“Ten thousand times has the labor movement stumbled and fallen and bruised itself, and risen again; been seized by the throat and choked and clubbed into insensibility; enjoined by courts, assaulted by thugs, charged by the militia, shot down by regulars, traduced by the press, frowned upon by public opinion, deceived by politicians, threatened by priests, repudiated by renegades, preyed upon by grafters, infested by spies, deserted by cowards, betrayed by traitors, bled by leeches, and sold out by leaders, but notwithstanding all this, and all these, it is today the most vital and potential power this planet has ever known, and its historic mission of emancipating the workers of the world from the thraldom of the ages is as certain of ultimate realization as is the setting of the sun.”
– Eugene V. Debs
On June 1st 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 8-1 that companies may sue labor unions for certain damages incurred while striking. This case came to the courts after Seattle area cement truck drivers represented by Teamsters Local 174 went on strike, leaving the concrete in their trucks undelivered. Eroding long-standing protections, this ruling opens the door to legal harassment of unions by vindictive employers. For the supposedly unacceptable transgression of refusing to work for substandard wages and benefits, the minoritarian and undemocratic courts have issued the latest in a series of attacks on the working class.
In her article “Unions Can Still Strike—Don’t Let the Supreme Court Tell You Otherwise”, Labor Notes editor Alexandra Bradbury cautions against catastrophizing, clarifying that this ruling leaves the right to strike largely intact. It is certainly true that this court decision did not overturn the right of workers to strike – but our takeaway should not be “it could’ve been worse,” it should be “so long as the capitalist class controls society through the institutions of the state, they will continue to attack the rights of workers.” Even after almost a century of largely working within the capitalist legislative framework, subordinating class politics in favor of lobbying the capitalist parties, and enduring a shrinking scope of rights and protections, the state still views our unions as illegitimate encroachments on the property rights of capitalists.
Class struggle is in an upsurge in the United States. Responding to a global pandemic, inflation, and instability, workers have shown a fighting spirit and a willingness to organize in large and powerful corporations like Amazon and Starbucks, and workers in unions such as the Teamsters and UAW have pushed back against concessionary and undemocratic leadership by ousting the old guard and electing militant reformers. We’ve seen this locally with the first strike in Rutgers’ history this spring, ongoing strikes by Starbucks workers across the state, and picket lines halting production on movies as the WGA East strike continues. These strikes show organized workers can apply enough pressure to create real change in their workplaces and their industries–if they’re able to maintain unity in the face of the possibility of retribution.
Millions of workers remain unorganized, and the currents of business unionism and labor liberalism still cling to a strategy of appealing to the Democratic Party for protection and empty promises. It’s clear, after looking back at the decades of decline in the labor movement under neoliberalism, that this is not viable – the capitalist state is structured to uphold the power and long term interests of the capitalist class, and it will intervene to discipline working class movements that threaten power and profit. We see this through financialization, globalization, climate change, environmental degradation, police suppression, the endless expansion of imperialist wars, and the billions in state subsidies that prop up monopoly finance and industrial capital.
How should the socialist wing of the labor movement respond? We reject the idea that class struggle should be delegated solely to a small layer of labor “professionals” in leadership positions. We believe in building and transforming unions into industry-wide organizations that are under mass participatory rank-and-file control. We believe that the repression of the labor movement under capitalist society necessarily means that workers need class-independent political organization, in order to fight for the interests of the entire international working class, beyond only our immediate economic needs. We believe that the political aim of the working class movement should not be to simply appeal to the capitalist state, but to overcome the capitalist state, administered through an ossified and minoritarian political system, in order to emancipate ourselves and build a democratic socialist society.
We’re responding with renewed vigor behind the Strike Ready Campaign, which you can learn more about at our upcoming biweekly Labor Committee Meeting on Sunday. Join us to learn more about how Central NJ DSA will stand with the Teamsters at UPS if they strike this summer. We’re sending five delegates to Chicago for the DSA National Convention, where we’ll work with socialists across the country to build solidarity with the labor movement and prioritize pro-working class actions like nationalizing the railroads. And we’re marching on picket lines to support the WGA East as they push back against millionaire actors like Kim Kardashian and corrupt billionaire corporations like Apple to demand fair wages and human ingenuity over AI algorithms that dehumanize art and entertainment. Join us today as we continue to condemn the Supreme Court of oligarchy and reaction, and we continue the fight for democracy, socialism, and a better world.
In Solidarity, Central New Jersey DSA
Central Jersey DSA stands with Piscataway school psychologist and DSA member, Dr. Cassia Mosdell. Dr. Mosdell has been effectively fired through the denial of tenure because of her advocacy for LGBTQ+ and other marginalized students. At the May 12th Piscataway Board of Education meeting, students and parents of students of Theodore Schor Middle School spoke about the positive impact that Dr. Mosdell has on all students. Unfortunately, the Superintendent went through with his decision to deny tenure.
At a time when the LGBTQ+ community, especially children, are under attack from those that would silence and erase them, Dr. Mosdell has been a cherished and powerful force for helping find their voice and identity. If the Board of Education does not overturn the Superintendent’s decision to deny her tenure, her students risk losing a beloved advocate and counselor. We must protect both the LGBTQ+ community and those who work hard every day to keep them safe. Losing Dr. Mosdell would be devastating to a vulnerable community and would stifle such advocacy everywhere that educators fear to be the victims of this kind of retaliation.
We stand in solidarity with Dr. Mosdell and demand that the Board of Education and Superintendent reverse this decision. We encourage all community members who are alarmed at the prospect of “Don’t Say Gay” laws coming to New Jersey to join us at the June 9th Board of Education meeting. We need as many people as possible to show up in support of Dr. Mosdell and her students on June 9th and to be prepared for future mobilization in support.
Central Jersey DSA sends our congratulations to the Hopewell Starbucks workers on their union election victory! They filed for their election on January 11 and in the months since then, they’ve endured union busting in their own store and watched their partners across the country experience blatant retaliation and firings. Central Jersey DSA members have been inspired by their courage and resilience, and some have begun the process of organizing their own workplaces.
The Hopewell Starbucks workers join Starbucks workers all over the country that have filed and won their unions. As our comrades in Richmond DSA wrote after the first five Virginia stores won their union elections, “Working class organizing, often through unions, leads to undeniable material changes in peoples’ lives. These range from closing the racial and/or gender wage and wealth gaps to giving families access to stable housing and healthcare.”
Starbucks Workers United has filed more than 80 unfair labor practice complaints against the company, in response to Starbucks’ union busting and retaliation against outspoken union organizers. We echo the workers’ call to Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz to follow the Non-interference Principles to enable workers to organize without fear of intimidation.
If anyone in New Jersey wants to get started organizing at their workplace, please reach out to any of the NJ chapters of DSA. Workers deserve to have a say in their wages and working conditions – and if we fight, we win! #1U
Socialists running in elections within the bourgeois-democratic electoral system in America today will always be underdogs. Until that system is replaced, that’s the simple reality of the situation as the entrenched capital-tied powers-that-be throw up innumerable barriers to keep socialists from obtaining elected power.
Given this situation, recent high-profile socialist electoral defeats (I’m sure I don’t need to list them) are unsurprising, yet still demoralizing- pouring time, money, and emotional energy into campaign after campaign takes its toll, especially with the all-or-nothing nature of the US electoral system.
To my mind, a big reason for the sense of electoral burnout I’ve observed on the left this year is the cyclic nature of elections- A leftist candidate rises, motivates volunteers and donations, does voter turnout and persuasion, fights their fight (and usually loses, to be brutally honest), and then everyone goes home and the situation resets. If the candidate doesn’t win, all that effort is largely for naught.
This phenomenon is not exclusive to the left (witness the spectacle of Democrats throwing tens of millions of dollars into a black hole so Amy McGrath could lose to Mitch McConnell by a historically large margin in 2020), but we can do better. A major advantage left populists have is that populism is fundamentally about people, plural- the movement is larger than any one candidate, and we should embrace that in our electoral strategy.
Traditionally, we see campaigns as candidate-centered, where the goal is to promote the candidate and their virtues to the electorate, but the campaign process could instead be centered around an organization, or, dare I say, a brand, to borrow a capitalist term.
The Advantages of Brand-Building
If we think of the primary goal of an election campaign as promoting an organization and its ideals in the eyes of the public, then the work that was done to reach and persuade voters as part of any particular race was not wasted. As voters get to know the organization and its brand, they will remember it in future elections. A specific candidate for a specific position may or may not run again, but if voters can be persuaded to favor the DSA in general they will most likely vote DSA in future elections without having to be persuaded again on a new candidate. Brand loyalty can be developed and reinforced over time, allowing us to build a durable popular movement whose success doesn’t hinge on singular leaders or electoral wins.
This approach helps to mitigate burnout because success can be redefined- rather than 50.1% or bust, we can define success based on the number of wins across the DSA’s slate, as well as the margins involved. Further, knowing that your efforts aren’t in vain should a given candidate come up short motivates people (including potential candidates in the slate) to spend their limited time and money on the project. From a market economics perspective, participants get a guaranteed return on investment (of uncertain magnitude), rather than an all-or-nothing gamble.
Consider a typical election ballot- it lists candidates for an office, but also makes abundantly clear *which party* they belong to. In many cases, candidates win office on the back of their party line without identifying themselves to voters because voters trust what that party stands for (vague and cynically defined as it is) such that they don’t need to research every candidate under their banner. While the DSA lacks a separate ballot line (for now), there is nothing preventing us from developing our electoral brand in the same way that the major parties do.
Our goal should be that when voters see the “DSA” tagline on a candidate, they know what this candidate stands for, and that they can be trusted to work towards those goals. They should be able (and encouraged) to vote “straight ticket DSA” on as many races as we can muster candidates for.
One narrative I’ve seen on the left recently has been to attribute electoral failures, such as India Walton’s recent defeat in Buffalo (or indeed, the defeat of Bernie in both 2016 and 2020), to a lack of voter confidence in them as a perceived newcomer and political outsider who can’t be relied upon to get things done inside the machine.
While a stellar candidate can define themselves to voters and overcome this outsider disadvantage, as socialists our movement should not rely on exemplar individuals- a populist movement must allow participation by ordinary people without decades of service and activism and a polished rhetorical style. Building the DSA brand will allow ordinary working class people to run and win under our banner, and is both strategically and ideologically necessary.
Mechanisms of Brand-Building
So how do we do this? Here’s some good first steps we can take:
Run a slate.
Having candidates in the general/primary for as many races as possible, even if more energy is spent on some of those races than others, makes the election less about one candidate versus another and more about the DSA versus the establishment. It also increases the perceived legitimacy of the DSA as a political force in the public eye, and weakens the “outsider” critique- rather than outsider versus insider, the dynamic is one of two parallel political power structures.
2. Campaign for the organization, not for a candidate.
Both major parties spend large sums of money annually on coordinated political messaging not attached to a single candidate. At all levels- local, state, and national, Democrat and Republican organizations work to develop their “brand” (milquetoast and focus-tested as it is) in the eyes of voters. This brand is so strong that a large majority of voters vote simply on party identity, rather than the merits of individual candidates.
If the DSA wants to establish a long-term political identity as anything other than the left-wing of the Democratic party, we need to do the same. Electoral campaigns should center the DSA’s image and message, with our candidates as avatars who will enact that message. Our goal should be for voters to turn out for “the DSA candidate” not for “Jane Smith the candidate endorsed by the DSA”
As a further advantage, candidates’ political identities being tied to the DSA in this way makes it harder for them to act out of line with the general desires of the DSA and its membership, a topic of some concern recently within the DSA.
3. Eliminate the “cycle”
While elections are only held once (or twice, with primaries) per year in most areas, and individual positions are only up for election every 2/3/4/6 years, brand building is a continuous process. To take a page from the capitalists’ book, well known brands (for example Coca-Cola) spend horrendous sums of money on marketing to make sure their name remains a household one, even among those who aren’t habitual consumers. In the political area, both major parties are omnipresent in the news, whether they are driving the news cycle or merely reacting to it. Elected officials are treated in the news not just as individuals, but as representatives of their parties. This constant stream of reminders that the organization exists (and their position on the issues of the day) lets the parties retain public mindshare even when elections are far away, and keeps their core voters involved and committed.
While the DSA is not in a position to extract free publicity from the corporate news media, we can achieve the same effect in our own way. Non-electoral organizing activities and outreach can keep us in the public eye outside election season.
Unionization campaigns, which are indefinite in term (no “cycle”) and have similar underdog status (most fail) can provide an example for how this continual electoral work might look. A typical union organizing conversation starts with an assessment of a worker’s feelings on the topic of unionization, followed by giving the worker information (persuasion, inoculation against management propaganda, and so on), and finishes with an ask. A well-run campaign has a whole series of asks of escalating commitment, starting with “will you vote yes” all the way to “will you join the organizing committee,” with the goal of advancing supporters through these stages over time.
Electoral work provides a good initial ask for the DSA (will you vote DSA in the election), and can act as a source of additional asks: Will you canvas, will you talk to your friends, will you formally join the DSA, will you join a working group, and so on. Electoral asks can lead directly into other forms of organizing, and can help build the organization regardless of how much success is found at the ballot box.
So where do we start?
If all of the above sounds good to you, you’re in good company! As with most initiatives in the DSA, the place to start is in local chapters. Talk to your steering committee about these ideas. Consider your region, and your chapter- where could you best run a combined slate of candidates? For 2022, think about what state and local elections look like in your area. Could you run a full slate for city council and mayor? Ideally, we want depth rather than breadth- it’s better to saturate one ballot, one city, where brand building can be concentrated, rather than to spread out geographically.
Lastly, remember to be patient- building an electoral identity for our organization in the public eye will take time. The seeds sown in 2022 will most likely not bear fruit for several years. But every organizing conversation held, every flier shared, every ballot line claimed will move the needle, and eventually add up to power. Not just electoral power, but the durable real power of a popular movement with mass support, which can overcome any biased electoral system if strong enough.
There is a familiar pit that lives within some of us, most of us, and then eventually all of us. The ravages of grief and all its complex flavors dance on our tongues as we weave in and out of life. There is grief of those very much alive, grief of those very much deceased, grief of those somewhere in between and Elsewhere, and grief of ourselves in various contexts. Of pasts we no longer live, and futures we no longer will live. Fractals and incarnations of ourselves we no longer have contact with, dreams of who we thought we’d become. People, places, and things violently taken from us.
Everyone I talk to now, in the wake of the atrocities of the last two years, is experiencing a profound amount of grief. On the left, we talk about grief in concrete terms. Grief because of class struggle, grief because of lack of healthcare, grief because of stagnant wages, grief because of violent oppression of our marginalized brothers and sisters and ourselves. But how often do we connect with the spiritual, transcendental nature of what it means to be in these very struggles of grief? Do we create bonds with others that transcend our physical forms and get at the root of our suffering? Do we connect on a soul-level with the pain of ourselves and our comrades and let each other be seen in a way that Capitalism refuses to? Oppression and struggle affect more than our physical realities; They impact our souls. And our very souls are aching for a salve that exists beyond the zoom meetings, reading groups, and the fleeting adrenaline of the occasional demonstration.
Arguably, there is no text or theory from any of the major pillars of leftist ideology — such as Marx or Lenin — who discuss grief in this phenomenological context. Certainly there is great benefit to talking about grief in a less phenomenological way. It gives people a way to put complex feelings of would-be-rage into a box that can be opened, categorically analyzed, and placed back inside with little intrapsychic disturbance. From this place we can create plans of sustained action and have regularly scheduled, orderly meetings. We can protect against compassion fatigue and live to fight another day. But I would argue that we engage in the analytical aspect of the work a little too much and miss connecting with comrades on a deep spiritual level. The level that makes people feel like they have found refuge from a world who sees them as nothing but a cog in the machine.
We should see people who come to the left as individuals imbued with unique suffering and grief that make up familiar, oppressive, and violent patterns worth fighting against. We should allow for people to come to spaces broken and raw from the world and invite them in to make meaning from their grief. We should foster the idea that we are fighting for an idea of love and compassion so deep and warm, that people start to believe in something larger than themselves. When was the last time you cried with a comrade? When was the last time you hugged a comrade? When was the last time you experienced empathy and pain so deep you swore it was opening up another dimension within you? These are the sorts of transformative experiences that truly sustain a movement and keep people coming back.
Perhaps it is controversial to suggest that there should be room for spiritual and phenomenological experiences in organizing spaces. If that is the case, then you may take what I say with a grain of salt and think no more of what I’ve written here. But if you’re like me, and have experienced grief so profound that you need something more, then please do take this as an invitation to feel deeply. To seek out those of us who are also looking to feel deeply. Seek out those of us looking to transform our grief into an otherworldly conviction that can sustain us through to the revolution, and long after. Stay wild and weird my grief stricken comrades, and remember there is love in the world within the tendrils of despair. I leave you with a quote from my favorite documentary.
“To those dark horses with the spirit to look up and see…a recondite family awaits”
Living under Covid-19 and neoliberalism can oftentimes make it increasingly difficult for any of us to see clearly how power actually operates, and more likely, leaves us feeling as if the situation we’re now in, the deteriorating working and living conditions, the rise of the far-right, as having been inevitable. However, such thinking, although rooted to real experiences, is in fact, divorced from the complex mix of history, social conditions, and choices made that shape our lives and the lives of others.
Now, capitalism can be an overwhelming force and remains the dominant political system in the U.S. and across the globe. But the form it has taken now, called neoliberalism, which is an extreme version of capitalism in which policymakers believe that the social good for everyone relies on the ability for companies to turn a profit, which leads to the gutting of social welfare and worker protections to make this much easier for businesses to do, is a product of class antagonisms, choices made by labor and the Left decades ago, and the maneuvering of right-wing forces, such as political figures such as Ronald Reagan.
THE RISE OF THE NEOLIBERAL
The rise of neoliberalism can be traced back to the 1970s, as Nixon assumed power, as the Democrat Party began to shift rightward as well, to meet where it believed most voters were.
By then, what was the New Deal consensus had been falling apart. The New Deal itself was very much a product of class struggle among working people who believed in egalitarian policymaking, along with some New Deal legislators against Jim Crow Democrats, and of course, economic conservatives in the Republican Party.
The New Deal emerged after the Great Depression, in which countless Americans lost everything they had and the economy was in freefall. This happened by the tail-end of the 1920s and would shape U.S. society for at least a decade. People would lose their jobs, their savings, as well as a roof over their heads. African Americans, especially in the South, fell further behind economically, and were forced to migrate. Other non-white groups, such as Mexican Americans and Asian also had very little opportunity to save or rebuild. Many workers who were racialized as “white” were now facing unbearable conditions as well, and many, along with African Americans, Mexicans, and Asians flocked to labor groups and joined labor movements soon after.
The class struggle between most working people and their bosses was historic, with strikes and other forms of direct actions, such as the smashing of machinery in factories, reaching a number that was unheard of, causing panic among business owners and politicians who needed them. Eventually, such actions were channeled and organized by communist organizers, and other radicals, such as organizers at the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), into labor unions that could keep on the pressure among politicians to respond to what people demanded.
Overall, policies did emerge that would indeed alleviate some of the suffering among working people, such as providing the right to organize unions, and New Deal programs that promises jobs. Still, the progress that was being made was cut short once WWII ended, as fears over communism reigned and were manipulated by the political establishment, including among the more “moderate” elements of labor leadership and rank-and-file. After all, there was still a significant contingent of U.S. workers, especially “white” workers, who held onto outdated beliefs about race, and who were more “patriotic”, who believed in U.S. exceptionalism. Such beliefs were changed and could’ve been pushed on further with the type of organizing that some communists were conducting as well as some in the CIO. Yet, their efforts were curtailed as the labor movement grew much closer to the Democrat Party leadership, including among communist leaders who believed in the idea of forming a “popular front” with liberals and other Leftists to protect the New Deal against Republicans and conservative Democrats. This was understandable, given the stakes at the time, but this type of politics subsumed the need for labor to still become its own independent force. Instead, labor was turned into a movement that needed the Democrats to win elections for it to receive resources and have pro-labor policies.
Therefore, major contradictions remained, even as the economy was in its “golden age”, from the late 1940s up until the 1970s. Despite reforms, capitalism would remain a political system constantly in crisis. Even though the reforms had managed to extend gaps between crises, it wouldn’t stop them completely, as we’d witness during the late 1950s and especially following the 1960s, when overproduction of goods would lead to an oversaturated market, which would compel companies to lay off workers or to restructure their companies in such a way that diminished union influence. For instance, companies in the U.S. would first shift their factories into the south, where labor unions had been repressed, or simply start investing in new industries, such as defense industries, which flourished across the sunbelt region.
The main motivation for any capitalist, no matter how big or small their enterprise, is to produce higher and higher profits and one can only attain such profits if one is willing to find other ways to “compete” against other businesses by finding ways to reduce pay, or in reducing other types of costs, such as shutting down entire factories. During the 1970s, when worker militancy was still roaring, such companies, even those that voiced support for the New Deal consensus that in many ways also saved them from being completely run over by more radical sections of labor, decided to organize as a class and push back, and they successfully did for a few reasons.
First, the labor movement, despite sections of the labor force striking, had completely misread the situation earlier. It had believed that its future lay completely with the Democrat Party, that the party could be a vehicle for social democratic interests even. All this proved to be wrong, since A) Democratic leadership would include people, even sympathetic ones, who would view labor as merely an interest-group and B) the Democratic party would always need business more than it would labor, so long as capitalism remained the dominant political form. Not to mention that the Democrat Party, much like the Republicans, believed their interests counter to socialists, communists and even social democrats across the globe.
Furthermore, the labor movement had ceased developing as a force independent of the two-party system. Oftentimes, it would need the Democrats to win office for even labor demands to get heard, especially as companies began to lay off workers in droves.
Second, the labor movement, due to how it viewed its future as secure and no longer took seriously the need to go beyond reformism, also misread changes in the economy that the capitalist classes were involved in creating. Even though many business leaders professed to align themselves with labor, they never stopped organizing against labor, especially companies like Koch Industries.
Over time, the most extreme sections of the leading capitalists cultivated constituencies, such as segments of the middle classes, that would view capitalism as being pro-American, as well as develop industries that weren’t as connected to the labor unions, if at all. What we call service-sector industries, such as working at Walmart, and STEM jobs, were created and the workers in such industries were completely divorced from labor unions, whose main force was concentrated in now dying industries across the Northeast and Midwest. So, by the time of the 1970s, when workers in unions did rise up, they didn’t have the same type of power they once did several decades ago when they were the core of the nation’s workforce.
Gradually, the New Right coalesced around particular figures, like Ronald Reagan, and succeeded in cultivating a constituency that viewed union politics as anti-American even, that succeeded in appealing to segments of the workforce as well, pitting “white” workers against Black and brown. When the next recession hit by the late 1970s, there was a base of support for the New Right, people who were also in unions but whose unions weren’t as active as before, people who no longer had leadership steering them away from the right or from apathy. They interpreted the recession based on what figures like Reagan told them and over the 1980s, this base would shrink in terms of size but not in terms of commitment, as neoliberal policies would be thrown against the wall, gutting labor further, and concentrating power among businesses.
What does this all teach us?
That capitalism, of course, will always favor the wealthy and the right-wing. To influence politics in a capitalist culture, one needs money and they have it in droves. Hence, it is a much tougher fight for us to win. Our choices are restricted by capitalism in terms of what we can do in a particular moment or era.
However, there are also always strategies to take that could open up more opportunity down the road in terms of our resistance and building power. For instance, imagine if communists and socialists weren’t gutted from union organizing leadership. Imagine if the socialists and communists themselves didn’t fall into popular front politics either. Of course, they were influenced by forces larger than them, but there were choices that could’ve still been made.
Imagine if labor continued organizing the workforce rather than fall back into collective bargaining politics.
There was a structure above them but at the same time, there were decisions to be made that could’ve altered the coarse of U.S. politics.
Why care?
Learning about history like this reminds us that as much as we are heavily influenced and restricted by forces beyond us, especially forces with money, there is always some room for daylight. Some room for decisions that could push groups of us in the correct direction.
STRUCTURE & AGENCY
The successes of the modern civil rights movement is a testament to how understanding space for agency and connection to the structure over peoples’ lives.
Again, much like capitalism in the country overall, Jim Crow in the South shaped everyone’ lives and thinking, and for African Americans, was a constant force delimiting their aspirations and material conditions. For decades, Jim Crow policy and the culture it created was dominating.
Yet, there were still spaces to build resistance. Of course, the successes of resistance still depended on material conditions and conditions of an era. Leading a rebellion, for instance, right after whites successfully led coups across the region, would’ve led to even more death and repression for most African Americans. Strategically, the whites had the momentum, given that the federal government completely abandoned Black Americans and progressive whites.
Still, institutions were developed, including for civil rights. Churches and newspapers were forged. Along the way, more radical groups, like the communists formed unions. Repression would always follow but as leadership was cultivated, as more African Americans also moved into the North, conditions began to change, more opportunity for confronting publicly Jim Crow emerged.
By the time the modern civil rights movement took off, organizations like the SCLC and SNCC succeeded in building off campaigns in various parts of the south, thus building momentum against segregation.
“The accomplishments of the Freedom Movement to date, in their totality, represent an accumulation of quantitative changes which has prepared the conditions for a qualitative change in the habits, mores, customs, thought-patterns and material circumstances of southern life, making possible the final uprooting of the relics of the slave society.”
This is not to suggest that every form of agency, such as expressing discontent about a boss with others, is capable of shifting structure. Some are. Some aren’t. But the point remains, that certain actions can indeed be taken in order to end oppression, to end institutions that have led to suffering.
Currently, neoliberalism can also feel like an all-encompassing force, especially as a so-called “post-Covid” era is starting to emerge, as political leaders like Biden renege on their promises, as policies as necessary as universal healthcare, and ending college debt, are being completely ignored. Indeed, more funding for infrastructure is being fought over, but none f this is fundamentally changing the economy to shift power away from companies over to most working people. None of it is shifting us from the trajectory that neoliberalism has put us on decades ago, when Reagan won, that has led us to companies like Amazon dominating our lives.
That said, there remains choices to be made, such as the need for Leftists to develop independent power, such as focusing on organizing workers who are in the “essential” category, such as supermarket employees, nurses, and delivery. Without them, society would crumble, and the chaos would obviously harm us, but would also, hurt companies like Amazon, who need “stability” for them to accrue higher and higher profits.
At the same time, labor politics must adapt to the situation, which is something they didn’t do decades ago. As much as there is still a need for workers in the U.S. by leading capitalists, there is also the need to build campaigns that organize tenants, students, and others on issues like rent, on ending college debt, which have always been ways for capitalists to accrue wealth and power.
“One such possibility is a momentous, renewed interest in unions as a vehicle for social and economic transformation. For this to be realized, the notion of unions as vehicles for narrow wage-bargaining must be abandoned. In an era when power is based on wealth, and when workplaces and the economy have been captured by perverse financial interests, the challenge of union renewal is much bigger than turning back the clock to the post-war era of union power. It is about building out into communities and combatting the insecurity and isolation of much modern work with solidarity from those who rely on it, including patients, neighhbours, students and parents. It is about setting our sights high, on transforming our economy from one based on finance to one based on democracy.”
All of this requires work and also, pacing ourselves and of course, always being aware, as best we can, about our current limitations. For instance, it is much useful to organize for power in the way that Martin and Quick express than holding a sign in front of one’s home, no matter how radical the message is. It is much more useful in collectivizing for what people need, right away, than begin organizing against the capitalists without any broad-based support, whether physically or in polling.
This is to not say that our choices are limitless. The structure of neoliberalism infects our most immediate choices. It has atomized us in some cases, so again, it is not probable, because of neoliberalism and Covid-19, to suddenly lead a successful walk out, when you and your colleagues are conducting work through computer screens.
But even then, the atomization doesn’t stop one from having one-on-one conversations and in challenging oneself and other to dream bigger, to coordinate on immediate issues one may have against the boss.
Over time, such steps can lead to bigger ones down the road. But it all depends on a clear analysis and on remembering that one’s choice can indeed impact other choices in the near future.
According to recent surveys, an increasing number of Americans are turning against capitalism and leaning more toward alternatives such as socialism. This would make sense given the growing economic challenges that many are facing, the fact that more and more of us cannot afford what we need to live, such as rent and food, especially during a pandemic, regardless of how many hours we put in at work. In fact, our wages have been stagnant for the past several decades while our hours at work have continued to go up, while costs of living has skyrocketed.
Still, with this renewed interest in socialism and growing discontent among people toward capitalism, toward the “free market”, it is incumbent upon us to understand some basic ideas about what capitalism is and what socialism can be.
CAPITALISM 101
Capitalism is a political system of governance that emerged first in mainly Western Europe during the transition away from feudalism. The capitalist class, or “bourgeoisie”, wanted to increase their hold on the rest of society, in order to make more profit, which is one of the main priorities under capitalism. The bourgeoise rebelled against the feudal order, and in some cases, achieved some major compromises with the ruling feudal elites, and over time, helped develop societies across Europe that turned public land into private territories for certain people to own and for others to rent, and which forced many peasants into working for a wage in major factories.
Although feudalism was a terrible system that was also oppressive, it at least allowed for peasants to have some land that they could grow crops on and rely on for their survival. Under capitalism, such lands were taken away and the only way for peasants to have what they need to live, such as a roof over their hands, they would have to work for in a factory or work for wages as tenant farmers.
In the end, this type of political system, which prioritizes profit over human need and aspirations of the majority if people, and deifies private property, was spread across the globe through European expansion and imperialism. Major European companies, backed by European countries, would shape societies in Asia, Africa and what would be called the Americas in their image, as societies in which profit is king, and people have to work to survive.
Capitalism has of course, shifted and changed and evolved over the years. In the U.S. context, capitalism has morphed from relying on enslavement and extreme forms of violence to now, a system in which people work in companies like Walmart or Amazon, for very low wages. Their oppression has changed but the basic tenets of capitalism remain, which are profit over need and private property as a symbol of liberty and freedom.
Under modern day capitalism, there is also a reliance on forms of extreme violence as well as other forms of coercion. For instance, agricultural workers in the U.S., many of whom are non-white, are treated as collateral, and detained in the most horrid conditions. Of course, U.S backed companies also depend on extremely exploited labor in Asia and across Africa.
At the same time, capitalism produces constituencies, or groups of people, whose interests align with capital somewhat. This includes, of course, the capitalists themselves, such as business owners, large and small, and segments of the working classes and the middle classes, based on how they’re racialized or gendered. After all, for many white middle class people, for the past several decades, they have benefited from the looting of resources from parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America, since those resources can lead to more stuff to buy or to actual jobs, such as factories and other firms being built that could turn that raw material into products and therefore, require U.S. labor.
Overall, though, capitalism diminishes all working people. This is because even when capitalism is reformed and regulated, like we saw during the New Deal, it will always have an employer earning the profits, and the worker having to work for longer hours in order for such profits to emerge. As Marx understood generations ago, the way that an employer makes money is by paying low wages and paying for only a few hours of labor. This is called “surplus value” and so, even under reformed capitalism, exploitation will always exist.
SOCIALISM 101
According to Marx and other scholars, such as Claudia Jones, Angela Davis, Manning Marable, among others, capitalism will always produce a class of people, working people, whose interests will always be secondary to the interests of business owners and their allies. Unlike a progressive or a liberal who may lean more Left even, Marxist socialists understand that capitalism must be abolished and replaced, or otherwise, it will always produce a set of people whose labor will be exploited by another smaller group of people called the capitalists.
A socialist society instead would lead to working people taking over the means of production, like the major businesses, Amazon and Walmart for example, and working people overall will determine major economic policies moving forward. Furthermore, basic needs will be fulfilled, which would entail universal housing, healthcare, food, transportation, and other amenities that are important for people to live and joyous lives.
Most of all, socialism seeks to create a classless society, in that no group of people will need another group of people to be exploited.
There are some complicated discussions about other aspects of socialism, which are important, such as whether or not we need a “state” in a socialist society, or as Lenin once argued, it would “wither away”. I believe we will need some form of government to manage future conflicts. I do not think conflicts between people will go away nor that people will behave in ways that are good for others. I think people are capable of great good and great harm and that government programs, and education, can cultivate the good.
Furthermore, there are issues, such as protecting certain political rights, like that of trans communities, against majority prejudices, or issues like climate change, that will always require some forms of coordination and protection that a socialist government could provide.
Still, these are discussion that are up for debate and should always be up for debate among socialists moving ahead.
POWER 101
Regardless of our discussions over the “state”, what socialists agree on usually is we need power to shape politics and society. Without power, our politics will remain an aesthetic. Without winning and accruing power, our lives, our communities will remain oppressed and fighting to survive.
As socialists, we gain power by organizing ourselves as working people. As much as capitalism dehumanizes us and causes most of us extreme misery, it also relies on our labor. After all, without working people, capitalists cannot turn a profit at the incredibly rates that they desire.
As we witnessed during the pandemic, even as companies have shifted their investments into complicated financial schemes on Wall Street, capitalists need “essential” workers, such as nurses, nursing assistants, teachers, supermarket employees, warehouse workers, delivery people, for society to have some level of “stability”. It’s much harder to turn a profit when society is in complete freefall, one would guess.
Of course, the economy has changed, with more people being chronically unemployed, and others getting by through several part-time jobs. Still, organizing as working people means organizing the power we need to get our demands heard and enacted even, whether it is higher wages, or the defunding of police, or the creation of programs like universal housing and healthcare.
The goal is to organize ourselves as working people, across race, across gender identity, for things that working people need short-term as well as for a longer-term agenda of ending capitalism and creating a society in which peoples’ racialization or how people are gendered, or what jobs they have, doesn’t impede their level of happiness, and ability to lead a more fulfilling life.
by William Silversmith
In an attempt to get ahead of the awful civil liberties shredding direction the media and politicians will inevitably take the discourse post-coup, I will offer my thoughts. Without a set of popular demands to fill the space, the discourse will only get worse. Fortunately, several representatives such as Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, Ed Markey, and Cori Bush have already started talking about concrete things that can be done.
Here’s my current list of suggested demands that includes each of theirs, expands on them, and discusses why each demand is necessary and useful.
Further agitation toward a coup is more difficult after the President is removed from power. Additionally, there have been ongoing stories reflecting ambitions by his administration to provoke Iran into a war. With Trump removed, both scenarios are put at a further remove.
Impeaching Trump, which may be possible after removal from office under the 25th amendment would also make him ineligible for 2024.
The right will accuse the Democrats of attempting a coup. Perhaps you are already laughing.
Severely Discipline or Expel Coup Supporters in Congress
The only reason the attempted coup was possible was the institutional support of members of congress objecting to the certification and the Praetorian guard’s sympathetic treatment of the conspirators. The consequence for attempting to overthrow a democracy should at the very least be getting banned from official control over it.
The alternative is to leave them in place in Congress where they will happily foment a civil war over the coming years.
Call for the Abolition of the Electoral College
This is the only positive demand that could generate a better future for the left. Without the archaic anti-majoritarian structure of the electoral college, this opportunity would not have presented itself. Instead, like many other democracies, we should have a swift national popular vote that is counted within hours and confirmed the same day.
The mechanism to accomplish this is not a constitutional amendment (at least not yet), but pressuring or cajoling non-party states to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Once the electoral college is de-facto useless, a constitutional amendment may be possible. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact)
Support the Demands of BLM and Anti-Racist People’s Organizations
The coup plotters were an amalgam of neo-Confederates, Q-Anon believers, White Nationalists, neo-Nazis, and Trump Supporters (and undoubtedly a few that had little clue what they were getting into but went along with it).
Obviously, the common thread there is not only far right ideology and conspiratorial thinking, but the idea that they should be in charge of their “inferiors”, which was abundantly demonstrated over the summer to incur a deep seated contempt for Black people and other non-white groups. Therefore, the remedy is to assist in spirit and with labor and finances the grassroots democratic organizations that fight against what these people stand for.
Demand No Restrictions on Civil Liberties
Inevitably, the elites will see this as “populism” (ahistorically defined) raging out of control and will attempt to implement various kinds of censorship and police crackdowns on grassroots political organizations. This always hits the left harder than the right. In any case, the police already have the powers they need to crack down on the kinds of groups that would attack not only the Capitol, but the House, the most democratic feature of the American constitutional framework. If not, the purpose of the police up to this point is laughable even according to their own stated purposes.
No expansion of police powers or funding is acceptable. No expansion of corporate power to suppress people’s organizations is acceptable.
As May Day 2020 comes to a close, it reminds me that art can be both a source of inspiration and hope, and a powerful act of rebellion in times of crisis. Here are a few favorites created in honor of today by Ruben Marque, also known as @Broobs, a Queer Latinx collage artist based out of California.
