Re: An emerging labor-led left in the DP?
Marvin Gandall wrote: social democratic governments are now commonplace, of course. Which raises the question: what keeps the unions wedded to these parties despite their repeated disappointments with them? The traditional left answer is that the workers lack sufficient consciousness of the nature of their party leadership and program, which I don't think is altogether true. I think they know quite well what they are voting for when they vote for these parties. Unfortunately, knowing that Kerry is inimical to the interests of working people does not stop the bureaucracy from backing the DP. This is not a question of intellect, but will. Stern's words are remarkable, but I doubt if he would ever put his clout behind a labor party, let alone backing Nader. In any case, if a Kerry administration is forced to preside over deep cuts to Social Security and other social programs, it's difficult not to see the same struggle emerging within the DP, with the left opposition coming from the SEIU-ACSFME-Dean-Kucinich axis which formed during the primaries. I don't think the US labour movement is THAT exceptional, is it?) Of course, in 2008, Kucinich will run as a progressive candidate in the DP primaries and waste everybody's time. That is, of course, except for the political whores like Jeff Cohen who will work for him and others like him. There's always good money to be made in telling people TINA. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: An emerging labor-led left in the DP?
if a Kerry administration is forced to preside over deep cuts to Social Security and other social programs ? nothing will force a Kerry Administration to cut Social Security. There is nothing wrong with Social Security. At 09:39 AM 7/27/2004 -0400, you wrote: (A pretty remarkable public indictment of the program and leadership of the Democratic party by the SEIU's Andy Stern on the eve of its convention. The SEIU is one of the major contributors to the DP, and this suggests there could be blood on the party floor if Kerry loses -- and perhaps even if he wins, Stern's remarks notwithstanding. It could be a repeat, for example, of what happened in Ontario after the NDP formed a one-term government in 1990-95. The public sector unions and the Canadian Auto Workers under Buzz Hargrove led a bitter internal fight against the Bob Rae government which introduced an austerity program, including a wage freeze and collective bargaining rollbacks in response to pressure from the bond market. These post-election battles between the beleaguered unions and austerity-minded social democratic governments are now commonplace, of course. Which raises the question: what keeps the unions wedded to these parties despite their repeated disappointments with them? The traditional left answer is that the workers lack sufficient consciousness of the nature of their party leadership and program, which I don't think is altogether true. I think they know quite well what they are voting for when they vote for these parties. In any case, if a Kerry administration is forced to preside over deep cuts to Social Security and other social programs, it's difficult not to see the same struggle emerging within the DP, with the left opposition coming from the SEIU-ACSFME-Dean-Kucinich axis which formed during the primaries. I don't think the US labour movement is THAT exceptional, is it?) SEIU Chief Says The Democrats Lack Fresh Ideas Stern Asserts That a Kerry Win Could Set Back Efforts to Reform the Party By David S. Broder Washington Post Tuesday, July 27, 2004; Page A13 BOSTON, July 26 -- Breaking sharply with the enforced harmony of the Democratic National Convention, the president of the largest AFL-CIO union said Monday that both organized labor and the Democratic Party might be better off in the long run if Sen. John F. Kerry loses the election. Andrew L. Stern, the head of the 1.6 million-member Service Employees International Union (SEIU), said in an interview with The Washington Post that both the party and its longtime ally, the labor movement, are in deep crisis, devoid of new ideas and working with archaic structures. Stern argued that Kerry's election might stifle needed reform within the party and the labor movement. He said he still believes that Kerry overall would make a better president than President Bush, and his union has poured huge resources into that effort. But he contends that Kerry's election would have the effect of slowing the evolution of the dialogue within the party. Asked whether if Kerry became president it would help or hurt those internal party deliberations, Stern said, I think it hurts. Stern's dissatisfaction with the AFL-CIO and the Democratic Party is not new, but his decision to voice his frustration on the opening day of a carefully scripted convention was an unwelcome surprise to Kerry's convention managers, who had been proclaiming their delight at the absence of any internal conflicts. Speaking of the effort to create new political and union organizations, Stern said, I don't know if it would survive with a Democratic president, because Kerry, like former president Bill Clinton, would use the party for his own political benefit and labor leaders would become partners of the new establishment. It is a hollow party, Stern said, adding that if John Kerry becomes president, it hurts chances of reforming the Democrats and organized labor. Stern is perhaps the most outspoken of the leaders of four or five unions that have been talking about breaking away from the AFL-CIO to form some kind of new workers movement. In the struggle for the Democratic nomination last winter, Stern's union, along with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), delivered an early endorsement to former Vermont governor Howard H. Dean -- a step that solidified Dean's status as the early favorite for the nomination. Later in the day, AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney told The Post that Stern's attitude is not justified. Sweeney, also a product of the SEIU, the largest and fastest-growing union in the AFL-CIO, said the process of change is already underway within labor, adding that he is impressed with the unity and solidarity of Democratic support for Kerry. I'm optimistic about the future of the Democratic Party, he said. Stern made it clear that his complaints long preceded Kerry's nomination. He said that when Clinton was president, he demonstrated how little he cared for the Democratic Party.
Re: An emerging labor-led left in the DP?
-Original Message- From: Robert Naiman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Jul 27, 2004 10:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] An emerging labor-led left in the DP? if a Kerry administration is forced to preside over deep cuts to Social Security and other social programs ? nothing will force a Kerry Administration to cut Social Security. There is nothing wrong with Social Security. __ Just because Social Security is financially sound does not mean it won't be cut, and cut by a Dem or a Rep. The force, and force there will be, comes from Wall Street because Wall Street wants the business. Will the words of disaffection from the SEIU leaders are remarkable, the remarkable resides in the growing restlessness of the rank and file. That rank and file can and will suppport a labor party if such a party is aggressive in articulating working class interests as interests of all, including those workers outside the US.
Re: An emerging labor-led left in the DP?
if a Kerry administration is forced to preside over deep cuts to Social Security and other social programs ? nothing will force a Kerry Administration to cut Social Security. There is nothing wrong with Social Security. Me: that's right. There's nothing wrong with SS. jdevine
Re: An emerging labor-led left in the DP?
Louis Proyect wrote: Unfortunately, knowing that Kerry is inimical to the interests of working people does not stop the bureaucracy from backing the DP. --- This raises the question of the relationship between the labour base and the labour bureaucracy. The conventional wisdom on the left, expressed by Proyect, is that there is a sharp separation between the two, with the bureacracy seen as an alien force which has imposed an alien program on the unions. In fact, the local and national labour full-timers I've met have seemed a lot less alien to the working class than left-wing intellectuals who regularly denounce them. For the most part, with the exception perhaps of the research, legal, and communications departments, they've risen organically from within the working class -- elected or appointed to union positions after having been rank-and-file activists and strike leaders. Sure, some have been corrupted and have literally sold out their members in exhange for a few perks from management and many betray the same social prejudices as their members, but in most cases the conservatism of union leaders usually stems from an often quite realistic assessment of the balance of forces between their organizations and the employers, rather than any inherent venality or spinelessness. Their compromises and retreats are not infrequently reluctant and in contradiction to their original intent to engage in confrontation. In most cases, they are able to win the support of their members at ratification and other meetings because they reflect the cautious mood and instincts of their base, and they often do this in debate with more militant oppositionists who are present in every major local. Kerry and the DP and labour leaderships are inimical to the interests of working people, if you solely define their interests, as Proyect and other disaffected intellectuals seem to, in terms of the overthrow of capitalism, and see the workers' continued support for the system and the pro-capitalist parties as a product of false consciousness rather than the (historically unexpected) material improvement in their working and living conditions. Within this context, the workers, especially those in trade unions, perceive the Democrats, with some reason, as more sympathetic to the Republicans in terms of collective bargaining rights, minimum wage and employment standards, unemployment relief, social programs, and other economic and social issues of concern to them. Left intellectuals, whose living conditions and interests may be very different, may not think this counts for much and that the Democrats are only only marginally better than the Republicans in terms of the big picture, but to workers struggling to maintain their living standards, these issues are of more than marginal importance, and it is their own experience of the two parties -- as much as the exhortations of the union leaders -- which explains their stubborn refusal to buy the argument that the Democrats are inimical to the interests of working people. I think there will first have to be a major change in the way most people, especially in the cities, experience the system and the two parties for them to even begin to entertain that notion. Marv Gandall
Re: An emerging labor-led left in the DP?
Marvin Gandall wrote: In fact, the local and national labour full-timers I've met have seemed a lot less alien to the working class than left-wing intellectuals who regularly denounce them. This might be related to the fact that you were a trade union functionary for over 25 years. Sure, some have been corrupted and have literally sold out their members in exhange for a few perks from management and many betray the same social prejudices as their members, but in most cases the conservatism of union leaders usually stems from an often quite realistic assessment of the balance of forces between their organizations and the employers, rather than any inherent venality or spinelessness. Yes, why rock the boat especially when there's conventions in Miami, golf, restaurant outings on the union expense account, etc. at risk. Their compromises and retreats are not infrequently reluctant and in contradiction to their original intent to engage in confrontation. In most cases, they are able to win the support of their members at ratification and other meetings because they reflect the cautious mood and instincts of their base, and they often do this in debate with more militant oppositionists who are present in every major local. This is what used to be called business unionism. It was the calling card of Gompers's AFL. The CIO was set up to transcend this kind of reformism, but eventually became corrupted itself as the Cold War and post-WWII prosperity ensued. It obviously is in crisis now since the economic base for traditional high-wage union jobs have evaporated. Instead of coming up with a bold new vision for recruiting new members and challenging the 2-party system, the trade union bureaucrats would rather see the ship sink than challenge the status quo. Kerry and the DP and labour leaderships are inimical to the interests of working people, if you solely define their interests, as Proyect and other disaffected intellectuals seem to, in terms of the overthrow of capitalism, and see the workers' continued support for the system and the pro-capitalist parties as a product of false consciousness rather than the (historically unexpected) material improvement in their working and living conditions. Even on the basis of material improvement, the AFL-CIO has been a failure. Wages have stagnated and job insecurity remains very high. This can only change through class struggle, just as the success of the early CIO proves. Sitting down at the same table with the John Kerrys of the world will not cut it. Within this context, the workers, especially those in trade unions, perceive the Democrats, with some reason, as more sympathetic to the Republicans in terms of collective bargaining rights, minimum wage and employment standards, unemployment relief, social programs, and other economic and social issues of concern to them. Yes, the Democrats are more sympathetic. But Mussolini was also better than Hitler. Left intellectuals, whose living conditions and interests may be very different, may not think this counts for much and that the Democrats are only only marginally better than the Republicans in terms of the big picture, but to workers struggling to maintain their living standards, these issues are of more than marginal importance, and it is their own experience of the two parties -- as much as the exhortations of the union leaders -- which explains their stubborn refusal to buy the argument that the Democrats are inimical to the interests of working people. Gus Hall used to say the same thing with much more conviction. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: An emerging labor-led left in the DP?
There is no need to get personal! On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 01:36:31PM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: This might be related to the fact that you were a trade union functionary for over 25 years. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: An emerging labor-led left in the DP?
Michael Perelman wrote: There is no need to get personal! Well, I was highly insulted by all that stuff about intellectuals. How dare anybody refer to me in those terms. If he was not referring to me, then all is forgiven. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
An emerging labor-led left in the DP?
by Marvin Gandall -clip- -- which explains their stubborn refusal to buy the argument that the Democrats are inimical to the interests of working people. I think there will first have to be a major change in the way most people, especially in the cities, experience the system and the two parties for them to even begin to entertain that notion. ^ This might be true, but how would we explain so many working people voting for Republicans ? Charles
Re: An emerging labor-led left in the DP?
I didn't know that there were intellectuals on this list. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Louis Proyect Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 11:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] An emerging labor-led left in the DP? Michael Perelman wrote: There is no need to get personal! Well, I was highly insulted by all that stuff about intellectuals. How dare anybody refer to me in those terms. If he was not referring to me, then all is forgiven. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: An emerging labor-led left in the DP?
Charles Brown wrote: by Marvin Gandall -clip- -- which explains their stubborn refusal to buy the argument that the Democrats are inimical to the interests of working people. I think there will first have to be a major change in the way most people, especially in the cities, experience the system and the two parties for them to even begin to entertain that notion. ^ This might be true, but how would we explain so many working people voting for Republicans ? Charles --- The US consists mostly of working people, and the two parties are almost equally divided within the voting electorate. So one would expect to see working people forming the base of the major parties. I think this is now true of all capitalist democracies. Most union households are for the Democrats as they are for the social-democrats abroad. But union density in the US is smaller and has been declining steadily. That would explain the lesser weight of the unions in the DP than in the social democratic parties, although this gap can be exaggerated. Women and minorities are the other pillars on which the DP is built. I'm not surprised so many white male workers have crossed to the Republicans in the past three decades, in reaction to the rise of the black, women's, anti(Vietnam)war, and gay movements. The Republicans, as the natural repository for these racist, sexist, chauvinist, and homophobic sentiments were quick to exploit this reactionary fear and insecurity. Workers in the more rural and largely non-union Southern and Midwestern parts of the country increasingly came to identify the cities with these movements, with decadence, liberalism, unions, and the Democratic party. It may be also that, in a long period of stagnating or falling real wages, the Republican mantra of lower taxes also resonated with the least union-conscious and educated part of the American working class, the part most vulnerable to Republican demagogey that most government spending was being directed at black and Hispanic welfare cheats in the inner cities. Finally, I think there is some validity to the criticism that the Democrats have failed to sufficiently differentiate themselves from the Republicans, but I don't think this is the primary reason for the political division in the US working class. I think the underlying social and economic developments alluded to above have been more decisive, and the Democratic leadership has been adapting to rather than leading the corresponding shift to the right of white male workers. Marv Gandall
Re: An emerging labor-led left in the DP?
Marvin Gandall wrote: Most union households are for the Democrats as they are for the social-democrats abroad. But union density in the US is smaller and has been declining steadily. That would explain the lesser weight of the unions in the DP than in the social democratic parties, although this gap can be exaggerated. Women and minorities are the other pillars on which the DP is built. The Democratic Party is not the same thing as a social democratic party. It is a bourgeois party with no organic connections to the trade union movement, nor any committment to socialism even on a verbal basis. In Canada, the closest thing to the Democrats is the Liberal Party upon whose behalf Pierre Trudeau ruled Canada with the same kind of sleazy charm as Bill Clinton a few years later. We need something like the NDP in the USA, with warts and all. The DP is not that party. The DP was started by slaveowner Andy Jackson in the early 1800s and represented the big bourgeoisie for its entire history. For a brief time, starting with FDR and ending with LBJ, it made concessions to trade unionists because they threatened to break with the party. Now that the rust belt has gutted the social, political and economic power of the trade unions and now that the USSR no longer exists as a possible threat to capitalist hegemony, both capitalist parties feel freer to return to their roots. In the case of the DP, it means returning to Woodrow Wilson. For the RP, it means returning to Herbert Hoover. I'm not surprised so many white male workers have crossed to the Republicans in the past three decades, in reaction to the rise of the black, women's, anti(Vietnam)war, and gay movements. If the trade union movement paid less attention to the aristocracy of labor and more to the people who worked at Walmart, etc., it would not have to worry about such defections. A cashier at Walmart could care less about Queer Eye For the Straight Guy. Finally, I think there is some validity to the criticism that the Democrats have failed to sufficiently differentiate themselves from the Republicans, but I don't think this is the primary reason for the political division in the US working class. I think the underlying social and economic developments alluded to above have been more decisive, and the Democratic leadership has been adapting to rather than leading the corresponding shift to the right of white male workers. Continuing adaptation will lead to the utter destruction of the trade unions, such as they are. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: An emerging labor-led left in the DP?
I appreciate Michael's intent to keep order, although I didn't especially mind your barb; I've seen you much less restrained. But I don't understand your angry reply. Why is it ok for you to call me a trade union functionary for 25 years (actually 20, I was previously a steward in the Steelworkers and an SEIU organizer) and then take umbrage at my including you within the intelligensia? I didn't mean this latter to be insulting but descriptive, incidentally; I was a doctoral student before going into industry, so that could describe my background equally well. For certain, my experience negotiating and administering contracts and contact with trade unionists at all levels has been critical in shaping my views. Why do you suppose your immersion in the New York left intellectual milieu has not had a similar effect on your own, but so what? I take that into account in weighing your contributions, but still think your arguments have to be dealt with on their merits. I trust you feel the same way. Marv Gandall - Original Message - From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 2:03 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] An emerging labor-led left in the DP? Michael Perelman wrote: There is no need to get personal! Well, I was highly insulted by all that stuff about intellectuals. How dare anybody refer to me in those terms. If he was not referring to me, then all is forgiven. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
