From: Charles Brown DISCUSSION DOCUMENT Report to the National Board and Labor Commission, July 2000 New Setting of the Class Struggle and Industrial Concentration excerpt:" In the first place we are dealing with the largest working class in our history. Not counting farm labor, figures that I was not able to come up with, there are roughly 130 million workers in the U.S. economy today. If you add in the unemployed, who are very much part of the working class, then the figure is probably closer to 135 million. For comparison, in 1948 there were a little more than 21 million and in 1970 there were about 71 million workers." Scott Marshall, Vice Chair, CPUSA I want to start by saying something about the nature of this report. Many of the reports and discussions we have been having in the recent period in the board and the labor commission have been very much like the kind of discussion we would have in a pre-convention discussion period. It makes sense. We are facing many new and changing features of the class struggle. We are making a transition to new leadership. And we're due for a convention next year. This report will be along the same lines. I hope it will provoke discussion and collective thinking from U.S. all. And I sincerely hope that everyone won't agree with everything in it though that's rarely a problem with this board, or with this labor commission. Hopefully this report will build on the important and thought provoking reports given at recent meetings challenging U.S. to adopt broader concepts of the class struggle, of coalitions and social movements, of the role of our party and of building the party. As much as possible I have tried to base my ideas and tentative conclusions on facts and research. Not being a scholar or researcher, I quickly found that Mark Twain was much given to understatement. Figures can not only lie, they can walk you down the garden path and dump you into the Mad Hatters tea party. They can ambush you and leave you wondering if you understand simple math anymore. As much as possible I have tried to stick to very simple and basic facts and figures. But one conclusion for me is ironclad. We need to do a lot more work and study on the changes taking place in the working class and in the world economic scene. One report can only hope to open the subject for discussion. Bear with me because it will be awhile before I get into any discussion of our policy of industrial concentration. That is because I think that, as we have always done, we have to place concentration in a broader political and economic framework. Concentration is not a stagnant, one size fits for all time policy. Our policy has to fit the times and the changes taking place in the class struggle and in the working class. Now for some framework. In the first place we are dealing with the largest working class in our history. Not counting farm labor, figures that I was not able to come up with, there are roughly 130 million workers in the U.S. economy today. If you add in the unemployed, who are very much part of the working class, then the figure is probably closer to 135 million. For comparison, in 1948 there were a little more than 21 million and in 1970 there were about 71 million workers. These figures roughly correspond to the increases in the population as a whole for our country, though the working class is also larger as a percent of the population. While there are more millionaires and billionaires than ever before in the U.S., it is also clear that more wealth is held in fewer hands than every before. And it is certainly true that as Marx and Engels noted, middle strata including some professions are being forced down into the working class hence doctors organizing into unions for example. Mass production or goods producing workers in absolute numbers have shown small increases from 1948 until today. According to labor department figures in 1948 there were about 18.7 million goods producing workers, in 1970 about 23.6 million and today there are about 25.2 million. Workers in goods production, or what we call mass production workers increased by about six million from 1948 till today. However service workers increased by roughly 78 million in the same time frame. What a change. The rapid and explosive growth of the service sector has long been noted, but when you study the actual figures they are startling and dramatic. However, I think some wrong conclusions have been drawn by some on the left. Without getting into an overly technical discussion of surplus value it is clear that with technology and productivity gains and speed-up, mass production workers are supporting a gigantic increase in services and support industries. In this regard it should be noted that the BLS says that the largest growth in the service sector in the last twenty years has been in what they call 'services to business. ' Right now, the fastest growing sector of service to businesses is temporary workers. Some economist call these workers 'just in time workers' to complement 'just in time' production methods. Let me quote from a Department of Labor Report on the American Workforce which includes an important study of the auto industry. "Manufacturing employment has been a declining percent of total non-farm jobs throughout most of the post World War II period. However, this belies the continuing importance of manufacturing activity to the economy's health. In particular, a host of manufacturing and service-producing industries rely on economic activity in motor vehicle manufacturing and sales." It is amazing that, in the face of downsizing, plant closings, multinational globalization, capital flight and new technology that the absolute numbers of mass production workers has actually grown. This reflects, I think, the new mass production industries in computer and electronics and communications to a degree. At the same time though, there are definitely fewer steel workers, though those that remain produce nearly as much tonnage today as they did 20 years ago before the massive restructuring layoffs of the early 1980s. But lets continue with the auto industry as an example. According to the BLS there are about the same number of autoworkers today as there was in 1979 in the US. In 1997 there were 947 plants devoted to automobile assembly located in 20 states. Two thirds of these are located in Michigan, Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. General motors is now building three new plants in Michigan and Ohio I believe. In 1998 the U.S. produced 12 million passenger and commercial vehicles or about one fifth of world wide production. This despite the fact that the big three are now global operations with large production concentrations in Canada, Mexico, Germany, England, Spain and Brazil. This production also reflects that major European and Asian car companies have plants in the U.S. We should do industry by industry studies. But my point with these facts is that mass production workers are still key to the economy. They are still at the heart of creating surplus value and wealth. They are still at the heart of the global economy and the domestic economy. I don't think anyone in the party seriously challenges this notion, but I do think we need to refresh our thinking from time to time as to the role of basic workers in the economy. We are beset day in and day out with "new" theories of post industrial society and "third ways" that hinge on the notion that large sectors of the working class have disappeared from the scene replaced by robots and computers and information. At the same time we cannot ignore that over a hundred million workers are in what we can loosely call the service and public sectors. We also cannot ignore the dramatic increase in contingent and part time workers. Manpower is the largest employer in the U.S. 23 percent of the contingent work force are in what the BLS describes as 'blue collar' factory jobs. We must consider the changing skills of workers in production industries. Now computer operators have much to do with building cars, pouring steel, running lathes and even building homes. Just an aside on computerization and automation. A couple of weeks ago, I had a very interesting discussion with the president of a Steelworkers Local. He was describing for me the kind of automation they have in his foundry. Yes in a foundry. It's amazing and not just in the hot end, but in the actual building, setting, pouring and breaking of the molds. It's still hot and dirty work, but not nearly as backbreaking. Some skills have migrated off the shop floor and into offices, while new skills have been born on the shop floor. And a related important factor is the higher general education and cultural level of mass production workers in our society. Another thing to remember is that historically in an economic downturn, service jobs are often hit hardest fastest. In fact the layoffs now taking place in the so-called dot com industries may well be a sign of the slowing economy today. Another part of the framework is the labor movement. In the same time period 1948 to today, union membership dropped from 35 percent of the working class to 13.9 percent in 1998. We should note that 1998 was the first year that the bleeding stopped and there was a net gain in union membership. But the AFL-CIO estimates that we will have to increase membership by 6 million workers in order to reach the 1984 level of 18.8 percent, and increase membership by 30 million to reach the 1945 level of 35 percent. From 1984 to 1998 union membership only grew in one sector government. The areas of greatest membership loss for that same period were in manufacturing, transportation and utilities both public and private. Membership actually increased percentage wise in the public sector from 1973 till today, but declined overall and in the private sector. Despite where the greatest membership gains and losses have been in the last 20 years it is interesting to note that the highest percentage concentrations of union membership are in government, education, utilities, transportation, construction and manufacturing in that order. All of these sectors are above the 13.9 percent average. Of course historically the industrial unions had much higher union density in the basic industries than the overall average. The labor movement picture only looks bleak if we consider these facts in isolation from the great progressive transformations taking place in the labor movement. From the victory last year in the long running battle to organize Cannon Mills in North Carolina, to the incredible mass organizing victories in the Los Angeles area to the dramatic and far reaching change in the AFL-CIO's position on immigrant workers the trend is definitely going our way. (By the way Cuba and Vietnam) Labor, even taking into account the setback around the China campaign, is redefining itself as a social movement of the whole of the working class multi-national and multi-racial, male and female, young and old. Labor is consciously building coalitions with other progressive forces including the left and with it's key allies in the African American, Latino and other nationally and racially oppressed communities, and among women and youth. Labor is more politically independent now than at anytime since the CIO years. It is more inclined to international solidarity and peace. To be sure there is unevenness, but the general trend is great. I want to make a point here about the role of the industrial unions in all of these developments. Here I expect disagreement, but let's discuss it out. At least to me Seattle showed the key role of the unions in basic industry in the changes taking place in labor. The steelworkers were the anchor for labor's participation and coalition efforts in Seattle. Besides being one of the largest contingents, they were the most organized and most conscious element in the mix of those demonstrations, bar none. They were the stabilizing element when some in labor, including in the top levels of the AFL-CIO were wavering. We should also consider the power of the Ravenswood strike, the UPS strike, the Flint GM parts strike, and the Bridgestone/Firestone strike. Each of these in their own way have been defining moments in the new direction of labor. They had impact far beyond their own members on the whole of labor. This is not in anyway to belittle the many other important strikes and struggles of the working class. At the same time we have to recognize the incredible role played by other unions. John Sweeney didn't come out of the basic industrial unions, though most of them supported his bid for change. Justice for Janitors is a good example of a militant, creative organizing strategy that changed the labor movement. Some of the most thought-out strategies for organizing are coming out of the public sector and service industry unions. It would also be a mistake to examine the labor movement in isolation from the broader anti-monopoly, anti-corporate working class upsurge we are witnessing today. Unlike anytime in my lifetime, labor is willing to lock arms with a broad array of social movements. More importantly the new labor movement genuinely seems to appreciate the progressive contributions of many diverse social movements that it once ignored or even found itself at logger heads with like the environmental movement. One important point on the labor movement. Even taking into consideration the decline in membership, unions remain the largest and most representative mass organizations of the working class. They have members in every state, in every city and in most towns in America. Even given the lingering influences of racism and male supremacy, unions are the most diverse and representative mass organizations of the multi-national, multi-racial, male, female, young and old, skilled and unskilled working class that exist. And even given the limitations and the need for affirmative action, outside of the Communist Party, the unions are the most advanced organizations with real Black Brown and white, male/female leadership. Outside of the Communist Party, the labor movement is the most advanced in consciously fighting for maximum Black, Brown and white, male/female working class unity. Another part of the framework class composition. In January 1993, African Americans made up 10.2 percent of American workers on the job. By April of this year, when Black unemployment hit its record low, African Americans were 11.4 percent of America's workers on the job. Latinos were at 5.8 percent of those working. The U.S. Department of Labor reported that the nation's unemployment rate increased slightly this spring, from 3.9 percent in April, to 4.1 percent in May - with African-American and Latino workers absorbing nearly all of the job loss. Last hired, first fired is still the face of discrimination and racism in the job market. Characteristically figures are harder to come by on composition of workers in particular industries. (At least for me the untrained researcher) In 1998 in auto 18 percent of the work force was Black and Latino as compared with 16 percent in the rest of manufacturing. This indicates higher than average numbers of racially and nationally oppressed workers. In part this is due to the historic fight in labor and civil rights for more equality in the basic mass production industries. Auto has the highest average wages in mass production industries. These jobs remain a cornerstone for a decent standard of living for large sections of nationally and racially oppressed and women workers. (Incidentally, there is plenty of evidence that higher production wages in the mass production industries still act as upward pressure for all workers on wages and working conditions.) According to BLS figures women account for a third of manufacturing jobs but only a quarter of jobs in auto production. Yet women make up just under a half of the total work force. Statistics aside we can be very sure that Black, Latino and women workers remain concentrated in low paying jobs with the worst working conditions. Yet as best I can tell from the statistics, African American, Latino and other oppressed workers are growing as a percentage of workers in the mass production industries. This is related to the long economic expansion of the late 1990s till today. And this is despite the fact that we know that in many industries, steel for example, old discriminatory hiring and promotion policies are re-emerging, eroding the historic gains of the great civil rights battles of the 1960s and '70s. Now to industrial concentration policy. With all of these changes taking place in the working class and in work itself, what does it all mean for our industrial or mass production concentration policy for today? Just a few things on the history and development of our policy. Industrial concentration was not, and is not, an invention of our party. It flows directly from Marx, Engels and Lenin and the experiences of the world revolutionary movement. It is a policy based on understanding the class struggle and the role of workers and unions most directly in conflict with capital where surplus value is made and where exploitation is at its most intense. It has never been a narrow or elitist policy that separates out industrial workers from the rest of the working class. Indeed, real industrial concentration sees mass production workers as key to uniting and moving the working class as a whole into struggle. I say that because I think it's important from the beginning to say that there is no contradiction in trying to figure out a sensible and updated concentration policy for today's conditions and in also fighting for a broader view of the working class and the class struggle. There is no contradiction in trying to develop concentration and expanding our work in coalitions with the broader social movements. Marx and Lenin never took a narrow view of the working class or the class struggle. Just very briefly on the history of concentration in our party. We would have to conclude I think that we most successfully pursued concentration in the 1930s and early '40s. This corresponds to our party's greatest membership growth and size. It also corresponds to one of the greatest working class upsurges in our history in fighting the Great Depression, organizing the basic mass production industries in the CIO and the fight against Hitler world fascism. At it's height we had not only shop clubs, but even section organizations in some of the key factories in steel, auto and electrical and other mass production industries. We were in left center coalitions in leadership of several key unions and in many local and district levels of the labor movement. And I think it is important that we not just see this as only a period of great shop floor influence, or influence in the labor movement. This was a period of our greatest political and social influence on the working class and movements of the day. Our shop floor organizations were a bedrock of our party in a period when we came the closest to being a mass party of the working class and people. Out of these shop clubs and efforts at industrial concentration came many of our finest party leaders like Gus Hall and Henry Winston and George Meyers. This is the whole generation of leaders that we are beginning to lose today that saw our party through the turbulent attacks of the ruling class to destroy U.S. and through the rebuilding of our party in the '60s an '70s. And many of these comrades were the bedrock of saving our party in the early 1990s. In every district we know more details of how the party shop clubs in industry produced leaders for our party and the incredible influence they had on orienting our party in a mass way on the working class. This is true not only in the industrial Midwest districts, but from California to New York. I remember long discussions with George Meyers and my father in law, Bill Wood about the role of the shop clubs at Sparrows Point and it's influence on the Maryland Party organization and the devastation of the dissolution of the Sparrows Point clubs and the attacks of the government. And I've had many discussion in Chicago where at one time we had a vast system of shop clubs and the broadest possible mass influence. Earl Browder and Browderism took it's first step in liquidating the party by liquidating the shop club system in the party. To be fair the attack was coming from the ruling class, but Browder made it that much easier for them by disbanding the shop clubs first. I know in Illinois that we lost hundreds of comrades in that one move by the party. We lost leaders who did not agree with abandoning concentration policy and we lost members who could not or would not be integrated into other forms of party organization. With Browderism we simply turned our backs on thousands of working class comrades at the core of our party. And this brings me to one of my most important points about the history of industrial concentration in our party since I've been a member. In 1970 we held a conference in Chicago on industrial concentration. And we held similar meetings again in 1983 and in 1991 roughly every ten years. Looking back, what was most important about these meetings was not particularly the discussions we had on shop clubs, on plant gate distributions, on shop papers, or any other of the techniques and methods of industrial concentration. (Before some start yelling I think all those discussions were and are important.) No really what was so important about those meetings was the effect they had of orienting the party on the working class. True we had more shop clubs in the '70s and '80s and they were important. And we will have shop clubs again. But our policy of concentration helped our party focus on the working class far beyond the shop floor. Joelle reminded me in a note on this meeting that out of those discussions came our concept that industrial concentration also means focusing on workers where they live and in their communities that industrial concentration meant also working class concentration on neighborhoods and especially in the neighborhoods of African American, Latino and other oppressed workers. Those conferences were milestones in orienting our party on a firm working class line that serves U.S. well even today. Think of the new party leaders that came out of those concentration experiences and that orientation. Many in the room today George and Denise, Bobbie and Paul, Wally and Bruce, Armando and Lasker, Artie, Steve Valencia and Lorenzo, to make the cardinal mistake of using names and therefore leaving some out, there are many more. But these are examples of leading comrades who came out of the shops and were oriented on the working class by our discussions and policy of industrial concentration. All during the period of the rank and file upsurge of the '70s and '80s our industrial concentration policy oriented U.S. on the labor movement and the working class. It's important that we had shop papers and plant gate distributions, but it was of critical and fundamental importance that we foresaw and responded to the Fresh Winds in labor; that we understood the significance of the changes in the AFL-CIO. That we understand the significance of Seattle and LA for the class struggle. I would argue that the whole experience of concentration prepared U.S. for the new alliances and a broader view of the class struggle. By and large, in my experience, narrow views of the working class and of the broader social movements don' t come from comrades in industry. One last point on our history of concentration and to segue into concentration for today. Sam Webb gave the report to our 1991 discussion on Industrial Concentration. Remember 1991 and what we were going through. But in his report he said our policy of concentration stands on five solid pillars. Anyway I think the five pillars are still sound and should serve U.S. still for discussion of concentration. I'll just quote the lead sentences though Sam developed each of these concepts extensively in his report. 1) The overarching feature of capitalist society is the class struggle. 2) The working class is the only really revolutionary class in society. (My editorial comment this is not in any narrow or exclusionary sense.) As Sam continues, not because we say it or write it, but it follows from the position which the working class occupies in the system of (capitalist) social production. 3) Class unity is the bedrock of class and social advancement. 4) Not all sectors of the working class occupy an identical position in the system of exploitation nor do all have the same experience in the class struggle nor are all equally capable of stimulating broad working class and people's unity for immediate and more advanced objectives. (Though here again my editorial comment I would not put this pillar in the negative I would say rather that the mass production workers and their unions are in a special place in society to build unity and influence and lead the broad mass currents of the working class and the peoples movements. And 5) The achievement of the historic aims of the working class is organically bound up with the building of a bigger Party among the working class and it's key sectors. A sensible mass production concentration policy for today. I don't think the question before the house is to concentrate or not to concentrate. I think by and large we are united on the pillars above and feel the necessity and urgency of developing a concentration policy for today. But in all honesty we're not prepared to layout a plan for concentration. In fact as I've said earlier, I think we need to see this as only the first in a series of discussions aimed at arriving at a new policy for today. Quite frankly I don't think the most important discussions are about shop papers, shop clubs or even shop gate distributions. I think more important than discussion of methods and plans right now is asking and answering some questions about what kind of policy fits today's situation. Here are some of what I think are key questions we need to discuss. 1) Do we know enough about what is going on with mass production workers today? What are they talking about? What are their problems and concerns? Do they feel threatened by globalization? What do they want and what do they see as the solutions? What are their broader concerns? At one point we decided to have informal discussions with our shop workers about these questions and about what they think about recruiting. I want to amend that today and propose that the labor commission undertake responsibility to schedule a series of informal discussions in every district with shop workers, party and non-party to sound people out. I think we will be surprised and pleased at the results. We need to ask non-party shop workers too how they see the party and our role. 2) How does working class neighborhood concentration fit in today? What are the roles of mass production workers in the broader mass movements and social movements? How will a new policy of industrial concentration help orient U.S. on the working class in neighborhoods and communities? 3) What are the key questions of building Black, Brown and white unity, male-female unity for mass production workers today? Want is the state of affirmative action and civil rights in the mass production unions and facing workers in industry today? 4) Our concentration policy originated in a time when masses of industrial workers were located in huge what Lenin called factory fortresses. Today mass production workers are located, for the most part, in much smaller shops. What does that mean for a policy today? When you boil it all down I think we have to ask these questions because I think we have to get at a program for concentration before we can have a new policy of concentration. What do I mean by that. Our policy of concentration has to be built on a direction and program for the working class. We are not just in the mix to be there. I certainly won't argue that we are sufficiently in the mix of mass production workers. That is in part what's behind the proposal for this series of informal discussions. But I will argue that we have a specific role to play in the mix and that that role must be based on where we want to see mass production workers and the working class in one year, in five years and in ten years. We can't substitute ourselves for the movements and we can't make things happen by sheer will power. But we do have to bring something to the table besides our hard work for the goals that labor has adopted. Historically our party and the broader left has always worked from a program of action and initiative aimed at strengthening the class, uniting the class and building the biggest possible mass movements for the interests of the class I need only mention a few industrial unionism, social security and unemployment compensation, defeating fascism, fair employment practices and civil rights committees. Of course we didn't do these things on our own, but we did play an initiating and leading role in fighting for them. We knew where we wanted to go with them. Let me put it another way. When George Meyers led U.S. in drafting the Fresh Winds program it was a guide to concentration. Our shop workers, our trade union comrades, indeed the whole party could see and relate to what we saw as the direction and program for workers. We need that updated for today as a guide to developing a concentration policy. When we have shop clubs in steel, what will they be fighting for? Shorter hours? Nationalizing steel? Affirmative action in hiring and skills? Will we be the ones who are seen as the best fighters for a strategy to organize the mini-mills and what's left of basic steel? When we have shop clubs in auto what will the Communists be known for? That they led a left center coalition fight to organize and reorganize the auto parts and supply industries into the UAW? Will the party be identified with initiatives to help organize temporary worker into the union with full benefits and wages? Will we be seen by basic mass production workers in the mix, as the best proponents of the labor movements goal of organizing the unorganized? And too, will we be seen as left initiators and innovators in helping to develop a strategy for organizing that unites all of the working class and the social movements in a crusade to organize the unorganized as the backbone for progress on all of the needs and concerns of our people? Will the reds in mass production industries perform their historic mission of raising the basic flaws of the capitalist system and beginning the discussion of the need to replace it with a working class system of Bill of Rights Socialism, USA? This leads to my second proposal. We need to draft a new party program for labor that builds on the Fresh Winds program. I propose that the labor commission undertake to prepare a draft for discussion by the end of the year so it can be used as part of pre-convention discussion. Let me be clear I'm not proposing a stages approach to a new concentration policy first program then policy. Developing our thinking on the key programmatic demands and needs of basic workers is essential in putting together a new concentration policy for today. We also have to answer the questions raised in the first part of this report as part of developing a new policy. How will the working class deal with capitalist globalization? How will we have a concentration policy that not only fits workers in manufacturing, but helps to bring around this key sector of the class the vast explosive numbers of workers in the service and public sectors _______________________________________________ Crashlist website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
