling out the the Colombia FTA as an example. The congresswoman criticized the role that Chavez played (along with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos whom she didn’t mention) in the negotiated return of ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya. Under Zelaya, Honduras was also a member country of ALBA. Ros-Lehtinen, who vocally supported the coup in Honduras said about the likely return of its membership in the Organization of American States made possible by Zelaya’s return, “Honduras should not have been suspended and its return is long overdue.”
She went on to say about Venezuela that sanctions are “just the first step and more must be done.” She went on to say that Otto Reich “will be very involved in these efforts” and will take a more “active role” on trade, democracy and security. Since he is now a paid lobbyist, one wonders just what role Ros-Lehtinen sees for Reich?
The role she sees for the master propagandist may have been revealed in Reich’s remarks following hers. He called ALBA an “ideology” and a “threat to democracy.” He said the “dictatorships” are trying to spread their ideology to other Latin American countries. Reich, who is an expert in the “Big Lie” technique perfected in his namesake, the Third Reich, called for the US to take more of a role in “ending ALBA” because, he claimed, “ALBA exiles or imprisons without charges whoever disagrees with it.”
Most of the other panel speakers said the predictable things, usually without any evidence to back their claims. Notable though for one upping Reich was Joel Hirst, a Fellow on the Council of Foreign Relations. Hirst was Acting Head of the Office of Transition Initiatives in the US embassy in Venezuela from 2004-2008. In that position he had the responsibility for allocating funds to the Venezuelan opposition. In 2006, when I led a delegation to Venezuela to investigate US interference in that year’s presidential elections, we were refused a meeting with Hirst.
He accused the ALBA countries of supporting the doctrine of “asymmetric warfare”, which he described as guerrilla warfare, terrorism, arming children, contempt for the Rules of War and International Humanitarian Law, and “imperial” control. He predictably threw the FARC, Hezbollah, and Iran into the mix.
Carlos Ponce, the Reagan-Fascell Fellow at the mis-named National Endowment for Democracy, laid out the right-wing case that the presidents of Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Bolivia, though democratically elected, then proceed to break down democratic institutions in their countries. He used as an example Daniel Ortega’s winning of a ruling by the Nicaraguan Supreme Court that the constitutional provision against running for a consecutive term was void. However, the strategy Ortega used to permit him to run again is precisely the same as that used by Nobel Peace Prize winner Oscar Arias in Costa Rica which allowed him to serve run and win a second term. No one on the right uttered a breath of criticism when Colombian President Alvaro Uribe amended the constitution to run a second time. Uribe tried, and failed, to amend it again so he could run for a third term.
In the ALBA countries, Hirst said, “no one else can be elected because the current elected leaders have changed the laws.” This is an absurd statement. In these countries no one else has yet to be elected because the poverty reduction programs and economic and political democracy they’ve implemented have made the current leaders the most popular candidates in their countries. Venezuela has the most fraud-proof election mechanisms in the world – much more so than the US. It’s electronic voting complete with paper trail, thumb print verification and large sample recount system leaves little room for manipulation. There is no legitimate way that anyone can claim election fraud in Venezuela.
On Capitol Hill special interest groups hold “congressional briefings” virtually every day. Most are little noted nor long remembered. The “Legitimacy Lost” briefing is worthy of note only because Ros-Lehtinen and Mack hold powerful positions in the US foreign policy arena. The hearing was attended by a significant number of media representatives. The message conveyed is bound to be repeated over and over and to soon enter the mainstream press as “conventional wisdom.” That is the trajectory of the “Big Lie” propaganda campaign. It is up to people who care about true democracy and economic justice to counter the propaganda using all the communications means at our disposal.
***
Chuck Kaufman is a national coordinator of the Alliance for Global Justice. He can be reached at chuck@AFGJ.org .
from Upside Down World
Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!
Jack Layton's core virtue is his "practical orientation." These terms are code for saying that the NDP is not a threat to neo-liberalism.
by Alan Sears and James Cairns
May 6, 2011 - The federal election of 2011 drastically shifted the terrain of parliamentary politics in Canada.
With 39.6% of the vote, Stephen Harper's Conservatives won 167 of 308 seats in Parliament, meaning that they will now rule with all the power that comes with a majority government. The New Democratic Party won 30.6% of the vote and 102 parliamentary seats - nearly 60 more than its previous best result - making the NDP the Official Opposition at the federal level for the first time. Prior to Monday the NDP held one seat in Quebec; it now holds 58 of Quebec's 75 seats.
As for the once-mighty Liberal Party, it had its worst ever outcome both in terms of seats (34) and popular vote (18.9%). The Bloc Québécois, which has been the dominant force in Quebec parliamentary politics since 1993, was reduced to four seats. Two party leaders resigned within hours of the election (the BQ's Gilles Duceppe and the Liberals' Michael Ignatieff), while two others - Harper and the NDP's Jack Layton - claimed historic victories.
The Harper majority is a kick in the gut for those of us seeking a better world. It has left many of us doubled over and gasping for breath. The Conservatives will now push rapidly to implement their economic and social agenda, including unprecedented attacks on public services and public sector workers, as well as "tough on crime" measures and an even harsher immigration regime. The previous minority Harper governments were somewhat constrained by the need to get votes from MPs of at least one of the opposition parties to pass legislation. Now they have enough seats to pass whatever measures they want.
The Harper victory spoiled any celebration of the NDP breakthrough. And we have a lot of mixed feelings about what the NDP victory actually means. On the one hand, it is the best showing ever for a social democratic party at the federal level, and some really interesting people will sit as NDP MPs, including some with activist backgrounds and connections. But the NDP leadership is likely to use this opportunity to try to position the party as the alternative government in waiting, competent and committed to the responsible administration of capitalism.
As we get over the initial shock to our systems of the Harper majority, we need to begin building for a broad-based, militant fightback, in part by making sense of this drastic change in the political ground. That means discussing the meaning of the NDP breakthrough and its implications for the radical left. At the same time, we need to understand why the Tories won and what they are likely to do with their new majority.
Austerity in Response to the Global Slump
The agenda of the Harper Conservatives is pretty clear at this point. The new government's priorities are largely economic, cutting taxes to corporations and the rich while controlling the deficit by reducing expenditures. As Harper said in his election-night victory speech, "Our plan is to create jobs and growth without raising your taxes… to eliminate the deficit while growing the transfers to the provinces for health care."
Implicit in this message is a massive attack on public sector workers and public services, which is the only way to achieve these goals. Already, across Europe, the United States and in much of the Global South we have seen the deep slashing of public services and harsh attacks on the wages, working conditions and collective bargaining rights of public sector workers. Harper is going to bring that austerity agenda here and likely in a big hurry.
We also have a strong sense of the government's social agenda. The Tories are going to make the legal regime harsher, criminalizing the poverty that their economic program creates. Harper promised in his victory speech "comprehensive measures to reduce crime and make our streets and neighbourhoods safer." Statistics indicate that in general crime rates are falling. If people are feeling less safe, it is largely because the economic slump combined with the shift from stable full-time jobs towards more contract and part-time work and the erosion of social programs means that life really is much more insecure. The Tories want to redirect feelings of insecurity, suggesting that it is the criminal, the terrorist or the refugee who is the real threat to our well-being rather than the banker, the employer or the Tory cabinet minister.
On military and foreign policy, we can expect to see more of the same from the Conservatives: lots of help for Canadian multinational corporations, close cooperation with the US, opposition to governments in the South that challenge Western power even in minor ways, uncritical backing for Israeli apartheid and involvement in imperialist interventions.
There is also a very strong chance that they will try to use their majority to push through changes that undercut Indigenous rights and commercialize land and housing on First Nations' reserves. At this point it is less clear where they will go with their anti-queer and anti-abortion politics. So far, Harper has avoided dealing with these issues directly, only letting them out in fairly limited ways (for example, the prohibition on abortion in the mother and child global anti-poverty strategy, or when doing damage control in the wake of an especially bigoted comment from one of his MPs). The Right in Western Europe has generally buried those issues, focusing attention on the core economic strategy and brutal immigrant-bashing. Harper may feel a need to do something in these areas as a nod to his political base, but at this point he is probably too focused on a specific economic agenda to widen the scope of the battle.
Obviously this austerity regime will need to be challenged in the streets. Already this year we have seen amazing fightbacks mobilized in Europe, North Africa, West Asia and Wisconsin among other places. In Quebec, the anti-austerity movement took a huge step forward in the massive demonstration against the Charest government on March 12, 2011. Given Harper's majority, the only way to stop these attacks over the next four years will be protests, demonstrations, strikes and occupations. Our real power to change the world is in our capacity to mobilize, to act together and demand changes through action in the streets, workplaces, schools and communities.
But the call for activist mobilization does not mean we should simply ignore the major shifts in the terrain of politics in Canada that this election represents. The challenge of the present situation is to find new ways to build a much broader movement against the austerity agenda at every level of government. The existing radical left is much too small to stop these attacks alone, and it will take a variety of new movement-building approaches to develop the capacities to analyse, communicate and act together on a massive scale. It is sobering to remember that even the massive waves of protest in Greece, France or Wisconsin did not force the governments to back off their austerity measures.
The NDP surge presents certain openings for movement-building, even if they are not straightforward. It is not a case of confidently believing that the NDP will do the job for us, leading the fight from their improved position on Parliament Hill. But there are important possibilities raised by the NDP's success that the radical left should not ignore.
Assessing the NDP Surge
Understandably, there is considerable debate among activists about how to respond to the increase in support for the NDP in the 2011 election. Some argue that the NDP vote is not particularly meaningful and we should basically carry on with activism in the streets. These shifts are seen by some as nothing more than a new seating arrangement in the meaningless game of ruling-class musical chairs. Journalist Jesse Rosenfeld has written that "modern politics is not about the division in Parliament but about the division between Parliament and the street." From this perspective, it follows logically that our organizing should not be influenced by the distractions of the parliamentary circus.
Indeed, it is true that the basic economic and social agenda of government, focusing on austerity and withering attacks on the public sector, would be largely the same whoever won the election. This was clear even from the party platforms, which were very similar on core economic issues. It is even clearer when you look at what happens when people are elected to government office, which generally means that they assume formal control over the state machine that operates in specific ways that are deeply integrated into the broader capitalist system.
Parliamentary politics do tend to serve the interests of privileged groups, and genuine social change will only come through extra-parliamentary struggle. But that does not mean we can or should ignore what is happening in the parliamentary realm, particularly when a party like the NDP gains considerable support.
On the other hand, some on the left see the rising support for the NDP as a clear sign that people reject the status quo and want something different. On the morning after the election, Duncan Cameron, the president of rabble.ca, wrote that "the orange tide that swept Quebec… represents a direct challenge to the neoliberal orientation of the rest of Canada." According to Gary Engler, a BC trade unionist, "for those of us who believe in economic and social democracy Monday night's election offers a reason to hope."
These interpretations presume that we fully understand people's motivations for voting NDP. However, today's tiny radical left does not possess the formal and informal social networks to learn from conversations in workplaces, schools and neighbourhoods about why people chose to support the NDP in unprecendented numbers. At different times in the past, richer information about people's motivations for voting NDP would have flowed through the communication channels within the infrastructures of dissent built up over years of struggle. Today, our local left networks might tell us something about why friends and allies approached the election in a certain way, but we lack the breadth and depth of connections required to paint a fuller picture.
We do, however, know something about the claims the NDP has staked for itself in its own campaign rhetoric. The party criticized the Tory government for focusing "on the priorities of the well-connected, not the priorities of your family." It announced that "together, we can change Ottawa." Jack Layton played up his optimistic approach to politics, which he contrasted to the fear-mongering of the other parties. Mainstream political pundits made a big deal out of Layton's "cheerfulness." Whether the NDP actually offered something different or not, it certainly represented itself as an alternative.
The words of Liberal and Conservative leaders contributed to the sense that a vote for the NDP was a vote for significant change. As the NDP rose in the polls late in the campaign, Harper announced that the choice facing voters was now clearer than ever. You could vote for the NDP, which was "promising the moon," or vote for the Conservatives who "make only promises we can afford." Ignatieff warned that the NDP opposition will try "to move the country to the left." The president of the Liberal Party attempted to scare voters away from the NDP by reminding them that the preamble to the party's constitution commits the NDP to socialism.
But at the same time, the NDP has given other indications. In contrast to depictions of the NDP as a genuine political alternative, other people - both within the party and outside it - have emphasized the party's continuity with politics-as-usual. On election night, Jack Layton talked about change, but also about working with the Harper majority: "I've always favoured proposition over opposition - but we will oppose the government when it's off-track." The suggestion that the brutal Harper agenda could be in any way "on-track" is startling to anyone who voted for change.
The morning after the election, two former NDP leaders were interviewed on CBC Radio and celebrated the NDP's ability to fit within the current system. Stephen Lewis, who claimed the results had him "levitating", explained that the NDP is a "flexible social democratic" party. Similarly, Ed Broadbent argued that Jack Layton's core virtue is his "practical orientation." These terms are code for saying that the NDP is not a threat to neo-liberalism. They are ways of signaling that the party can be trusted to cut spending in order to balance budgets, just as the Liberals or Conservatives would.
During the campaign Layton made a virtue out of the records of provincial NDP governments in Manitoba and Nova Scotia, both of which have balanced budgets through government cutbacks. He also committed the party to providing "very stable and predictable conditions for business," and promised a "step-by-step, affordable and realistic" government, the kind that "businesses are looking for today." The business pages of the Globe and Mail (which endorsed the Conservatives during the election) quoted financial experts as saying that "international investors view the differences among the various party platforms as 'somewhat minor,' which is why any concerns about an NDP-led opposition - or the outside chance of a coalition government led by Mr. Layton - are minimal."
Although they are dispiriting, the mixed signals about the NDP should not lead radicals to simply shrug their shoulders at the party's surge and carry on as usual. Of course, we should not generate illusions that the NDP will resist the Harper agenda and change the world for us. We need to mobilize against the coming wave of austerity and for positive changes, but orient somewhat differently to the NDP than we might have otherwise.
Engaging with the NDP, Building Our Movements
The NDP surge started in Quebec, and that is where it reached its heights. That is important in part because protests against the austerity agenda have been larger there. The March 12 mobilization against the Charest government's austerity agenda was massive, with over 55 000 marching. The poll results for Quebec Solidaire, the left-wing pro-independence party many of whose active members are community activists, are in the 10% range.
It is reasonable to presume that there is some connection between the NDP support and the anti-austerity protests. The Parti Québécois and Bloc Québécois are both broad political formations whose members range from social democrats to conservatives, united by a commitment to Quebec sovereignty. It is likely that part of the draw of an NDP vote was that it seemed more specifically anti-austerity, in part because it was untried and did not have the track-record of disappointments that PQ governments have provided.
The NDP surge in Quebec actually puts the building of a pan-Canadian Left on the agenda in a new way. Such a Left must be committed to defending the right of Quebec to self-determination as well as Indigenous self-determination while uniting against the austerity regime we all face. The NDP is bound to encounter real difficulties around these issues. Former NDP leader Stephen Lewis told "Democracy Now" the day after the election: "They have rejected the separatist, sovereigntist instinct which has prevailed over the last two to three decades. And that is of great significance, because, as it were -- and this isn't metaphorical -- it brings Quebec back into Canada."
The crowing about the end of the Bloc has been massive in Canada outside Quebec, including an e-mail from Conrad Black read out on the CBC on election night. But there is no reason to believe that the national aspirations of the Québécois have simply disappeared, and it is hard to imagine that these issues will not emerge within the NDP caucus, despite the efforts of the leadership. Many of the Quebec NDP MPs are young, and many have roots in unions or activist movements. They are likely to feel pulled between the NDP leadership, with its staunch federalism combined with tepid anti-austerity commitments, and the political milieux they are grounded in, including their voting base.
Pre-election polls showed the NDP did particularly well among women. In Canada and elsewhere, women have tended to be stronger supporters of social programs than men, and to express voting intentions for parties more oriented to the defense of such programs. The NDP's parliamentary caucus includes a larger number of women than any party in Canadian history (40 of 102 MPs), as well as sizeable group of young people. In fact, the youngest ever candidate elected to Parliament is a 19-year-old NDPer from Quebec, who will be joined by several other caucus-mates who are under the age of 30.
The NDP also has elected some new members with important experiences in Indigenous leadership or activism. Cree leader Roméo Saganash will represent the northern Quebec riding of Abitibi-Baie-James-Nunavok-Eeyou from the NDP benches, and Jonathan Genest-Jourdain is now an Innu NDP MP representing the Quebec riding of Manicougan. Many NDP MPs have strong connections to unions, and the party as a whole has official ties to the trade union movement. At a time when public sector workers will be under attack, the NDP will be under some pressure to distinguish itself from the austerity consensus.
All of this is not a case for faith in the NDP, or for an electoralist orientation that would prioritize parliamentary maneuvering over militant activism and reduce protest to an attempt to sway legislators. Rather it is a case for engaging with the NDP as one part of building a broader fightback against the Harper agenda, at least for now, by putting demands on the party where appropriate and insisting that it take up our causes.
The NDP developed in a somewhat different way than the other parties, arising as a political voice for workers and farmers within the capitalist system and parliamentary democracy. As noted above, it continues to have particular links to trade unions and certain groups committed to social justice. At the same time, it has always been a pro-capitalist party, it has become thoroughly neo-liberal and it is now deeply committed to the austerity agenda. It is, in short, a contradictory political formation.
In the next while, there will be some opportunities to engage with the NDP as a way of strengthening movement organizing. Where possible, we need to be meeting with NDP MPs and requesting that they take a stand against anti-union laws, in favour of raising welfare rates, in favour of sanctuary cities, supporting Palestine solidarity (including boycott, divestment and sanctions) and fighting for the rights of Québécois and Indigenous peoples to self-determination. Some of the new MPs, especially in Quebec, have not yet been tamed by the party machine. That might create some openings. In cases where that approach fails (as is likely), where possible we need to be working with people in the NDP and the unions who might be willing to take motions to riding associations, union locals and conventions.
None of this is a replacement for other forms of activism, but it is a specific (and probably time-limited) possibility created by the shift in the political terrain. This election saw a slight increase in the Conservative vote, which, along with changing vote splits, provided that party with a solid parliamentary majority. There is a good chance that some of the more right-wing Liberal supporters opted to vote Tory as their party began to tank in the polls. At the same time, the election saw a dramatic increase in the NDP vote and in their parliamentary representation, which might indicate that those opposed to the Harper agenda have moved a bit closer to an oppositional stance.
Our challenge now is to build a militant and active opposition that is largely focused on mobilization in the streets, schools, workplaces and neighbourhoods. As a result of the outcome of the election, one of the tools of movement buildhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifing should http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifbe a focus on placing demands on the NDP and holding it up to its own claims to represent change. This is one of many different ways the radical left needs to work in order to reach out beyond our relatively thin ranks to mobilize the kind of mass movements that can grind the austerity agenda to a halt.
from Socialist Project
Alan Sears and James Cairns are members of Toronto New Socialist.
Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!
Scott-Heron's work channeled the militancy of the Black Power movement of the late 60s and 70s
The great African-American musician Gil Scott-Heron died on May 27th. Scott-Heron's work channeled the militancy of the Black Power movement of the late 60s and 70s, became an expression of the desperation of the heroin epidemic of the 70s and 80s and made contributions to many of other political movements including the anti-globalization struggle. Below, you will find a bio and some of his music. Rest in peace Gil.
Gilbert "Gil" Scott-Heron (April 1, 1949 – May 27, 2011)[2] was an American poet, musician, and author known primarily for his work as a spoken word performer in the 1970s and '80s, and for his collaborative soul works with musician Brian Jackson. His collaborative efforts with Jackson featured a musical fusion of jazz, blues and soul music, as well as lyrical content concerning social and political issues of the time, delivered in both rapping and melismatic vocal styles by Scott-Heron. The music of these albums, most notably Pieces of a Man and Winter in America in the early 1970s, influenced and helped engender later African-American music genres such as hip hop and neo soul. Scott-Heron's recording work is often associated with black militant activism and has received much critical acclaim for one of his most well-known compositions "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised". His poetic style has been influential upon every generation of hip hop since his popularity began. In addition to being widely considered an influence in today's music, Scott-Heron remained active until his death, and in 2010 released his first new album in 16 years, entitled I'm New Here.
from Wikipediahttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!
