Young people need unions, plain and simple. And we intend to get them with the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).
The last 2 years have more than demonstrated the role of young people in strengthening social and political movements, culminating in the presidential and congressional elections on November 4th. Youth, typically defined between 18 and 29 years old, were not simply looking to the future, but trying to improve on the situation right now. Whether it was access to education or an end to the Iraq war, youth—now 18% of the electorate—are a political force.
Young voters are doing our part, and we will need a little help from Congress and the new president to maintain still higher levels of participation by passing the Employee Free Choice Act.
You see the problem is that young people are the least likely to be organized into a union of all the age groups. And this is important because working people in the same age group that are in a union make more money and have more benefits than their counterparts without a union. A recently published report by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) entitled “Unions and Upward Mobility for Young Workers” noted that in the past 3 years, the median income for young workers in a union was $4.57 more per hour than those without a union. It went on to note that “Unionized young workers were also much more likely to have health insurance (65.6&) than younger workers who weren’t in unions (38.4%), and also much more likely than younger non-union workers to have a pension plan (58.4%, compared to 25.6%).”
Youth, the labor movement, and the entire country would benefit if more young workers were in unions. And the Employee Free Choice Act would get us started. Sometimes called the Wagner Act of our time, this bill would strengthen labor laws on the side of working people—making it easier to form and join a union. EFCA would give us license to get organized and ready to struggle for access to healthcare, better wages, and strong pensions both for ourselves and for generations before and after us.
In an era where access to healthcare, retirement income, and over all economic security are common concerns at the dinner table, the status of young people as a part of the country’s workforce must be more strongly addressed. Consider the role 2.2 million newly registered young voters were able to play in the 2008 elections. Now, imagine the role 2.2 million newly unionized young workers could play in strengthening the labor movement and the economy over all.
The outcome of these elections is a huge turning point in American history, and could possibly open the doors to the most productive and fruitful period any of us have ever experienced. We call on Congress to take up and pass the Employee Free Choice Act in the first 100 days. Help us to help you move the country forward.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Obama and the New Progressive Patriotism
by Adam Tenney
I’m not ashamed to admit that attending Obama’s inauguration will probably be one of the big moments in my life. Being there with millions of other Americans to celebrate our victory over the forces of reaction and racism is a moment to remember. This was a particularly momentous occasion for those us who have grown up under the Bush Administration. Finally, we are moving out of era defined by defensive struggle to one in which we can work with a president who holds many of the same ideals that we do.
This was not simply a celebration of our election of an African American president. I doubt that there would have been such a public celebration if Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice had been elected. What makes this such a defining moment is that we have elected an African American president who holds progressive and democratic values.
This election has proven to be a difficult one for some progressives and Leftists. On Nov. 5th there was a lot of questioning about what to do now. Bush is gone, but now what? There are questions around how to approach the Obama Administration. Is he a progressive or centrist? How do we “go beyond the Obama election”? Frankly, I don’t really know what the latter question means even though I’ve seen it quite a bit. However, these aren’t the questions we need to be asking. It doesn’t matter if Obama is progressive or a centrist now nor does it matter if you can “go beyond” his election. The question to be answered is whether or not we understand this moment and the peoples response to it’s historic call for change.
In his inaugural speech, Obama highlights two main themes that point in the direction we need to take: understanding change and the development of a new progressive patriotism.
In his speech Obama stated, “what the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them—that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply”. How true this is for some on the Left. There were those of us progressives and Lefties who came to DC to fully rejoice with others in the culmination of an election that we poured our hearts and souls into. Others begrudgingly came to DC with a thinly veiled line of wanting to support Obama but also wanting to make sure people understood he was still a tool of capitalism. In truth, they simply did not want to look like racist jerks for protesting the first African-American president and behind closed doors believe that Obama is just like George Bush. While others still were blatant in their stupidity and proclaimed with tinges of racism that Obama was simply capitalism with a "black face".
It can be hard to go from a movement of protest and being on the defensive to one of celebration and going on the offensive. A new political moment requires a re-examination of tactics and new outlook on what is possible. There will be some who aren’t able to change. Groups will still be hung up on Bush. They will continue to apply the same tactics of protest and will continue to be hung up on what Bush did while in office. Yes, it is important to continue to highlight what happened during the last eight years. The disasters created during the Bush Administration will continue for years to come. However, he is not in power anymore.
There will be those who from the sidelines, because they refuse to change their tactics, angrily denounce Obama for not ending the Iraq War fast enough or doing enough to help revive our economy. On the sidelines they will stay and continue to be politically irrelevant.
To understand the new possibility of change is to understand the idea of progressive patriotism. This new moment represents the possibility to reclaim our progressive heritage; to redefine what means to be an American. In these times of hardship and crisis people want to believe we can be better. That our country is not about greed and profit but puts value in “hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity”. The parts of Obama’s speech that got the most applause and response were the parts that invoked these feelings.
In his speech Obama said, “The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.”
Obama made it clear that it was the masses of working people that built our country. “It has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things—some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor—who have carried us up the long rugged path toward prosperity and freedom… For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.”
In speaking these words he is calling forth the best and the most progressive in our nation’s history with a touch of materialism in understanding that is labor that creates wealth. These statements are not cliché soundbytes that overlook our darker moments such as slavery and our struggle with racism. Obama bluntly points out that the struggle for equality and freedom is “the meaning of our liberty and our creed—why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent Mall, and why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most a sacred oath.”
Obama is redefining what it means to be patriotic and what we are being patriots about. Patriotism doesn’t have to be the reactionary patriotism touted by the right wing. Many of the great leaders who have lead struggles for social change have done so out of love for their country. It is these struggles for justice, equality and freedom that define us as Americans.
This struggle over patriotism is something the Left will have to come to grips with if it wants to be part of the movement for change. People have rightly been disgusted with the actions of our elected officials and have felt ashamed at what our government has done in our name. The consequences of these actions will linger on for years to come. However, it will be impossible to mobilize broad masses of people for change under a banner of shame about being an American.
Slogans being pander about on the Left like “Stop Thinking Like An American And Start Thinking About Humanity” are based on a gross misunderstanding of the current situation. Their anti-Americanism is an expression of their disconnection from the struggles of working people and their disbelief that people can make change. They refuse to recognize that the people have spoken and view this election cycle to be repudiation of the anti-people policies of that the ultra-right as pursued for the past 30 years. The working class has always been thinking about humanity and did a great service by kicking George Bush and the Republicans out of the White House and Congress.
It is no coincidence that those from the Left who are the loudest critics of Obama are also those that spew such an anti-working class perspective. It’s a classic case of the ultra-left meeting the ultra-right. The ultra-left ends up doing the dirty work of the right wing by helping to tear down the coalition that elected Obama. Instead of working to build the movement to support Obama, the ultra-left wants working class people to critique and bash Obama in order to somehow create change.
Yes, there will be times when there is healthy disagreement between the Left and progressive forces and Obama. Yet, when these arise, the real question is how we deal with them. Do we use this as an opportunity to strengthen the movement for progressive change or work to tear down the movement around Obama and strengthen the hand of the ultra-right? Joining in the chorus of people on the Left who want to see Obama fail will only help the right.
The lunacy and folly of this tactic is already being clearly highlighted in the battle over Obama’s economic stimulus package. The Republicans are fighting tooth and nail to either defeat this bill or water it down with tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations to the point of making it meaningless. They don’t want $13 billion to increase Pell Grants, $40 billion in aides to states, and want to slim down the money going to build infrastructure projects that they feel won’t instantly create jobs. Bashing Obama for not going far enough in this bill and labeling it as bad because it does not fulfill every revolutionary fantasy will only help ensure that working people will not receive the much needed relief we need.
In the coming months we will see more battles and fights. The Republicans may have lost the election but they are refusing to acknowledge that their time is up. It’s going to take a broad, united movement in order to ensure that Obama’s agenda for helping working class people is carried out. For there to be a broad movement, the Left and progressives can’t sit on the sidelines bashing Obama and yelling anti-American slogans. It will be a hard process, but this might just be the change the Left and progressive movements have needed.
From Our Friends in Israel
When one thinks of Israel and Palestine, our thoughts almost immediately turn towards the cruel campaign against the Gaza Strip, carried out recently by the Israeli military, or the horrific launching of Qassam rockets by Hamas into densely populated civilian residential areas. However, in both nations there are people working for peace and equality, working in election campaigns like we just did in 2008. We received this message from Uri Weltmann, an activist in the Young Communist League of Israel. In his letter, he describes briefly describes the current electoral struggles within Israel itself.
--The Editors
Comrades,
We've been following closely the US elections, and how the CPUSA and YCL intervened successfully in that campaign, helped to build it, and joined ranks with many working people, social activists and progressive organizations in driving out the Bush clique. I personally think that this is Communist politics at it best: not standing in a sectarian way, outside the living movement of our class, but submerging yourself into it, letting people to become aware of your positions and your struggles, and eventually perhaps joining your organization.
The past few weeks have been very hectic. Undergoing an election campaign, as you know very well, is very excruciating. Let alone having to undergo two of them in three months, plus a bloody war...
In November the municipal elections were held country-wide, with our candidates running to city council and mayor's office in dozens of cities and towns. It was extremely successful for the Party, especially in Tel Aviv, where a broad social-environmental coalition called “A City for All of Us” was formed. This Coalition's mayoral candidate was Dr. Dov Khenin, a member of the Political Bureau of Communist Party of Israel and a member of Knesset. He won 35 percent of the vote, after a very low-budget yet intensive campaign, in which his opponent (the incumbent mayor, who was supported by all three big parties) used Mccarthyte rhetoric against him (“He's an Anti-Zionist”, “He's a Communist”, “He won't stand up when the national anthem is sung”, “He supports the refuseniks,” etc.).
The coalition actually got more votes to the city council than the mayor’s party! This was a historic achievement for us, as our Party was the initiator and the driving force behind this coalition, which was successful in bringing together hundreds of young, politicized activists, most of whom never took part in politics before. Many of them are now supporters and activists in our election campaign to the Knesset.
The elections to the Knesset will be held in two weeks time (on February 10th), and we are running under the slogan of “Building a New Left,” saying that a vote for us is a vote for forging a new and effective left alternative in Israeli politics. According to the polls, we will increase our representation in the Knesset from 3 seats (out of 120) to 4, and perhaps even 5. We are running, as you probably know, along with non-Communist partners in a list called “The Democratic Front for Peace and Equality” (DFPE), as we did in the last 32 years. The DFPE has been the only electoral list that openly opposed the War on Gaza.
In Solidarity,
Uri Weltmann
Haifa, Israel
--The Editors
Comrades,
We've been following closely the US elections, and how the CPUSA and YCL intervened successfully in that campaign, helped to build it, and joined ranks with many working people, social activists and progressive organizations in driving out the Bush clique. I personally think that this is Communist politics at it best: not standing in a sectarian way, outside the living movement of our class, but submerging yourself into it, letting people to become aware of your positions and your struggles, and eventually perhaps joining your organization.
The past few weeks have been very hectic. Undergoing an election campaign, as you know very well, is very excruciating. Let alone having to undergo two of them in three months, plus a bloody war...
In November the municipal elections were held country-wide, with our candidates running to city council and mayor's office in dozens of cities and towns. It was extremely successful for the Party, especially in Tel Aviv, where a broad social-environmental coalition called “A City for All of Us” was formed. This Coalition's mayoral candidate was Dr. Dov Khenin, a member of the Political Bureau of Communist Party of Israel and a member of Knesset. He won 35 percent of the vote, after a very low-budget yet intensive campaign, in which his opponent (the incumbent mayor, who was supported by all three big parties) used Mccarthyte rhetoric against him (“He's an Anti-Zionist”, “He's a Communist”, “He won't stand up when the national anthem is sung”, “He supports the refuseniks,” etc.).
The coalition actually got more votes to the city council than the mayor’s party! This was a historic achievement for us, as our Party was the initiator and the driving force behind this coalition, which was successful in bringing together hundreds of young, politicized activists, most of whom never took part in politics before. Many of them are now supporters and activists in our election campaign to the Knesset.
The elections to the Knesset will be held in two weeks time (on February 10th), and we are running under the slogan of “Building a New Left,” saying that a vote for us is a vote for forging a new and effective left alternative in Israeli politics. According to the polls, we will increase our representation in the Knesset from 3 seats (out of 120) to 4, and perhaps even 5. We are running, as you probably know, along with non-Communist partners in a list called “The Democratic Front for Peace and Equality” (DFPE), as we did in the last 32 years. The DFPE has been the only electoral list that openly opposed the War on Gaza.
In Solidarity,
Uri Weltmann
Haifa, Israel
When Did We All Become Middle Class?
by Brother Jack
It must be a good thing to be middle class, everybody seems to have their back. Wait I take that back, because everybody also seems to also be oppressing them. If you're middle class you're both the friend and foe of both the Republican and Democratic parties, because the other one apparently wants to eat your children. Uh, what doe middle class mean again?
Lets look it up in Jack's Compendium of American Politicalisms and Assorted Patriotic Prognostications (in state of publishing limbo). Middle Class – Noun – The middle class is everybody that is not poor or rich. Since class does not exist in America, unlike in the barbarian wastes of Canada/Mexico (see rest of world), everybody is middle class. The middle class own small businesses or at least have a “really good idea” about setting up one. The middle class lives in apartments, houses, or are in a state of “extended camping” (see foreclosures). Terrorists want to kill the American middle class because they love freedom. You are middle class (see you – put down the dictionary retard, find a mirror).
So roughly 95% of the country, from a conservative estimate, is “middle class”. Virtually everyone in the US that doesn't live under a bridge or in a mansion, when asked about economic standing will almost unfailingly respond with middle class. To our political ruling class this is an incredible advantage. It gives them the coveted ability to speak to all of us, without speaking to anyone at all.
It also allows a way for Americans, not just politicians, to deny that economic class plays a major role in our society. Americans have since the time of Tocqueville's critic of our early democracy, have wanted to believe that we are the coveted classless society. That if you work hard and persevere you too can grab the American dream. The vast majority of Americans seem to believe that they are entrepreneurs destined to commercial success. We all are small businessmen/women, the other great abstraction of modern American politics, is likewise used to deny anything resembling class conflict.
The sanctification of the middle class is a compromise we make with politicians. We let them use an obviously meaningless word to obscure their political agendas and personal ambitions. In return, they kiss our collective asses and we don't have to admit that not everyone is cut out to own a fortune 500 company by virtue of enough elbow grease. More importantly we don't have to admit to anyone that maybe we aren't destined for success and glory.
This is where our pride shows itself to be a fatal weakness. Our inability to admit that we are more than likely not going to set the world on fire with our brilliance leads to policies that hurt most of us. We have to admit to ourselves not that we are failures, but that statistically and logically, most of us have to be just normal. Some of us, by the cruelty of indifferent fate, are literally born to fail. When we assume that we are a meritocracy born of a majority class of winners, we spawn polices that ignore the normal and punish those unlucky to be born with deformity or poverty.
We also have to admit that economic class is not representative of self worth. Some very rich people are special in “oh my, isn't he special” kind of way. Remember that our last president was somehow floated from failed oil company to failed oil company to the White House and was almost assassinated by a salted pretzel. On the other side of the coin, some very brilliant people toil away with the rest of us. There is a good chance you know not only someone that was a better president than our previous example, but someone who could probably be rich if they wanted to be. They just don't apply themselves because they're lazy or don't care for fame and fortune or just plain unlucky, or some combination thereof.
Furthermore, worth is measured not simply in ability, but in intention. Yeah, its an obvious point, but it seems lost in the discussion on American economics. Free market capitalism doesn't serve the inept, no matter how noble they may be. Under the “free market” ideology peddled in our country these people are dirt, provided they weren't lucky enough to be born to a wealthy enough to support them for their entire lives. The myth of the middle class would have you believe that even though some people are untalented, unskilled and poor, they too will succeed if they try hard enough. It ignores the fact that this doesn't happen, and we ignore this because we want it to be true. In the end, our lies about our own status fuel a system that if we were more conscious of, we would detest.
Part of being a good person, either in terms of morality or mental health, is one who is willing to challenge unconscious assumptions by bringing them to their conscious mind. The biggest moral failures of our political system are laid bare by the light of conscious criticism. All that is necessary is that we face these failures and test our political theories by not allowing them to be abstractions.
The middle class doesn't exist. What we often mean is the term we used to use, before it became politically untouchable by those opposed by what it started to represent. That term my friends is working class. If you work for a living, whether its pushing a broom or a pencil, whether your pay is by the hour or year, you are part of this class. If anything this shows not the divisiveness that those who raise middle class banner claim it does, it shows unity. If you work for a living, you deserve a wage that can be lived upon. Yeah, people should be rewarded for accomplishment, but not at the expense of the rest of us.
So when someone asks you where you are on the economic ladder, tell them that you are part of the working class. That is if you work for a living!
*Brother Jack is the creator of the local Orlando, FL publication The Populist Press.
It must be a good thing to be middle class, everybody seems to have their back. Wait I take that back, because everybody also seems to also be oppressing them. If you're middle class you're both the friend and foe of both the Republican and Democratic parties, because the other one apparently wants to eat your children. Uh, what doe middle class mean again?
Lets look it up in Jack's Compendium of American Politicalisms and Assorted Patriotic Prognostications (in state of publishing limbo). Middle Class – Noun – The middle class is everybody that is not poor or rich. Since class does not exist in America, unlike in the barbarian wastes of Canada/Mexico (see rest of world), everybody is middle class. The middle class own small businesses or at least have a “really good idea” about setting up one. The middle class lives in apartments, houses, or are in a state of “extended camping” (see foreclosures). Terrorists want to kill the American middle class because they love freedom. You are middle class (see you – put down the dictionary retard, find a mirror).
So roughly 95% of the country, from a conservative estimate, is “middle class”. Virtually everyone in the US that doesn't live under a bridge or in a mansion, when asked about economic standing will almost unfailingly respond with middle class. To our political ruling class this is an incredible advantage. It gives them the coveted ability to speak to all of us, without speaking to anyone at all.
It also allows a way for Americans, not just politicians, to deny that economic class plays a major role in our society. Americans have since the time of Tocqueville's critic of our early democracy, have wanted to believe that we are the coveted classless society. That if you work hard and persevere you too can grab the American dream. The vast majority of Americans seem to believe that they are entrepreneurs destined to commercial success. We all are small businessmen/women, the other great abstraction of modern American politics, is likewise used to deny anything resembling class conflict.
The sanctification of the middle class is a compromise we make with politicians. We let them use an obviously meaningless word to obscure their political agendas and personal ambitions. In return, they kiss our collective asses and we don't have to admit that not everyone is cut out to own a fortune 500 company by virtue of enough elbow grease. More importantly we don't have to admit to anyone that maybe we aren't destined for success and glory.
This is where our pride shows itself to be a fatal weakness. Our inability to admit that we are more than likely not going to set the world on fire with our brilliance leads to policies that hurt most of us. We have to admit to ourselves not that we are failures, but that statistically and logically, most of us have to be just normal. Some of us, by the cruelty of indifferent fate, are literally born to fail. When we assume that we are a meritocracy born of a majority class of winners, we spawn polices that ignore the normal and punish those unlucky to be born with deformity or poverty.
We also have to admit that economic class is not representative of self worth. Some very rich people are special in “oh my, isn't he special” kind of way. Remember that our last president was somehow floated from failed oil company to failed oil company to the White House and was almost assassinated by a salted pretzel. On the other side of the coin, some very brilliant people toil away with the rest of us. There is a good chance you know not only someone that was a better president than our previous example, but someone who could probably be rich if they wanted to be. They just don't apply themselves because they're lazy or don't care for fame and fortune or just plain unlucky, or some combination thereof.
Furthermore, worth is measured not simply in ability, but in intention. Yeah, its an obvious point, but it seems lost in the discussion on American economics. Free market capitalism doesn't serve the inept, no matter how noble they may be. Under the “free market” ideology peddled in our country these people are dirt, provided they weren't lucky enough to be born to a wealthy enough to support them for their entire lives. The myth of the middle class would have you believe that even though some people are untalented, unskilled and poor, they too will succeed if they try hard enough. It ignores the fact that this doesn't happen, and we ignore this because we want it to be true. In the end, our lies about our own status fuel a system that if we were more conscious of, we would detest.
Part of being a good person, either in terms of morality or mental health, is one who is willing to challenge unconscious assumptions by bringing them to their conscious mind. The biggest moral failures of our political system are laid bare by the light of conscious criticism. All that is necessary is that we face these failures and test our political theories by not allowing them to be abstractions.
The middle class doesn't exist. What we often mean is the term we used to use, before it became politically untouchable by those opposed by what it started to represent. That term my friends is working class. If you work for a living, whether its pushing a broom or a pencil, whether your pay is by the hour or year, you are part of this class. If anything this shows not the divisiveness that those who raise middle class banner claim it does, it shows unity. If you work for a living, you deserve a wage that can be lived upon. Yeah, people should be rewarded for accomplishment, but not at the expense of the rest of us.
So when someone asks you where you are on the economic ladder, tell them that you are part of the working class. That is if you work for a living!
*Brother Jack is the creator of the local Orlando, FL publication The Populist Press.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
