Archive

elections

At a rally in Dallas on the first day of early voting, congressional candidate Colin Allred said “We have two weeks to save democracy!”

allred-cwa-earlyvote

Soon afterward, the election in Brazil sharpened world concern for democracy’s future. Jair Bolsonaro openly welcomes a return to military dictatorship. He threatens all his political opponents with using the military and government sanctions militias to carry out “a cleansing never before seen.” Women, gays, landless peasants, and the homeless are targets named in a New York Times article.

Almost immediately after the election, military units began raiding student organizations to confiscate any “anti-fascist” or “pro-democracy” materials, according to @castriotar on Twitter.

It’s not just Brazil. The Week news service says, “Right-wing populist and nationalist governments are in power in Russia, Turkey, India, Israel, Hungary, Poland, and the United States, and they share power with left-wing populists in Italy. Established right-wing parties in Britain, Canada, and Australia are busily adapting to the populist trend. Japan’s Shinzo Abe has taken his conservative Liberal Party in a notably nationalist direction. And with Angela Merkel announcing her intention not to run for re-election, and her party anxiously watching the rise of the far-right Alternative for Germany, it’s likely her conservative coalition will also begin sounding right-wing populist themes.”

What’s “Populism?”

In American history, the populists were always considered the representatives of the downtrodden, primarily farmers and sharecroppers who were being squeezed out by urbanization. Populism was associated with being pro-democracy, according to Wikipedia.

Today, newspersons and pundits use the term to mean anybody who claims to oppose the status quo. They’ve invented the term “right-wing populism” to include politicians who are virulently against democracy. Others just call them fascists.

What’s “Left,” What’s “Right?”

On the democracy scale, “left” is usually associated with more democracy while “right” is associated with less. The meaning of both terms is so thoroughly distorted as to make them generally useless. “Pro-democratic” or “anti’” is more accurate.

President Trump’s recent claim that he can overturn the American constitution’s birthright guarantee by executive order is a good example of anti-democratic activity.

What’s “Democracy?”

Historically, we associate democracy with the ancient Greeks. The idea was government by the will of the people. Through the ages, we have never seen anything close to a complete democracy. The Greeks, of course, excluded their slaves. In America, democracy has grown a lot since slavery days but has never included the people’s control over basic economic nor foreign policy.

Of especial importance is the people’s lack of control over the machinery of elections. We may get to vote, but we have never controlled the elections.

During economic or military emergencies, democracy is always diminished. Wartime presidents Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt were often called dictators.

Socialists have held out the promise of great extensions of democracy, but have never completely delivered because of the extreme tactics of capitalist opposition. The best that socialists have been able to deliver was “wartime democracy” similar to what Lincoln and Roosevelt practiced.

Who Is “Shifting to the Right?”

Commentators are scrambling to explain the anti-democratic global changes. They ask why people have been voting away their own democratic powers. The answer is that we aren’t.

Our democracy, even American democracy, is not complete and never was. The struggle between the poor and the rich, the 1% and the 99%, the employees and the employers, the workers and the owners, is being played out in elections that are ignored by many on our side. The elections are  being manipulated by the rich and distorted by incredible rivers of dark ugly money.

As a world crisis of international competition shrinks their opportunities, the wealthy are increasingly choosing to give up all pretense of government by the people. They are throwing their considerable wealth and power behind reactionary anti-democracy politicians who are willing to carry us all down an obvious path of total destruction.

Only our side can save democracy.

-Gene Lantz

I’m on KNON radio’s “Workers Beat” program 89.3FM in Dallas at 9 AM Central Time every Saturday. They podcast it on Itunes. If you want to know what I really think, check out my personal web site

Notes:

Ny times https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/29/world/americas/jair-bolsonaro-brazil-profile.html

Brazil Election: How Jair Bolsonaro Turned Crisis Into Opportunity

Mr. Bolsonaro’s broadsides against women, gay people, Brazilians of color and even democracy — “Let’s go straight to the dictatorship,” he once said as a congressman — made him so polarizing that he struggled to find a running mate until early August. Traditional parties and politicians considered him too extreme.

President Trump called on Sunday to congratulate him on his victory, following up with a tweet on Monday morning that said, “Had a very good conversation with the newly elected President of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, who won the race by a substantial margin. We agreed that Brazil and the United States will work closely together on Trade, Military and everything else!”

In 1993, he delivered a fiery speech before the lower house of Congress urging its demise, calling the emerging version of democracy in Brazil a lost cause.

“I am in favor of a dictatorship,” Mr. Bolsonaro thundered. “We will never resolve serious national problems with this irresponsible democracy.”

rc‏ @castriotar Oct 26

rc Retweeted Folha de S.Paulo

More than 20 Brazilian universities were invaded by the military police in the past 2 days. They confiscated material on the history of fascism, interrupted classes due to ‘ideological content’, removed anti-fascist banners and posters claiming that it was electoral propaganda.

@castriotar

Many other student movements and organizations reported military police forces inside classrooms, student units, academic directories, confiscating any sort of materials with ‘anti-fascist’ or ‘pro-democracy’ content.

“It will be a cleansing never before seen in Brazilian history.” [referring directly to “reds,” to Workers Party leader Lula Da Silva, and to his present electoral opponent. He said they will “rot in jail.” He directly threatens to use the armed forces and civilian militias with legal sanction against enemies such as the landless peasants movement and the homeless movement.

April article From Independent about Hungary: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/victor-orban-hungary-migrant-refugees-george-soros-ngo-far-right-a8297441.html

Viktor Orban’s right-wing populist party has vowed to would crack down on organisations helping migrants and refugees, in an announcement made just a day after it won an overwhelming election victory.

The autocratic prime minister portrayed himself as the saviour of Hungary’s Christian culture against Muslim migration into Europe, an image which resonated with more than 2.5 million voters.”

His Fidesz party won a two-thirds super majority in the country’s parliament, which would allow it and its small ally, the Christian democrats, to push through changes to constitutional laws.

**

From Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/02/27/polands-right-wing-government-is-rewriting-history-with-itself-as-hero/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2ef44090bd99

By Mateusz Mazzini February 27

Poland is in the midst of a pitched battle over its collective memory. The ruling party has recently stirred an international controversy by passing a bill criminalizing the use of the phrase “Polish death camps.” But in many ways, those international rifts are just collateral damage. The real battle is at home and is over what counts as legitimate political authority, and who can wield it.

Poland’s government is suggesting that the present-day cosmopolitan liberals who want to acknowledge Polish collaborators in crimes against Jews are traitors, like the Communists, willing to sell the nation to the highest international bidder. And such national mythmaking has more real-world power than many understand.

From The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/06/its-the-right-wings-italy-now/562256/  June 6

“A new populist government came to power in Italy this week, and the right is calling the shots. It swept in on a wave of anxiety about immigration and the economy. On the economy, certain European rules could prevent Italy from going totally off the rails. When it comes to immigration, things could get rough—at least in rhetoric. In 88 days of coalition talks, Salvini, known for his strident attacks on immigrants as a threat to Italian safety, grew emboldened by the League’s rising popularity in the polls, and in the 11th-hour negotiations to forge a government, he appears to have outmaneuvered Luigi di Maio, the head of the anti-establishment Five-Star Movement, which won twice as many votes as the League in Italy’s March 4 elections

From The Week: https://theweek.com/articles/804453/why-are-rightwing-populists-winning-everywhere

“Right-wing populist and nationalist governments are in power in Russia, Turkey, India, Israel, Hungary, Poland, and the United States, and they share power with left-wing populists in Italy. Established right-wing parties in Britain, Canada, and Australia are busily adapting to the populist trend. Japan’s Shinzo Abe has taken his conservative Liberal Party in a notably nationalist direction. And with Angela Merkel announcing her intention not to run for re-election, and her party anxiously watching the rise of the far-right Alternative for Germany, it’s likely her conservative coalition will also begin sounding right-wing populist themes.”

“What is the commonality in contemporary conditions, around the world, that has made people in so many countries susceptible to both emotional impulses at once, and powered the global rise of the populist right?

That’s the question that liberal democrats need to answer before they are completely swept away.”

I enthusiastically recommend the content and ideas in Michael Moore’s new documentary, but I can’t actually recommend the movie.

Movie Review:

“Fahrenheit 11/9” Written and Directed by Michael Moore. 2 hours 6 minutes.

Michael Moore of Flint, Michigan, is probably the greatest satirist since Johnathan Swift. While his latest and most ambitious movie fulfills its purpose in illustrating virtually everything that’s wrong in Donald Trump’s America, it also highlights the inadequacy our response.

michael-moore

In Moore’s defense, one might say that listing today’s evils is necessarily a long and grim task. However, such length and such anger don’t fit well into a moviegoing experience. “I felt like I was getting beat up,” was my movie buddy’s summary.

Three or four, or maybe four or five, separate documentaries would have carried the message and made the point better. I wouldn’t mind a feature-length documentary on the scandal of lead poisoning in Flint, or on comparisons between Trump and Hitler, on the Florida teenagers’ response to school shootings, on the failures of our electoral system, and most certainly I wouldn’t mind a feature length documentary on the wonderful school employees of West Virginia. But trying to cover them all, and even more stuff, in one continuous documentary film?

Moore’s over-ambitious project took so much time that it squeezed out all the room that he used in his earlier films for humor. There are some great laughs in “Fahrenheit 11/9,” but only a few.

That’s not my main complaint.

Where Is the Solution?

In an interview introducing his film, Michael Moore said that its purpose was to get people to vote this November. But that isn’t clear at all in the movie. Even if it were clear, for whom would Mr. Moore have us vote? In this film, he lambastes the Democrats almost as much as the Republicans. That can only lead people to do exactly what Moore tells us not to do, stay home on November 6.

At one point, one of the characters featured tells people to join unions. But another part of the movie disparages unions.

Apparently, the outraged Michael Moore wants us to be outraged, but what does he want us to do about it? Many Americans are already outraged. Somebody needs to tell them to join unions and other progressive organizations and fight for a progressive program with a real, long-term social solution.

Otherwise, we’re just a bunch of simple-minded outraged anarchists.

–Gene Lantz

I’m on KNON radio’s “Workers Beat” program at 9 AM central time every Saturday. They podcast on Itunes. If you are curious about what I really think, check out my personal web site.

Reverend L. Charles Stovall needed a ride home from the Dallas Labor Day Breakfast, and I was happy to get to spend time with him.

Stovall and Hickman at the Labor Day Breakfast in 2011

Almost as soon as he got in the car, he called Reverend Holsey Hickman to tell him that the annual breakfast is getting better and better. I wholeheartedly agreed.

The hard data showed that ticket sales were way over the 500 mark that we strived for over the last decade. Participation from labor, political, religious, and community leaders was far better. The three of us could remember when area unions had to scramble to even find even one religious leader to open the ceremonies. There were no community groups. Civil rights and immigrant rights weren’t mentioned.

National Unions Are Watching Dallas

This year, we had two national union leaders speaking: UFCW International President Marc Perrone and ATU International Secretary-Treasurer Oscar Owens. Perrone told the crowd, “We are the labor movement. We are the last and only hope for America.” He also said, “The fight for justice will go on forever as long as there are greedy bastards out there!” My favorite quote was one word repeated three times, “Organize! Organize! Organize!”

Texas AFL-CIO President Rick Levy was in the audience and trying to listen while admirers hustled him into one photo opportunity after another. Louis Malfaro, leader of Texas’ biggest union, the Federation of Teachers, presented the Linda Bridges award for outstanding union women to the Dallas AFL-CIO Political Director, Lorraine Montemayor. The applause showed how much everyone agreed with the choice. Montemayor said, “You are the backbone of this country!” Then, true to form, she began outlining some of the hard work planned for this election season.

The award for “Hero of Labor” deservedly went to DJ Garza of the UAW. As an organizer for the Workers’ Defense Project, Garza has made a difference in winning rights for Dallas workers. The “Community Champion” award went to Faith in Texas. They turned out many volunteers for the recent petitioning campaign to win paid sick time.

Political Leaders Know the Value of Union Support

I don’t know if Mark York, principal officer of the Dallas AFL-CIO and emcee for the breakfast, was able to mention every office holder and candidate in the audience. It seemed to me that they were all there. Texas governor candidate Lupe Valdez put it this way: “I work with unions because we want to do the right thing for every working Texan.”

Colin Allred, candidate for Congress in District 32 — one of the most closely watched races in America — wowed the crowd. Like many candidates this year, he is also a union member. Also on the dais were Congresspersons Eddie Bernice Johnson and Marc Veasey. The Texas Democratic Party Chair, Gilberto Hinojosa, came to speak, as did  Senator Royce West, State Rep Victoria Neave, County Judge Clay Jenkins, Commissioner John Wiley Price, and Councilman Scott Griggs. Out in the audience, there were many more.

Look Back, Look Forward!

Us old timers can remember when the annual breakfast petered out for a couple of years. It was expensive back in the 1990s, and sometimes it just didn’t seem like it was worth the trouble. During those two years without the annual AFL-CIO breakfast, our little Jobs with Justice group seized the opportunity. We didn’t have the money for a banquet, so we fell back on time-tested labor tactics. We did car caravans to labor’s “hot spots” around North Texas. News reporters liked it, and we more than kept up the Labor Day tradition.

When the breakfast started again, Jobs with Justice worked to get faith leaders, especially Stovall and Hickman — because they were also major civil rights leaders — to come. We had to raise the money, but we soon had a table of ten religious and community leaders. Stovall and Hickman reflected the new, broader and more inclusive AFL-CIO that would extend its influence throughout the progressive movement.

This trend is extending. In 1999, the AFL-CIO began to reach out to undocumented workers for the first time in its history. Today, there are no barriers between the Dallas AFL-CIO and every aspect of the progressive movement. The Labor Day breakfast showed that we have made tremendous progress, and it points the way toward a future in which the progressive movement is truly focused on working families. In that future, nothing can stop us!

–Gene Lantz

I’m on KNON radio’s “Workers Beat” program at 9AM Central Time every Saturday. They podcast it on Itunes. If you are curious about what I really think, check out my personal web site.

The outlook for working families is far worse than usually noted.

inequality-europe-US

The graph above is one of those used in the best selling, world-shaking economics book “Capital in the 21st Century” by Thomas Piketty.

Like many graphs in the book, this one shows that income inequality dropped during the middle part of the 20th century. Then it began to rise again and continues to rise toward conditions that Monsieur Piketty and others describe as “intolerable.”

Popular economics books of today such as “Runaway Inequality,” a book broadly used in the American labor movement, only look at the later half of the graph – from 1945 to present. Most of the economic analysis used by the AFL-CIO is based on a “return to normal” which they define as 1945-1973. Most of us grew up in that period and consequently it is natural that we would think of it as “normal.”

In 1973, the United States and the world dropped the gold standard and began floating their currencies. After those great economic changes of the Nixon Administration, and even more so under the trickle-down “Reaganomics” of 1980, we say that really bad people distorted American economics to the detriment of working families. Since the bad people took power, inequality has continually grown much worse.

The world owes its gratitude to the Occupy Movement for having focused our attention on rising inequality. They saw that the 1% was growing in wealth and power to the detriment of the 99%, and they forced the rest of us to see it. The unfortunate inadequacy of their solution grew from the shortcomings of their analysis. They didn’t look deeply enough into the data.

Bernie Sanders took this growing consciousness much further. His analysis included the nuts and bolts of inequality, the ways that the 1% keeps the flow of wealth moving upward toward them. Sanders’ prescriptions for new nuts and bolts were much more useful than what the Occupy Movement had offered. Sanders and his followers are converging with the American labor movement today, and both are being strengthened. For that, too, the world must be grateful. I am grateful.

At the same time, during the fiery height of the Bernie Sanders campaign in 2016, even while I was campaigning for him, I often said, “Bernie Sanders will never live to see his program implemented. They would kill him first.”

The solution being put forward by almost everyone in the labor movement and by progressives at large, Bernie Sanders included, is to stop electing bad people and start electing good people who will return to the good policies that reduced inequality during 1914-1973. It’s a simple and seductive solution.

It Won’t Work

I would truly like to think that elections, elections in general and specifically the ones we’re about to have, will elect those good people, with those good solutions, and we will return to the policies that lowered instead of raising inequality in the United States and in the world. But they won’t.

I want to tell you why, even though I supported the Occupy Movement, and even though I support the Bernie Sanders socialists, and even though I am completely devoted to the AFL-CIO and the American labor movement, I want to tell you why I think their analysis is incomplete. Not only is their analysis incomplete, but their prescription, what to do about our situation, is inadequate. One cannot arrive at successful tactics without first understanding the present situation.

Look at the Whole Graph

The popular analysis, and the prescriptions that come from it, are wrong. Look at the whole graph. In fact, look at the entire history of capitalism. Piketty and his associates have accumulated data and anecdotal records going back to the early days of capitalism. Those data show incontrovertibly that increasing inequality is fundamental to capitalism. The 60-year drop in inequality, roughly from World War I until 1973, a small part of capitalism’s history, was never normal. It was completely abnormal and, in fact, antithetical to normal capitalism. What we had before 1914, and what we have now, rising inequality, is “normal.”

Didn’t Work in 2008, Won’t Work in 2018

If one realizes that we are now living in a “normal” period, then one should be able to see that there is no single simple solution. Even if we have great election victories in 2018, as we did in 2008 by the way, inequality is not going to diminish. We’re going to have to work a lot harder than that.

What we are living in now, and what we lived in before World War I, is normal. In an article titled “Who Will Be the Winners of the Crisis?”, Piketty himself explains: “Left to itself, capitalism, because it is profoundly unstable and inegalitarian, leads naturally to catastrophes.” “Inegalitarian” means what you think it does.

So the period of my youth was abnormal. What we are suffering under today is normal.

Why Did Inequality Diminish in the Abnormal Period?

Monsieur Piketty points out that the crises of the 20th century did not cause inequality to go down. As he says in the article I just quoted, “The historical data… shows unambiguously that that financial crises, as such, have no lasting effect on inequality; it all depends on the political response to them.”

So the political responses to the two world wars and to the great depression were what lowered inequality. It was the progressive taxation that lowered inequality. But why did these progressive policies get selected? Why not let the rich continue getting richer and the poor get poorer? Piketty says that the system received “shocks” with two world wars and a great depression.

Look At the Graph Again

Piketty is wrong about the “why” of diminished inequality 1914-1973. It wasn’t “shocks.” It was the success of the working class. We may not know much about the 23 countries that Piketty studied, but we do know what happened in the United States in the middle of the 20th century.

Workers Power Grew

In 1914, when Piketty says inequality began to get lower, the Socialist Party was riding high in America. Even out here, in Texas and in Oklahoma, many people were openly socialists. They voted socialist. There were socialists elected here and there and everywhere. There were socialists in Congress! The Industrial Workers of the World was terrifying employers from the textile mills of New England to the timber forests of Oregon. In 1917, socialists took power in the Russian empire! In 1919, Eugene Debs got a million votes for President while he was in prison!

The great depression hit hard in the capitalist countries, but the socialists were able to point to the Soviet Union and say “They aren’t having a depression!” Socialism, and the workers movement, was growing in popularity while inequality was falling. During World War II, it was the socialists who led the resistance movements. Many of them were so popular that they took power when the Germans and Japanese were finally defeated. Look at Marshall Tito in Yugoslavia, Enver Hoxha in Albania. Look at Mao Tse Tung in China and Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam!

In 1935 in America, the Committee for Industrial Organization took over where the Industrial Workers of the World left off. The progressive movement grew like crazy. By 1947, they had gone from a small part of the labor movement to approximately 1/3 of the American workforce! The actual numbers of people in unions continued to rise until the mid-1950s. Then it started to drop off. In that same period, socialists were red-baited into virtual obscurity.  The Soviet Union was probably at the height of its world popularity when it sent up Sputnik in 1957, but its popularity sagged after that. By the time Reagan declared war against the progressive movement, the steam had gone out of the workers’ movement, both internationally and here.

I saw one book, sold by the AFL-CIO, that says the American labor movement died in 1972 because they failed to support McGovern for President. We didn’t actually die, but we lost a lot of blood.

However one may analyze it, no matter what statistics one uses, one still has to conclude that the workers’ movement does not have the power that it enjoyed in the middle of the century, when inequality was at its lowest.

After 1980, the power of American employers waxed while ours waned. Inequality grew. Inequality is still growing.

While Employers Rule, Workers Can Make No Permanent Gains

The greatest person I ever knew personally was named George Meyers. He had been a leader of the CIO before he joined the army in World War II. George used to say, ‘There are no permanent gains for workers under capitalism.” No matter what you win, you will always have to fight for the same things again.

I had a personal experience with that. My union carried out an incredible fight in 1984-5, and we emerged with the best contract in the aerospace industry. Better than Boeing’s contract, and we were just little LTV in Grand Prairie, Texas. But nobody hangs on to those gains. You have to win them over again, the same things, win them over and over and over, every contract.

With Understanding, We Can Prescribe Solutions

The solution to the rising inequality caused today by normal capitalism is to fight with everything we can find. We have to fight to win these elections, of course, and we really need to win. But that’s not all. We need economic struggle as well as political struggle. We need boycotts, we need petitioning campaigns, we need militant contract fights, and above all we need to organize. We need to bring the entire progressive movement together and focus it on fighting the employers, the 1%.

It’s easy to say these things but not so easy to do. Contract fights are rare today, because the legalities have become so rigorous against us and our leaders have lost their edge while our members are confused. Even a simple idea like organizing is really really hard. Most union staffers and officers are far too busy to organize. There’s very little money for organizing, and there are very few unpaid volunteers in today’s labor movement.

But There’s Good News

We are in the biggest and most general progressive upsurge in American history. It isn’t focused, it isn’t united, but it’s big and it’s enthusiastic. The most exciting news of the 21st century came from the teachers of West Virginia and a few other states this year. They carried out victorious political strikes. Political strikes are common in Europe, but almost unheard of in America. That kind of planning, that kind of volunteering, and that kind of militancy is what we have to have.

I won’t say it’s easy to do what has to be done, but I will say that it has to be done. There is no other way.

–Gene Lantz

I’m on KNON radio 89.3FM in Dallas at 9 AM Central time every Saturday. They podcast it on Itunes. If you are curious about what I really think, see my personal web site. I intend to present the ideas in this article at 6:30PM Central Time on September 1 at Romo’s Restaurant, 7033 Greenville Av in Dallas. Come down and discuss it!

I liked a great deal of what I saw at the Texas Democratic Party convention in Ft Worth on June 22, but not everything.

conv-laborcaucuscrowd

The first thing we attended was the Labor Caucus. Texas AFL-CIO President Rick Levy presided over a completely packed meeting with people standing three deep along the back and sides. I caught Levy’s opening remarks on “Facebook Live” where you can see them at https://www.facebook.com/gene.lantz.7.

Just about every critical candidate in Texas was there seeking union help. Levy could only recognize most of them briefly due to time constraints. The ones that he introduced to the podium were the most critical statewide candidates such as Lupe Valdez for Governor.

candidate-lupevaldez

I noticed at least two unions had bought ads in the Democrats’ brochure: CWA and UAW. The Texas AFL-CIO booth in the Exhibit Hall was abuzz with activity. They took polaroids of people posing in front of their big slogan, “I’m union, I fight, I vote!’ It has a “big fist” image, to show power and commitment.

Labor’s big impact on the Democrats was evident everywhere. It doesn’t mean that labor is in their pocket, it actually means the opposite. Texas Democratic Party Chair Gilberto Hinojosa likes to say that Labor and the Democrats are “joined at the hip,” but in truth labor’s activities are very much our own. In this photo, you can see Texas AFL-CIO President Rick Levy thinking carefully while Hinojosa speaks to the Labor Caucus.

conv-levy-gilbertohinojosa

The deep polarization in America is causing working families to support Democrats. Recent news reports show Republicans trying to implement $6 trillion in cuts that would affect working people, less than a year after their big tax giveaway of more than a $trillion$ to the wealthy. The Texas Republican Party’s platform, just finished June 18, is a kick in the face to working families, and especially to our children.

On the downside

In their exuberance, the first dozen or so speakers at the Democrats’ convention emphasized two main themes: immigration and gun violence. These are hot-button issues today, to be sure, but they are issues that the Democrats already own. The Republicans have generously donated those issues and those voters to the Democrats.

But what about fighting the corporate takeover? What about America’s three ongoing wars and attempts to coerce and undermine other nations? What about America’s disgraceful top-of-the-world prison population? What about taking concrete steps to end the health care hodgepodge and support Medicare for All? What about saving the state’s environment in the face of rampant oil well fracking and nuclear waste dumping? I didn’t hear those issues, except for some vague emotional appeals here and there.

The inescapable conclusion is that the Democrats are not ready to forego big corporate campaign donations any more than the Republicans are.

What will you do?

I realize that many of America’s best activists have adopted the age-old goal of trying to take over the Democratic Party. I hope they do, but history tells us that it isn’t likely.

Supporting working families, not candidates nor parties, is the way to go. It may be true that nearly all of labor’s candidates in 2018 will be democrats, and it may be true that an individual activist can be more effective short-term working directly for candidates than he/she might be while working for the AFL-CIO, but that would be a major long-term mistake.

The electoral arena is only one of many, and we must choose labor in every one!

If the goal is to make serious change, activists must recognize that only workers can do that. They are the only ones who can stand up to capitalists. A few years ago, one could not have been blamed for feeling that the AFL-CIO and unions in general were not rightfully the leaders of the working class, but that is no longer true and has not been true since 1995. The AFL-CIO today truly works for the entire class and strives to organize everybody.

That’s the team we should join!

–Gene Lantz

I’m still on KNON radio 89.3FM in Dallas at 9 AM Central Time every Saturday. The “events” tab on the web site leads to recent podcasts. If you want to know what I really think, check out my personal web site.

 

 

 

 

Republicans continue the countdown on democracy with their plans for the 2020 census. African American and Latino organizations are trying to stop them.

count2

The NAACP’s lawsuit says that the last census seriously undercounted African Americans, and preparations, or lack of preparations, for the 2020 census threatens to do the same. Latinos are especially upset by the Trump Administration’s plan to ask if they are citizens or not.

If the Republicans get away with it, they will be able to seriously diminish Black and Brown representation in government. Their anti-democratic redistricting would be made even easier for them.

Historical Context

This is not the first time that the parties in power have used counting as a way to undermine democracy. Bear in mind that the first constitution counted slaves as 3/5’s of a person so that slaveholders could amass more electoral clout, even though the slaves had no say about anything.

Political Context

The fight for a fair census is another part of the larger fight for democracy and against incipient fascism. Voter suppression laws from state governments are rampant. Redistricting has undercut the “minority” vote. Big money has won Supreme Court backing and is now free  to dominate all elections without even revealing who they are. The Voting Rights Act has already been eviscerated.

Working families have to fight on every front to preserve the partial democracy that we have won over the centuries. Every front includes economic struggles as well as electoral.

— Gene Lantz 

I’m still on KNON radio 89.3FM in Dallas at 9 AM Central Time every Saturday. If you look in the “events” tab of knon.org, you can find programs from the last two weeks. If you want to know what I really think, check out my personal web site

A big change is coming in international relations.

war2

It may seem that the whacky international news is only being caused by our whacky president and his whacky ways, but there are several underlying real trends pointing the United States toward starting a new war.

The most obvious one, which I have written about before, is that the Republicans and Donald Trump are looking at some major election losses in November unless they do something drastic. The most recent shifting of posts in the White House is definitely in that direction.

Another reason is more long-term and has to do with trade balances and history.

Looking Back

Nearly all of us living today are products of post-World-War-Two thinking. The “American Century” that began in 1945 put the United States at the head of all nations both militarily and economically. Historically, it was a most unusual situation for the world and for America, but most of us think of it as “normal” because it’s the only situation we have ever experienced. It isn’t normal at all, and it can’t last.

U.S. military domination continues, but is severely challenged right now in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. U.S. economic domination continues but is severely challenged by the European Union, new alliances in South America, and, most of all, by China.

U.S. economic domination is no longer based on our industrial productivity. A great deal of our industry has been shut down. Our agricultural production is still very strong, but also faces challenges. If anything, U.S. economic domination is based on finance, especially on borrowing.

An interesting article from CBS News says, “Why China won’t dump its huge U.S. Treasury bond Hoard.” They say it won’t happen, but they wouldn’t have written the article if people weren’t worried about it. Apparently, China holds about $1.2 trillion in U.S. Treasury bonds. They buy them every year, but they slowed down their purchases last year, the article says. It was just an incremental change, the article says.

The Nature of Change

Most change is incremental. It happens so slowly that we hardly notice it until some statistician points it out. These are quantitative changes. But quantitative changes can accumulate and, eventually, create giant qualitative changes that seem to happen all at once and come out of nowhere. Think of a stock market collapse, an earthquake, or a sinkhole. Think of a war.

Why Have a War?

Competition, not cooperation, is the natural behavior of capitalist economies. War is a natural consequence of capitalism. Even in the “American Century” so far, U.S. armies have been engaged over and over again. Even when the armies were not engaged, the U.S. has employed proxy armies such as the “Contras” in Nicaragua, the Kurds in Syria, or the Saudis in Yemen.

What passes for “diplomacy” is actually based on war or the threat of war. Witness the current expulsion of diplomats from Russian embassies, for example.

Why NOT Have a War?

Like any other enterprise, war depends on the cooperation of the people carrying it out. If we refuse, if we mobilize against it, no one can force us into the next big war. But we need to get started.

-Gene Lantz

I’m still on KNON.org 89.3 FM in Dallas at 9 AM Central Time every Saturday. Programs are podcast for two weeks and can be found under the “events” tab of the home page. If you are interested in what I really think, check out my personal web site.