Visions of Spring

This past semester was my first real dive into full-time student organizing. I had been a supporter and outsider for various campaigns on campus throughout my college career, but it wasn’t until Spring 2010 that I really went all out.

The PHEEIA (Public Higher Education Empowerment and Innovation Act), cuts to the SUNY system and tuition hikes were all on the table and the momentum behind activism in defense of public education motivated me and others to take up the cause on our campus. The semester was not as productive, campaign-wise, as we would have liked it to have been. It was an amazing breakthrough, however, when it came to growing as individuals, comrades and student activists. We learned a lot of lessons and gained a lot of experience which can only be obtained through trial and error.

I’d been contemplating writing a critique of our organizing for quite some time. Given that I am no longer a student, I can’t simply internalize the lessons and reapply myself next semester. That’s the job of those who are still on campus. What I can do, however, is convey the experience from my perspective and maybe provide some insight as to what I felt our strengths and weaknesses were and how activism at Stony Brook can improve in the future. I hope, too, that these lessons are not only applicable at one particular university.

---

In the Fall of 2009 I studied abroad in Mexico with the Mexico Solidarity Network. During this time I was in pretty constant contact with Brian Kelly who was instrumental in introducing me (electronically) to many of the key organizers I would work with the following semester. In particular he expressed Doug La Rocca as an individual with similar values to me as someone I should link up with once I returned to the States. I contacted Doug while abroad and we began to talk about mobilizing against tuition hikes and budget cuts, as these were topics that were particularly important to him. I was reading a lot of Gramsci at the time and was less concerned with what to campaign for rather than the act of campaigning. I saw the need for any political endeavor to bring together sympathetic souls, build an organizing network and also develop a social network of activists on campus who could mobilize together.

In January 2010 Doug and I met for the first time and began discussing the topic. Each time we met Doug had a stack of books on the subject from the library while I had a lot to say about different actions we could take and how we should structure the campaign. We hadn’t yet reached out to anyone. We spent the next few weeks meeting up daily, gathering information and discussing potential allies. Finally we decided to have an “official” meeting. We only reached out to a handful of people, but those people brought people and we were in the basement of the Stony Brook Union surrounded by fifteen sympathetic souls discussing the issue and strategy. We were more than ecstatic.

We decided to aim at March 4th as our first action, in solidarity with the international actions that would be taking place that day. Due to a number of scheduling conflicts and considerations, we decided that March 3rd would actually be optimal and so it was. We would spend the coming weeks writing op-eds for the university papers, constantly canvassing campus and using various social networks to get the word out. Optimistically we expected around 500 people. Realistically we assumed about 75 people would show up. In the end we were pleasantly surprised with a turn out of around 200 people. We had some speakers, collaborated with the Graduate Student Employees Union and bussed the mass of students to a press conference that the university president, Samuel Stanley, was holding just off campus to protest where the media was.

All in all the action was a success. The rest of the semester, however, we would be met with dwindling turn-outs, plummeting morale and an ongoing discussion both about vanguardism as well as action v. organizing…

I will introduce each point and then elaborate on all of them collectively afterward.

The University As A Means

From here on out I’m going to frame everything individually, as I can’t speak on behalf of anyone else. I saw the university as an end. I believed in the growth of a “student movement”, the development of a real campus community and successfully waged campaigns in coordination with other campuses internationally. I was looking at the university through sunglasses from ‘68, though. In my opinion, the days of the student movement (as we understand it) are over. Campuses are no longer cohesive communities where the students feel their stake and develop a sense of social responsibility. They are cliquey pit stops between adolescence and career wage-slavery, now. They are, in essence, a posse, a beer and a piece of paper. Given this shift, we must adjust our strategy. We should see the university, then, as a pit stop on the way to meaningful revolutionary organizing and action. The university is a means. It is a vehicle and not a destination.

The Vanguard

We dealt a lot with whether or not we were “too centralized” or acting as too much of a “vanguard”. We worried about it so much, in fact, that we tended to avoid delegating real responsibility. What I didn’t realize at the time (I was very worried about becoming a “vanguard”) was that having structure and organization is key to avoiding the formation of a vanguard. Power doesn’t simply disappear, it just gets redistributed. While there was no formal power to be had, social relations, schedules and very likely race and gender dynamics determined who commanded more authority, more respect and more influence in the organizing. Avoiding formal organization didn’t prevent a vanguard, it allowed a power “free market” to develop which was not only incredibly inefficient in allocating power (sound familiar?) but ultimately made for a lot of confusion and inefficiency in organizing.

Action v. Organizing

Prior to March 3rd a few New School “activists” showed up at Stony Brook to talk about student “organizing”. I was still pretty new, uninformed about the New School actions and since they seemed nice enough and spoke with authority I was pretty susceptible to their propaganda. These two have been characterized, since, as insurrectionists or “Peter PAnarchists” and those descriptions, in my opinion, are pretty dead-on. I, unfortunately, followed the trend of valuing action over organization as well as propaganda by the deed. I hadn’t completely gone off the deep end, but I definitely leaned towards action as a means of mobilization.

I got especially anxious and selfish towards the end of the semester. Seeing as I was graduating, I wanted there to be a “boom”. I wanted to go out with a bang. I convinced myself that some kind of militant action would spring the campus into consciousness and pushed pretty hard for a rooftop occupation of the Student Activities Center. Thank goodness it didn’t get off the ground. I don’t know how many others felt the way I did, or at least sympathized. I do know, however, that all of us not being on the same page didn’t help whatsoever and ended up stunting any real organizing we could have accomplished in the last month and a half of the semester.

Wrap Up

Given these (very) basic critiques, I’m going to propose what we should have done and what I believe should be done in the coming semesters for those folk who are still Stony Brook students. Acknowledging the fact that I was wrong about a lot of things only six months ago, I could very well be wrong about some of these things and not realize it until six months from now. The old rule applies here: take the best, leave the rest.

The first step is reevaluating our perception of campus organizing. Our focus should be the horizon, beyond the university, because that is the focus of most college students today. We shouldn’t be thinking about building a student “movement”. We should be thinking about building the movement. This entails smaller, easier reform based campaigns on campus with a focus on education, awareness raising, building social ties and radicalization. We should look at each new addition to the community not as solely an instrument for the current campaign but, rather, as a comrade and someone who will venture out into an institution post-grad and will influence that institution as well as their new social connections through the experiences they had and the radicalization they’ve gone through. This means that our biggest concerns should be developing a strong social network that isn’t merely a bunch of people with the same stake. This means making real friends (not just for the sake of making friends) and developing an environment through which new activists and sympathizers can feel less alienated, more accepted and have access to boundless resources (both social and material) which will assist them in becoming educated on core values such as complementary holism.

While the activism shouldn’t be tied to a formal student organization (for many reasons we discussed this past semester), there is a need for informal structure and organization. The drafting of a mission statement and a constitution can be helpful in clearly laying out boundaries and goals. The creation of committees and perhaps even some elected positions (with automatic democratic recall, of course) will certainly assist in delegating responsibilities and holding people accountable (which are two problems we had). Informal structure can also assist in the creation of a committee dedicated to suggesting and compiling various resources (videos, music and texts) and providing easy access to them for any and all student activists. Most of this is heavily influenced by my understanding of some of what OFS does. These aren’t original ideas, by any stretch of the imagination, but they are ideas that we could not implement given our vanguard-phobia.

The structure of this informal organization, too, should be fluid and complementary to existing student organizations. I don’t think that the informal organization should, itself, wage campaigns. Instead it should encourage participation in campaigns waged by student organizations such as the Social Justice Alliance, Stony Brook Freethinkers etc. It should aim to recruit from these student organizations, radicalize recruits and see those organizations become radicalized through the process. This will help create unity amongst disparate groups and strengthen the activist community at Stony Brook. Again, this is a concept that was introduced to me through OFS. I’m not providing unique ideas here. I’m only applying what I’ve been exposed to.

I’d like to answer any questions, hear any comments and internalize any criticisms so please feel free to leave feedback!

In March 2009, President Obama outlined his Af-Pak strategy, which sought as its primary goal to defeat al-Qaeda and its supporters in the Taliban (instead of engaging in full-scale nation-building). But, if the evidence is judge in these matters, what we’re engaged in is hardly a ‘counter-insurgency’ campaign aimed at defraying the political influence and operational capabilities of al-Qaeda.

Just last week, top U.S. intelligence officials claimed that there were somewhere in the range of 50-100 al-Qaeda members residing in Afghanistan and more than 300 in Pakistan.

Compare these numbers to the amount of U.S. and NATO troops (120,000 ISAF and 48,000 non-ISAF), Afghan National Army forces (120,000), Afghan National Police (105,000), U.S. and Afghan-allied private security contractors (114,000), and Pakistani Army (147,000) and Frontier Corps troops (60,000).

That’s a sum total of 714,000 U.S.-coalition forces (or a ratio of 1,785 coalition troops for every 1 al-Qaeda member in the South Asia region). I’m not sure what this kind of warfare would be called, but a counter-insurgency campaign aimed at stamping out al-Qaeda cannot be it.

What’s worse is that this enormous marshalling of resources is perpetually understated, often due to the dispersed nature of the multiple forces. While attention is paid to the size of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, the size of the private-security contractors, the Afghan National Army and Police, the Pakistan Army and Frontier Corps, and even the non-US NATO force largely goes unreported.

This is criminal. Knowing all the actors involved in the conflict, their relationship to Washington, and their force levels makes the 100,000 U.S troops in Afghanistan a phantom number. The South Asian region is now the most heavily militarized area in the world, and people need to know it – for its own sake and for the sake of sorting out exactly what strategic goals Washington has up its sleeve. If it’s not about al-Qaeda, then what is it about?

(Source: http://tylercullis.wordpress.com/)

The oil spill of the Gulf of Mexico seems to be the hottest topic, flooding Huff Post with new blogs, articles, and updates every few hours. Today, the spill has managed to find its way to Florida’s shores. Blobs of oil goop were found on the beaches early this morning. BP, who is responsible for the leak, is in charge of fixing this spill. The head of the company wants “his life back.” Well, Mr. BP president, we’d like our clear waters, wildlife, and jobs back.

Since the spill, thousands of animals, including endangered species, have been exposed to the toxic oil. Folks who fish off the coast, own restaurants nearby, resorts, and equity on the houses near polluted beaches are at risk. Humans who swim in the ocean are in danger of ingesting blobs of oil. The ecosystem is being destroyed by a man-used resource that, since seeping into the ocean, now pollutes water, air, and land. Quite the triple threat indeed. However, where are the revolutionaries? Where are the green technology graduates and businesses? Where are the engineers who could fix this plan? WHERE IS THE LEFT?

Hasn’t BP already done enough polluting for a few hundred years? This will take so much effort to restore the ecosystem, if possible, the jobs, the loss in equity, the ocean! Yet, they seem to be the ones fixing the problem. Perhaps Obama should open the floor to other companies, especially those with women as managers and in high roles. Perhaps we should be investing our money, time, and effort into green energy alternatives. According to one blog on the Huff Post, of the 19 green energy companies (there are over 50 different ones) that are in the NY stock exchange, only 5 have women in any high-ranking position. 5. Out of 19. And some only have ONE woman. Uno. Un. 1. Why not open the floor to a more diverse platform of opinions and ideas? Why invest in companies that continue to remain patriarchal?

Regardless, the two most upsetting items to me personally about the spill is that 1) They are not being charged (yet at least) for contaminating public oceans, damaging the ecosystem, and failing to figure out a solution 43 days after this whole mess began and 2) Many people are continuing to/will continue to use OIL instead of trying to organize efforts for healthy, cleaner alternatives. Groups should issue statements on the spill. People should boycott the company. Activists and the masses should be building up efforts for large protests, sit-ins, demonstrations, and rallies. We as members of the left should turn this accident into a solution to the countries dirty oil usage by fighting for less oil and more green energy. We cannot allow  this tragedy to go unaccounted for like so many other opportunities in the past. Let’s fight for a cleaner, better world!

The time I spent in Mexico City with the Frente Popular Francisco Villa Independiente (FPFVI), though short (four weeks), was incredibly eye opening and inspiring. By the end of the first weekend- having spoken with members of the community and given a very brief understanding of how the community was established- I wanted this for the United States (and everywhere for that matter).

I’ll begin by talking a bit about the Pancho Villa community I lived in (there are multipled communities around Mexico City), how they came to be, how they organize and what their aspirations for the future are. Next I’ll discuss the merits of collective neighborhoods and why I feel they’re incredibly important for a successful movement in the state-capitalist abyss that is the United States. Finally I’ll talk generally about how I see such a community being formed and organized in the states given the different cultural context between Mexico and our country. We cannot simply adopt the model, wholesale, that the FPFVI has established and expect it to run smoothly.

FPFVI

The particular Pancho community I had the pleasure of staying in was established through a land grab. A local capitalist who owned the mines in an area known as La Polveria had a large plot of land that was unused. The FPFVI, then a Marxist-Leninist student organization, brought together hundreds of families to converge on the land, begin to build temporary housing and fend off police. The state eventually gave in and left the families alone to do with the land as they pleased. Through skill-sharing the families learned to write grant applications and when the money came they spent it collectively to begin building homes. Today the community is surrounded by a protective fence, has beautiful homes and apartment buildings that families stay in for no more than 50USD a month.

In exchange for the low-income housing each family must choose a delegate to participate in neighborhood decision making. Families are encouraged to get involved (and most do) with volunteer brigades and committees which handle everything from basic maintenance to safety and security. The homes cannot be sold by the owners and none of the property is on the speculative housing market.

In this particular Pancho community no drugs or alcohol are allowed. Each of the over twenty communities are different and make rules collectively based on what each community sees as prudent. One community that we visited charged absolutely nothing to the families that lived within its borders. In the community I resided in police officers were refused entrance. A vigilante brigade made up of members of the community took that role and every individual in the community is given a hefty baton that doubles as a FPFVI flag for rallies.

When I left the community this past winter they aspired to open a primary school and a health clinic. The money they collect monthly from the families goes toward basic repair and maintenance and also towards future building projects within the limits of the community which are decided upon democratically by family delegates.

Collectivism v. Capitalist Alienation

While artificial unemployment, rampant poverty, environmental degradation and the objectification/commodification of everything under the sun are obvious examples of the evils of capitalism, capitalist alienation is perhaps the most pervasive and devastating impact that this hegemonic economic system has.

Capitalist alienation denies us our very claim to fame as a species: socializing. It motivates us to “specialize” our roles in society by fitting into categories and placing others into them, to objectify and therefore commodify people and human interactions and to communicate with one another superficially. It asks us to express ourselves through consumer “choice” and to value the self above society. It then dictates to us what the self can and cannot be. Whether we realize it or not, capitalist alienation leaves us alone and scared at the very core regardless of our outward confidence and the illusion of strong social networks. This is not to say that we do not overcome them through our relations with one another, but that without being mindful of the lens through which we’ve been groomed to view inter-personal relationships and without reclaiming our own (and respecting others’) agency we cannot form truly fulfilling bonds with one another. Capitalist alienation crushes movements before they can even begin to form.

Needless to say, then, that the first step in movement building is to break this alienation and provide a safe space for new social norms to develop. Where the cookie cutter homes of suburbia encourage an isolated and anti-social environment, collective neighborhoods encourage community and solidarity. Being low-to-no rent, it’s obvious that collective neighborhoods are an easy sell for working class folk who haven’t yet broken through anti-social norms. It pulls them in based on an individualistic need but then provides them a space in which to work together, share with one another and realize that it is not through biology that humans are greedy but through capitalist culture. It enables them to see the full potential of their humanness.

Hope. Solidarity. Vision. These are core gifts that collective living can and will provide people. It will free them from inhibition and fear and open their eyes to the harsh society we live in and also the fact that such a society is not inevitable or natural. It is constructed.

Vision

I honestly know very little about grant writing in the United States. I do know, however, that land grabs will be met with violent state repression and even frowned upon by citizens. The culture here favors the interest of the owners. That being said: any attempts to create a collective neighborhood must be done “legitimately”. I put that word in quotations because I believe that land grabs are entirely legitimate. It’s not theft, it’s reclamation. There’s no need, though, to antagonize norms in such a way. Such a project needs to be seen as neutral to the masses if not favorably. Why alienate people unnecessarily?

My view is that a core group of individuals (the more the better, really) need to develop short, medium and long term goals. Short term goals would entail initial fundraising to purchase land. Leasing land limits the ability of the neighborhood to keep prices low and to remain autonomous. Medium term goals entail deciding how to go about building on the land and through what processes we can begin filling vacancies. Long term goals entail how the community will be organized, what we’d like to see in the community (medical center, school etc.) and all the technical details regarding community policing, basic services like garbage pick-up and how to keep the community sustainable.

I’m really interested to hear what all of you have to say (specifically regarding the vision).

Hello! My name is Tomis. I work with the Manhattan Free School – a newly formed democratic free school in the East Village of New York City.  The following is an exploration into a day at my school.  Hopefully, you find this helpful in shedding some light on the practical importance of Free Schools amidst the social revolution we all seek.

All of the names have been changed for privacy.

Today started somewhat familiarly.  I walked into the classroom and noticed Jane (the new volunteer) sitting at the lunch table and Jackson (staff member) on the “research only” computer in the back right corner of the room.  As I took a step forward to approach the “sign-in” table, I noticed a dark, mouse-sized rodent scurry under the wooden-framed couch. Max, the black-haired and boldly adventurous gerbil had escaped for the umpteenth time.  Jane helped me trap Max in between two closet doors.  The past three or four times this has happened it took at least twenty minutes to finally capture the gerbil, however, this time I think we had him in under ten.  I am awful with the gerbils.  To me, they are rats that are just a bit cleaner, as a result of their domestication.  Jane did the dirty work for me this time.

Elise, one of our new students, arrived with her father and one year-old brother.  She gave me a tutorial on how to use her Leapster – a hand-held electronic learning device for kids.  A few minutes later, I found myself in the Studio (the name of one of our classrooms) writing letters on the chalkboard with Jamie (5), Rachel (6), and Nicholas (5).  Jamie had written Nicholas’s name on the board, but missed a couple of letters, so we began identifying capital and lowercase letters to each other. Eventually, we spelled Nicholas’s name correctly, and then each of their names next to his.

By this time, most of the students had arrived and we were about to begin our “morning meeting.”  The morning meeting takes place at 9:30, (or when a significant majority has arrived at school), and is spent making announcements, whether general or pertaining to the day’s activities.

After the meeting, I stayed to meet with Rachel (6) and Nicholas (5).  These two have been quarrelling and physically fighting on and off since the beginning of the year.  Last week it got so bad it was voted they would be sent home for the day and in the future would have to meet with a staff member at the beginning of each day.  These two are especially rebellious for a five- and six-year-old, and appear to need a significant period of time before being fully effected by the fruits of a free school environment.  I am positive that if I were a teacher in a traditional school, there would be no hope for helping these two “get along.”  Not only because there would be much more coercion involved in my relationship with them, but also because I would have no support from their peers.

Part of the free school “curriculum” is community and cooperation.  One aspect of this curriculum concept is what we are currently calling the “complaint committee” (I may propose a new name at a future school meeting).  Staff and students call meetings regarding individual behavior, rule breaking, or disputes between students.  Each day, a rotating group of students and staff meet as the complaint committee, and are responsible for resolving complaints that people have written. The committee reviews the complaint and involves whomever necessary to ensure that everyone is understood, and that a solution is being worked towards.

Daniel (11), Charles (17) and Jackson (staff) joined me for the meeting with Rachel and Nicholas.  Some five- and six-year-olds love to talk about how they feel and what they’re thinking, and those kids generally enjoy the school meetings.  Nicholas and Rachel, though, are generally uninterested in the meetings and are quick to get distracted.  It would appear that this renders the meeting powerless, but I have witnessed just the opposite.  When the child realizes that his or her behavior could result in a boring meeting where they must retell the event and contribute towards finding a solution – they tend to be more willing to work it out amongst themselves.

This is often the case with Nicholas and Rachel, and I am convinced that today’s improvement had something to do with the painfully long (probably fifteen minute) meeting they had to endure before they were free to play.  Whether brought on by the meeting itself, or the threat of the meeting, the goal is for them to be able to work through a dispute and fully understand the other person, in order to establish genuine cooperation.

By this time, the students had scattered and were all involved in one thing or another.  I noticed Steven (12) and Jackson (staff) were about to begin a game of chess.  Sadly, I had never played chess growing up and still had yet to learn.  I asked them to teach me how to play, so they turned their game into a tutorial.  I picked up the basics from watching them play one game, but the strategy involved still seemed hazy.  They were satisfied to only play once, so I announced that I would want another lesson the next time a game took place.

In the relaxed atmosphere at a free school, it is common for students and staff to teach and learn from each other, rather than perpetuate the absurdity that adults know everything and have nothing to learn from children.  The largest obstacle I must overcome to be an effective teacher is to suppress a history of complacency and cultivate an increasing desire to continuously learn new things.  The scars from my compulsory schooling are slow to fade.

After the chess game, I helped Jamie (5) and Rachel (6) identify a feather that they had found on the ground near the gerbil cage.  It was small and brown and I suspected it had come from one of our pillows that were stuffed with feathers.  The girls were concerned (and a bit excited) at the prospect of a bird having been inside the classroom.  We used the Internet to find that pillows are commonly stuffed with duck feathers, and then found some pictures of what they look like.  We compared them to the photos and realized the feather was most likely from our pillow.  The girls seemed satisfied.

While I ate my daily bowl of spinach and Italian dressing, a Journalism graduate student from Columbia University sat down and interviewed me.  She was visiting the school to gather information for an article she is writing on democratic education.  As lunch began to break up, a large group of kids made plans to go to the roof to play a game involving Nerf guns.  After being harassed for breaking the “no Nerf guns inside” rule, they decided to take them to the roof where they would be free to use them in their full capacity.

I stayed with the few kids that did not want to go to the roof, but soon everyone had chosen to make their way up there.  I joined the Nerf-gun-capture-the-flag game midway.  A series of strict rules were already established and agreed upon by both teams – it wound up being a combination of freeze tag, Capture the Flag, and Nerf gun melee.  I cannot speak for the rest of the students involved, but I certainly learned that despite my slender physique, I am out of shape and in desperate need of more cardiovascular exercise.

Soon after we returned to the classrooms, a parent of a new student came in to give a demonstration on how to play a didgeridoo.  He told us about his time spent in Australia, how he became interested in the instrument, and some of the culture of the aboriginals responsible for the didgeridoo.  As you would expect, some students were fascinated, some listened politely, and others could care less.  One student suggested we start a didgeridoo band and perform to raise money for the school.

The last half hour of each day has been voted to be set-aside for “quiet library time.” This is to help everyone wind down before the school day ends, and allow for total silence for any activities that require it.  The rule was created at our democratic meetings, which are held each Wednesday morning.  These meetings are in place to foster social democracy and allow for the staff and students to collectively create the rules and structure by which we agree to live.

Unlike the monotony of compulsory schooling, each day at a free school is expected to be different, vibrant, and fresh.  That is not to say there are not any daily structures or activities that carry over into consecutive days, weeks, or months, however, we are at liberty to evolve as seen fit by the group.  Most importantly, each student learns how to be responsible for him or herself and to the rest of the community.

The education of the young cannot be isolated from future society it will inevitably create.  If we want to see a world that values solidarity and social democracies, we must first give them a reason to – we must turn alternative theories into tangible realities.  The State approved curriculum does not stop with reading, writing, arithmetic and standardized tests, but becomes a full-fledged system of indoctrination – breeding high levels of cognitive complacency, spiritual insecurity, and political impotency.

Demonstrated in their ability to walk and talk without any external prompting, we know that humans are innately curious and natural learners.  An education of empowerment recognizes this reality and creates an environment that promotes self-knowledge and allows students to discover themselves free from fear.  It is fear that causes one to feel unsafe or insecure – acting as a cancer on their psychosomatic state.  Accepting and affirming people for who they already are, not who you wish for them to become, is the only way to fully eradicate the poison of fear from one’s development.

This was edited from a paper for a class, so sorry about the somewhat formal citations and all that:

Opponents, and even allies, of the labor movement have announced its certain demise defiantly in recent history. There is no doubt that they are, to a degree, correct. The labor movement of the 1930s no longer exists, nor do the powerful labor unions of the Forties, Fifties, and Sixties. However, Samuel Gompers, founder and first president of the American Federation of Labor, once said

“That so long as man shall live and have his being, so long as there shall dwell in the human heart a desire for something better and nobler, so long as there is in the human mind the germ of the belief in human justice and human liberty, so long as there is in the whole makeup of man a desire to be a brother to his fellow-man, so long will there be a labor movement.”

By this rationale the movement is not dead, and, as is my hope, never truly will be. Gompers’ is somewhat empty rhetoric, and one that we, as activists interested in creating a powerful labor movement, cannot put too much faith in, but it is at least reassuring. Yes, there exists a labor movement today, but it is weak. We have gotten to this point because of two major changes in the last forty years. The first is the result of globalization and American deindustrialization and all that comes with it, including things like massive outsourcing and a move from manufacturing to service jobs. The second is institutionalization of what can only be called a “conservative” labor union structure. Wrought with corruption and hierarchy, the AFL-CIO, whether or not they had the capacity to, chose not to fight on behalf of workers’ rights, but, instead, tried to hold on to whatever gains it had made previously. In order to fight back, the labor movement must recreate itself; it must become decentralized and diverse. It needs to adopt a holistic analysis of society that looks beyond not only the trade union structure, but a purely economic viewpoint. Labor needs to start fighting for “non-reformist reforms” that are in the interest of all workers, and not just the small portion represented by unions. If we can do this, if we can create a strategy that can achieve these reforms and then actually achieve them, we can succeed.

There is no limit to the obstacles in our way of creating a powerful labor movement, but by far the biggest is the deindustrialization of our economy. This deindustrialization is multifaceted, and includes aspects of globalization, outsourcing, domestic job loss, and the transition of the labor market from manufacturing to service jobs. The creation of a global economy has hit the American labor movement hard because it has hit American laborers hard. Hoyt Wheeler identifies two changes in the economy as a result of globalization. The first is that “firms in the newly industrialized countries are able to compete in price-conscious markets, paying wages that are much lower than those paid in the United States” (2003: 26). I would modify this slightly by pointing out that American multinational corporations have responded by shipping almost all of their manufacturing capabilities abroad to the Global South, where they can also pay extremely low wages, and have an almost never-ending supply of labor. Wheeler’s second change is that “because of the diversity and customization made possible by computer-based technology, the cost advantages of American-style mass production have been lost” (2003: 26). The American factory worker is no longer needed because of the deskilling of his or her job and the increase of technology. Companies refuse to pay workers living wages for a job on the production line that can be filled by someone in the developing world for pennies on the dollar.

This leads to the deindustrialization of the economy and to the point where we are now: an economy dominated by the service sector. The service sector includes everyone from burger-flippers to bank tellers, and has presented labor with a difficult question, one it has failed to answer: which service employees do you unionize and how? The service economy has also created a disjointed workforce by practices such as hiring workers on a part-time basis. Rick Fantasia and Kim Voss claim that “[f]ast-food companies like McDonald’s maintain a workforce with up to 80 percent part-time employees”(2004: 12). At a glance, this shouldn’t create a problem, but in the past trade unions have had no desire to unionize these part-time service sector workers. The most obvious explanation is that they do not fit into the trade union model. For the most part union members have been full-time industrial workers, and some unions do not include part-time workers in their contracts. Although the tides have changed somewhat, with unions like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and UNITE HERE gaining increasing power, there is still a focus on full-time workers and somehow more respected industries.  SEIU represents healthcare workers, security officers, and a myriad of other job-holders, but no retail workers. On the same note, UNITE HERE represents hotel maids, restaurant cooks and waiters, but not the counter clerk at Burger King. Deindustrialization and the transformation towards a service economy have hit the labor movement hard, but they did not come out of nowhere. Some of the blame must be put on the shoulders of the existing union structure, conservative in nature. The unions’ inability, until very recently, to change with the changing economy allowed for the big hits they have taken.

The second biggest factor leading to the decline of the labor movement is the shift of labor unions from progressive organizations to conservative institutions. Although it is questionable how progressive labor unions ever actually were, at certain points in history, especially the ones activists like to remember, unions fought for social change. However, if we look at the real history of labor, we see conservative organizations that wish to hold on to whatever limited amount of power they have. George Meany, the first president of the combined AFL-CIO from 1955 until 1979 “believed that the function of unions was not to organize unorganized workers but rather to preserve the privilege of union membership for a stratum of already organized skilled workers” and “bragged about never having been on strike or walking a picket line” (Fletcher and Gapasin 2008: 30). So the AFL-CIO took on a policy of “business unionism,” negotiating contracts for wage increases and better hours, and sometimes give-backs, while almost completely ignoring new opportunities for organizing, a policy that is almost the exact opposite of what led to the success of the CIO in the Thirties. In fact, the policies and organizational structures of the AFL-CIO share many similarities to those of the labor organizations that led to the formation of the CIO. Piven and Cloward name as one of the factors leading to the creation of the CIO and the industrial workers’ movement “the status-conscious and oligarchical character” of existing workers’ organizations, whose “sources of strength…encouraged them to ignore and even to scorn the growing mass of unskilled workers” (1979: 101). What we see is a movement and progressive resurgence and then decline based on the structural organization of the movement, although I hesitate to claim that the CIO was effective just because of its structure. However, the structure of the labor organizations before the industrial workers’ struggles and their current structure, parallel to an extent, disallow any kind of real transformative movement to arise.

The ultimate goal for the labor movement, in my own opinion, should be the working class taking over the means of production and transforming the economy into a fair, democratic, and participatory system of workers’ councils; this is what success should mean for the labor movement. While saying this, we must fully realize that this task is nothing short of a revolution, nor is it possible now. What a successful labor movement must become, then, is a movement that fights for and wins “radical” or “non-reformist” reforms. Non-reformist reforms, originally theorized by Andre Gorz, are defined by Michael Albert as workers organizing “to win concrete demands but when they accomplish those immediate ends, rather than merely recreating stability, their victory instead creates more favorable conditions for the next round of conflict” (Albert 1974: Ch. 11). These reforms would include things like universal healthcare, living wages, and further down the line things like full employment, profit tax, and reverse income tax. The key is not in how radical the reforms are, although more gains made will lead to higher demands, but that the movement does not rest after it has made preliminary gains.

However, all this success is not possible without achieving a more diverse, holistic, participatory, and democratic movement.  As Bill Fletcher and Fernando Gapasin state, “the current framework of U.S. trade unionism is so fundamentally flawed that a new fundamental framework is needed” (2008: 165). Fletcher and Gapasin assert the need to incorporate aspects of gender and race based oppressions into the labor movement, and, while I think he is correct, we must take it a step further and recognize that the oppressions of people of color and women not only intersect, but are part of a full society with social spheres (namely economic, cultural, kinship, and political) that work in concert together in complimentary ways. The fact that busboys and dish-cleaners, by and large, are Latino immigrants is not a reflection of simply class based oppression, nor is it simply an intersection of race. Instead this is an economic accommodation and reproduction of white supremacy, where the person of color is relegated to roles that are defined by being neither seen nor heard. Under a union contract these positions may make just as much as a waiter or hostess, yet the contract does not recognize the implicit racism in the job roles. Recognizing the totality of oppression, and seeking to create a movement that addresses these oppressions neither as side-effects of, nor intersecting with, class struggle, is the first task of labor. The second step to creating a better labor movement is recognizing that “if class struggle is not limited to the workplace, then neither should unions be” (Fletcher and Gapasin 2008: 174). Fletcher and Gapasin are referencing the need to create what they term a “socio-political bloc” or “working people’s assemblies” that can fight for economic needs that occur outside of the workplace. (2008: 174, 177). The present political departments of labor unions, which usually fight for small reforms only in the interest of unionized workers (and usually only members of the specific union), should either be replaced or join these assemblies, which would be run democratically and in a participatory fashion. These assemblies would be the main framework with which the movement would fight for its non-reformist reforms, and would be a combination of present unions, workers’ centers, unions outside of or unrecognized by the official structure, community organizations, and other groups seeking economic and social justice. The last task is to decentralize the movement, which, if we can accomplish a holistic view and a militant workers’ political bloc outside of the present trade union structure, we will have already done.

The final question that lingers now is thus: is this possible? Do the conditions for success, as outlined by Piven and Cloward in their book Poor People’s Movements, exist and enable the labor movement to win? If we use the four main conditions presented by Piven and Cloward, the answer is yes. First, labor has the power to disrupt many institutions, from factories, hotels, restaurants, retail stores, ports, docks, and just about any workplace imaginable through strikes, sit-ins, slow-downs and a variety of other tactics. As citizens, members of the movement also have the power to disrupt aspects of the economy and government which are not directly related to their workplaces, including welfare offices, government buildings, banks and other financial institutions, and, perhaps most importantly, streets. Next, these institutions are not only important, but crucial to society, especially if disrupting actions are done simultaneously or in concert. Striking a series of workplaces, sitting-in at a chain of banks, and organizing marches in multiple cities all within the same day, or even the same week, would easily demonstrate the importance of these institutions to others. Third, the institution definitely has much to concede. Just advocating reforms to put us on the social democratic economic level of a country like Sweden would not create a situation where the elites have nothing to concede. As more and more reforms are won, it is possible that future victories will be harder, but it is also possible they will be easier because of the momentum of a well-organized political structure. The fact is that the present institutions and the capitalist class have just about everything to concede—their very control of the economy. And, finally, can the labor movement protect itself from reprisal? If labor can transform itself to be more decentralized and participatory, then I think it can. I also think that while the Obama administration has a moderate level of support, it is clear that the economic institutions do not. With recent polls indicating that less than a quarter of Americans support the financial institutions and more than a third have a positive view of socialism, it appears that a labor movement fighting for non-reformist reforms would have the support needed to protect itself from reprisal. Based on these conditions, the labor movement has great potential to be successful in enacting transformative reforms that could lead to revolutionary change.

When activists and labor leaders look back, their view is often limited to labor’s successes, those of the Great Depression era, and because of this they have a positive outlook on labor, not recognizing the huge task ahead. I, instead, look at the decline of the movement. This decline has been caused by deindustrialization and globalization, weakening and transforming the working class. However it is also caused by the AFL-CIO’s own response to these phenomena. I look at the decline of the movement, and also have a positive lookout, while still recognizing the huge task ahead. Labor needs more than just a well thought-out plan by union bosses and politicians. Labor needs a vast restructuring, one that will decentralize as well as democratize the movement, while adopting a holistic analysis. After this is accomplished labor needs to become militant and begin fighting for radical reforms that will provide the working and middle classes with necessary relief in their daily lives, while always organizing for more. The title of this piece comes from a Langston Hughes poem titled “Good Morning Revolution.” The verse goes like this:

Listen, Revolution,
We’re buddies, see –
Together,
We can take everything:
Factories, arsenals, houses, ships,
Railroads, forests, fields, orchards,
Bus lines, telegraphs, radios,
(Jesus! Raise hell with radios!)
Steel mills, coal mines, oil wells, gas,
All the tools of production.
(Great day in the morning!)
Everything –
And turn’em over to the people who work.
Rule and run’em for us people who work.

Together, we can take everything.

References

Albert, Michael. 1974. What Is to Be Undone: A Modern Revolutionary Discussion of Classical Left Ideologies. (http://www.zcommunications.org/WITBU/witbuTOC.html).

Albert, Michael, et al. 1986. Liberating Theory. Boston, MA. South End Press.

Albert, Michael. 2000. Moving Forward: Program for a Participatory Economy.  San Francisco, CA: AK Press.

Fantasia, Rick and Kim Voss. 2004. Hard Work: Remaking the American Labor Movement. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.

Fletcher, Jr., Bill and Fernando Gapasin. 2008. Solidarity Divided: The Crisis in Organized Labor and a New Path Toward Social Justice. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.

Piven, Francis Fox and Richard A. Cloward. 1979. Poor People’s Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail. New York: Random House.

Tait, Vanessa. 2005. Poor Workers’ Unions: Rebuilding Labor from Below. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

Wheeler, Hoyt N. 2002. The Future of the American Labor Movement. New York: Cambridge University Press.

repost from www.feministfrequency.com

In the new SyFy show Caprica we are introduced to a queer character, Sam Adama. Here is the good and the bad of his queer representation.

I’m uneasy.

For all the literature on capitalism’s effect upon society, the left seems to lack an understanding of how it affects our psyche. We can rant and rave about capitalist alienation, community destruction, socio-economic stratification all day long but these understandings are useless without a basic understanding of how the very way we think and act are molded by growing up in a capitalist society. I’m speaking mainly of the habits of the vast majority of activists.

A failure for the left in the United States to truly organize, I believe, stems from the fact that we are organizing through a capitalist lens. I will break down the effects of this lens into three parts: time, quantity and specialization. These part are not mutually exclusive but, rather, are nestled within one another like Russian dolls.

Time is the largest doll- encompassing and affecting quantity and specialization. We can say that time is the root of the problem from which all the other problems stem. What do I mean by time? I’m referring to the way in which people within a capitalist system view and value it. Time is only valuable when you can accomplish the most things in the least amount of it. Value is transferred from the accomplishment itself to the time it takes and, so, naturally- the “cheapest” product sells.

Capitalist time doesn’t only value the accomplishments that take the least amount of time but also the accomplishments that can happen sooner rather than later. Consider the difference between short-term, risky investment with high yields and the safer, long-term investments made.

How do activists demonstrate this mentality? There is a penchant among activists throughout history to want the revolution now. They do not acknowledge the necessity of a long-term social and sexual revolution which will then bring about the political ends we would like to accomplish. Many envision themselves (though perhaps without outwardly acknowledging it) as being a part of the “winning team” in their lifetime or even becoming the next idolized revolutionary. We can draw these fantasies back to capitalist individualism as well as time. This impatient desire to bring about revolutionary change now leads to a largely ignorant and quixotic denial of the reality of the situation which is enormously detrimental to efforts at organizing a real foundation for revolution. Unfortunately, those caught up in capitalist impatience are often those with a penchant for leadership. This is left-leadership wasted.

We must accept the reality that to oppress will always be easier and swifter than to liberate. We must accept that our function is to do as much as we can realistically do while ever-focusing on the long-term goal even if the horizon lies beyond our lifetime. Only with a combination of patience, critical self-reflection and dedication will we see the entire picture and act upon it accordingly.

Next comes quantity. By quantity I obviously mean quantity over quality. Tying into the idea of getting as much as you can done in the least amount of time, activists are always trying to rally as many troops to a single event without real consideration regarding political formation and class consciousness. No wonder these movements fall flat. The impatience begs for an enormous eruption of dissent now and calls for the disregard of the development of leadership and autonomy amongst the masses.

Finally comes specialization. It’s certainly much easier to organize a rally around a single issue. Much easier to craft a slogan and a logo around a single oppression. Definitely easier to inform numerous people about one simple problem. The problem, however, is not simple. It is tethered to every other form of oppression and if you think the problem is complex, you don’t want to see the solution. If success means educating numerous people, vaguely, about a single issue and getting them to make signs and show up at a rally, well, then we’ve been quite successful. If success means establishing a revolutionary foundation, well-versed in the intricacies of oppression and autonomous in its ability to act without being dictated to, then we’ve got a long way to go.

Many left-activists have rejected capitalism. Most, though, have not shaken its residue from their bodies.

Today was the first day I woke up with the knowledge that my childhood hero is no longer among us. Yesterday, the fierce and beautiful light that was Howard Zinn passed away at the age of 87. I spent the night trying to figure out how one copes with a loss like this, when your hero dies, what do you do? I lit a candle and I went back to the amazing words he wrote, reading the gentle and urgent calls for action against injustice until I could almost believe he was alive again. I can still feel the shock that I know thousands, if not millions, are feeling right now as they realize that this beacon of goodness, strength, and integrity is no longer with us.

Professor Howard Zinn was born in NYC, the son of Jewish Immigrants whose fight for labor rights gave us a little more dignity and rights in the work place. Raised amongst the working poor (like I was), Zinn did what many of the poor do who want to make a difference, he joined the military to fight against the Nazi’s in WWII. When he came back the U.S. he laid down his weapons and said “never again,” deciding from that point to dedicate his life to peace. He worked a lot of hard jobs before going to college at the age of 27 and earning a doctorate in history from Columbia University.

During the Civil Rights movement, Zinn taught at Spelman, one of the historic black colleges whose student body was active in the movement. Zinn did everything he could to support and encourage his students activism. He became a leader in SNCC, attended all the rallies, spoke, organized, and fought along side his students. Alice Walker said he was her favorite professor and a source of great inspiration.

Zinn was active in the AntiWar movement, speaking out against Vietnam. He was active in the peace movement, the women’s rights movement, and just about every cause you could think of. He organized, he spoke, he acted. He taught until recent years at Boston University where he published numerous works that have inspired countless people around the world, particularly us History majors. Of his works was the famous “A People’s History of the United States,” and “A Power Governments Could Not Suppress.” He published plays, textbooks, and creative literature that was meant to shed light on the power of the ordinary citizen to make the world a better place. He called on us from the pages, asking us to not give up, providing stories of those who have changed the world. His life was poetry, he truly embodied what Gandhi said: “My life is my message.” Unlike many leaders in our world today, he lived his truth completely. There were no scandals, no drama, no reasons to doubt his conviction at any point. He was strength and integrity personified.

I remember the day I picked up, “A Power Governments Could Not Suppress.” I remember reading it absolutely enthralled, every nerve in my body lit by the truths of histories that have been forgotten. The histories of the people, the poor, the marginalized, who invisible as they may be do what is right simply because it is right without knowing that this action would in fact alter the course of history forever.

I remember activists passing the book along from hand to hand, a light in the darkness. When you are starving, when you are wondering why on Earth you thought you could make a difference, this book showed you all that you needed to know. The stories of those who fought for a better world simply because it was the right thing to do. Endless stories, numerous stories, like waves in an ocean, declaring over and over again “you are not alone, you are not alone.”

Professor, you have changed my life. May you find peace, at long last. Thank you for the gift of your light.

“TO BE HOPEFUL in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness.
What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something. If we remember those times and places—and there are so many—where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction.
And if we do act, in however small a way, we don’t have to wait for some grand Utopian future. The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory.”
— Howard Zinn

You can also read this on the AmeriCorps VISTA blog I cowrite:
http://rushmorevistas.blogspot.com/