All written history, including today's newspaper, is the story of the unfolding class struggle....
**
What's here: Try to Make Sense of Disaster Are We "Fair?" Picture the War Should We Care About Culture? How Can We Cope? Texas: Center of Scandals What Can We Learn from Bolivia? What Is Happening to Retirees? Texas Needs Tom DeLay It's Not Just Immigrants
Everyone Has a Stake in Immigrant Battle
The saddest thing about the media coverage over the congressional immigrant proposals is that it "frames" the arguments in a way that distorts the meaning. From media coverage, one has to assume that only moral issues are involved. Do you hate immigrants or do you love them? Are you for obedience to the law or for breaking it?
The main question is almost never asked, "Do you want to see immigrants used to lower wages?"
Sane working people in America opposed slavery because it tended to depress wages. For the same reason, we should oppose any legislation that drives immigrant laborers further underground and/or any legislation that "grants" them the right to work without any workplace protections. The Sensenbrenner/Frist "criminalize only" approach and GW Bush's "criminalize and create a giant force of indentured servants" approach would tend to force immigrant workers to take even lower wages, thereby dragging down the entire labor market.
Even if we didn't understand the mechanism, which is simple enough, we could see the wage-depressing force of these proposals just by considering the source. Virtually everything proposed and carried out by the right-wing in government tends to benefit rich employers and hurt poor workers!
If the attack on wages and benefits weren't clear enough, consider the statements of Republican Dana Rohrabacher: "Let the prisoners pick the fruits." That's the ultimate aim of all these anti-worker proposals, slave labor!
Save Tom DeLay!
Former Republican superman Tom DeLay is suffering from bleeding credibility and needs our help now. He's trailing in the polls. His own party has dumped him from leadership, and they have allowed 3 wannabe's to run against him in the primary! Most of this came about after former lobbying superman Jack Abramhoff decided to sing, but other problems have dogged DeLay since the early days that Chris Bell, now a candidate for Texas Governor, denounced him in congress.
Travis County D.A. Ronnie Earle has to take part of the responsibility for DeLay's (and ours) present problems. He's been prosecuting people associated with DeLay's political cabal during the 2002 elections. Every now and then, one of them sings, too, and DeLay's hot water keeps gaining temperature.
Our problem is this: if DeLay goes under during the primaries, how are the honest and progressive Texas candidates going to enjoy the privilege of running against him in November? If Tom DeLay becomes a political nonentity, how can honest and progressive Texas politicians use his rotten image to get back some of the damage done in the 2002 state election, the subsequent legislature, and the 2004 congressional races?
If you care about Texas, please send Tom DeLay an encouraging card right away!
No Pension? No Healthcare? No Retirement?
For everybody who isn't asleep, it's obvious that American employers intend to destroy all hope of "golden years" retirement. They intend to work us until we die. The latest nail being driven into our collective coffin is the announcements by IBM and Verizon that they will "freeze" employee pension plans and substitute 401(k) programs. Current employees are to accrue no more benefits, future employees will get none, and everybody who already has a pension is likely having trouble sleeping at night.
Retirement packages that were considered rock-solid secure are now decimated by bankruptcy courts and vicious employers. Even protection from the mighty Autoworkers union, which pioneered fixed-benefit pensions just after World War II, can no longer be counted on. The UAW just agreed, for the first time in its history, to concessions for current retirees along with future retirees.
"Guaranteed" healthcare "rights" for pensioners are even more unstable. At least, the pension plans are partially underwritten by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC). Health care "rights" are not underwritten at all. Companies unburdened by union contracts can terminate health care for their retirees just about whenever they want to. Those with union contracts are implementing the same scare tactics that General Motors used on the UAW to pressure for concessions.
It seems crazy because it is
American workers were producing plenty of wealth in the 1940s to finance pension plans and health care for retirees. Any glance at productivity figures will show that they are producing much more now. Productivity has run far ahead of the increase in the workforce. There's more than enough wealth to go around.
In fact, anybody who stops and thinks for a minute will realize that it has been possible for some time to lighten our workload by shortening the working week. The European workers have shorter hours and longer vacations, while working hours continue to grow in the U.S. The wealth is being produced, and yet, employers tell us that there isn't enough.
How did we get into this mess?
There is a big Black Hole in American history. We never look at the period 1946-1956. If we look at it at all, it's through rose-colored glasses that lie and say that American workers made great gains.
In truth, American workers lost our butts in that period. We began 1946 with the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) kicking employers in every workplace. The CIO stood against racism and anti-communism and for unity. It stood for international cooperation. It also stood for national health care and continuing improvements in Social Security. It's those last two that I'm focusing on right now.
Beginning in 1947, the CIO drove out every progressive member they could reach. They ran away from international solidarity. They expelled a large number of unions, then formed dual unions and took over their contracts. Eleven of America's most progressive CIO unions were destroyed. By the time the CIO re-joined the reactionary old AF of L, in 1956, it was hard to tell the difference between the two.
In the late 1940s, when the Autoworkers union negotiated employer pension plans and employer health care for its members, they turned their backs on the rest of the working class. They tied themselves, instead, to the fortunes of "their" employers. Other unions, after they had kicked out every progressive member, did the same. By 1983, it had become completely ridiculous. Unions were forming "joint" committees in every workplace, and union membership, for many, began to mean support for the bosses. Even now, when employers are shafting their employees openly every day, unions continue to join their bosses in television ad campaigns!
It's important to note that, between 1947 and 1956, American unions had given up national health care and Social Security in favor of employer-provided benefits exclusively for union members. Non-union workers were left to the mercy of the bosses. Declining union membership, after a peak in 1957, guaranteed that union workers would eventually be almost as helpless. Workers cannot win when we are divided.
That's what happened.
Bolivia's Evo Morales Has Lessons for Us
People have a tendency to romanticize faraway leaders such as Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Hugo Chavez, and, recently, Bolivia's Evo Morales. Copying them directly, quoting them, wearing their image on our T-shirts, and saluting their flags have the advantage of making us feel superior and glamorous while, at the same time, remaining relatively safe from actually doing anything effective. Such a "radical pop" approach to the struggles of people in other countries may expose our sympathies, but it obscures the real tasks at hand in the United States.
The truth is that the Cuban, Argentinian, Venezuelan, and Bolivian situations are far different from our own, and successful strategies there are not necessarily transferable. Nevertheless, there is much for us to learn. One of Evo Morales' recent campaign speeches, "I Believe Only in the Power of the People," is available on the internet. I think it is at http://www.blythe.org. I'd put it here except for copyright laws.
Morales takes no credit for himself, but gives all applause to the "Bolivian
people, who have mobilized in these recent days of struggle, drawing on our
consciousness and our regarding how to reclaim our natural resources."
He points out that the Bolivian ruling class ruled for itself, not the majority
of the people: "For the poor,
the marginalized, the excluded, the "rule of law" means the targeted
assassinations and collective massacres that we have endured."
Morales gives oppression names: neoliberalism and imperialism. Both the same thing. He says, "When we speak of the 'defense of humanity,' as we do at this event, I think that this only happens by eliminating neoliberalism and imperialism."
In Bolivia, neoliberalism and imperialism take the form of transnational corporations, largely from the United States, taking over their natural resources and privatizing all forms of economic activity. In the United States, privatization is also a great problem. Imperialism, usually misnamed "globalization" or "outsourcing," is best known for taking away jobs and for pollution. The names and tactics are different, but the problems and the struggles against them are similar.
Morales comments on strategy: "...our task at this moment should be to strengthen anti-imperialist thinking." He goes on to hope for a great summit of anti-imperialists and democratic leaders.
Bolivians are continuing their great struggle against imperialism and for
true democracy. Here in the United States, in the belly of the beast, imperialism
is also being fought. As in Bolivia, the great weapon against imperialism
in the United States is true democracy. While we salute and cheer for the
magnificent struggles in other nations, we must focus our attention on the
battles at hand.
"Texas, Number One" in Scandals
Every 10 years, when the census comes out, the Texas Legislature redraws the districts for U.S. Congressmen. In 2001, they basically passed off the obligation, and Democrats breathed a sigh of relief. They didn't know what was coming in 2002, when virtually every important aspect of state government passed under the rule of the far-right wing of the Republican Party. With firm control of the legislature, they then overcame all resistance and implemented a new redistricting plan.
The popular forces that resisted them wrote a fine chapter in the history of the state. We worked hard in every election. We demonstrated at redistricting hearings and every opportunity. We didn't give up and haven't given up now.
We continued to hope that the courts would rule that the right-wing takeover and subsequent new districts would be ruled illegal or unconstitutional. It was a bitter blow, later, when the Justice Department upheld the new districts. In the next federal election, 4 of the 5 targetted Democratic incumbents lost their seats in the Congress and right wing control of the federal government was insured. "This is outrageous," said Texas Democrats and the progressive forces in the state. "Sore losers," said the Republicans.
Now, some holes are beginning to appear in the story. The 2001 state elections were greatly influenced by big money from Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee (TRMPAC), Tom DeLay's political vehicle in the state. DeLay and other TRMPAC leaders are currently arguing that they did nothing criminal, but the question is open. Meanwhile, at the federal level, DeLay is central to an unfolding scandal around unscrupulous lobbyists who contributed the big bucks to his various electoral shenanigans. It seems unrelated at first, but the same Texan is at the center of both controversies.
Others involved with TRMPAC are having legal and/or public image problems. The experts in the Justice Department, it was revealed recently, actualy held the redistricting to be illegal in at least two congressional districts. They said that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was violated by taking away minority voting rights. The experts were overruled by more powerful right-wing political appointees.
If criminal acts resulted in the 2001 Texas election victories for right-wingers, should they be allowed to profit? Shouldn't the election be voided or held over? Shouldn't the resulting congressional districts be re-examined? If they were, shouldn't the rulings that flew through Congress since then be re-examined? How would the war in Iraq, budget cuts, and tax giveaways be affected?
The Supreme Court surprised many by agreeing to review the legality of the redistricting. This is going to take some time. Meanwhile, the credibility of Tom DeLay and, by association, the entire Bush-led bloc has been strained, and is getting more strained with each new revelation -- primarily from Texas.
Here's the point: were Texans right to resist this process? Would they be right, or wrong, to go on resisting? More general: should we ever stop resisting?
**
How Can We Stand Living Under Capitalism?
Political Affairs is running a fine article by Owen Williamson. He talks about the way some right-wing groups use advice columns to peddle radical capitalism. He opens the topic of a left-wing movement that provides a genuine service to people who are finding it increasingly difficult to cope with modern pressures of economics and family life. I'd like to see Dr. Williamson go much further into the problem he explains. While calling people for contributions recently, I heard a lot of grim personal stories about job crises, utility bills, and emotional problems. Except for a shoulder to cry on, I didn't have much to offer them.
There are "leftist" groups that actually do offer emotional security to their members. They colonize areas, but they always make sure that they have a minimal number of people in a given area so that they can socialize. The downside is that their social life contributes a lot toward a cultish and increasingly incestuous attitude. CPUSA takes members where we find them, and we socialize with whoever we want. Being able to meet and talk to all kinds of different people is politically and emotionally much more healthy than being in a cultish clique.
Out here in Texas, progressive activists are likely to live some distance apart. I'd love to offer more than political advice to correspondents. I see really good people falling victim to the increasingly difficult task of living under capitalism, especially today, when capitalism in crisis becomes more and more extreme. The truth is that it does help, emotionally, to recognize what forces are working on us to make the misery index rise. And the truth is that it's somewhat liberating to realize that capitalism, not our personal failings, are what causes the increasing pressures and problems. We need to explain that every chance we get.
I think a good book by Dr. Williamson would be a good step.
**
Who Cares About the World Series? We do!
Most of America does. When the White Sox won the penant, the staff of the People's Weekly World went overboard and ran it as a big news article. They all live in Chicago. When the Sox won the World Series, they were ecstatic. Us Texans kept waiting for them to say something about the Houston Astros. They might at least have said that we were good losers.
One letter to the editor completely agreed with the PWW editors. But he was a Sox fan. Another letter disagreed strongly. The writer said he is a Marxist and thus sees sports as capitalism's ruse for diverting the working class. Who was right?
The PWW often reviews plays and movies. There's a TV review in this week's paper. Does that mean we're not Marxists? Does it mean we're wasting everybody's time? The attitude of Communists is that cultural developments are tremendously important. Lenin himself talked about the importance of culture and added, "especially the cinema!" For the most part, what passes for culture is bought and paid for by capitalists. But not everything. People who expect to relate to the working class as it is need to pay attention to culture, including the world series.
Maybe Texas will get a turn later.
How Is the Iraq War Being Portrayed?
Scott
Garrett, one of the directors of the new Iraq war documentary, Occupation:
Dreamland, told his Dallas audience on October 14 that he doesn't believe
media has an effect on military recruiting. How crazy is that?
The film shows American soldiers and Iraqi civilians giving their views for and against the occupation. The action scenes, mostly nighttime raids on people's homes, are scary. The men's comments (no women spoke) are pretty scary, too. Iraqis and American soldiers are feeling a lot of tension.
As I viewed the film, I decided that it will actually boost recruitment. Very young men are vulnerable to crazy macho derring-do, and the soldiers carried a fascinating array of technical geegaws and weapons. What young man could resist that?
There is at least one more documentary out there that I haven't seen. A new big-budget Hollywood production, Jarhead, with big-name actors, should be out soon. There are country songs about the conflict. Over There is a war serial on the FX cable-tv channel. The question thus arises, "How is the war going to be presented?" I'd like to encourage Texas progressives to send in their impressions of songs, films, TV programs, and video games that present the Iraq war and occupation experience. We should put our ideas together for the People's Weekly World.
Media shape our actions and our behaviors, it's undeniable.
Is Our News Coverage Fair?
Last week, I received two notices that People's Weekly World and this web page aren't being fair. The other one was three pages long and had something to do with the PWW having said something nice about Venezuelan President Chavez without looking to see if there wasn't something bad to say, too. Here's the short one: