|
EVENTOS
#33
October
26 national march on Washington DC
with a joint action in San Francisco
to STOP THE WAR ON IRAQ BEFORE IT STARTS!
***Add your ENDORSEMENT today***
To ENDORSE, go to
http://www.internationalanswer.org/campaigns/
The Bush administration is rushing
towards war. The time to act is now. The people of the United States can stop
this madness.
World public opinion and almost every
government opposes Bush's planned war of aggression. But it will take a mass
peoples' movement--in the streets, workplaces, communities, campuses and high
schools--to stop the coming war.
On Saturday, October 26, 2002 -- the
first anniversary of the signing of the so-called Patriot Act -- anti-war, civil
rights, labor, student and other forces are joining together to launch a massive
international mobilization in opposition to a new war against the people of
Iraq. Mass marches and rallies will be held in Washington DC and San Francisco
in the U.S., and in many other countries.
As the Bush administration violates
international law it has been systematically engaged in a campaign of division
and repression in the United States including a wholesale assault on the Bill of
Rights, institutionalization of racial profiling, and aggregation of near
dictatorial powers to the Executive branch.
In articulating the so-called doctrine
of preemptive war, the Bush administration is preparing to violate all existing
international law and the UN charter which forbids countries to carry out war
except in the case of self-defense. Preemption is merely a slogan to justify a
foreign policy of armed aggression and military adventure.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and
company are planning to send tens of thousands of young GIs to kill and be
killed in another war for Big Oil. Simultaneously, the Bush Administration is
diverting billions of dollars to feed military conquest and away from jobs,
education, healthcare, childcare and housing.
The so-called debate that is opening
now to public view from within the political establishment presents a necessity
for all anti-war forces to become a major factor in generating an authentic
opposition to U.S. war plans in the Middle East. The October 26 National March
in Washington DC and joint action in San Francisco come just one week before
midterm Congressional elections.
There won't be a real national debate
on a planned invasion of Iraq until the people are in the streets. We can't
leave it to the military establishment to decide when and how they will go to
war and to define the debate. We must tell Bush and his corporate and Big Oil
patrons that we will not allow this to happen.
This war can be stopped. Bush,
Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and company can be stopped. But the essential
element must be the mobilization of a massive new anti-war movement in the
streets. We call for civilians and soldiers alike to exercise their political
right to speak out against an illegal war. On October 26, there will be a
National March in Washington DC, a West Coast march in San Francisco, and
protests around the world.
ONLY THE PEOPLE CAN STOP THE WAR!
JOIN US ON OCTOBER 26, 2002!
*** To ENDORSE the Call to Action, go
to
http://www.internationalanswer.org/campaigns/o26/o26endorse.html#endo
GROWING LIST OF ENDORSERS!!!
*INITIATERS*
- A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition
- Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation
- National Lawyers Guild
- Ramsey Clark, former U.S. attorney general
- Dr. Hans Christof von Sponek, former director of the UN
Oil for Food Program
- Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, Auxillary Bishop, Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit
- Rev. Graylan Hagler, Senior Minister, Plymouth Congregational Church
- Dorothy Day Catholic Worker
- IFCO/Pastors for Peace
- Free Palestine Alliance
- Muslim Student Association
- Partnership for Civil Justice - LDEF
- Mexico Solidarity Network
- Nicaragua Network
- Korea Truth Commission
- International Action Center
- Kensington Welfare Rights Union
- Middle East Children's Alliance
- Bayan USA-International
*PARTIAL LIST of ENDORSERS*
- San Francisco Labor Council (AFL-CIO)
- Howard Zinn, Peoples' Historian
- Mumia Abu-Jamal
- Student Liberation Action Movement (SLAM)
- Kathy Kelly, Voices in the Wilderness*
- Black Voices for Peace
- Los Alamos Study Group, Santa Fe, NM
- Center for Constitutional Rights
- Committee in Support of the Iraqi People
- International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia
Abu-Jamal
- Network in Solidarity with the People of the Philippines (NISPOP)
- Sudanese American Society
- Congress for Korean Reunification - U.S.A
- Campaign to End the Sanctions
- The Network of Arab-American Alumni & Professionals, NY, FL
- Chuck Turner, City Councilor, Boston, MA
- Dr. Pol De Vos, President of the Anti-Imperialist
League, Belgium
- Jean McGuire, Executive Director, METCO*, Boston, MA
- College Voice, College of Staten Island, CUNY
- Michigan State University Students for Economic Justice
- Exploris Middle School United for Peace, NC
- Chico Peace and Justice Center/Chico Peaceworks
- Beloit College Womyn's Center
- Asian Americans for Justice in Palestine
- Campaign to End the Sanctions
- Gray Panthers Metro Washington
- Citizen Soldier
- Quest for Peace / Quixote Center
- Greens/Green Party USA
- Michigan Emergency Committee Against War in Iraq
- Committee to Protest War Against Iraq
- Mid-Hudson National People's Campaign
- The U.S. Greens Abroad
- Gloria La Riva, President, Typographical Sector, Northern California Media
Workers Union*
- Leslie Feinberg, activist and author, NWU/UAW Local 1981*
- Harlem Tenants Council
- National Organization for Women at University of Houston
- Muslim Student Association at Syracuse University
- The Toronto Coalition Against War & Racism
- ADC Fresno, CA
- United Muslims of America
- Students for Social Change, Silver Spring, MD
- Bus Riders Union, Los Angeles, CA
- San Francisco Bay Area Progressive Challenge
- Pan-African News Wire, MI
- Lawrence Coalition for Peace and Justice, KS
- Conscience International, Atlanta, GA
- Queers for Racial & Economic Justice
- Indian Association of Lawyers, Bombay, India
- collectif YA BASTA, St Ouen, France
- Labor Committee for Peace and Justice (Bay Area)
- I.L.W.U. Loc. 400, Vancouver, B.C.
- NJ Independent Alliance
- Workers World Party
- Coastal Convergence Society of Huntington Beach, California
- Columbia Solidarity Committee, Chicago, IL
- The United Peoples
- Leftbooks.com
- Turnwind, AZ
- Vietnam Veterans Against The War Anti Imperialist National HQ
- The Peace Coalition of Southern Illinois/Fellowship of Reconciliation
- First Congregational Church, UCC
- WESPAC (Westchester People's Action Coalition)
- Organization of Iranian People Fadaee Gurrillas, VA
- Columbus Campiagn for Arms Control/For Mother Earth, OH
- Olympia Movement for Justice & Peace, WA
- School of Americas Watch-San Jose
- People's Coalition Against War, Los Angeles, CA
- Falmouth Anti-war (Cape Cod)
- The March For Justice
- The American League For Justice and Peace
- Outrage, NJ
- Whatcom Peace & Justice Center, Bellingham, WA
- Paramedics for Peace, NC
- Gay-Straight Alliance of the University of Wisconsin, Stevens, WI
- The Charlotte Fellowship of Reconciliation
- TEA Society (Society for Teaching Educational Activism), MO
- Australian ? Iraqi Friendship Association, Melbourne, Victoria
- Grandmothers for a Just World, NC
- Justice for Palestinians, CA
- Vets Against War
- Instant Anti-war Action Group, VT
- Rainbow Flags for Mumia
- Indian Association of Lawyers
- Irish Republican Socialist Committees of North America
- Women for Positive Change
- Mothers for Peace-International
- International Council for Peace and Justice
- Collier County Anti-War Coalition
- High Country Citizens for Peace and Justice
- Tri-City Peace Action
- El Dorado Peace & Justice Community
- Marin Peace & Justice Coalition
- Gray Panthers California
- Joliet Anti-Racist Action
- Parents for Peace
- People Against Oppression and War
- Ocean Beach Grassroots Organization
- Voices of Palestine
- Broward Anti-War Coalition (Fort Lauderdale, FL)
& many more!
For the growing list of endorsers, go
to
http://www.internationalanswer.org/campaigns/o26/endorsers.html
*** To ENDORSE the Call to Action, go
to
http://www.internationalanswer.org/campaigns/o26/o26endorse.html#endo
JOIN the CAMPAIGN to
STOP THE WAR ON IRAQ BEFORE IT STARTS!
*Below are several ways that you can get involved*
BUSES, VANS and CAR CARAVANS are coming
to DC from a growing list of cities:
http://www.internationalanswer.org/campaigns/o26/index.html
(updated frequently)
If you are interested in ORGANIZING
TRANSPORTATION FROM YOUR CITY, fill out the form at:
http://www.internationalanswer.org/campaigns/o26/index.html#list
If you would like SPEAKERS on the
history of the U.S./Iraq conflict at your high school, college, union, or
community center, email dc@internationalanswer.org
Make a TAX-DEDUCTIBLE DONATION to help
stop the war before it starts:
http://www.internationalanswer.org/donate.html
HELP GET THE WORD OUT! Download flyer
at:
http://www.internationalanswer.org/pdf/o2602flyer.pdf
If you are not on the A.N.S.W.E.R.
EMAIL LISTSERVE (low volume), sign up today to receive updates on organizing and
analysis of the Bush administration's war drive:
http://www.internationalanswer.org/subscribelist.html
For background information on U.S. war
plans in Iraq, see the "Learn More" section at:
http://www.internationalanswer.org/
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
dc@internationalanswer.org
New York 212-633-6646
Washington 202-332-5757
Chicago 773-878-0166
Los Angeles 213-487-2368
San Francisco 415-821-6545
Inicio de
página
National
Convention Labor Party of USA
Report on July 26 LP & Electoral
Strategy Forum in Washington, D.C.
por Alan Benjamin
Introduction
A forum initiated by the Golden Gate
Chapter of the Labor Party was held on the Friday night of the Labor Party
convention in Washington, D.C., on the subject of "Where Does Labor Stand
with the Democratic Party? A Panel Discussion on the Labor Party's Electoral
Orientation."
The forum, which drew a crowd of over
150 people, was co-sponsored by the San Francisco Labor Council, the Ohio State
Labor Party, Black Workers For Justice (BWFJ) and United Teachers for a Labor
Party (Los Angeles).
The panel discussion was chaired by
Baldemar Velasquez, president of the Farm Labor Organizing Committee
(FLOC/AFL-CIO) and national co-chair of the Labor Party. Other speakers included
Donna Dewitt, president of the South Carolina AFL-CIO; Jerry Gordon, chair of
the Ohio State Labor Party; Nancy Wohlforth, business manager of OPEIU Local 3
(who could not attend but sent a written statement that was read from the
podium); Robert Ford, vice president of ILA Local 1422 in Charleston, S.C.
(speaking on behalf of ILA 1422 President Ken Riley); and Tom Lacey, treasurer
of the 2001 LP- endorsed Robin David For MUD Board campaign in San Francisco.
The discussion was extremely dynamic
and informative and made clear that a substantial number of Labor Party members
want to see the Labor Party run candidates where the Labor Party's criteria can
be met, which means having meaningful labor and community support. Many of the
LP delegates who attended the forum on electoral strategy said this event was
the highlight for them of the entire Labor Party convention.
We are reprinting below major excerpts
from the presentations to this forum. Instead of publishing Tom Lacey's remarks
on the Robin David for MUD Board campaign, we are reprinting a more
comprehensive article published initially in the Summer 2002 issue of Labor
Party Voice (the newsletter of the Golden Gate chapter of the Labor Party) by
GGLP Executive Board member Alexei Folger.
Presentations:
Baldemar Velasquez, President, Farm
Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC) and National Co-chair of the Labor Party
When we founded the Labor Party in
1996, we said we had to provide a forum for working people to express what they
really think and feel. We were tired of what Phil Ochs, describing the American
political system in one of his songs, called "used-car-dealer
elections." How true: They just give us a bunch of used cars for us to
choose from -- used and re-used -- and we never know what we're getting until we
get in the car. That's the kind of elections we've had in this country.
Do you remember Bill Clinton? I can
recall everyone in the labor movement telling me how important it was to elect
Bill Clinton; how he was going to give us the permanent striker replacement
legislation we wanted. But what did Clinton do? He gave us NAFTA and all this
"free trade" stuff instead.
Phil Ochs' song planted the seed in my
mind about what we needed as working people in this country.
Looking at the situation of farmworkers
in Ohio, it was clear to me that we needed our own political arm to deal with
our issues -- like basic sanitation for the farmworkers in the fields. For the
politicians, these are non-issues.
I don't care who we had in office --
even the most progressive Democrats, like Governor Dick Celeste. Here Celeste
had Cesar Chavez stay in his home in Columbus, but when it came to farmworkers
in his own back yard, do you think he talked about our issues? Not at all. We
were not considered a "politically advantageous" group of people to
side with.
If that is what the Democrats are all
about, and it is, what good are they? Are they our friends? They're actually
worse than the Republicans. You know why? Because the Democrats pretend to be on
our side.
And that's why we need something
different. That's why we're in the Labor Party -- because we understand that
working people need a political alternative that represents our interests and
that's going to allow us to participate fully in the determination of the
policies that affect us. We need to put an end to to business-as-usual,
used-car-dealer politics.
The rich and the corporations are
stealing our money directly from our pockets. It's happening every day. If we
had responsible people in the government, we wouldn't have this situation, we
wouldn't have those double standards that allow corporations to use child labor
in the fields, as they were doing before our strike in 1978.
Where are those politicians -- even the
so-called friends of labor? They are tied -- hook, line and sinker -- to the
economic relationships that exist in our country. We've got to bust that
structure up.
And the only way to do it is by
providing a political alternative to those politicians, to their policies.
Now about the structure of this
evening's program. I'd like to ask speakers to keep their comments to a minimum,
and then I will open it up to the audience for an open and frank discussion.
I want to hear what you, the members of
the Labor Party, think about where we're at with the Labor Party. This is not an
official function of the Labor Party. I agreed to chair this panel discussion
because we need to have a way, a forum, to air and discuss some of these issues.
I am not afraid of being criticized, of
having people say you're screwing up. If what people say is true, this is the
only way we can correct ourselves and do better.
In any democratic organization, we need
to have forums where people can talk and, if possible, come to agreement. Maybe
you can change my mind, maybe I can convince you. This is the spirit of this
event.
Donna Dewitt, president of the South
Carolina (AFL-CIO)
Where does labor stand with the
Democratic Party?
In our state of South Carolina,
organized labor represents only 4.2 of the workforce. This is the harsh reality.
Politicians know how to count.
Let's look at all the Democrats who
voted wrong on NAFTA. Where are they from? The South. Imagine voting wrong on
NAFTA and representing the textile belt in the South!
I am the president of our state
federation. I have argued, time and again, with the AFL-CIO leadership on the
issue of our strategic plan. I have said, and continue to say, to them: I have
been a registered lobbyist for 16 years. (I retired from Bell South after 30
years. I was a lobbyist for CWA, which is my union.)
I have said to the AFL-CIO that until
we have enough people in our unions to impact politics, the money in our coffers
should not be spent on lobbying or electing politicians. It should be spent on
organizing. We've got to put our money into building our union base.
Unfortunately, I am the only state fed president in the room who says this must
be our top priority.
The big problem is that the AFL-CIO
officials want to play power politics. They want to go to the receptions and the
State houses. They want to be recognized by the legislators. Well, you know
what? I want to be recognized by the working people.
And when I talk about working people, I
am talking about people like the workers from ILA Local 1422.
You know, their problem didn't begin
with the Charleston 5. We elected a Democratic Party governor in South Carolina.
People said this would never happen. The Republican incumbent was defeated in
large part thanks to the hard work of the people in the ILA.
Well, the president of ILA 1422, Ken
Riley, was put on the governor's task force. But the minute the governor was
elected, they moved to try to get Ken out of the way. The governor's doors began
to close.
Ken had been appointed to the South
Carolina Ports Authority. He was the first worker, the first Black appointed to
this authority. When the day came for Ken to be confirmed in his post by the
State Senate, the governor called him into his office and said, "Listen, I
want you to withdraw your name. The Chamber of Commerce and the Manufacturers
told me that if I put you there, they'e going to take all the money of the
education system that they put in. So why don't you come back at 3 p.m. to make
that public announcement."
Ken called me and told me what
happened. I told him, "Don't you withdraw your name. Get in there and
fight!"
Well, guess what happened. The governor
went downstairs before 3 p.m., and instead of waiting for Ken to arrive and make
his announcement, the governor brought together the Republican lieutenant
governor and representatives from the Chamber of Commerce and Manufacturers and
announced that Ken had withdrawn his nomination.
I was still chairman of the Democratic
Party in my county at the time. Ours was probably one of the strongest
Democratic Party strongholds in the state.
Well, I resigned from my position and
from the Democratic Party. I got in the governor's face. We staged an action at
the state Democratic Party convention. We picketed and tried to get people from
crossing over. Every newspaper in the state carried the story.
I resigned from the Democratic Party
and said publicly I could no longer work with the Democratic Party.
Now, I understand that there are Black
Caucus members who want to help us. But their hands are still tied. These are
people who went through hell and were persecuted in the state legislature when
they backed the proposal to take down the Confederate flag from our South
Carolina state house.
The Labor Party is a party. It's our
party. We have the most visionary leaders in our party, people like Tony
Mazzocchi. Who in the labor movement could possibly have a problem with a party
that calls itself the Labor Party?
Where do we go from here? We have to go
to the politicians and place four or five of our key Labor Party platform issues
before them -- single-payer healthcare, social security, trade, education,
collective bargaining. We have to tell them that if they can't support our
issues, we can't support or vote for them.
The problem we have, though, is the
labor leaders. They're not willing to give up that power, that handshake from
the Democratic Party politician who is selling us out, just like the Republicans
are.
It's not about winning votes. It's
about doing the right thing. Our labor leaders and politicians are not listening
to us. We need to go our and build the Labor Party on our issues. We've got to
increase our numbers. We've got to organize in the Labor Party and in the labor
movement.
We in the Labor Party can be the
vehicle for a new labor movement. If we remain true to what we believe in, we
can -- and will -- build a new labor movement.
--------------o---------------
Jerry Gordon, Chair,
Ohio State Labor Party
I would like to address two questions
tonight. The first is what will it take for labor to break with the Democratic
Party? The other is what should the Labor Party be doing in the meanwhile?
Looking back at the last several
decades, it has become clearer to more and more workers that labor and the
Democratic Party have gone in opposite directions. At every critical juncture,
Democrats have betrayed, sold out, and abandoned working people, punctuated here
and there with a few bones thrown labor's way when the ranks generated heavy
pressure.
Strong words? Sure, but let's look at
the record on the major issues.
Strikebreaking and Union Busting
Let me begin with something that
happened in 1946, at a time when coal miners and railroad workers were on
strike. Truman commandeered the railroads and called a special joint session of
Congress, urging it to authorize him to draft into the armed forces all workers
who were on strike against the government. This proposal included jail sentences
and steep fines. Within two hours of receiving the proposed legislation, the
Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives approved it as an
"emergency measure" by a 306 to 13 margin. Meanwhile Truman sent an
armed detachment to Kentucky minefields to escort scabs.
Keep in mind this occurred in 1946, one
year after the end of World War II. What justification could there have been to
resort to such police state measures to force the strikers back to work? The
unions attacked it as the most repressive measure ever directed against
organized labor by a president. Yet, the Democrats voted for it with virtual
unanimity.
I wanted to start with this experience
because there's a myth out there that the Democrats used to be pro-labor but
have gone bad in recent years. That is not the case. The Democratic Party was,
is, and will continue to be a party representing the corporations, not labor.
Now, let's fast forward to the Carter
administration. As his term was ending in 1980, Carter was faced with the
possibility of a strike by the air traffic controllers. He ordered his staff to
draw up detailed plans to break the strike and bust the union if the PATCO
workers walked. After Carter lost the election and Reagan became president,
PATCO did strike and Reagan proceeded to implement the Carter plan. At the time,
people were amazed at how speedily and effectively the Reagan administration
acted in cracking down on the workers. But all Reagan did was pull Carter's
blueprint out of the file, dust it off, and put it into effect. Many of us have
a poignant recollection of the PATCO workers being led away to prison in chains.
This was government union busting at its worst. But you didn't hear a whisper
from the Democratic Party, the so-called party of the working class, protesting
it.
In 1991 the rail workers struck and in
1992 they were locked out. In both instances, Congress intervened and ordered
the workers back to work on the employers' terms. In 1991, the vote in Congress
was overwhelmingly in favor, with only the Black Caucus dissenting. In 1992,
support in Congress was unanimous by voice vote. This led the Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employees to repudiate the Democrats and the union went on to
become one of the founding affiliates of Labor Party Advocates and later the
Labor Party.
When Clinton was president in 1997, he
broke the strike of the American Airlines pilots by invoking the Railway Labor
Act and forcing them back to work within minutes of their walkout. Was there
some kind of a national emergency that would warrant such intrusive government
intervention against the striking pilots of a single airline? Clearly not, but
Clinton's corporate backers wanted the strike broken so he obediently carried
out their wishes.
And, finally, there was Clinton's
pardon of would-be union buster, financier, and swindler Marc Rich. Rich, as you
will recall, tried to break the Steelworkers strike at Ravenswood in 1991, but
that didn't prevent Clinton from giving him a free pass back to the U.S., thus
ending his fugitive status.
Trade and Investment
We recall that in 1993 Clinton
successfully spearheaded NAFTA through Congress at a cost of hundreds of
thousands of decent paying jobs in this country and much worse conditions for
workers in Mexico and Canada. Half the Democrats in the Senate voted for NAFTA,
along with over 100 in the House. Now Tom Daschle, the Democratic majority
leader in the Senate, has compromised the way toward adoption of Fast Track in
exchange for some limited concessions regarding workers' benefits. Labor was
categorically against Fast Track and rejected the idea that its opposition could
be a bargaining chip to be given away for something else. Here is another
instance of labor moving in one direction and the Democrats going the opposite
way.
Tax Cut
It was only last year that Congress
approved the two-trillion-dollar "tax reform" legislation, with the
wealthiest one percent of the population getting one trillion dollars as a
bonanza. In Congress, forty Democrats voted for this obscenity but, more than
that, there was no filibuster to stop it in its tracks. To this day, the
Democratic Party does not call for repeal of this monstrous giveaway to the
rich, labor's demands notwithstanding.
Minimum Wage
Baldemar Velasquez spoke earlier today
about the need for a social wage. The minimum wage is not a social wage, but at
least the president and Congress could have closed the gap somewhat by indexing
it so that it would constantly go up as the cost of living goes up, as happens
with Social Security. When Democratic President Carter was elected in 1976, he
had a heavy Democratic Party majority in both Houses of Congress. Carter agreed
to support a modest increase in the minimum wage but flatly refused to back its
being indexed. A minimum wage increase was voted which was soon overtaken by
inflation and millions of workers were worse off than they had been before.
Welfare Rights
One of the most punitive pieces of
legislation ever enacted was the bill passed in 1996 destroying welfare rights.
This measure was directed against women and children, an additional million of
whom were plunged into poverty, and against immigrant workers. Most legal
immigrant workers and all undocumented workers were denied food stamps. Who
pushed this bill through over labor's objections? Democratic President Bill
Clinton. The legislation was so vicious that members of Clinton's own staff
resigned in protest, yet half the Democrats in the Senate voted for it, along
with many Democrats in the House.
Airlines Bailout
After the September 11 attacks, the
Bush administration -- supported by the Democrats -- moved quickly to give the
airline companies billions of dollars in relief. Labor took the position that
the 100,000 workers who had lost their jobs, large numbers of whom were
ineligible for unemployment compensation because their earnings were so low, be
given relief as well. Republicans in Congress said no, we're going to give $15
billion as a bailout to the airlines and nothing for the workers. The Democrats
said okay and every one of them in the Senate voted for the bill. Only a
scattering of Democrats in the House voted against it.
Economic Stimulus Legislation
With the economy sinking, the
government felt obliged earlier this year to adopt an "economic
stimulus" package, which the Washington Post said would "provide
billions of dollars in tax breaks for businesses." Just a year before, the
top 1% of the super rich had gotten a trillion dollars in tax relief, but they
wanted more. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said he was "profoundly
disappointed" with the legislation, adding "The bill does nothing to
help laid-off workers pay the crushing costs of health care." So how did
the Democrats vote? The bill sailed through with bipartisan support -- 417 to 3
in the House of Representatives and 85 to 9 in the Senate.
Civil Liberties
Finally, we have the USA Patriot Act,
one of the most repressive pieces of legislation undermining our civil liberties
and constitutional rights ever enacted by Congress. The AFL-CIO strongly
condemned it (see Resolution 45, adopted by the Federation at its December 2001
convention). So how did the Democrats vote? All but one of them in the Senate
voted for it and 75% of House Democrats also voted yes.
What the Democrats Failed to Do
Now, consider what else the Democratic
Party has done on issues of burning concern to working people in this country:
· Regarding a jobs program to put 8½
million unemployed workers back to work -- NOTHING!
· Regarding stanching the loss of
millions of decent paying jobs to low wage areas in other parts of the world --
NOTHING!
· Regarding providing health care for
the 44 million people with no coverage -- NOTHING!
· Regarding adequate federal funding
for public education, including higher education -- NOTHING!
· Regarding protecting retirees' and
laid-off workers' pension, health care, and insurance rights -- NOTHING!
And the list goes on.
What a spectacle! What an egregious
record! Yet labor leaders, with few exceptions, still tell us that the
Democratic Party is the party for workers and deserves our support. They say we
must do everything possible to secure Democratic majorities in both Houses of
Congress this November. Why? So that we can have more of the above?
This leads to the question: What will
it take to get labor to break with the Democrats? It's clear it will take an
upheaval by rank-and-file workers on a scale we have not seen before. Millions
of workers who today vote for lesser evil Democratic Party candidates will have
to become convinced that the Democrats are a corporate-run party which cannot
and will not address their basic needs.
And what does the Labor Party do in the
meanwhile? Above all, we must preserve this party -- with all of its weaknesses
and limitations -- as a working class alternative to the bosses' two parties. If
you believe in the indispensable need for an independent workers' party based on
the unions, your place is in the Labor Party. It is, after all, the only labor
party we have. There's no other formation on the scene right now with the
program which the Labor Party has adopted and is fighting to implement.
Regarding our prospects for the future,
who's to say that somewhere down the line our call for workers to organize their
own party will not resonate much more than it has during our first six years?
Workers may passively accept conditions for years, even decades. But that can
change in a hurry, as it did in the 1930s. Today many of America's sanctified
institutions are unraveling before our eyes. Who could have foretold even months
ago the meltdown of the stock market, spurred by the exposure of widespread
corporate corruption? What will the effect of this be on the working class and
the labor movement? What about the rapidly worsening economy and the growing
number of unemployed? We have to be around, providing basic answers to these and
other questions being posed by an increasingly restive working class. We have to
show that the Democratic Party has no answers and no program to meet workers'
needs, and that there is an alternative course that labor should embark upon.
Electoral Policy
In addition to our work on such vital
issues as health care, education, and workers' rights, it is essential that we
seek out opportunities to compete in the electoral area. We ran a candidate for
School Board in Cleveland Heights/University Heights and while she ran a good
race -- with the endorsement of the Cleveland AFL-CIO and her Musicians Local
Union -- and captured an impressive 1900 votes, she could not really address
local funding issues for schools because only federal funding, not property
taxes or some other form of local taxation, can provide quality education for
all on an equal basis. I believe local races are where we must compete for now,
but contesting for a seat on a Board of Education may not be the best choice.
By contrast, Robin David's campaign in
San Francisco, supported by the labor movement there and approved by the Labor
Party, deserved far more attention in our ranks than it received. It was an
extremely important campaign coming out of a big protest movement advancing the
demand for public power. It illustrated the possibilities we have for electoral
action, even if only in very selective areas at present.
There may be other openings for Labor
Party candidacies in the weeks and months ahead and we should seize them.
However, supporting other third party candidacies not squarely based on the
unions, which run on programs different from our own, is not the answer to our
problems. Nor is engaging in "fusion politics," which contravenes the
Labor Party's agreed-to policy to endorse no candidates other than those the
Labor Party sponsors. These other candidacies, even when running on programs
similar to ours, are not accountable to a trade union base, which is a must. For
us, the candidate is secondary to the campaign. The candidate is the
spokesperson but must reflect what the base democratically decides.
There is no substitute for building an
independent working class party with a clear-cut and consistent class program,
and that is why we must persevere in attempting to win the labor movement to our
perspective.
Of course, it is possible that in some
parts of the country, labor may find itself faced with a choice of candidates
put up by the two corporate parties who are so repugnant that neither can be
supported. Perhaps here and there we will at last see independent labor
candidates emerge who are accountable to their unions and who run on a labor
program, even if not as Labor Party candidates. Such independent labor campaigns
could be important breakthroughs on the road to a mass labor party.
Today's Minority Can Be Tomorrow's Majority
Regarding our continued minority
status, I want to close with a quote on that subject by the late Abe Feinglass,
who was an International Vice President of the Amalgamated Butcher Workmen of
North America. In a 1969 letter written to a union antiwar activist who fought
tenaciously to end the Vietnam War despite finding herself part of a small
minority at the time, Feinglass wrote:
"We must not forget that the
silent majority accepted the tyranny of England; the militant minority fought a
revolution, AND WON. The same silent majority accepted slavery; it was the
militant minority that fought against slavery, AND WON. It was the same silent
majority that accepted child labor and unbearable conditions in plants; it was
the militant minority that fought against each of these conditions, AND WON. It
was the same silent majority that accepted women as third-class citizens without
the right to vote; it was the militant minority that fought for woman suffrage,
AND WON.
"It was the same silent majority
that accepted and acquiesced oppression of the Negro people; it is the militant
minority that is fighting, AND WILL WIN, just as in Viet Nam. The fight of the
militant minority for an end to the war and a more just world will result in
victory."
Let the spirit of union
Brother Feinglass' remarks motivate us as we prepare for tomorrow's crucial
session of this Second Constitutional Convention of our Labor Party.
--------------o---------------
Nancy Wohlforth, Business Manager,
OPEIU Local 3; Executive Board member, San Francisco Labor Council, and National
Co-President, Pride at Work (AFL-CIO)
(Note: Sister Wohlforth was not able to
attend the forum, but sent the following statement which was read from the
podium.)
I bring greetings from the San
Francisco Labor Council, a strong supporter of the Labor Party, as well as from
National Pride at Work. I wish I could be there with you tonight because I feel
so passionately about the subject. I truly believe that if the Labor Party does
not begin to implement its own electoral strategy and begin to run its own
candidates for public office, it will soon wither on the vine -- as have so many
earlier attempts to form a real alternative for working people, the poor,
environmentalists and all peoples of color. ...
I want to tell you that I stand firmly
with those who say that if we don't begin to implement -- note implement, not
simply study or discuss -- an electoral strategy, we will have lost a unique
moment in history and will have turned electoral politics totally over to the
corporations. If we think voter turnout was low, think again; it can go even
lower.
Let us look at what has happened since
the founding convention of the Labor Party, when 1,500 activists left the
convention with hope that finally working people would have a real alternative
to the politics of big business.
The election of a Democratic president
gave us the worst piece of trade law in history -- NAFTA, pushed and backed by
almost every single Democratic Party politician. What has been the result? The
loss of millions of jobs, the destruction of entire communities, from
Youngstown, Ohio, to all the manufacturing centers.
The greatest number of American
citizens are now without any type of healthcare -- over 44 million, and that
number is climbing.
Twenty-five percent of all children in
the United States live in poverty.
Clinton gave us the Defense of Marriage
Act, which denies thousands of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers
basic civil rights.
Does anyone doubt the need for
independent political when:
- A majority in Congress votes to Fast
Track an even worse trading bill -- the FTAA -- which would export the big
corporations' desires for deregulation and privatization throughout Central and
South America, wreaking devastation upon millions of workers and peasants.
- George Bush, with Democratic
approval, has put U.S. troops in over 100 countries -- troops that, in Colombia,
are aiding in the killing of trade unionists under the phony name of the U.S.
"War On Drugs."
- Racial profiling has now become a way
of life for thousands of people of color, and this profiling is approved by both
parties in the name of national security.
I could go on and on with countless
examples of how the U.S. government has moved so far to the right that the very
notion of democracy itself is being called into question. I mean, we have an
election that was stolen, a president who didn't win, a Supreme Court that
legalized the theft of that election, and corporations -- from Enron to all the
telecommunications giants -- whose corporate greed has stolen millions of
workers' retirement savings and stolen their right to security in old age.
I can only wonder how anyone can doubt
the need for independent political action in the electoral arena. No, it is not
far-fetched to think that the time is right for Labor Party candidates.
The AFL-CIO backed 2000 labor
candidates in the last election. These were candidates from the ranks of labor.
The only problem -- in reality the central problem -- is that these 2000
candidates were shackled by their affiliation to, and support for, the
Democratic Party and its platform.
Isn't the question of questions the
need for the trade union movement to break from its reliance on the Democratic
Party? Isn't that what we founded this Labor Party for -- to educate and
mobilize around the need for the unions to put all their resources and
organizing skills into running their own independent labor candidates, their
Labor Party candidates, to enact all the laws that will respond to the needs of
working people.
We're sure as hell not going to get
such laws from the Republocrats!
So what can the Labor Party do today to
advance its platform and win the trade union movement to break with all those
people who gave us NAFTA, the U.S. Patriot Act, the Maritime Security Act, the
Airport Security Act and all the rest?
The Labor Party has launched four or
five campaigns in hopes of building its base. These campaigns are important, but
they cannot be the sole vehicle to build a base.
In fact, look at what happened with the
28th amendment campaign. It didn't galvanize the LP members and affiliated
unions. There was no party-building. In fact, the LP began to shrink.
And this is true for a reason: Who in
their right mind would ever consider that the two parties of big business would
ever endorse a 28th amendment.
Obviously, it will take a mass movement
in opposition to these two parties of the bosses to win a job for all at a
living wage. And this movement will have to project its own independent
candidates to enact this legislation.
The Labor Party should not be reduced
to campaigns -- as important as these may be in their own right. If it continues
on this path, the Labor Party will continue to shrink in size and influence.
Obviously, winning unions to part
course with the Democrats won't happen overnight. I surely don't think we've
reached the point where the labor movement can run its candidates for president
or U.S. Congress. But isn't that where we want to go? Isn't that what the
various labor parties in Europe and Canada have done?
So how can we get to the point where
the labor movement will be able to field its own candidates?
This long and difficult road can begin
today.
Since in reality all politics are
local, we should be searching out ideal opportunities to field local candidates
(especially because so many races are non-partisan anyway) or sponsor local or
statewide initiatives in the name of the Labor Party. Such an ideal situation
occurred in the campaign for public power in San Francisco. Working people had
their own candidate -- Robin David -- and an actual platform that articulated
the needs of workers.
Yes, it is true that the Labor Party
did endorse that local campaign, together with Vicky Knight's in Cleveland. But
the national Labor Party leadership (with the exception of Tony Mazzocchi) did
not put any effort or resources into publicizing or promoting these races. The
result: hundreds of potential and actual Labor Party supporters came away
disillusioned with the Labor Party and have quit the Labor Party -- some for the
Greens.
So yes, we can look for opportunities
to run LP candidates locally. This is a necessary component for building the
Labor Party. If we do not act now to take on the politicians, who, almost to a
person, are bought by the big corporations, I am afraid this particularly
advantageous moment in history will have been wasted, and with its passing, I
fear we will also see the demise of the Labor Party itself.
I personally hope this LP convention
votes to begin implementing its electoral strategy in a more serious way. I'm
looking forward to hearing some positive news from the LP front.
Thank you for the opportunity to share
my thoughts with you,
Yours in the struggle for independent
political activity,
Nancy Wohlforth
--------------o---------------
Robert Ford, Vice President, ILA
Local 1422, Charleston, S.C.
To give you an idea about the politics
in our state, I'd like to read a quote from a statement by the South Carolina
Chamber of Commerce. It says, "Since its founding in 1940, the South
Carolina Chamber has maintained an aggressive and respectful commitment to
ensuring that our key industries are free from third-party interference from
organized labor."
You should know that South Carolina has
the least unionized workforce in the nation: only 4.2 percent. The state and the
employers have set up a Union Avoidance Information Service. Among other things,
it provides "union-free" manuals and "union-avoidance"
training.
Our local, ILA 1422,. is very
politically involved. We don't have an electoral Labor Party in South Carolina,
but we do have Democrats and Republicans. We have friends who are in the
Democratic Party.
We've learned to support candidates who
reflect our interests. Unfortunately, we supported a Democratic candidate for
governor who said he would support our interests, but soon after pulled the
plug.
We've also learned that it's about time
that we started running candidates from people in our local unions. People from
our own ranks have to stand up and run for office. We need to find candidates
who will stand up for our interests -- if the Labor Party becomes an electoral
party that would be even better. And if those candidates don't stand up for us
once elected, we've got to vote them out.
--------------o---------------
Baldemar Velasquez Concluding
Remarks
Many important comments and ideas
emerged this evening. It was lively and rich discussion.
Yes, the trade unions need a lot of
reform. There's a lot of things that stink in our labor movement. We have to be
active in our unions to reform the unions, to make them more democratic, to make
them more internationalist in outlook and vision, to get them to join the Labor
Party.
We don't want a Labor Party based on a
trade union movement that hasn't changed. We have to work to improve and reform
our unions before we can make our Labor Party successful.
But, speaking for myself, I don't care
how many problems we have in the trade union movement, me and my family are
sticking to the union. The same is true of the Labor Party. Yes, we have a lot
of problems, and we have to work to correct them. But I won't budge. I'm
sticking to the Labor Party.
There are many great ideas that were
raised in the discussion. For instance, the idea that we should cut off our
funding to the Democrats. In Toledo, Ohio, I proposed to the Central Labor
Council that we keep a scorecard of all the politicians we've given money to. I
said we should see how many of them have come out to our picketlines, when we
really need them -- and if they're not there, let's not give them any more money
when they come knocking at our door.
This is part of the change in culture
that we must effect to make our Labor Party successful.
--------------o---------------
Closing Statement by Alan Benjamin,
on behalf of the Golden Gate chapter of the Labor Party (which took the
initiative to organize the forum)
I would like to thank all the panelists
for their presentations -- and Baldemar Velasquez in particular, for such a
wonderful job chairing this panel discussion. I also would like to thank all of
you who spoke up during this very dynamic and informative discussion. Baldemar
is right: It is important to get together and exchange our ideas and
experiences.
Obviously, the situation facing working
people is very difficult, and the questions before us are difficult. There are
no simple solutions. There are no quick fixes.
As I listened to the discussion, it
struck me that one basic thought ran through all the speeches and comments
throughout the discussion. And that is, to go forward, preserve and advance our
interests as working people, we have to fight tooth and nail to maintain an
independent political a stance -- for the independence of our unions, for our
political independence from the parties of the bosses. We also have to fight to
preserve and build our Labor Party, slowly but surely, into a fighting
instrument just as we work to build and revitalize the labor movement. Yes, as
Baldemar has pointed out, these two struggles must go hand in hand.
Our goal, as has been stated here
tonight, must be for the unions to take charge of our program and make the break
with the Democrats. It won't happen overnight, but it can happen if we
persevere.
We in the Golden Gate chapter of the
Labor Party have raised here at this convention the need for the Labor Party to
take a more active role in implementing its own electoral strategy, adopted at
our last convention. We are not for running marginal campaigns. That is written
into our electoral program. We fully agree with this.
And the reason we agree is that our
role is not to substitute for the labor movement, but rather to be a catalyst to
get the labor movement to make the needed political break and to run its own
independent candidates against the Democrats and Republicans. That must be the
purpose and role of our Labor Party candidates.
We have put forward the proposal that
the Labor Party should explore ways to implement its electoral strategy
resolution -- not as a substitute for the issue-campaign organizing or the
political education we must carry out, but as a complement to that work. What we
can accomplish may be quite limited at first, but it is important work
nonetheless. How to do all this will not be easy, but it should be explored.
Tonight's forum was a first step in this direction, and we thank you for being
here in such large numbers.
I want to conclude by saying that we
covered the cost of the event. Thank you all for your generous support. We
raised $604 in donations tonight, which, combined with the $700 raised by the
Golden Gate chapter prior to the event, will cover all the rental, publicity and
publication costs of this event. Again thank you all for your support. Onward to
building the Labor Party!
--------------o---------------
Inicio de
página
(Part 4 of 4-Part Report on LP
Convention)
The Labor Party and Electoral
Politics:
A Case Study from San Francisco
By ALEXEI FOLGER
The Robin David for MUD Board campaign
was, along with the Vicky Knight for School Board campaign in Cleveland, OH, the
first attempt to the electoral strategy adopted by the Labor Party at its last
national convention. What follows is a short history of the campaign, and an
analysis of its relevance to the Labor Party and its electoral strategy.
The campaign came about as the natural
progression of his and the Golden Gate Labor Party's involvement in the local
campaign to create a municipal utility district (MUD) in San Francisco and
neighboring Brisbane, and thus to bring about democratically-controlled,
not-for-profit public power on the upper San Francisco peninsula.
Because of this, any meaningful
discussion of the David campaign and its significance to the Labor Party must
start with an understanding of the broader San Francisco public power campaign
and the role played in it by the labor movement, and, especially, the Golden
Gate Labor Party.
Critics have charged that there is
nothing intrinsically "progressive" about public power, and that this
was merely a "liberal" campaign deserving of no special interest by
the Labor Party. While it is true that the local organs of San Francisco's
"fringe" Democratic Party were divided on the issue, the $3 million
spent by local big-business utility interests to defeat the measure (more than
for any local campaign in memory) provides almost a prima fascia case for
working-class - and, hence, Labor Party - interest in such an initiative. A
closer look will bare this out, in spades.
Origins of an Uprising
To understand the importance (both
political and practical) of public power to working people, it is illuminating
to examine the energy crisis of 2000-'01, and what the bosses and their
political cronies envisioned as the solution to it. The crisis, from the utility
companies' point of view, was brought about by an electricity deregulation
scheme they themselves devised.
Deregulation was the brainchild of
large corporate energy consumers looking to lower their costs, and large energy
generating and trading companies looking to get their piece of the hefty
California energy market. The regulated utility companies, initially wary of
giving up their comfy monopoly and guaranteed profits, were brought on board
(with gusto) with the promise of large sums of cash and other favorable business
arrangements. In the end, their lobbyists sat at the elbow of State Senator
Steve Peace (D-San Diego) and directed the writing of deregulation legislation,
which passed unanimously.
Deregulation represented the ultimate goal of all the corporate interests: the
demise of the very concept of the "public utility." Now, energy would
be considered a commodity, akin to pork bellies, subject to the full avarice of
unfettered capitalist machinations and stripped of the restrictions (if
insufficient) attached to resources commonly recognized as being of critical
importance to the public good and human survival.
So, what went wrong for the bosses of
big energy? Bad planning and greed. To buy off the house-broken consumer
advocates, the bosses secured their support by including a phony 10% reduction
in residential electricity rates (the hidden charges, ala post-deregulation
phone bills, more than made up the difference). To protect themselves from an
anticipated drop in rates, the utilities insisted on a rate cap which would
freeze those rates for about four years. Once all the new players were on the
scene, an inter-capitalist feeding frenzy ensued, with energy generators
charging outrageous wholesale rates which, ironically, the utilities were,
temporarily, unable to fully pass on to their customers. In a shameless
bipartisan "rescue," the state government began to institute rate
hikes and massive emergency corporate welfare for the utilities.
The Solution is Out There
Public power, in contrast to
deregulation, represents the idea that not only does the public have a vital
interest in this resource, it has the right and the power to control it in its
own interest to best meet its own needs. It is a notion which has fired the
political imagination of the working class since the late 19th century. And it
has an impressive history of positive results.
In the 21st century, it should be clear
to everyone that energy belongs with healthcare, social security, education,
environmental sustainability, social justice and peace on the list of essential
working-class priorities. The Labor Party has campaigns and platforms on all of
these issues, and its support of public power is entirely in keeping with its
central organizing principle: "the bosses have two parties, we need one of
our own."
The Fight-Back Begins
The San Francisco MUD campaign began as
the project of a small but determined group of community and "good
government" activists who managed to gather a significant number of voter
signatures, and successfully fight off a court challenge by the mighty local
utility company Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), to secure a place on the
local ballot for voters to decide the fate of San Francisco's energy future. All
of this was done in relative obscurity in the hothouse that is San Francisco
politics.
Then came the California energy crisis.
Nearly overnight, skyrocketing gas
prices, government-sanctioned rate hikes, threatened and real disruptions in
service (the so-called "rolling blackouts"), political ineptitude -
and worse - at the state and federal levels, the wholesale looting of the public
treasury, and evidence of "market gaming" and other scandals created
national headlines and a worried an enraged public throughout the state. All of
a sudden, the timing of the MUD initiative (ironically delayed by PG&E's own
legal maneuvering) couldn't have been better. Various forces began to coalesce
as rallies, sit ins, rate boycotts, and well-attended organizing meetings became
everyday events.
Enter the Labor Party
First a brief bit of history: The
Golden Gate Labor Party is well-rooted in and well-connected to the local labor
movement. Many of our members have a long history of labor movement activism and
are or have been shop stewards, on the executive board of their locals,
delegates to the San Francisco Labor Council, and etc. As it happens, we have,
thanks to members David Walters (the chair of the chapter) and Robin David a
unique connection to the local energy industry. Both were until recently
long-time PG&E workers (David retired last summer, Walters now works for
energy-generator Mirant Co.).
And our involvement in public power
pre-dates by several years both the energy crisis and even the MUD campaign.
About four years ago, when PG&E was considering selling its (old, polluting)
Hunters Point Power Plant in San Francisco, the chapter initiated a discussion
with the local community, and specifically a group focused on environmental
racism, aimed at pressuring the City to buy the plant and to shut it down in
favor of cleaner energy sources. In short, we were ahead of our time on the
energy issue.
With this background, the chapter was
in a good position to enter the developing fray. Our first activity (in February
2001) was to hold what turned out to be the most successful public forum in
chapter history. Speakers included Tony Mazzocchi, Robin David, and an array of
local leaders and activists.
As the chapter's involvement grew, it
became clear that the critical task before it was to win labor's support for and
active participation in the campaign. None of our community-based allies were in
a position to do this effectively, and they openly looked to us to "bring
labor to the table."
The chapter's role in initiating the
Labor Task Force for Public Power was the pivotal event in the campaign.
Eventually, it would lead to several remarkable developments, first and foremost
being the reversal by the S.F. Labor Council of its decades-long opposition to
public power. (This did not occur without a price, however, as the Building
Trades' Council strongly opposed this new position, and one union, IBEW 1245 -
which represents workers at PG&E - actually split from the Labor Council
over this issue.)
Other breakthroughs include the housing
of the campaign headquarters in the Labor Council offices, the full mobilization
of the Labor Council's grassroots campaign apparatus, the recruitment of a slate
of labor candidates for the MUD board, and the widespread endorsement of a labor
candidate (Robin David) running publicly under the banner of the Labor Party -
and explicitly rejecting affiliation with any other political party (in this
case, a lifelong political commitment).
The extraordinary support of labor for
the MUD campaign, and the unprecedented step of running a slate of unionists as
labor candidates for the MUD board, are clear indications that this campaign
represented a level of independent labor political action unseen in San
Francisco in recent times. It would be a serious mistake to underestimate the
implications of this.
Lessons Learned
The MUD campaign was an exceptional
opportunity for the Golden Gate Labor Party to involve itself in important
coalition work; but, by itself, it provided no direct visibility for the Labor
Party outside of the activist community and labor leadership. To take part in
this campaign in a way that gave us the ability to publicly participate in our
own name we needed a candidate. And this is where the significance of the Robin
David campaign is most obvious.
Beyond what is outlined above, the
goals and accomplishments of the Golden Gate Labor Party and the Labor Task
Force for Public Power for both the public power and Robin David campaigns are
discussed in more detail in the accompanying interview with Robin David and
article written for the San Francisco Labor Council by Labor Party chapter vice
chair Alan Benjamin.
The campaign met all the criteria laid
out in the Labor Party's electoral guidelines, and while we did not win this
electoral battle, it should be clear from the discussion above and the cited
references that the political accomplishments were far from trivial.
There were, however, noteworthy
weaknesses. For these, the Labor Party need look no farther than itself. The
problem was not public power. It was not Robin David. And it was not the conduct
of either the MUD or Robin David for MUD Board campaigns. The Golden Gate
chapter, though disproportionately influential, is small and not sufficiently
active. But the chapter understood what was in front of us and what it could
mean for the Labor Party - both locally and nationally.
The biggest shortcoming, by far, was
the non-response to our campaign by the national Labor Party leadership. The
Robin David campaign (and the Vicky Knight campaign for school board in
Cleveland) could have - and should have - been recognized as the vehicle for
revitalizing the Labor Party across the whole country. Even more modest forays
into electoral politics, such as the Massachusetts Labor Party's healthcare
ballot measures, have been inspirational to chapters and Labor Party members who
heard of their success. One can only imagine what could have happened if the
national Labor Party had taken on these candidates' campaigns as their own.
Inicio de
página
|
