The Class Struggles in Southern Europe (1)

The embourgeoisment that has been enabled by the massive credit injection over the last years, plus the shifting to the super-exploitation of overseas workers ('outsourcing') rather than those at home, plus the expert predominance of bourgeois culture through the media, has seemed to create European societies without working classes. It is not that the economic relations of class difference have disappeared, far from it, but that these were smoothed over and erased as feelings, and so as corresponding ideas:- there is no working class culture, or if there is, it is rather like dark matter and dark energy in the cosmos (it is there, it has mass, has a huge effect, but it is unknown). This is one reason why the big economic crisis has had few obvious political effects by the standard routes so far. Parliaments remain what they are, representative democracies unshaken by the crisis, except in the places in Europe where the effects have been most acute, where the crisis brings the reality of class exploitation into sharper relief, Greece for example, where Syriza, a radical left party, has risen dramatically to become the second primary force, dissolving the hitherto entrenched certainties of the false dialectic of the 'balance' of pseudo Left and Right. What we see, therefore, is a slow dawning realization of the shakiness and falsity of the bourgeois sensibility and ideology as it comes into contradiction with the economic reality of the crisis for large sections of 'middle class' people who are being thrown down (losing their employment, being evicted from their homes, falling into debt and poverty).

One feature of this is and has been the sense of indignation (i.e. the 'Indignado' movement) that the 'middle class' sensibility has when it finds itself in this situation. To be 'indignant' expresses the loss of dignity, but also a dignified sense of that loss: so it is actually an assertion of dignity against the forces that are stripping it away. For this section of the people the relation between them and workers unions and the working class who also struggle, always, but also specifically now against the effects of the capitalist crisis in various, usually traditional, ways is not exactly or always harmonious, they grate against each other and jockey for position. So this is a cause of division among those who oppose such policies as the troika directed austerity drive, and prevent a Popular Front from being as effective as it could be, although things are still rapidly developing. The case of Argentina is mildly instructive, their earlier, similar, crisis led to the fall of governments and leaders, a great amount of suffering for ordinary people, inspirational uprisings, and a similar movement to the Indignados (the piquiteros, or pickets), but not so much has changed in terms of class division in Argentina, to an extent because of the separation of the opposition into factions and the lack of clarity about what was (and is) to be done.

This lack is to be expected and is not to be taken as a sign of failure, I suggest. The strongest positions become adopted through the struggle and not by imposition, but it is always necessary to point this up and engage in the ideological debate. Socialism remains the only real alternative to the neoliberal policies of the European bourgeoisie and its troika, whose aim is always to push more loans and debt as the answer, but there are so many illusions about what constitutes socialism, and illusions that are 'made real' and acted out too, that the broad Popular Front is the best current movement that serves these struggles. One fear is that 'socialist' or 'communists' wish to impose their 'grid' for revolutions upon these struggles, probably harking back to the USSR's socialist imperialism in Eastern Europe. This could not be further from Leninist principles, but nevertheless these feelings are widespread, there is a great deal of associating the name with the thing itself, as if all Communist Parties in Europe are by default therefore communist or Marxist, as if the act of naming alone means that. And then there is the question of democracy. Probably the most advanced critique of the current democracy in Europe is that of the updated Hannah Arendt version of performative democracy, which in the end and in practice seems to have the US republic as its ideal form, and so is very limited given this form is also currently being severely criticized as failing to represent. Will this theoretical limit form the actual limit of these anti-austerity protests? It looks as if Argentina reached this limit, a kind of buffer zone, hovering at the edge of something new, something greatly resisted by the established powers.

Gary Tedman

Is the USA a Progressive Country?

Thomas Riggins

The answer is "YES" according to the latest (May 2009) issue the AMERICAN PROSPECT. John Halpin and Ruy Teixeira in an article entitled "Progressivism Goes Mainstream" have analyzed surveys taken of people's answers to 40 questions about their beliefs concerning the role of government as well as their social attitudes--split 20/20 between left and right beliefs. They don't give much information on the protocol they used, and we know how easy it is to manipulate polls, but, for what it is worth here are some of the author's conclusions.

The scores possible on the poll run from 0 [you must be a neo-Nazi] to 400 [you are waiting for the second coming of Lenin]. The results show that most of the nature is center-left and tipping in the progressive direction. "The American electorate as a whole records a mean ideological score 209.5--- solidly progressive in orientation." The population is clustered between about 160.6 (Conservative Republicans) and 247.1 (Liberal Democrats). So, trolling around for a sample population didn't turn up any radical progressives evidently, nor KKK types either. Obama voters came in at 244 while McCain's voters averaged 169.

"Despite claims to the contrary," the authors write, " there really is no 'far right' or 'far left' among the electorate in the country. American ideological attitudes tend to converge in the middle." The old Reagan-Bush (1) ideological model of government has been replaced by progressive views as reflected by the Obama victory.

The authors report almost 80% agree with the view that we should have the government invest more in education, science, and infrastructure. So, with regard to government in these areas "conservatives are out of step with the rest of the country."

Over 66% think it's the government's job to help take care the elderly, the poor and sick people. Even a "slim majority of Republicans" agree. Now here is a big one! When asked if they believed "government regulations are necessary to keep businesses in check and protect workers and consumers" even over 60% of people calling themselves Republicans or conservatives said "yes''.

Sadly, one big reason for the change, the authors say, is "the decline of the white working class." I say sadly because the class position of white workers should have put them on the other side of the divide between the progressives and conservatives. The dividing mean was 209.5 and the workers are in with the "whites" and the "men"-- 203.7 and 204.3 respectively (women were at 214.3). However, there is some good news, the number of white workers who consider themselves conservative is 11 points lower that in Reagan-Bush(1) days. "[The] progressive agenda will continue to strengthen ... in the future as the decline of the white working class and the rise in more progressive populations continues."

Of course, the prevalence of conservative attitudes in white workers has something to do with the assault on organized labor and the attempt to weaken and destroy the union movement. There is no rating for a separate category such as "union members" on the authors' scale.

There are also some contradictory statements in their report that don't seem to jibe with their conclusions. They reported that most people supported government spending more on science, education, infrastructure, and supporting the poor, sick and elderly, etc., yet they also say almost 66% "agree with the conservative stance on free trade" and 60% think "government spending is almost always wasteful and inefficient."

They also think "progressives" could be "tripped up" because "there are clear undercurrents of anti-corporate, anti-bailout populism across many segments of the electorate." I don't know just how the authors define "progressivism" but being "anti-corporate" and "anti-bailout'-- i.e., handing over billions to bankers and letting them then go ahead and foreclose on people' homes) is hardly "anti-progressive".

There are no questions on people's attitudes towards Iraq and Af-Pak either. So this study is, to my way of thinking, not all that convincing that we have become a progressive nation. I'm not saying we don't, it is just that this study, while encouraging doesn't seem to seal the deal.

"Relief for the Greedy, Not for the Needy"

by Norman Markowitz

Mass media is talking about Wall Street "greed. "McCain and Palin, the candidates of the party that Wall Street has supported in virtually every election at least since 1884 are also denouncing "greed." Rightwing economists are 'accusing" the Bush administration of violating the sacred principles of free market policy, going "further" than any Democratic administration, and sending bad signals to the rest of the developed world, which in the past it has led toward a "return" to the holy land of "laissez-faire" capitalism, away from the captivity of government regulation.

What is really happening. Barack Obama's comment that this far-reaching crisis is the final verdict on an economic philosophy which has completely failed is a good starting point to understand the present moment. The U.S. government and European governments are pouring hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars or their Euro equivalents into deregulated banks and brokerage houses and the insurers of those institutions. While this may be necessary to prevent a rapid global depression (since the "free market" is not now nor has it ever been "self-correcting." Only, I would say, a lunatic or a "neo-liberal" ideologue would contend that leaders should let the market take its course, "ride out the storm."

But, the sort of state intervention that we are seeing today is intervention from the top in order to save the top, the sort of intervention that even Herbert Hoover accepted in 1932 when the Reconstruction Finance Corporation was created to loan money to banks and other institutions faced with collapse. It is, as Franklin Roosevelt said about a different issue during WWII, the attempt by the conservative coalition in Congress to oppose a program of progressive taxation to pay for the war, a policy of "relief for the greedy, not for the needy." It is also a continuation of the sort of policies that the Reagan administration was compelled to enact when they "bailed out" the Savings and Loan industry from the disastrous speculative collapse that their deregulation policies brought about.

As Marxists we must say over and over again that capitalism as it develops is about the creation of monopoly for private profit, about the use of the state to subsidize the activities of the capitalist class as completely as possible, subsidizing speculation and bailout out failure. According to mass media, the Bush administration has already pumped in nearly half a trillion into the system (near about one year of military industrial complex budget expenditures) and few are talking about comprehensive "re regulation," action to deal with the unregulated global hedge funds, reviving long buried concepts like "excess profits" as part of a policy that would connect progressive taxation to a general regulatory policy that would punish rather than reward predatory speculation.

As Marxists we see the crisis as structural, long-term, and not resolvable ultimately under capitalism, which was the position that Marxists took in the Great Depression of the 1930s.

But that does not mean that we are the left equivalents of the free marketeers, waiting for the collapse and the revolution as they wait for the revival if the "free market" remains "free." We understand that state fiscal policy, taxation and regulation are necessary to protect the interests of the working class. The policies we have advocated in the past are very different from those which the representatives of the capitalist class have advocated and continue to advocate. When they were implemented they were generally successful. In an updated form, they remain vital today, although of course they are not necessarily the only short and medium term solutions.

We support what in the depression was called a "tax on wealth," meaning a serious program of taxing corporate capital and wealthy individuals and families through taxes on high incomes, investments, business transactions, for the purpose of subsidizing the working class in the form of employment and social welfare. We also as in the past, see public ownership and control of sections of the economy, including partial or complete nationalization of banking as a serious option. We reject the "trickle down" theory in all of its expressions and start with the principle that state intervention in the economy is necessary to save the working class and that state policies and subsidies should be centered on the working class and on those sections of capital whose policies expand working class employment and purchasing power.

On that basis we can begin to work with liberals and progressives and influence them to move in that direction. On that basis we can provide masses of frightened and "hungry" working class people with serious nourishment for their understanding, not the junk food that mass media is providing, the choice between "free markets" and capitalist bailouts, which is like a choice between Big Macs and Whoppers.

John McCain Gives Working Families the Finger

By Joel Wendland

Yesterday John McCain held a town hall meeting at Worth & Co. in Bucks County, PA. The Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry has investigated that company for intentionally refusing to pay workers the minimum wage. Pennsylvania officials say the company underpaid workers by more than $140,000. There is no doubt that McCain's actions yesterday were a deliberate statement on how he feels about working people and their rights.

Here's a brief run-down on McCain's record on working-class issues – just in case you're still in the dark:

helped block minimum wage hike in 2005

voted to filibuster minimum wage hike in 2007

compared unions to monopolies

voted to block the Employee Free Choice Act in 2007, allowing workers to form unions

opposed the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2008, which would have made it easier for women workers to sue for equal pay

McCain also failed to show up to vote last week on a measure that would have extended unemployment benefits for workers.

But McCain did pander to Big Oil on offshore drilling, and promised the most profitable companies in the country billions in new tax cuts.

By contrast, Obama backs the Fair Pay Act, for equal pay for women, would sign the Employee Free Choice Act, has proposed indexing the minimum wage to inflation, and would appoint NLRB members who would protect workers rights, wages, health and safety and so on.

John McCain favors free trade at all costs, especially to the rights of working people and the environment. He told Midwest workers that he has given up on bringing back manufacturing jobs and that more jobs would be lost under his administration.

Obama believes environmental protections and workers rights (to join unions, health and safety protections, and basic wage rights) should be central features of any international trade agreement. He voted against CAFTA and opposed the Colombia Free Trade Agreement for those reasons.

Trade is a key workers' rights issue, because if agreements prioritize trade over workers and the environment, those agreements will make it cheaper for companies to super-exploit workers and the environment in other countries, causing job losses here and the drive to bottom everywhere.

If workers are protected in all countries, however, companies have no reason to go.

On creating new jobs, McCain has offered contradictory and incoherent plans on the most important new areas staked out for job growth: green energy and green jobs.

While he is offering prizes to the biggest polluters and proposes to tie the economy forever to oil with new plans to drill offshore and in protected Arctic regions, Obama plans real investments in research and development of renewable energy alternatives, green infrastructure growth, and alternative energies.

Though John McCain has tried to lie about and hide his support for privatizing Social Security and his plans to slash Social Security and Medicare benefits, Obama opposes privatization and has offered plans to improve the financial security of the program by raising the income cap on the Social Security payroll tax to ensure that the very wealthiest Americans pay their fair share into the system.

The list on the clear and meaningful differences on working-class issues between McCain and Obama is much longer, but you get the idea.

Working people simply can't afford the risk of John McCain in the White House. In fact, we can't afford not spending every effort to work for his defeat, on ensuring an Obama victory, and on strengthening pro-worker Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress.

Barack Obama and the working class

The media loves to talk about how the working class isn't behind Barack Obama, or at least the whites in the working class. Of course, they ignore the fact that more than 9 in 10 African Americans and Latinos are working class, and that the millions of whites who have already cast their votes for Obama are not all capitalists – birkenstocks and lattes aside.

It is convenient for them to ignore the 17 million working class whites, African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders, all across the country who have made Barack Obama the presumptive Democratic nominee and will be there on November 4th full of enthusiasm and joy to make him the next president.

Yesterday in Oregon, which is 85% white, for example, Obama won 57% of whites. 26% of Oregon voters were members of "union households" and by a margin of almost two-to-one, Obama collected their support. He won voters who live in families that earn less than $50,000 by 9 points.

Today, Obama collected the endorsement of the United Mine Workers of America, which has thousands of members in Appalachia where Obama supposedly lacks support from white Democratic voters.

In a press statement, UMWA President Cecil E. Roberts said, "Senator Obama shares the values of UMWA members and our families. He understands and will fight for the needs our members have today and the hopes our members have for a secure future for themselves and their families," union president Cecil E. Roberts said in a press statement.

"Senator Obama will fight to preserve American jobs, not ship them overseas in greater and greater numbers," Roberts said. "Senator Obama will make sure that the nation's mine safety and health enforcement agency actually enforces the law, instead of coddling mine operators who repeatedly and willfully violate the law."

UMWA is the 9th AFL-CIO affiliated union to back Obama. So far, 13 labor unions whose memberships total more than 7 million people have backed him.

Clearly, Obama has the ability to bring different sections of the electorate and the working class together to win this thing. The media has to stop showing its ignorance and biases by trying to divide up the working class by race, as if we don't share many of the same aspirations and the same aim to end the Bush years and to prevent more of the same from John McCain.

Notes on the Main Political Report, Nat'l Cmte. CPUSA, Mar. 29-30

Sam Webb delivered the main political report, which is a collaborative speech produced and commented on by many party leaders. Here are some notes. The full speech will be available in a few days at cpusa.org.

American voters have confounded pundits and political predicters have set the stage for a political victory in November for the people's movement.

The election and empowerment of a people's government would remove barriers to social progress by checking the power of monopoly capital and militarism.

The people's movement is seeking a leader that will appeal to our better selves and unify our movement.

Democratic primaries signal a huge upsurge with record-breaking turnout and enthusiasm.

"The high octane of this upsurge is simply breathtaking," he said.

Webb rejected the notion that the primaries are sidelining issues for the sake of personalities.

"This is anything but an issueless campaign," he said. Contrasting it with 2004, Webb recalled that the war on terror took up all of the conversation in the past.

"It should be celebrated as a great democratic achievement, " he said in reference to the the nature of the campaign, that Clinton and Obama are the leading candidates.

Webb predicted the outcome would bring enormous change that puts people's need before warmaking, sleaze and policies that put profits before peoples need.

Such an outcome is possible regardless of whether or not Clinton or Obama wins.

The main dilemma of the left is to not be left behind in this upsurge, he said. If we are not engaged in this struggle to advance the people's movement, we will be left behind.

The Democratic campaigns and the possibility for change have eroded disillusionment and apathy.

Independent involvement is part of the upsurge, and people are inspired by the possibility that this election will result in real changes and improvements in their daily lives.

The US left generally rejects out of hand the electoral politics of the Democratic Party resulting in the failure to recognize the importance of daily events and the significance of the upsurge. We don't follow this path, Webb said.

In 2007 we, the CPUSA, said the presidential elections could set into motion a process of social progress, Webb added. But, we didn't anticipate the full impact of this upsurge, however.

Webb spoke to the role of youth voters in the upsurge. In comparing the youth presence today to the past, Webb said it is of a qualitative different magnitude.

Webb talked about the fact that the nature of the support for the both candidates shows that working class voters will vote for a woman and an African American candidate. Neither would have been swept to the place they are now with support from either women or Black voters alone.

To say that Clinton has garnered the vast majority of the working class vote is simply wrong, he said. Black voters are overwhelming working class. The working class has divided its vote between the two. Trade union voters have given a slight edge to Clinton, but Obama has polled well and has won important endorsements.

On the issue of demographics, "we should stay away form easy and static explanations," he said.

Whites vote for Obama because of his stance on the war, his ability to unify the country, his personal appeal, his youthfulness, his stance on issues and so forth.

Some men may be inclined to be so motivated by sexism that would never vote for Clinton, but most men haven't followed this pattern and have voted for Obama for many other reasons.

White voters who have backed Clinton have not simply done so out of racial motives. They have supported her for experience and her stance on issues.

The point is that there are many different reasons that workers have cast their support in one direction or the other and cannot be simply reduced to race, gender, or other simplistic demographic categories repeated in the mainstream media.

Obama's candidacy is unique in all of this. It is transformational and new. It has brought new forces into the process and built new organizational forms.

"What makes it different is that it has the feel of a movement," Webb said. Obama speaks to people's desires and inspires them.

"He is a fresh voice on the political scene. His courage and astuteness are obvious," Webb said.

His desire to over come racial and religious and national and other divisions "strikes a deeply responsive chord far and wide."

"His ability to articulate a vision, speak to people's hopes, and use his platform to educate millions is refreshing, Webb said.

While he shares many policy ideas with Clinton, his capacity to speak to people and to build unity is more impressive.

For her part, Clinton would likely govern to the left of her husband, and she would be a formidable opponent for McCain.

Rhetorically posing a common question on the left, Webb asked, what about Obama's backing from Wall Street and leading elements in the Democratic Party?

The answers to these questions, while crucial, don't tell us about what his presidency will look like.

While class and class struggle shouldn't be set aside, the character of an Obama presidency cannot be solely determined by questions about the nature of the capitalist backing of his candidacy.

Webb cited historical examples. Frederick Douglass would not have backed Lincoln's candidacy, if he had allowed narrow political questions about abolition to govern his decision to do so.

William Z. Foster would not have tacitly backed Roosevelt and the New Deal if he had allowed narrow questions about FDR's class background to determine his view on this matter.

We have a chance to sweep the Republicans from power in a landslide. "It is an altogether new page in American politics," Webb said.

Webb rejected the ongoing presence of racism in the campaign, but praised the general sense that millions of working class voters have also done so already.

"The struggle against racism and sexism in all of its ideological forms is in as much in the interest of white workers as it is in the interest of female workers and and workers of color," Webb said.

We should reject the notion of the racial or gender progress as a zero sum game. Advances in equality do not come at the expense of white or male or native-born workers.

Webb discussed the role of a racial subtext injected by Bill Clinton and others in the Clinton campaign. "Concerns about unity seem to have been cast aside," Webb noted, in her drive to an inevitable coronation in August. Webb referred to her campaign's fear about Obama's religious background, his patriotism and his racial identity.

Both campaigns should insist on ending this kind of campaigning or what appears to be a solid chance at victory could vanish, Webb said. Only a united movement can lead to a victory in November.

Likewise, Webb continued, Hillary-bashing in sexist terms also diminishes the unity of the movement.

Webb described Obama's speech on race as courageous and brilliant and lauded him for taking an opportunity to talk about a difficult subject that has rarely been addressed by a national figure.

Webb suggested that smearing Obama is done out of fear by sections of the ruling class and the right-wing and some right-wing Democrats that his candidacy represents a diminishment of their power in ruling circles.

They lose sleep over fear that a people's movement will inspire the emergence of a new New Deal.

Webb went on to discuss the deepening economic and financial crisis. He linked Republican policies of the last thirty years and the ongoing decline of US capitalism and imperialism.

What is needed is a broad and ambitious program off housing relief, urban investment ,environmental clean up and more.

A favorable outcome of this election will give working people power to prevent capitalists from shifting the burden of this recession onto the backs of workers.

Equally the war must end. Resources for the war would've have been better spent on needs at home.

"Too much blood and treasure has been lost. It's time to bring the troops home," Webb said.

All peace minded people should unify and defeat McCain.

Obama isn't a "left" candidate and isn't going to embrace "left" issues. The aim of this election is to defeat the right. As such the goal is to elect a Democratic president strengthen Democratic majorities in Congress. This won't constitute a victory only for the Democratic Party but one for the whole working class and for people around the world.

"The day after the election won't matter if we don't win the day of the election," Webb said.

Left and progressive forces are too small to drive the debate and pressure from the left. Thus we should join the conversation that is already taking place and participate in that manner. Our main task is to expose McCain and contrast his views on a host of issues with the Democratic nominee.

The left's goal should not be to influence candidates but to influence the ideas and thought patterns of the people.

Three ideological questions:

1) Labor-led people's movement: How not to diminish the role of the movements of other core forces (movement for equality of the nationally and racially oppressed, Women's movement, and so on)? How can we avoid a unnecessarily narrow views on these questions in order to avoid given the appearance that we see other core forces as "add-ons" or footnotes in the movement?

2) Class: How do we clarify a notion of the working class to that promote the unity of the class? Not simply reducibly to trade unionists or productive workers. Our view should be wide-angled but with the notion that there are strategic sectors, but that our aim is to unite the whole class.

3) What is the relationship between unity and struggle? Clarify the relationship between participating in struggle and deepening ideological and practical activity to advance the struggle.