I just gave Phil a little slap and that was all it took to straighten him out.
Now Phil is playing ball with Obama.
Let's keep Phil Benjamin and Art Perlo in line so things don't get out of hand.
Obama needs some leeway. We need to cut him a little slack.
Let's not get all excited when President Obama raises the age of eligibility for Social Security. We know that is coming. We need to stay composed and bite our lips.
Sam Webb
National Chair, CPUSA
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Public Option v. Private/Profit Option
"Public" Option Vs "Private" [PROFIT] Option: Peoples' Health Care at Stake
by Phil E. Benjamin
The Administration is moving quickly toward an approach to national health care issues. It is an approach that is not what Single Payer and National Health Service advocates had hoped for. But, it is an approach that closely resembles Obama's campaign promises and offers some room for hope.
It is clear that the House, the Senate and the Administration has no intention of taking on the corporate interests in health care HEAD ON. On the other hand there is an understanding that they must do something to alleviate the crisis in health care. Corporate health interests will be curtailed; the issue is how much. Health policy people know that there is not one solution to the health care crisis. One policy directive cannot and will not stand on itself; there is simply too much intertwining of issues.
A set of policy directions are being finalized in the House and Senate with the clear White House involvement. These policy directions, each covering an aspect of the health crisis, can swing between full government responsibilities, the "Public Card," to a very large role for insurance carriers: the "Private" card.
Children
The first step was taken when the Administration made the State Children's Health Insurance Program a permanent part of the health care landscape. While that move was anticipated; it was still a very important step. The Bush Administration had specifically vetoed this approach since it played the "Public" government card and not the "Private" insurance company card. SCHIP is where the "line in the sand" was drawn by the right wing and their for-profit agenda. This is a big point in the "Public" option column.
Laid off Workers and COBRA
The increasing crisis of unemployed workers and their inability to pay for the continuation of health insurance benefits, COBRA, that, by law, must be offered to them, had to be addressed. Less than 8% of those eligible bought COBRA. Partial Solution under the Stimulus Plan: the federal government will now reimburse the employer or health insurer for 65% of the cost of COBRA. The remaining 35% of COBRA's cost is still formidable. In hard numbers: COBRA for family coverage is about $1,000 a month; and, about $400 a month, for individual. With the federal support those numbers are reduced to: About $350 and $125 a month. This begins on March 1st, 2009. But, if a person became unemployed on and after September 1, 2008, and refused coverage, since it was too expensive, then those same workers can requalify for COBRA as of March 1, 2009. This is a check mark in the "Public" Option column, but the heavy hand of the "Private" card is ever present.
Problem: The high cost of COBRA is driven by the cost of health insurance and drug companies. Those "Private" Card costs will need to be curtailed. These costs are unnecessarily excessive and will put too high a price for this "Private" card to be maintained.
In another very important move, the Administration is strongly considering allowing workers collecting UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE to qualify for Medicaid. This is a major step forward. This is playing the "Public" card perfectly.
Medicare Buy In at 55 Years of Age
Lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 55 years, proposed by the most powerful U.S. Senator, Finance chair, Max Baucus, is playing the "Public" card to some extent. But the "Public" option card would be greater if the Medicare program were reformed to be more like its framers intended, and not the partially privatized program that has developed over the years; especially with Bush's misnamed "Medical Modernization Act of 2003." Eliminating the mis-named "Medicare Advantage" insurance company programs; federalizing the price of drugs leads Medicare back to its federal mandate and is a peoples' demand that makes complete sense.
The problem will be the cost of the "Buy In." That fee has yet to be determined, but it must be affordable. There is a fear that the fee will be "means tested"; which could lead to means testing for all of Medicare. This would be a big step backward away from the "Public" column.
Making this new Medicare program a "default" program, meaning that people who reach 55 automatically get enrolled, is crucial to success. This would just as when people rech 65 they are automatically are enrolled.
For our social insurance commitment to be effect during these legislative reform efforts we must invoke the concept of "Social Solidarity." It is those principles that prevail in France. There should be no "means testing" for any services. Everyone is in; nobody is out. To put the rich in line, a clear progressive income tax is necessary. The greed of AIG, Citibank and other parts of Corporate America sets the stage for this tax policy direction.
Increasing Eligibility for Medicaid
Baucus has proposed elevating the Federal Poverty Level [FPL] so that millions of people, including many working poor people, can access Medicaid. There are millions of working poor, many in labor unions, who do not have health insurance, but, currently, earn too much for Medicaid. This policy direction is a good thing; and, plays the "Public" card well. There must not be any cost or buy-ins for this coverage.
These regulations must be accompanied by new requirements requiring physicians to treat Medicaid recipients.
The Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan [FEHBP]
The strong rumor is that the Administration, in fulfilling its promise of universal access, will bring everyone else under the "principles" of the FEHBP. Not the Program itself.
The FEHBP is quite popular with federal employees, including postal workers. Over 80% of federal employees choose Blue Cross/Blue Shield, from a host of insurance options.
The rumor is that the Administration is also looking at Massachusetts program. That program covers over 50% of the uninsured in Mass., but there are serious funding problems. The mix of "Public" and "Private" is very much alive there. The FEHBP is heavy on the "Public" side, but the "private" side is still present, and, that presence is very costly to provide for all eligible people. Keeping the "Private" card in this program has made affordability a key issue.
A strong "Public" Option within the FEHBP, a Medicare option, would make the most "competitive" sense.
Our Role
There is a clear and present need for health care activists to continue the pressure as each of these aspects of the Administration's national health program unfolds. For years, decades, there have been coalitions formed around each of those programs. They will and should be continued, but coalitions between these groups are paramount. The street heat created by these grass roots organizations and the labor movement will be the difference.
For example, in a totally ill conceived idea, the Administration temporarlily put forward a proposal that returning veterans should use their own health insurance coverage for service related illnesses and injuries; and, not the VA hospital system. That was clearly a shift toward the "Private" and not the "Public" Card. Following the hue and cry from every veteran's organization against that policy proposal; the Administration withdrew the idea.
The Republicans will oppose every health policy move that the Administration makes. Their strategy will be to stonewall anything happening before the 2010 Congressional elections. On the other hand, the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and control of the White House should not be wasted.
A newly created caucus, the Blue Dog Democrats, has joined the fray to defeat the strong "Public" card. This falls right in with the Republican goals. These Democrats perspective is clear. Their messages is working people and their health care needs be damned; corporate interests in health care must served.
These policy moves sets up a war between a clear role for government, the "Public" card; and, a continuation for the private health insurance and drug companies, the "Private" card. Corporate America through the insurance and drug cartels are using their millions of dollars to influence members of Congress; they are in high gear.
Clearly, the issue of costs, i.e., the excessive price of the "Private" option charged by these profiteers for their participation, continues to be the 500-pound gorilla in Congress and the White House. The struggle for the clearly less expensive "Public" Option and against the "Private" option will be carried out by hand-to-hand combat on each health proposal.
Recent NY Times Letters to the Editor, offer some salient points:
"As policymakers in congress and elsewhere debate the nation's health insurance options, especially for he nearly 50 million insured in our country, it appears that the main argument against Medicare-like coverage is that private insurers would be unable to compete with government on costs, and might be drive from the market. Isn't that like saying we should not strive for a peaceful planet because it would be bad for the armaments industry? Am I missing something?"
"What is at issue here is not how to support private health insurance companies. The issue is how to best provide quality, affordable health care for all."
And from a practicing physician in private practice for over 35 years: "Medicare and private insurance fees are the same: most private insurers base their fees on those paid by Medicare. But it is much more difficult to collect these fees from private insurance companies than from Medicare. The H.M.O.s require that I submit and resubmit claims several times. And, then they even have the chutzpah to offer a lower payment soon, rather than contractually agreed-upon payment sometime in the future. I prefer Medicare, which mostly pays promptly and with far fewer hassles for me and my staff." [PS the updated term for these HMOs is the mis-named Madison Avenue term, Medicare Advantage.
Printing a preponderance of pro-Public Card option letters for the NY Times is rather unusual. They tend to adopt the market –based system.
Health Service Issues Need Attention
While these crucial financing and system-wide issues are being debated and struggled over; there are many others below the radar that need addressing: primary care build up; community health centers financing and expanding; reforming the cash cows coffers of the large not-for-profit medical centers; training more physicians and nurses; and, the continuing anti-racist, anti-sexist struggle.
Overall Political Context
The political backdrop for these Congressional health struggles is quite cleaer. There is a growing understanding that in 2010, congressional elections could spell the future of not just the new Administration, but the future of our country and world. A repeat of the 1992-94 Clinton failures on health care, which gave us the Newt Gingrich Congress of 1994-2000 and another generation of corporate greed, i.e., Reaganism, is not an option. The world economic and financial crisis does not allow the option of allowing Republican rule.
Historically, the failure in the late 1970s to pass the National Health Insurance and Labor Law Reform cleared the way for mass dissatisfaction with Jimmy Carter, and the Reagan period was born. Going back10 years before that, the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 would have assured the election of Democrats in the 1968 elections had not the Democrats stood behind and widened the Vietnam War. Coincidently, labor law reform is being demanded again by organized labor; the Employee Free Choice Act – EFCA.
Let's get to work!
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Erica Smiley attends John Birch Society 50th Anniversary Dinner and brings back the prize
Friends,
I have good news to report. We have lost some coalition partners. Not to worry. We have picked up a new coalition partner.
Many of you have listened to the interview of our brilliant and beloved Erica Smiley on the Florida ABC affiliate talk show welcoming our work with the John Birch Society in defending the Constitution.
This bold initiative in seeking out new coalition partners has paid off handsomely. Better than some of our other pay-days.
Erica Smiley is one of our bright young comrades with a bright future in our new CPUSA. She is delightful. Erica is brilliant. She is bold. I mean Erica is B-O-L-D. Who else would have ever thought we could work with the John Birch Society?
I am happy to report that we have picked up a new coalition partner.
Erica Smiley is now our new liaison with the John Birch Society.
Let's give Erica a big round of applause.
We are now working with a very broad political spectrum ranging from Barack Obama to the John Birch Society.
This is not an odd alliance. George Wallace was a Democrat. Democrats are our coalition partners.
We are in the mix with our new ideas and new friends.
In the future we have plans to meet with Cliff Kincaid and the Mellon family as we reach out from our new offices for new friends. We want to discuss leasing space to Accuracy In Media.
All it took was a bold initiative on Erica Smiley's part to reach out to the John Birch Society on an ABC talk show and we have made powerful new friends.
We will see what we can do about getting the John Birch Society to acknowledge the existence that the Constitution of the United States of America has a Bill of Rights beyond the 2nd Amendment and we will work to convince the John Birch Society to tone down its anti-Semitic and racist rhetoric.
Already our initiative has paid off.
Look at the Tea Party movement. You don't see any white sheets. We have convinced them to leave their white sheets at home on the bed where they belong. This saves us all embarrassment, and it saves the washer-women a little work trying to get the white sheets clean.
Our membership may be dwindling but we are slowly but surely picking up new coalition partners.
We should be planning to hold our own 90th Anniversary Dinner in Appleton, Wisconsin.
Jarvis, do you want to put on your Russian fur hat you wore in Red Square and check to see if they have a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Appleton where we can hold our 90th Anniversary Dinner? Why don't you find out if Ron Paul would like to speak, too. If Ron isn't free maybe check and see if Rand Paul is free. I like his gestures suggesting he is for an alliance of everyone from the John Birch Society to the Greens and the left. That sounds so nice.
Over the next few months we will be seeing the Young Americans for Freedom and the Young Communist League working with-in the Constitutional framework to ban books and magazines in public libraries and in schools. Our aim will be to put the Ten Commandments in every classroom in America.
Sam Webb
National Chair, CPUSA
I have good news to report. We have lost some coalition partners. Not to worry. We have picked up a new coalition partner.
Many of you have listened to the interview of our brilliant and beloved Erica Smiley on the Florida ABC affiliate talk show welcoming our work with the John Birch Society in defending the Constitution.
This bold initiative in seeking out new coalition partners has paid off handsomely. Better than some of our other pay-days.
Erica Smiley is one of our bright young comrades with a bright future in our new CPUSA. She is delightful. Erica is brilliant. She is bold. I mean Erica is B-O-L-D. Who else would have ever thought we could work with the John Birch Society?
I am happy to report that we have picked up a new coalition partner.
Erica Smiley is now our new liaison with the John Birch Society.
Let's give Erica a big round of applause.
We are now working with a very broad political spectrum ranging from Barack Obama to the John Birch Society.
This is not an odd alliance. George Wallace was a Democrat. Democrats are our coalition partners.
We are in the mix with our new ideas and new friends.
In the future we have plans to meet with Cliff Kincaid and the Mellon family as we reach out from our new offices for new friends. We want to discuss leasing space to Accuracy In Media.
All it took was a bold initiative on Erica Smiley's part to reach out to the John Birch Society on an ABC talk show and we have made powerful new friends.
We will see what we can do about getting the John Birch Society to acknowledge the existence that the Constitution of the United States of America has a Bill of Rights beyond the 2nd Amendment and we will work to convince the John Birch Society to tone down its anti-Semitic and racist rhetoric.
Already our initiative has paid off.
Look at the Tea Party movement. You don't see any white sheets. We have convinced them to leave their white sheets at home on the bed where they belong. This saves us all embarrassment, and it saves the washer-women a little work trying to get the white sheets clean.
Our membership may be dwindling but we are slowly but surely picking up new coalition partners.
We should be planning to hold our own 90th Anniversary Dinner in Appleton, Wisconsin.
Jarvis, do you want to put on your Russian fur hat you wore in Red Square and check to see if they have a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Appleton where we can hold our 90th Anniversary Dinner? Why don't you find out if Ron Paul would like to speak, too. If Ron isn't free maybe check and see if Rand Paul is free. I like his gestures suggesting he is for an alliance of everyone from the John Birch Society to the Greens and the left. That sounds so nice.
Over the next few months we will be seeing the Young Americans for Freedom and the Young Communist League working with-in the Constitutional framework to ban books and magazines in public libraries and in schools. Our aim will be to put the Ten Commandments in every classroom in America.
Sam Webb
National Chair, CPUSA
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Obama, reform and the role of the left
This is me, Sam Webb
Author: Sam Webb
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 05/01/09 15:54
After the first, perhaps over analyzed, hundred days of the Obama administration, it is fair to say that President Obama is a reformer and we are entering an era of reforms, possibly radical reforms.
Some on the left (ignoring the right wing talk shows and their fantastic claims about Obama’s socialist pedigree) mockingly dismiss the new president and his reform inclinations, saying that his main mission is merely to save capitalism. Even if that is true, and there is no reason to doubt it, what does it tell us — that he is neither a politician of the left nor an advocate of socialism? Well, we already knew that.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, too, had no aspirations to change the foundations of capitalist society. But he realized that in order to preserve capitalism it had to be modified (and, yes, it can be modified), and he had to respond to the anger and yearnings of millions of Americans caught in the web of a seemingly intractable economic depression.
Given the contemporary economic crisis, Obama appears to be of a similar mind, though he comes to the White House with deeper democratic and reform sensibilities than FDR.
So far, Obama’s presidency has not only broken decisively from the right-wing extremist policies of the Bush administration, but has also taken measures domestically and internationally that go in a progressive direction.
Whether this continues and takes on a consistently progressive, pro-people, radical reform character isn’t a sure bet, however. Much like with the New Deal of the 1930s, it will be the outcome of contested and fluid process stretching over time, taking multiple forms, and pivoting around the expansion of citizenship rights (socialized health care, for example) and the reconfiguration of the role of government to the advantage of working people.
Socialism may be an objective necessity for our country, an appealing idea to many ordinary Americans (a recent Rasmussen poll found that 20 percent favored socialism over capitalism and another 27 percent were unsure which was better), and a vision that we on the left want to vigorously popularize, but it isn’t yet on the immediate political agenda — clearly, neither the current balance of forces nor the thinking of millions of Americans is at that point.
We are still in a democratic, increasingly anti-corporate, phase of struggle. In the course of this, political conditions could mature over time to the point where more advanced solutions – such as military conversion to peacetime and green production, a shorter work week, a “war” on poverty and inequality, public democratic ownership of critical economic sectors, and, depending on the dialectics of struggle, socialism – come to the fore of the people’s agenda.
But that is ahead of us. Currently, the level of mobilization of the diverse coalition that elected Obama doesn’t match what is necessary to win his administration’s immediate legislative and political agenda, let alone more far-reaching reforms.
A favorable alignment of forces exists, to be sure. But political majorities are consequential only to the degree that they are an active and organized element in the political process.
Moreover, the opposition is formidable. Right-wing Republicans experienced a crushing defeat, but no one should write them off; they have consolidated their grip on the Republican Party, are well funded, and are clever at exploiting popular grievances and resentments.
Finance capital will attempt to minimize losses to its balance sheet, rob the public till where it can, and restructure the regulatory environment along lines that favor speculation and a casino economy.
Other powerful sections of big capital – energy, military, health care, pharmaceutical and other giants of corporate America – will also fiercely resist measures that collide with their political and economic interests.
Finally, there are political groupings of considerable influence in the administration and the Democratic Party who, while supporting Obama, will use their influence to cut down on the sweep and anti-corporate character of his initiatives.
Thus, the struggle of the nation’s progressive majority — the working class, the racially oppressed, women, young people and others — is two-sided.
On the one hand, it has to battle stop-at-nothing right-wing extremists and their backers who are intent on defeating Obama and the people’s coalition that supports him.
On the other hand, it has to struggle (but in a constructive, unifying way) within the multi-class coalition that Obama leads, to put their essential pro-working-class and democratic stamp on the reform process and the political direction of the country.
And herein lies the role of the left. Its main task, as it has been throughout our country’s history, is to assist in reassembling, activating, uniting and giving a voice to common demands that unite this broad majority as well as draw in other people who didn’t vote for Obama.
The left's political analysis, solutions to today's pressing crisis and a vision of socialism, rooted in a democratic ethos and practices, and not tied to a universal “model” imported from the 20th century, will receive a fair and favorable hearing from millions of Americans to the degree that left activists are active participants in the main labor and people’s organizations struggling for vital reforms today — jobs, health care, retirement security, quality public education, equality and fairness, immigration reform, a foreign policy of peace and cooperation, and a livable environment and sustainable economy.
Those who narrow down the role of the left to simply being a critic of every move of the Obama administration and/or insist on left demands as the only basis of broad unity limit the left’s capacity to be a part of a much larger coalition that could make America “a more perfect union.”
Please note: The Communist Part USA welcomes your comments. We would like you to look at Sam's picture above taken while he was hard at work writing this in one of the many tanning booths liberally scattered around the CPUSA's National Headquarters for use by Party leaders, and try to guess if this was written as a joke or is to be taken seriously. T. Albano, Editor, People's Weekly World newspaper
Author: Sam Webb
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 05/01/09 15:54
After the first, perhaps over analyzed, hundred days of the Obama administration, it is fair to say that President Obama is a reformer and we are entering an era of reforms, possibly radical reforms.
Some on the left (ignoring the right wing talk shows and their fantastic claims about Obama’s socialist pedigree) mockingly dismiss the new president and his reform inclinations, saying that his main mission is merely to save capitalism. Even if that is true, and there is no reason to doubt it, what does it tell us — that he is neither a politician of the left nor an advocate of socialism? Well, we already knew that.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, too, had no aspirations to change the foundations of capitalist society. But he realized that in order to preserve capitalism it had to be modified (and, yes, it can be modified), and he had to respond to the anger and yearnings of millions of Americans caught in the web of a seemingly intractable economic depression.
Given the contemporary economic crisis, Obama appears to be of a similar mind, though he comes to the White House with deeper democratic and reform sensibilities than FDR.
So far, Obama’s presidency has not only broken decisively from the right-wing extremist policies of the Bush administration, but has also taken measures domestically and internationally that go in a progressive direction.
Whether this continues and takes on a consistently progressive, pro-people, radical reform character isn’t a sure bet, however. Much like with the New Deal of the 1930s, it will be the outcome of contested and fluid process stretching over time, taking multiple forms, and pivoting around the expansion of citizenship rights (socialized health care, for example) and the reconfiguration of the role of government to the advantage of working people.
Socialism may be an objective necessity for our country, an appealing idea to many ordinary Americans (a recent Rasmussen poll found that 20 percent favored socialism over capitalism and another 27 percent were unsure which was better), and a vision that we on the left want to vigorously popularize, but it isn’t yet on the immediate political agenda — clearly, neither the current balance of forces nor the thinking of millions of Americans is at that point.
We are still in a democratic, increasingly anti-corporate, phase of struggle. In the course of this, political conditions could mature over time to the point where more advanced solutions – such as military conversion to peacetime and green production, a shorter work week, a “war” on poverty and inequality, public democratic ownership of critical economic sectors, and, depending on the dialectics of struggle, socialism – come to the fore of the people’s agenda.
But that is ahead of us. Currently, the level of mobilization of the diverse coalition that elected Obama doesn’t match what is necessary to win his administration’s immediate legislative and political agenda, let alone more far-reaching reforms.
A favorable alignment of forces exists, to be sure. But political majorities are consequential only to the degree that they are an active and organized element in the political process.
Moreover, the opposition is formidable. Right-wing Republicans experienced a crushing defeat, but no one should write them off; they have consolidated their grip on the Republican Party, are well funded, and are clever at exploiting popular grievances and resentments.
Finance capital will attempt to minimize losses to its balance sheet, rob the public till where it can, and restructure the regulatory environment along lines that favor speculation and a casino economy.
Other powerful sections of big capital – energy, military, health care, pharmaceutical and other giants of corporate America – will also fiercely resist measures that collide with their political and economic interests.
Finally, there are political groupings of considerable influence in the administration and the Democratic Party who, while supporting Obama, will use their influence to cut down on the sweep and anti-corporate character of his initiatives.
Thus, the struggle of the nation’s progressive majority — the working class, the racially oppressed, women, young people and others — is two-sided.
On the one hand, it has to battle stop-at-nothing right-wing extremists and their backers who are intent on defeating Obama and the people’s coalition that supports him.
On the other hand, it has to struggle (but in a constructive, unifying way) within the multi-class coalition that Obama leads, to put their essential pro-working-class and democratic stamp on the reform process and the political direction of the country.
And herein lies the role of the left. Its main task, as it has been throughout our country’s history, is to assist in reassembling, activating, uniting and giving a voice to common demands that unite this broad majority as well as draw in other people who didn’t vote for Obama.
The left's political analysis, solutions to today's pressing crisis and a vision of socialism, rooted in a democratic ethos and practices, and not tied to a universal “model” imported from the 20th century, will receive a fair and favorable hearing from millions of Americans to the degree that left activists are active participants in the main labor and people’s organizations struggling for vital reforms today — jobs, health care, retirement security, quality public education, equality and fairness, immigration reform, a foreign policy of peace and cooperation, and a livable environment and sustainable economy.
Those who narrow down the role of the left to simply being a critic of every move of the Obama administration and/or insist on left demands as the only basis of broad unity limit the left’s capacity to be a part of a much larger coalition that could make America “a more perfect union.”
Sam Webb (swebb@cpusa.org) is national chair of the Communist Party USA, founded in Chicago in 1919 as a working class revolutionary party. Before inheriting the post of CPUSA National Chair, Webb served as the Communist Party state organizer in Michigan from 1978 to 1988 overseeing the orderly dismantling of Communist Party Clubs. He received a master’s in economics from the University of Connecticut while studying tavern life. Webb led a million dollar effort to completely remodel the Communist Party's aging headquarters by providing Party leaders with modern glass cubicles for offices from which they can look out upon red brick walls symbolizing the contrast between 20th Century socialism and "new thinking."
Please note: The Communist Part USA welcomes your comments. We would like you to look at Sam's picture above taken while he was hard at work writing this in one of the many tanning booths liberally scattered around the CPUSA's National Headquarters for use by Party leaders, and try to guess if this was written as a joke or is to be taken seriously. T. Albano, Editor, People's Weekly World newspaper
My kind of thinking... really new thinking
This is the kind of clear new thinking unfettered with class that I like!
This is from our friends at NDN--- New Democrat Network.
Sam Webb
National Chair, CPUSA
Here in the Real World They're Shutting Detroit Down
http://ndnblog.org/node/3909
Submitted by Winograd and Hais on Thu, 04/30/2009 - 3:24pm
Auto Bailout Auto Industry Barack Obama Economy GM
Once upon a time, not so long ago, in a city at the heart of the American continent, General Motors produced cars, like Pontiac’s “Little GTO,” celebrated in Beach Boys songs that captured the thrill of driving Detroit’s latest creations. Today, as GM struggles to appease the government’s auditors just to stay alive, Kris Kristofferson, with a little help from Mickey Rourke, curses the financial wizards from Wall Street that are “Shutting Detroit Down” while “livin’ it up in that New York town.”
Never has the inherent tension between the investor class and the country’s manufacturing sector been more pronounced or the stakes in this particular poker game higher for the future of America. Chrysler may be forced into bankruptcy first, but it’s GM's downfall that represents the true mid-American earthquake.
Back in the late 1950s, General Motors so dominated the American automobile market that its corporate goals were focused on achieving a 60% market share. The hubris of its executives led them to decide to pick up more and more costs for medical insurance, pensions and retiree benefits, beginning GM’s slide down a slippery slope of poor financial performance
This posed a huge but not initially recognized risk to GM. By taking on these obligations that didn't show up as a cost or balance-sheet liability until the government changed its accounting rules in 1992 and required companies to show the cost of “other post-employment benefits” (OPEB) on their books, General Motors lit a ticking time bomb that has now exploded in its face. In 1972, as GM came the closest it would ever come to achieving its sixty-percent market share goal, GM was paying the entire health insurance bill for its employees, survivors and retirees, and had agreed to "30 and out" early retirement that granted workers full pensions after 30 years on the job, regardless of age. Its world then began to come apart.
In 1973, OPEC’s embargo tripled the price of oil. GM failed to respond quickly enough to the consumer’s sudden demand for fuel-efficient cars. At the same time, the Japanese with their then superior, lean manufacturing techniques stepped into the vacuum, gaining a foothold in the North American car market that they have continued to expand. Ironically, thirty years later the very same inability to shift product offerings during a spike in oil prices precipitated GM’s current difficulties.
GM’s reluctance to go green is often cited by its new government owners as the reason it’s in so much trouble now, but the crux of GM’s problems really go back to those heady days of market domination and financial profligacy.
In the 1960s GM’s annual operating margin (profits divided by revenues) averaged 8.7%. The turmoil of the seventies and the pressure from Japanese competition drove those average margins down to 5.5%. Margins fell by about half to an average of 3% in the 1980s, and about half again to 1.3% in the 1990s (not counting the $20 billion hit GM took when the new accounting rules for OPEB took effect.) Finally, in this decade the slide has actually taken the company into an average of negative margins. Now only the government’s suggested radical restructuring seems to offer a way to stop the bleeding.
It is estimated that the cost of OPEB, essentially GM’s retiree pension and health care programs, have cost the company about $7 billion each year since 1993 and are probably around $10 billion per year now. The bargain auto company management made back in the 60s with labor to provide generous off the balance sheet benefits has now become an albatross that threatens the manufacturing jobs for the Big Three’s own current workers and suppliers across the Midwest. It’s the kind of problem only government can solve.
But the Obama Administration’s early efforts to do so have been far from promising. First it selected Steve Rattner as its “car czar”, a politically well-connected private equity investor and turnaround artist from “that New York town,” someone with no significant automobile industry experience. In addition, the government's demands that GM dismantle more brands and shut down more dealerships suggests the process may get a lot uglier by the May 31 decision deadline.
Luckily the United Auto Workers remain on watch to try to ensure that whatever concessions are demanded of GM’s current and retired employees reflect an equitable shared sacrifice with the company’s bondholders and investors. The kind of GM that emerges from these negotiations will have a huge impact on these workers and on the many industrial towns that depend on the car business for their basic existence.
Ultimately, the decision on how best to “rescue” GM may turn out to be the most difficult call President Obama will make in his first year in office. He will be pulled by pressures from the green gentry left to force GM’s future products to conform to a pre-determined environmental agenda. He also will face predictable Republican calls to let the market work its will, even if it means the end of the company.
President Obama will need the wisdom of Solomon to recognize that today’s workers no more deserve to be punished for the mistakes of prior management than CIA agents do for carrying out the orders of their equally arrogant Republican counselors during George W. Bush's administration. To paraphrase the President’s words, it’s “time to move on” and offer GM the support it needs to “Catch a Wave” and start producing more “Good Vibrations” for America’s hard pressed, but still very critical manufacturing sector.
Cross-posted at New Geography.
This is from our friends at NDN--- New Democrat Network.
Sam Webb
National Chair, CPUSA
Here in the Real World They're Shutting Detroit Down
http://ndnblog.org/node/3909
Submitted by Winograd and Hais on Thu, 04/30/2009 - 3:24pm
Auto Bailout Auto Industry Barack Obama Economy GM
Once upon a time, not so long ago, in a city at the heart of the American continent, General Motors produced cars, like Pontiac’s “Little GTO,” celebrated in Beach Boys songs that captured the thrill of driving Detroit’s latest creations. Today, as GM struggles to appease the government’s auditors just to stay alive, Kris Kristofferson, with a little help from Mickey Rourke, curses the financial wizards from Wall Street that are “Shutting Detroit Down” while “livin’ it up in that New York town.”
Never has the inherent tension between the investor class and the country’s manufacturing sector been more pronounced or the stakes in this particular poker game higher for the future of America. Chrysler may be forced into bankruptcy first, but it’s GM's downfall that represents the true mid-American earthquake.
Back in the late 1950s, General Motors so dominated the American automobile market that its corporate goals were focused on achieving a 60% market share. The hubris of its executives led them to decide to pick up more and more costs for medical insurance, pensions and retiree benefits, beginning GM’s slide down a slippery slope of poor financial performance
This posed a huge but not initially recognized risk to GM. By taking on these obligations that didn't show up as a cost or balance-sheet liability until the government changed its accounting rules in 1992 and required companies to show the cost of “other post-employment benefits” (OPEB) on their books, General Motors lit a ticking time bomb that has now exploded in its face. In 1972, as GM came the closest it would ever come to achieving its sixty-percent market share goal, GM was paying the entire health insurance bill for its employees, survivors and retirees, and had agreed to "30 and out" early retirement that granted workers full pensions after 30 years on the job, regardless of age. Its world then began to come apart.
In 1973, OPEC’s embargo tripled the price of oil. GM failed to respond quickly enough to the consumer’s sudden demand for fuel-efficient cars. At the same time, the Japanese with their then superior, lean manufacturing techniques stepped into the vacuum, gaining a foothold in the North American car market that they have continued to expand. Ironically, thirty years later the very same inability to shift product offerings during a spike in oil prices precipitated GM’s current difficulties.
GM’s reluctance to go green is often cited by its new government owners as the reason it’s in so much trouble now, but the crux of GM’s problems really go back to those heady days of market domination and financial profligacy.
In the 1960s GM’s annual operating margin (profits divided by revenues) averaged 8.7%. The turmoil of the seventies and the pressure from Japanese competition drove those average margins down to 5.5%. Margins fell by about half to an average of 3% in the 1980s, and about half again to 1.3% in the 1990s (not counting the $20 billion hit GM took when the new accounting rules for OPEB took effect.) Finally, in this decade the slide has actually taken the company into an average of negative margins. Now only the government’s suggested radical restructuring seems to offer a way to stop the bleeding.
It is estimated that the cost of OPEB, essentially GM’s retiree pension and health care programs, have cost the company about $7 billion each year since 1993 and are probably around $10 billion per year now. The bargain auto company management made back in the 60s with labor to provide generous off the balance sheet benefits has now become an albatross that threatens the manufacturing jobs for the Big Three’s own current workers and suppliers across the Midwest. It’s the kind of problem only government can solve.
But the Obama Administration’s early efforts to do so have been far from promising. First it selected Steve Rattner as its “car czar”, a politically well-connected private equity investor and turnaround artist from “that New York town,” someone with no significant automobile industry experience. In addition, the government's demands that GM dismantle more brands and shut down more dealerships suggests the process may get a lot uglier by the May 31 decision deadline.
Luckily the United Auto Workers remain on watch to try to ensure that whatever concessions are demanded of GM’s current and retired employees reflect an equitable shared sacrifice with the company’s bondholders and investors. The kind of GM that emerges from these negotiations will have a huge impact on these workers and on the many industrial towns that depend on the car business for their basic existence.
Ultimately, the decision on how best to “rescue” GM may turn out to be the most difficult call President Obama will make in his first year in office. He will be pulled by pressures from the green gentry left to force GM’s future products to conform to a pre-determined environmental agenda. He also will face predictable Republican calls to let the market work its will, even if it means the end of the company.
President Obama will need the wisdom of Solomon to recognize that today’s workers no more deserve to be punished for the mistakes of prior management than CIA agents do for carrying out the orders of their equally arrogant Republican counselors during George W. Bush's administration. To paraphrase the President’s words, it’s “time to move on” and offer GM the support it needs to “Catch a Wave” and start producing more “Good Vibrations” for America’s hard pressed, but still very critical manufacturing sector.
Cross-posted at New Geography.
Important Notice
A ban on all cross boirder communications has been agreed to and declared by the National Board of the CPUSA.
This ban prohibits discussions with anyone seeking to promote Twentieth Century Socialism.
Stiff penalties will be imposed for anyone violating this ban on cross border communications.
Sam Webb
National Chair, CPUSA
This ban prohibits discussions with anyone seeking to promote Twentieth Century Socialism.
Stiff penalties will be imposed for anyone violating this ban on cross border communications.
Sam Webb
National Chair, CPUSA
Eleven talking points on 21st century socialism
Author: Carl Davidson
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 05/01/09 19:08
The current discussion around socialism in left and progressive circles in the U.S. needs to be placed in a more substantive arena. This is an effort to do so. I take note in advance of the criticism that the following eleven working hypotheses are rather dry and formal. But in light of the faux ‘socialisms’ bandied about in the headlines and sound bytes of the mass media in the wake of the financial crisis, especially the absurd claim in the media of rightwing populism that the Obama administration is Marxist and socialist, I felt something a little more rigorous might be helpful. Obviously, criticism and commentary is invited.
1. Socialism’s fundamental building blocks are already present in US society. The means of production, for the most part, are fully developed and in fact are stagnating under the political domination of finance capital. The US labor force, again for the most part, is highly skilled at all levels of production, management, marketing, and finance. The kernels of socialist organization are also scattered across the landscape in cooperatives, socially organized human services, and centralized and widespread mass means of many-to-many communication and supply/demand data management. Many earlier attempts at socialism did not have these advantages.
2. Socialism is first of all a democratic political system where the interests and organizations of the working class and its allies have attained and hold the preponderance of political power and thus play the critical leading role in society. It is still a class society, but one in a protracted transition, over hundreds of years, to a future classless society where exploiting class privileges are abolished and classes and class distinctions generally wither away, both nationally and globally. So socialism will have classes for some time, including some capitalists, because it will be a mixed economy, with both public and private ownership, even as the balance shifts over time. Family farmers and small proprietors will both exist and flourish alongside cooperatives. Innovative 'high road' entrepreneurial privately-held firms will compete with publically-own firms, and encouraged to create new wealth within an environmentally regulated and progressively taxed system. Past efforts to build socialism have suffered from aggravated conflict between and among popular classes and lack of emphasis on building wide unity among the people.
3. Socialism at the base is a transitional economic system anchored in the social mode of production brought into being by capitalist development over several centuries. Its economic system is necessarily mixed, and makes use of markets, especially in goods and services, which are regulated, especially regarding the environment. But capital markets and wage-labor markets can be sharply restricted and even abolished in due time. Markets are a function of scarcity, and all economies of any scale in a time of scarcity have them, even if they are disguised as 'black' or 'tiered' markets. In addition to regulated markets, socialism will also feature planning, especially on the macro level of infrastructure development, in investment of public assets and funds, and other arenas where markets have failed. Planning will especially be required to face the challenges of uneven development and harsh inequalities on a global scale, as well as the challenge of moving from a carbon and uranium based energy system to one based on renewable green energy sources. The socialisms of the last century fell or stagnated due to failure to develop the proper interplay between plans and markets.
4. Socialism will be anchored in public and worker ownership of the main productive forces and natural resources. This can be achieved by various means: a) buying out major failing corporations at penny stock status, then leasing them back to the unions and having the workers in each firm—one worker, one vote—run them, b) workers directly taking ownership and control over failed and abandoned factories, c) eminent domain seizures of resources and factories, with compensation, otherwise required for the public good, and d) public funding for startups of worker-owned cooperative businesses. Socialism will also require public ownership of most finance capital institutions, including bringing the Federal Reserve under the Treasury Department and federal ownership. Lease payments from publically owned firms will go into a public investment fund, which will in turn lend money to community and worker owned banks and credit unions. A stock market will still exist for remaining publically traded firms and investments abroad, but will be strictly controlled. A stock transfer tax will be implemented. Gambling in derivatives will be outlawed. Fair trade agreements with other countries will be on a bilateral basis for mutual benefit.
5. Socialism will require democracy in the workplace of public firms and encourage it in all places of work. Workers have the right to independent unions to protect their social and daily interests, in addition to their rights as worker-owners in the governance of their firms. In addition to direct democracy at the plant level, the organizations of the working class also participate in the wider public planning process and thus democratically shape the direction of ongoing development on the macro level as well. Under socialism the government will also serve as the employer-of-last-resort. Minimum living-wage jobs will be provided for all who want to work. Socialism is committed to genuine full employment. Every citizen will have a genuine right to work.
6. Socialism will largely be gained by the working class and it allies winning the battle for democracy in politics and civil society at large, especially taking down the structures and backward laws of class, gender and racial privilege. Women have equal rights with men, and minority nationalities have equal rights with the majority. It also defends equal rights and self-determination among all nations across the globe; no nation can itself be fully free when it oppresses another. Socialism will encourage public citizenship and mass participation at every level, with open information systems, public education and transparency in its procedures. It will need a true multiparty system, with fusion voting, proportional representation and instant runoff. Given the size and diversity of our country, it is highly unlikely that any single party could adequately represent all popular interests; working class and progressive organizations will need to form common fronts. All trends are guaranteed the right to speak, organize, petition and stand for election. With public financing as an option, socialism can restrict the role of wealth in elections, moving away from a system, in effect, of “one dollar, one vote” and toward a system more reflective of “one person, one vote.” These are the structural measures that can allow the majority of the people, especially the working class and its allies, to secure the political leadership of government and instruments of the state by democratic means, unless these are sabotaged by reaction. Some socialisms of the past used only limited formal democracy or simply used administrative means to implement goals, with the failure of both the goals and the overall projects. Americans are not likely to be interested in systems with elections where only one party runs and no one can lose.
7. Socialism will be a state power, specifically a democratic political order with a representative government. But the government and state components of the current order, corrupted with the thousand threads connecting it to old ruling class, will have to be broken up and replaced with new ones that are transparent, honest and serve the majority of the people. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights can still be the initial basic organizing principle for a socialist government and state. The democratic rights it has gained over the years will be protected and enhanced. Government will also be needed to organize and finance the social development benefitting the people and the environment already mentioned; but the state power behind the law will be required to compel the honest use of resources and to protect people from criminal elements, individual and organized. Forces who try to overturn and reverse the new socialist government illegally and in violation of the Constitution will not be able to do so; they will be broken up and brought to justice. Our society will need a state power for some time to come, even as its form changes. Still, government power has limits; under socialism sovereignty resides in the people themselves, and the powers of any government are necessarily restricted and subordinate to the universal and natural rights of all humankind. Attempts to ignore or reject these principles have severely harmed socialist governments and movements in the past.
8. Socialism will be a society in harmony with the natural environment, understanding that all economies are subsets of the eco-system and ignore it at their peril. In its economics, there are no such things as “externalities” to be pushed off downstream or to future generations. The nature of pending planetary disasters necessitates a high level of planning. We need to redesign communities, promote healthier foods, and rebuild sustainable agriculture—all on a global scale with high design, but on a human scale with mass participation of communities in diverse localities. Socialism will treasure and preserve the diversity of nature’s bounty and end the practice of genetic modification to control the human food supply. We need growth, but intelligent growth in quality and wider knowledge with a lighter environmental footprint. A socialism that simply reproduces the wasteful expansion of an earlier capitalism creates more problems than it solves.
9. Socialism values equality, and will be a society of far greater equality of opportunity, and far less economic inequality. In addition to equal rights before the law, all citizens and residents will have equitable access to a “universal toolbox” of paid-up free public education for all who want to learn, for as far as they want and are able to go; universal public pre-school care; a minimum income, as a social wage, for all who create value, whether in a workplace or otherwise; our notions of socially useful work, activity that creates value, has to be expanded beyond market definitions. Parents raising children, students learning skills, elders educating and passing traditions to younger generations--all these create value that society can in turn reward. Universal single-payer health care with retirement benefits at the level of a living wage is critical to start. Since everyone has access to employment, the existing welfare system can be abolished; individuals will be free to choose the career path and level of income targets they desire, or not. There are no handouts for those able to work, but there are also no irrational barriers to achievement.
10. Socialism is a society where religion can be freely practiced, or not, and no religion is given any special advantages over any other. Religious freedom remains a fundamental tenant of socialism, but naturally neither its practitioners nor anyone else can deny anyone the benefits and protection of civil and criminal law, especially to women and children.
11. Socialism will require an institution of armed forces. Their mission will be to defend the people and secure their interests against any enemies and help in times of natural disasters. It will not be their task to expand markets abroad and defend the property abroad of the exploiting classes. Soldiers will be allowed to organize and petition for the redress of grievances. Armed forces also include local police, under community control, as well as a greatly reduced prison system, based on the principle of restorative justice, and mainly for the protection of society from individuals inflicted with violent pathologies and criminal practices. Non-violent conflict resolution and community-based rehabilitation will be encouraged, but the need for some coercive means will remain for some time.
[Carl Davidson is webmaster for SolidarityEconomy.net, a national committee member of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, and a coordinating committee member of the US Solidarity Economy Network.
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 05/01/09 19:08
The current discussion around socialism in left and progressive circles in the U.S. needs to be placed in a more substantive arena. This is an effort to do so. I take note in advance of the criticism that the following eleven working hypotheses are rather dry and formal. But in light of the faux ‘socialisms’ bandied about in the headlines and sound bytes of the mass media in the wake of the financial crisis, especially the absurd claim in the media of rightwing populism that the Obama administration is Marxist and socialist, I felt something a little more rigorous might be helpful. Obviously, criticism and commentary is invited.
1. Socialism’s fundamental building blocks are already present in US society. The means of production, for the most part, are fully developed and in fact are stagnating under the political domination of finance capital. The US labor force, again for the most part, is highly skilled at all levels of production, management, marketing, and finance. The kernels of socialist organization are also scattered across the landscape in cooperatives, socially organized human services, and centralized and widespread mass means of many-to-many communication and supply/demand data management. Many earlier attempts at socialism did not have these advantages.
2. Socialism is first of all a democratic political system where the interests and organizations of the working class and its allies have attained and hold the preponderance of political power and thus play the critical leading role in society. It is still a class society, but one in a protracted transition, over hundreds of years, to a future classless society where exploiting class privileges are abolished and classes and class distinctions generally wither away, both nationally and globally. So socialism will have classes for some time, including some capitalists, because it will be a mixed economy, with both public and private ownership, even as the balance shifts over time. Family farmers and small proprietors will both exist and flourish alongside cooperatives. Innovative 'high road' entrepreneurial privately-held firms will compete with publically-own firms, and encouraged to create new wealth within an environmentally regulated and progressively taxed system. Past efforts to build socialism have suffered from aggravated conflict between and among popular classes and lack of emphasis on building wide unity among the people.
3. Socialism at the base is a transitional economic system anchored in the social mode of production brought into being by capitalist development over several centuries. Its economic system is necessarily mixed, and makes use of markets, especially in goods and services, which are regulated, especially regarding the environment. But capital markets and wage-labor markets can be sharply restricted and even abolished in due time. Markets are a function of scarcity, and all economies of any scale in a time of scarcity have them, even if they are disguised as 'black' or 'tiered' markets. In addition to regulated markets, socialism will also feature planning, especially on the macro level of infrastructure development, in investment of public assets and funds, and other arenas where markets have failed. Planning will especially be required to face the challenges of uneven development and harsh inequalities on a global scale, as well as the challenge of moving from a carbon and uranium based energy system to one based on renewable green energy sources. The socialisms of the last century fell or stagnated due to failure to develop the proper interplay between plans and markets.
4. Socialism will be anchored in public and worker ownership of the main productive forces and natural resources. This can be achieved by various means: a) buying out major failing corporations at penny stock status, then leasing them back to the unions and having the workers in each firm—one worker, one vote—run them, b) workers directly taking ownership and control over failed and abandoned factories, c) eminent domain seizures of resources and factories, with compensation, otherwise required for the public good, and d) public funding for startups of worker-owned cooperative businesses. Socialism will also require public ownership of most finance capital institutions, including bringing the Federal Reserve under the Treasury Department and federal ownership. Lease payments from publically owned firms will go into a public investment fund, which will in turn lend money to community and worker owned banks and credit unions. A stock market will still exist for remaining publically traded firms and investments abroad, but will be strictly controlled. A stock transfer tax will be implemented. Gambling in derivatives will be outlawed. Fair trade agreements with other countries will be on a bilateral basis for mutual benefit.
5. Socialism will require democracy in the workplace of public firms and encourage it in all places of work. Workers have the right to independent unions to protect their social and daily interests, in addition to their rights as worker-owners in the governance of their firms. In addition to direct democracy at the plant level, the organizations of the working class also participate in the wider public planning process and thus democratically shape the direction of ongoing development on the macro level as well. Under socialism the government will also serve as the employer-of-last-resort. Minimum living-wage jobs will be provided for all who want to work. Socialism is committed to genuine full employment. Every citizen will have a genuine right to work.
6. Socialism will largely be gained by the working class and it allies winning the battle for democracy in politics and civil society at large, especially taking down the structures and backward laws of class, gender and racial privilege. Women have equal rights with men, and minority nationalities have equal rights with the majority. It also defends equal rights and self-determination among all nations across the globe; no nation can itself be fully free when it oppresses another. Socialism will encourage public citizenship and mass participation at every level, with open information systems, public education and transparency in its procedures. It will need a true multiparty system, with fusion voting, proportional representation and instant runoff. Given the size and diversity of our country, it is highly unlikely that any single party could adequately represent all popular interests; working class and progressive organizations will need to form common fronts. All trends are guaranteed the right to speak, organize, petition and stand for election. With public financing as an option, socialism can restrict the role of wealth in elections, moving away from a system, in effect, of “one dollar, one vote” and toward a system more reflective of “one person, one vote.” These are the structural measures that can allow the majority of the people, especially the working class and its allies, to secure the political leadership of government and instruments of the state by democratic means, unless these are sabotaged by reaction. Some socialisms of the past used only limited formal democracy or simply used administrative means to implement goals, with the failure of both the goals and the overall projects. Americans are not likely to be interested in systems with elections where only one party runs and no one can lose.
7. Socialism will be a state power, specifically a democratic political order with a representative government. But the government and state components of the current order, corrupted with the thousand threads connecting it to old ruling class, will have to be broken up and replaced with new ones that are transparent, honest and serve the majority of the people. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights can still be the initial basic organizing principle for a socialist government and state. The democratic rights it has gained over the years will be protected and enhanced. Government will also be needed to organize and finance the social development benefitting the people and the environment already mentioned; but the state power behind the law will be required to compel the honest use of resources and to protect people from criminal elements, individual and organized. Forces who try to overturn and reverse the new socialist government illegally and in violation of the Constitution will not be able to do so; they will be broken up and brought to justice. Our society will need a state power for some time to come, even as its form changes. Still, government power has limits; under socialism sovereignty resides in the people themselves, and the powers of any government are necessarily restricted and subordinate to the universal and natural rights of all humankind. Attempts to ignore or reject these principles have severely harmed socialist governments and movements in the past.
8. Socialism will be a society in harmony with the natural environment, understanding that all economies are subsets of the eco-system and ignore it at their peril. In its economics, there are no such things as “externalities” to be pushed off downstream or to future generations. The nature of pending planetary disasters necessitates a high level of planning. We need to redesign communities, promote healthier foods, and rebuild sustainable agriculture—all on a global scale with high design, but on a human scale with mass participation of communities in diverse localities. Socialism will treasure and preserve the diversity of nature’s bounty and end the practice of genetic modification to control the human food supply. We need growth, but intelligent growth in quality and wider knowledge with a lighter environmental footprint. A socialism that simply reproduces the wasteful expansion of an earlier capitalism creates more problems than it solves.
9. Socialism values equality, and will be a society of far greater equality of opportunity, and far less economic inequality. In addition to equal rights before the law, all citizens and residents will have equitable access to a “universal toolbox” of paid-up free public education for all who want to learn, for as far as they want and are able to go; universal public pre-school care; a minimum income, as a social wage, for all who create value, whether in a workplace or otherwise; our notions of socially useful work, activity that creates value, has to be expanded beyond market definitions. Parents raising children, students learning skills, elders educating and passing traditions to younger generations--all these create value that society can in turn reward. Universal single-payer health care with retirement benefits at the level of a living wage is critical to start. Since everyone has access to employment, the existing welfare system can be abolished; individuals will be free to choose the career path and level of income targets they desire, or not. There are no handouts for those able to work, but there are also no irrational barriers to achievement.
10. Socialism is a society where religion can be freely practiced, or not, and no religion is given any special advantages over any other. Religious freedom remains a fundamental tenant of socialism, but naturally neither its practitioners nor anyone else can deny anyone the benefits and protection of civil and criminal law, especially to women and children.
11. Socialism will require an institution of armed forces. Their mission will be to defend the people and secure their interests against any enemies and help in times of natural disasters. It will not be their task to expand markets abroad and defend the property abroad of the exploiting classes. Soldiers will be allowed to organize and petition for the redress of grievances. Armed forces also include local police, under community control, as well as a greatly reduced prison system, based on the principle of restorative justice, and mainly for the protection of society from individuals inflicted with violent pathologies and criminal practices. Non-violent conflict resolution and community-based rehabilitation will be encouraged, but the need for some coercive means will remain for some time.
[Carl Davidson is webmaster for SolidarityEconomy.net, a national committee member of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, and a coordinating committee member of the US Solidarity Economy Network.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Single-payer
Friends,
These two letters appeared on the PWW website.
What is going on?
Nancy Pelosi has made it very clear: There will be no single-payer.
I don't want to read about single-payer in the PWW again.
Joel was right not to mention single-payer.
The Minnesota Problem is rapidly spreading.
We must bring this problem under control before it becomes pandemic. The Minnesota Problem is deadly and pernicious proceeding with utmost stealth permeating every political discussion with single-payer universal health care as an incremental baby step towards socialized health care which would put us right back to 20th Century Socialism. I say: No way; no how!
The main way the Minnesota Problem manifests itself and infects the body politic is through advocacy of single-payer. We all know who is responsible for the MN DFL passing that damn single-payer resolution. I'm not going to mention any double four letter words. We all know the culprit.
We are finally beginning to understand the way the Minnesota Problem spreads. Communist Clubs, like healthy living cells, multiply and constantly replenish bringing a sick body back to a healthy state. Not that I am acknowledging there is anything unhealthy taking place in the center because I am not. We have protected ourselves with glass offices inside of brick walls. The enemy ideology carried by Minnesotans will not permeate our well fortified walls and glass offices built as a barrier to all outside influences and problems.
We must revert back to the most advanced 16th Century science on a temporary basis to halt the spread of the Minnesota Problem.
There will be no single-payer universal health care per our agreement with our coalition partner H-CAN.
My personal preference is the John Marty plan. Marty is an OK guy. When I write my book "Socialism in Increments" Minnesota State Senator John Marty will be quoted very liberally. I might even put his picture in a small box next to mine on the cover.
In closing, let me point out that on this May Day 2009 we should recognize that our friend, ally and all-round advocate for the people, President Barack Obama, has just completed the most successful and historic 100 Days of any presidency in the history of our great country solidly pushing, prodding and doing whatever political arm-twisting is required to implement a progressive agenda based upon the core principles of our Party. These three important words: Profits Before People.
Let me also point out that those Minnesotans will most likely nit-pick about the order of these three words: Profits Before People. This is the new 21st Century grammatically correct writing technique.
The old 20th Century grammar had it: People Before Profits.
Look it means the same thing either way you place the words.
The word "profit" still retains its meaning.
The word "people" still means the same thing.
The word "before" still means before as opposed to after.
As long as you place the word "before" between the words "profit" and "people" it means the same thing. In our new way of looking at the world we are only concerned with what individual words mean.
So, Barack Obama is advancing our new concept of "Profits Before People."
All power to profits AND people! Long live the power of Barack Obama! Return May Day to Law Day! Everyone to the Street; Wall Street!
Sam Webb
National Chair, CPUSA
Single-payer
The quote from Sen. Sherrod Brown that single payer “is not possible right now” should not be left with out a rebuttal (“Health care reform rally: Yes we can!” on pww.org). That’s the insurance companies’ line. Of course it’s possible, and “yes we can” have single-payer, if we struggle for it! And if the PWW hammers away with informative articles which bolster our efforts on this.
Thousands of dedicated folks, including myself, are out there struggling to get single-payer “on the table” where it belongs and then into law, which is what the majority of Americans want as recent polls indicate.
We are battling the insurance companies on this issue and to have articles pushing positively for HCAN works against us to say the least. HCAN is a wedge movement formulated with the insurance companies and the leadership of some unions (not the membership) to keep the insurance company culprits in the mix, doing what they have been doing which is keeping 45 million without health care, killing over 20,000 every year, denying coverage to make their billions.
Doing health care reform “half-assed” with a “public option” keeping the culprits in the mix is doomed to failure and should be fought from the get-go.
Michael Scheinberg
Via e-mail
Obama and Congress are headed for disaster in the health care bill this summer. The goal of an affordable, workable plan for universal care is known, but nobody is talking about it. Joel Wendland in the Peoples’ Health column (4/25-5/1) does not mention the single-payer public plan in the two options being debated now in Congress, i.e. private insurance and a “public option.”
Single-payer is not an option unless all others are excluded. Single-payer health care is working all over the world but apparently is anathema in the U.S., where Congress debates timeworn failures like private health insurance and partial public programs.
Private health care insurance is hopelessly reactionary and unworkable due to cherry-picking of the healthy population, cost ballooning on administration and profits, and inadequate medical delivery. The public programs which we now have (along with private competition) are too expensive, incomplete and do not lead toward single-payer.
Public programs have been tried in Massachusetts, Washington and Oregon and have not worked when competing with private lobbyists. Experts in Physicians for a National Health Plan state that 59 percent of doctors and 62 percent of the public favor single-payer national health insurance (see Conyers bill HR 676, “Medicare for All.”) We must insist on it.
Walter Kearns, MD
Canoga Park CA
These two letters appeared on the PWW website.
What is going on?
Nancy Pelosi has made it very clear: There will be no single-payer.
I don't want to read about single-payer in the PWW again.
Joel was right not to mention single-payer.
The Minnesota Problem is rapidly spreading.
We must bring this problem under control before it becomes pandemic. The Minnesota Problem is deadly and pernicious proceeding with utmost stealth permeating every political discussion with single-payer universal health care as an incremental baby step towards socialized health care which would put us right back to 20th Century Socialism. I say: No way; no how!
The main way the Minnesota Problem manifests itself and infects the body politic is through advocacy of single-payer. We all know who is responsible for the MN DFL passing that damn single-payer resolution. I'm not going to mention any double four letter words. We all know the culprit.
We are finally beginning to understand the way the Minnesota Problem spreads. Communist Clubs, like healthy living cells, multiply and constantly replenish bringing a sick body back to a healthy state. Not that I am acknowledging there is anything unhealthy taking place in the center because I am not. We have protected ourselves with glass offices inside of brick walls. The enemy ideology carried by Minnesotans will not permeate our well fortified walls and glass offices built as a barrier to all outside influences and problems.
We must revert back to the most advanced 16th Century science on a temporary basis to halt the spread of the Minnesota Problem.
There will be no single-payer universal health care per our agreement with our coalition partner H-CAN.
My personal preference is the John Marty plan. Marty is an OK guy. When I write my book "Socialism in Increments" Minnesota State Senator John Marty will be quoted very liberally. I might even put his picture in a small box next to mine on the cover.
In closing, let me point out that on this May Day 2009 we should recognize that our friend, ally and all-round advocate for the people, President Barack Obama, has just completed the most successful and historic 100 Days of any presidency in the history of our great country solidly pushing, prodding and doing whatever political arm-twisting is required to implement a progressive agenda based upon the core principles of our Party. These three important words: Profits Before People.
Let me also point out that those Minnesotans will most likely nit-pick about the order of these three words: Profits Before People. This is the new 21st Century grammatically correct writing technique.
The old 20th Century grammar had it: People Before Profits.
Look it means the same thing either way you place the words.
The word "profit" still retains its meaning.
The word "people" still means the same thing.
The word "before" still means before as opposed to after.
As long as you place the word "before" between the words "profit" and "people" it means the same thing. In our new way of looking at the world we are only concerned with what individual words mean.
So, Barack Obama is advancing our new concept of "Profits Before People."
All power to profits AND people! Long live the power of Barack Obama! Return May Day to Law Day! Everyone to the Street; Wall Street!
Sam Webb
National Chair, CPUSA
Single-payer
The quote from Sen. Sherrod Brown that single payer “is not possible right now” should not be left with out a rebuttal (“Health care reform rally: Yes we can!” on pww.org). That’s the insurance companies’ line. Of course it’s possible, and “yes we can” have single-payer, if we struggle for it! And if the PWW hammers away with informative articles which bolster our efforts on this.
Thousands of dedicated folks, including myself, are out there struggling to get single-payer “on the table” where it belongs and then into law, which is what the majority of Americans want as recent polls indicate.
We are battling the insurance companies on this issue and to have articles pushing positively for HCAN works against us to say the least. HCAN is a wedge movement formulated with the insurance companies and the leadership of some unions (not the membership) to keep the insurance company culprits in the mix, doing what they have been doing which is keeping 45 million without health care, killing over 20,000 every year, denying coverage to make their billions.
Doing health care reform “half-assed” with a “public option” keeping the culprits in the mix is doomed to failure and should be fought from the get-go.
Michael Scheinberg
Via e-mail
Obama and Congress are headed for disaster in the health care bill this summer. The goal of an affordable, workable plan for universal care is known, but nobody is talking about it. Joel Wendland in the Peoples’ Health column (4/25-5/1) does not mention the single-payer public plan in the two options being debated now in Congress, i.e. private insurance and a “public option.”
Single-payer is not an option unless all others are excluded. Single-payer health care is working all over the world but apparently is anathema in the U.S., where Congress debates timeworn failures like private health insurance and partial public programs.
Private health care insurance is hopelessly reactionary and unworkable due to cherry-picking of the healthy population, cost ballooning on administration and profits, and inadequate medical delivery. The public programs which we now have (along with private competition) are too expensive, incomplete and do not lead toward single-payer.
Public programs have been tried in Massachusetts, Washington and Oregon and have not worked when competing with private lobbyists. Experts in Physicians for a National Health Plan state that 59 percent of doctors and 62 percent of the public favor single-payer national health insurance (see Conyers bill HR 676, “Medicare for All.”) We must insist on it.
Walter Kearns, MD
Canoga Park CA
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Light at the end of the tunnel
I want to commend the editors of Political Affairs.
The Wall Street Journal couldn't have provided a better analysis.
Some people are seeing a light at the end of the tunnel others find no light at the end of the tunnel.
We want to create a scenario where a night light is on all the time.
Sam Webb
National Chair, CPUSA
Light at the End of the Unemployment Line? (April 23)
By PA Staff Writers
As steam from President Obama's economic recovery act builds in the states and localities and new investments in infrastructure and job-saving programs start to flow, do the latest data from the Department of Labor suggest that the dismal unemployment situation may be turning a corner?
According to the president's own early estimate given at his April 29th press conference, some 150,000 jobs have so far been saved or created as a result of the economic recovery. Many projects targeted for recovery act funds are yet to be started and much of the funding as been made available but still hasn't arrived at its destination. Simply put, the greatest impact of the recovery act is yet to come. The Department of Transportation estimates that most construction projects will get into full swing by the summer.
In an interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC's Hardball, Obama's Senior Advisor David Axelrod described jobs numbers as a "lagging economic indicator," meaning that unemployment numbers are among the last of major economic indicators to show signs of recovery.
With mixed numbers in housing starts and foreclosures, a central problem in the current crisis, and weak business inventories, it isn't clear that many economic indicators are yet showing signs of recovery.
According to statistics released today, April 30, initial jobless claims for unemployment benefits for the week ending April 25 decreased from the previous week by 14,000 to 631,000. This means that 631,000 newly laid-off people filed for unemployment benefits during that week. This week's numbers put the moving four-week average down by about, 10,500, the DOL reported.
This same week in 2008, the fourth month of the current recession, saw a total of 378,000 initial jobless claims.
In the month of March, the unemployment rate jumped to a 25-year high of 8.5 percent after the economy shed more than 663,000 jobs. Since the beginning of the recession in December 2007, more than 6 million jobs have been lost. Economists estimate the rate for April will jump to as high as 9 percent.
Pennsylvania, Florida and Illinois saw the largest drops in the number of new jobless claims as those states reported fewer layoffs in the construction, trades and manufacturing sectors, a sign that recovery act-funded projects may be picking up.
California, Florida and New York, followed closely by Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina saw spikes in initial jobless claims with layoffs in manufacturing and service industries.
State and local governments are anxious to launch new infrastructure projects and pay down budget shortfalls with federal economic stimulus. New projects on roads, bridges, railways and airports slated for the next few weeks and months, along with new financing for public schools, community health centers, environmental clean-up projects and federal parks and buildings renovations is expected to create or save thousands of jobs.
The worsening jobs picture prompted the AFL-CIO earlier this month to launch a new Web site designed to help unemployed workers find the resources they need to survive in the recession. The Unemployment Lifeline, as the site is called, provides information on local aid for unemployment compensation benefits, child care, medical care, utility assistance and more. It also links workers to political action on such issues as passing the Employee Free Choice Act, universal health care reform and more.
Economists warn that data from an indicator such as a weekly jobless claim report should be taken with a grain a salt. Such reports are often revised, are only a snapshot of a given moment, and do not yet indicate trends. Further, while the newest numbers over the past month suggest a downward move in initial unemployment claims, the numbers of newly unemployed people remain alarmingly high.
The Wall Street Journal couldn't have provided a better analysis.
Some people are seeing a light at the end of the tunnel others find no light at the end of the tunnel.
We want to create a scenario where a night light is on all the time.
Sam Webb
National Chair, CPUSA
Light at the End of the Unemployment Line? (April 23)
By PA Staff Writers
As steam from President Obama's economic recovery act builds in the states and localities and new investments in infrastructure and job-saving programs start to flow, do the latest data from the Department of Labor suggest that the dismal unemployment situation may be turning a corner?
According to the president's own early estimate given at his April 29th press conference, some 150,000 jobs have so far been saved or created as a result of the economic recovery. Many projects targeted for recovery act funds are yet to be started and much of the funding as been made available but still hasn't arrived at its destination. Simply put, the greatest impact of the recovery act is yet to come. The Department of Transportation estimates that most construction projects will get into full swing by the summer.
In an interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC's Hardball, Obama's Senior Advisor David Axelrod described jobs numbers as a "lagging economic indicator," meaning that unemployment numbers are among the last of major economic indicators to show signs of recovery.
With mixed numbers in housing starts and foreclosures, a central problem in the current crisis, and weak business inventories, it isn't clear that many economic indicators are yet showing signs of recovery.
According to statistics released today, April 30, initial jobless claims for unemployment benefits for the week ending April 25 decreased from the previous week by 14,000 to 631,000. This means that 631,000 newly laid-off people filed for unemployment benefits during that week. This week's numbers put the moving four-week average down by about, 10,500, the DOL reported.
This same week in 2008, the fourth month of the current recession, saw a total of 378,000 initial jobless claims.
In the month of March, the unemployment rate jumped to a 25-year high of 8.5 percent after the economy shed more than 663,000 jobs. Since the beginning of the recession in December 2007, more than 6 million jobs have been lost. Economists estimate the rate for April will jump to as high as 9 percent.
Pennsylvania, Florida and Illinois saw the largest drops in the number of new jobless claims as those states reported fewer layoffs in the construction, trades and manufacturing sectors, a sign that recovery act-funded projects may be picking up.
California, Florida and New York, followed closely by Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina saw spikes in initial jobless claims with layoffs in manufacturing and service industries.
State and local governments are anxious to launch new infrastructure projects and pay down budget shortfalls with federal economic stimulus. New projects on roads, bridges, railways and airports slated for the next few weeks and months, along with new financing for public schools, community health centers, environmental clean-up projects and federal parks and buildings renovations is expected to create or save thousands of jobs.
The worsening jobs picture prompted the AFL-CIO earlier this month to launch a new Web site designed to help unemployed workers find the resources they need to survive in the recession. The Unemployment Lifeline, as the site is called, provides information on local aid for unemployment compensation benefits, child care, medical care, utility assistance and more. It also links workers to political action on such issues as passing the Employee Free Choice Act, universal health care reform and more.
Economists warn that data from an indicator such as a weekly jobless claim report should be taken with a grain a salt. Such reports are often revised, are only a snapshot of a given moment, and do not yet indicate trends. Further, while the newest numbers over the past month suggest a downward move in initial unemployment claims, the numbers of newly unemployed people remain alarmingly high.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Pragmatism not dialectical-historical materialism
Friends,
I came across this article from the Guardian.
We are on the right path.
We have already replaced dialectical-historical materialism with pragmatism.
I am glad to see the Japanese have dug their heads out of the sand and gone the way of pragmatism.
Pragmatism got our friend Barack Obama elected.
Study up, sit up straight. Enjoy the view from your glass walls. Let me know if you see any dust between the bricks.
Forward with the ideology of pragmatism.
Discard all your Soviet Dictionaries of 20th century socialism. Long live the 21st Century and pragmatism.
Let's roll up our sleeves and get to work.
God bless you.
God bless America.
Sam Webb
National Chair, CPUSA
Disgruntled Japanese turn to resurgent communists
Web-savvy Japanese Communist party's message of welfare and jobs lures young voters away from sleazed-mired political mainstream
Justin McCurry in Tokyo guardian.co.uk,
Monday 27 April 2009 19.02 BST
With an economy in steep decline, rising unemployment and an uncertain future, a growing number of Japanese are shunning the conservative consensus and turning instead to a new brand of cuddly communism.
While the leaders of Japan's two main political parties battle poor opinion poll ratings and accusations of sleaze, the Japanese Communist party (JCP) has seen its fortunes transformed after years of being dismissed as an irrelevant hangover from the cold war.
In the last 16 months membership has soared to more than 410,000 as the revamped party courts younger voters from the working poor. Of the 14,000 people to have joined since the end of 2007, about a quarter are aged under 30, the party says. That contrasts with the ruling Liberal Democratic party (LDP), whose membership has plummeted from 5 million at its peak to about a million today.
By dispensing with ideological rhetoric and focusing on welfare and jobs, the JCP has struck a chord with students, the unemployed and the estimated 10 million Japanese earning less than 2m yen (about £14,000) a year.
Yasuhisa Wakabayashi is typical of the new Japanese communist. The 23-year-old Yokohama factory worker joined the party in January. "Unlike the mainstream parties, the communists aren't interested in seeking donations from major corporations," he said. "They talk about education and welfare and the problems of ordinary people. And they are honest."
The JCP is making its presence felt on the internet. Among its clips is a rousing tirade by the party's affable leader, Kazuo Ishii, against the exploitation of contract workers, which has been viewed more than 100,000 times on YouTube.
The circulation of its official newspaper Akahata (the Red Flag) has risen for eight straight months to 1.6m, although it is still a long way short of its 1980 peak of 3.5m.
The JCP also owes some of its success to a novel published in 1929. Kanikosen (The Crab Ship), a Marxist-inspired account of rebellion, sold over half a million copies last year after it became required reading on restless university campuses.
Despite its resurgence, few believe the party will play a pivotal role in national politics. It has just nine seats in the 480-seat lower house, and is hampered by an electoral system that penalises minor parties.
JCP officials insist they will play no part in a coalition, not even if it means turfing the LDP out of office for only the second time in 54 years. "We would co-operate on individual policies but we wouldn't be part of a coalition," said Kimitoshi Morihara of the party's international bureau. "There is no difference between the LDP and Minshuto [the main opposition party] on the economy, defence or any of the big issues of the day. But we are different."
The JCP is barely recognisable from the party of 30 years ago. Now, dialectic materialism has been replaced by a commitment to "democratic change within the current framework of capitalism".
"The JCP of today is very different," said Go Ito, a professor of politics at Meiji University in Tokyo. "The modern party is pragmatic, which is why it has managed to tap into the dissatisfaction being felt right across Japanese society."
I came across this article from the Guardian.
We are on the right path.
We have already replaced dialectical-historical materialism with pragmatism.
I am glad to see the Japanese have dug their heads out of the sand and gone the way of pragmatism.
Pragmatism got our friend Barack Obama elected.
Study up, sit up straight. Enjoy the view from your glass walls. Let me know if you see any dust between the bricks.
Forward with the ideology of pragmatism.
Discard all your Soviet Dictionaries of 20th century socialism. Long live the 21st Century and pragmatism.
Let's roll up our sleeves and get to work.
God bless you.
God bless America.
Sam Webb
National Chair, CPUSA
Disgruntled Japanese turn to resurgent communists
Web-savvy Japanese Communist party's message of welfare and jobs lures young voters away from sleazed-mired political mainstream
Justin McCurry in Tokyo guardian.co.uk,
Monday 27 April 2009 19.02 BST
With an economy in steep decline, rising unemployment and an uncertain future, a growing number of Japanese are shunning the conservative consensus and turning instead to a new brand of cuddly communism.
While the leaders of Japan's two main political parties battle poor opinion poll ratings and accusations of sleaze, the Japanese Communist party (JCP) has seen its fortunes transformed after years of being dismissed as an irrelevant hangover from the cold war.
In the last 16 months membership has soared to more than 410,000 as the revamped party courts younger voters from the working poor. Of the 14,000 people to have joined since the end of 2007, about a quarter are aged under 30, the party says. That contrasts with the ruling Liberal Democratic party (LDP), whose membership has plummeted from 5 million at its peak to about a million today.
By dispensing with ideological rhetoric and focusing on welfare and jobs, the JCP has struck a chord with students, the unemployed and the estimated 10 million Japanese earning less than 2m yen (about £14,000) a year.
Yasuhisa Wakabayashi is typical of the new Japanese communist. The 23-year-old Yokohama factory worker joined the party in January. "Unlike the mainstream parties, the communists aren't interested in seeking donations from major corporations," he said. "They talk about education and welfare and the problems of ordinary people. And they are honest."
The JCP is making its presence felt on the internet. Among its clips is a rousing tirade by the party's affable leader, Kazuo Ishii, against the exploitation of contract workers, which has been viewed more than 100,000 times on YouTube.
The circulation of its official newspaper Akahata (the Red Flag) has risen for eight straight months to 1.6m, although it is still a long way short of its 1980 peak of 3.5m.
The JCP also owes some of its success to a novel published in 1929. Kanikosen (The Crab Ship), a Marxist-inspired account of rebellion, sold over half a million copies last year after it became required reading on restless university campuses.
Despite its resurgence, few believe the party will play a pivotal role in national politics. It has just nine seats in the 480-seat lower house, and is hampered by an electoral system that penalises minor parties.
JCP officials insist they will play no part in a coalition, not even if it means turfing the LDP out of office for only the second time in 54 years. "We would co-operate on individual policies but we wouldn't be part of a coalition," said Kimitoshi Morihara of the party's international bureau. "There is no difference between the LDP and Minshuto [the main opposition party] on the economy, defence or any of the big issues of the day. But we are different."
The JCP is barely recognisable from the party of 30 years ago. Now, dialectic materialism has been replaced by a commitment to "democratic change within the current framework of capitalism".
"The JCP of today is very different," said Go Ito, a professor of politics at Meiji University in Tokyo. "The modern party is pragmatic, which is why it has managed to tap into the dissatisfaction being felt right across Japanese society."
Sunday, April 26, 2009
John Case communist leader
John Case has joined Communist leaders like Bruce Bostick, Erwin Marquit and Peter Molenaar. Our National Board is full of such outstanding leaders.
These are leaders who recognize the importance of great union leaders like Leo Gerard, Walter Reuther and Jimmy Hoffa, Jr.
This is an excellent analysis by John Case. God Bless John Case for having the courage to write this defense of Walter Reuther who was our kind of people.
Study this closely. This is the direction our Party is moving.
We have our new glass offices and we will be meeting with our allies and coalition partners... long live the advanced working class ideas of Walter Reuther!
Sam Webb
National Chair; CPUSA
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Nissan, Smyrna, Corker, and the erosion of labor bargaining power -- REWRITE
By John Case
The New Yorker runs an extensive profile this week on Nissan, Smyrna TN, Senator Corker, and the auto crisis. Part of the magazine's "New Order" series. Due to New Yorker restrictions, I cannot post the article in full, though I highly recommend it. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/04/27/090427fa_fact_boyer
Written by Peter Boyer, the article traces the origins of the current debacle to the first oil crisis and the arab oil embargo of 1970 that quadrupled gas prices for US consumers, which inspired Japanese manufacturers to transplant to the US. Personally, I would go farther back, to the character of mass production materialized in Henry Ford's massive plants of the early 20th century and the "Taylor" system of industrial organization that turned workers into creatures with little need of brain and capable of performing repetitive, time-measured, motions day after day tending an ever accelerating assembly line. "Maggots with hands" would be the appreciative term coined by H.L. Mencken -- famous cynic and racist of the era --- who thought such work perfectly suitable for "lower orders of the animal kingdom." Conversely, Lenin and the Communists had a different notion that saw in the emerging propertyless proletariat a force of cooperation and organization that could topple the arrogant and pompous masters of capital perch on top of society worldwide, and proceed to "share the wealth". In the US, communist and socialist organizers and strike leaders like Wyndam Mortimer, Bob Travis, and many more radical, democratic forces built powerful and effective committees for industrial organization of a different kind than those envisioned by Taylor!
The stigma against communism and socialism, however, was already growing strong in the US as the FBI and Immigration authorities, hand in hand with right wing media and politicians, worked day and night to repress them. Somehow a compromise somewhat less ambitions or visionary than Lenin's, or WZ Foster's, or Earl Browder, or Eugene Debs, or even Norman Thomas, but still very militant, found its principle manifestation in the United Automoble Workers Union under the leadership of Walter Reuther. Reuther pursued a class struggle trade union policy that helped compel the consolidation of auto companies into giant corporations by forcing steady increases in pay, benefits and on the job protection to match the increasing scale and productivity of auto production. It did not matter in the post-WWII era if some auto companies, like White Motor, or Studebaker, fell by the wayside. The auto market was virutally limitless after the launching of the Eisenhower National Defense Highway system, and after Los Angeles proved that an entire new era of housing and community development around freeways and autos would revolutionize culture in the US. Anyone laid off in a failed auto company could easily find work in another one that was rapidly expanding production. Few who ever worked in an automobile production plant in the US would fault Reuther's strategy. It helped realize the dream of middle class life for American workers that was hardly less than heaven compared to what fate provided in pre-war,pre-union, depression era factory work and living conditions.
Nonetheless, 1970 did come. With high oil and gas, Japanese automobiles' fuel efficiency found its niche in the US market, and their share of the US auto market steadily gained ground. Yet their progress remained slow, as US consumers did not easily give up their love of big cars and big engines--especially with fast and reliable roads spreading over the entire continent. Foreigners from European nations that always paid an even higher -- often double -- premium for fuel, either through its scarcity or through taxes, still swarmed the US where the ideal vacation was to get in a car and drive thousands of miles at a fraction of the costs at home. So GM, Ford and Chrysler stalled meeting the Japanese (and Volkswagen) threat. After all, re-engineering their plants was a huge expense and small, fuel-efficient cars were not as profitable as buicks and cadillacs, or later, SUVs and Hummers. Plus, the pattern of adversarial bargaining in labor relations was very ingrained, and the UAW had no interest in any management rights schemes that looked like going back to the "maggots with hands" days. 3% productivity raises, plus COLA, first dollar medical coverage, and sanctions against arbitrary layoffs or reassignments became bulwark issues where the Union defended its ground.
In 1970 the top selling Japanese product in the US, manufactured in Japan, was the Datsun, built by Nissan. That division of Nissan was run by Takashi Ishihara, now the President of Nissan. Ishihara had a very low opininon of US manufacturing and workmanship and believed his company's product was not only more fuel efficient, but also better made. He thought the culture of vigorous and antagonistic labor relations characteristic of both US auto management, and the UAW, expecially in regard to inflexibility in work-rules and assignment, a fatal flaw in US Automobile manufacturing. So, he was cautious when the idea of building plants IN the US first arose in corporate discussions. Nonetheless, he went out shopping, and found Smyrna, Tennessee. It met all the qualifications he sought:
it was rural -- there would be no trouble from "urban turmoil".
the workforce had never worked in auto production before, and thus was not "poisoned" with the culture of the Big 3.
It was near a turnpike and rail transport.
local officials were "delighted" to collaborate and cooperate -- the latest example bing Bob Corker (now known as "The Senator From Nissan").
The Smyrna plant became the largest plant in the US and the most productive US auto plant throughout the 1980's.
Soon other Japanese, and German, and US auto companies transformed the terrain from Texas to South Carolina into a new "auto corridor". Since 1975, Michigan has lost 85,000 auto jobs, but the South has gained that and many more. For Southern workers the new work was irresistable. Health benefits, wages, pensions -- while not equal to Detroit, were lightyears ahead of anything remotely available. Nissan allowed every worker, every year, to lease a new car at steep discounts. Plus, the company, whild not immune to business cycles, invested considerable time and money to minimize sources of conflict, and especially layoffs. Nissan had a reputation for "no layoff once you are full time", even if this was somewhat exaggerated, and often cushioned by a reserve army of temporary workers. As a worker interviewed by Boyer says: "I have an opportunity to do stuff for my kids that I never thought I would have...my son is in college studying to be a biochemist -- that would not have been possible before."
Today the reckonning with overcapacity in auto has finally come. The market is not limitless. The Big 3's share of the remaining market has shrunk dramatically. Folks cannot afford to fill up their driveway with more cars. Now the Senator from Nissan (Corker) makes the case that the United States taxpayer should not subsidize a company that pays its laid off workers 90% of their pay when not working, thus teeing up the Obama Auto Restructuring team to compel the Union to take very significant hits in any survival plan for US auto manufacturing. It does not matter that at the time the UAW negotiated this historic provision in its national agreement, it had limited application, it was intended primarily to discourage runaways to foreign countries, etc. Now, with one in five workers underemployed or unemployed and the rest asked to pay for US auto losses, intentions matter little, and the weakness of syndicalism as a reliable guide to working class policy is revealed.
Syndicalism is elevating unionism to the status of political and social philosophy. The elevation fails when union workers, no matter their best intentions, are not organized to speak for ALL workers. Unions arose in every nation as defenses against the assaults against workers' incomes, conditions of work, and basic rights by corporations. They were never organized to attack or overthrow their employers. But by virtue of being defensive it is rare for the union slogan "an injury to one is an injury to all" to extend very far beyond a particular contractual relationship, except perhaps in song, and impossible for it to challenge the economic management of society. Yet that is what the current restructuring challenge demands: a plan to manage and lead the investment of huge public resources in a manner that helps raise the incomes, conditions and rights of ALL working people.
In many ways the repression of socialist and communist voices in the 50's, including their exclusion from the leadership of most of the labor movement, has now come full circle. There is evidence that, under the pressures of repression, syndicalism in the form of simply tailing labor, or in confining 'radical' social critiques to factional struggles within organized labor, played a corrupting, sectarian role in the US Left as well as within labor. It didn't seem like such an error back then: the labor upsurge culminating in the (almost general) strike of 1946 was incredibly powerful; its achievements under the leadership of unions like the UAW awesome. But now, here we are, in the midst of the greatest crisis of world capitalism since the 1930's, and workers are required to reinvent much that many thought had nearly passed into history: we require a determined political struggle that contends with corporate monopoly power for the leadership of all society and all social institutions. Had socialism and social democracy sunk deeper roots in US soil, had national health care, secure retirement, full retraining and/or national service for all unemployed already become a reality --- then neither the Left, the UAW, nor probably, GM, Chrysler and Ford be in the sad shape we all find ourselves today. Its not that there were no signs along the way: the civil rights movement, the opposition to imperial war were powerful indications that there were majorities for significant change. But the weakness of socialist and social democratic parties made it very difficult to address the economic roots of inequality, true social security, and the imperial-cold-war dangers. Labor, and workers in the main, were confined to ever shrinking bargaining tables -- especially those in the real seats of power.
But that's all going to change now!!!!
A Stalinist comment from the 2oth Century past we must not tolerate:
Ben Sears
There is much food for thought in this essay. I learned much from it. The thoughts about the need for organized labor to expand its horizon and raise its sights are powerful. However, I also think that if the left and the labor movement are to fulfill their potential, or even to begin to do so in the current environment, then we must take an even tougher analytical approach to the movement's history. I'm thinking specifically of the role of Reuther and his group in the UAW (and in the CIO) during the early Cold War years. The fact is that he played a big part in narrowing the outlook of the industrial union movement by, for example, pushing employer negotiated healthcare and unemployment benefits, instead of expanding the New Deal vision of national publicly sponsored programs. And to do this, he had to move aggressively against the left (and the "Communistst" specifically, as he put it "cutting out the cancer") in his union and in the CIO. This part of Reuther's record rarely gets any coverage or discussion among labor historians or reporters. (See for instance, Philip Dine, "State of the Unions", an otherwise very helpful book) So, while I do not mean to overemphasize the significance of one individual, I do think it is important for us to look with merciless objectivity (but constructively of course) at labor's past, especially in regard to the auto industry, given its current high profile status in the national discourse.
These are leaders who recognize the importance of great union leaders like Leo Gerard, Walter Reuther and Jimmy Hoffa, Jr.
This is an excellent analysis by John Case. God Bless John Case for having the courage to write this defense of Walter Reuther who was our kind of people.
Study this closely. This is the direction our Party is moving.
We have our new glass offices and we will be meeting with our allies and coalition partners... long live the advanced working class ideas of Walter Reuther!
Sam Webb
National Chair; CPUSA
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Nissan, Smyrna, Corker, and the erosion of labor bargaining power -- REWRITE
By John Case
The New Yorker runs an extensive profile this week on Nissan, Smyrna TN, Senator Corker, and the auto crisis. Part of the magazine's "New Order" series. Due to New Yorker restrictions, I cannot post the article in full, though I highly recommend it. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/04/27/090427fa_fact_boyer
Written by Peter Boyer, the article traces the origins of the current debacle to the first oil crisis and the arab oil embargo of 1970 that quadrupled gas prices for US consumers, which inspired Japanese manufacturers to transplant to the US. Personally, I would go farther back, to the character of mass production materialized in Henry Ford's massive plants of the early 20th century and the "Taylor" system of industrial organization that turned workers into creatures with little need of brain and capable of performing repetitive, time-measured, motions day after day tending an ever accelerating assembly line. "Maggots with hands" would be the appreciative term coined by H.L. Mencken -- famous cynic and racist of the era --- who thought such work perfectly suitable for "lower orders of the animal kingdom." Conversely, Lenin and the Communists had a different notion that saw in the emerging propertyless proletariat a force of cooperation and organization that could topple the arrogant and pompous masters of capital perch on top of society worldwide, and proceed to "share the wealth". In the US, communist and socialist organizers and strike leaders like Wyndam Mortimer, Bob Travis, and many more radical, democratic forces built powerful and effective committees for industrial organization of a different kind than those envisioned by Taylor!
The stigma against communism and socialism, however, was already growing strong in the US as the FBI and Immigration authorities, hand in hand with right wing media and politicians, worked day and night to repress them. Somehow a compromise somewhat less ambitions or visionary than Lenin's, or WZ Foster's, or Earl Browder, or Eugene Debs, or even Norman Thomas, but still very militant, found its principle manifestation in the United Automoble Workers Union under the leadership of Walter Reuther. Reuther pursued a class struggle trade union policy that helped compel the consolidation of auto companies into giant corporations by forcing steady increases in pay, benefits and on the job protection to match the increasing scale and productivity of auto production. It did not matter in the post-WWII era if some auto companies, like White Motor, or Studebaker, fell by the wayside. The auto market was virutally limitless after the launching of the Eisenhower National Defense Highway system, and after Los Angeles proved that an entire new era of housing and community development around freeways and autos would revolutionize culture in the US. Anyone laid off in a failed auto company could easily find work in another one that was rapidly expanding production. Few who ever worked in an automobile production plant in the US would fault Reuther's strategy. It helped realize the dream of middle class life for American workers that was hardly less than heaven compared to what fate provided in pre-war,pre-union, depression era factory work and living conditions.
Nonetheless, 1970 did come. With high oil and gas, Japanese automobiles' fuel efficiency found its niche in the US market, and their share of the US auto market steadily gained ground. Yet their progress remained slow, as US consumers did not easily give up their love of big cars and big engines--especially with fast and reliable roads spreading over the entire continent. Foreigners from European nations that always paid an even higher -- often double -- premium for fuel, either through its scarcity or through taxes, still swarmed the US where the ideal vacation was to get in a car and drive thousands of miles at a fraction of the costs at home. So GM, Ford and Chrysler stalled meeting the Japanese (and Volkswagen) threat. After all, re-engineering their plants was a huge expense and small, fuel-efficient cars were not as profitable as buicks and cadillacs, or later, SUVs and Hummers. Plus, the pattern of adversarial bargaining in labor relations was very ingrained, and the UAW had no interest in any management rights schemes that looked like going back to the "maggots with hands" days. 3% productivity raises, plus COLA, first dollar medical coverage, and sanctions against arbitrary layoffs or reassignments became bulwark issues where the Union defended its ground.
In 1970 the top selling Japanese product in the US, manufactured in Japan, was the Datsun, built by Nissan. That division of Nissan was run by Takashi Ishihara, now the President of Nissan. Ishihara had a very low opininon of US manufacturing and workmanship and believed his company's product was not only more fuel efficient, but also better made. He thought the culture of vigorous and antagonistic labor relations characteristic of both US auto management, and the UAW, expecially in regard to inflexibility in work-rules and assignment, a fatal flaw in US Automobile manufacturing. So, he was cautious when the idea of building plants IN the US first arose in corporate discussions. Nonetheless, he went out shopping, and found Smyrna, Tennessee. It met all the qualifications he sought:
it was rural -- there would be no trouble from "urban turmoil".
the workforce had never worked in auto production before, and thus was not "poisoned" with the culture of the Big 3.
It was near a turnpike and rail transport.
local officials were "delighted" to collaborate and cooperate -- the latest example bing Bob Corker (now known as "The Senator From Nissan").
The Smyrna plant became the largest plant in the US and the most productive US auto plant throughout the 1980's.
Soon other Japanese, and German, and US auto companies transformed the terrain from Texas to South Carolina into a new "auto corridor". Since 1975, Michigan has lost 85,000 auto jobs, but the South has gained that and many more. For Southern workers the new work was irresistable. Health benefits, wages, pensions -- while not equal to Detroit, were lightyears ahead of anything remotely available. Nissan allowed every worker, every year, to lease a new car at steep discounts. Plus, the company, whild not immune to business cycles, invested considerable time and money to minimize sources of conflict, and especially layoffs. Nissan had a reputation for "no layoff once you are full time", even if this was somewhat exaggerated, and often cushioned by a reserve army of temporary workers. As a worker interviewed by Boyer says: "I have an opportunity to do stuff for my kids that I never thought I would have...my son is in college studying to be a biochemist -- that would not have been possible before."
Today the reckonning with overcapacity in auto has finally come. The market is not limitless. The Big 3's share of the remaining market has shrunk dramatically. Folks cannot afford to fill up their driveway with more cars. Now the Senator from Nissan (Corker) makes the case that the United States taxpayer should not subsidize a company that pays its laid off workers 90% of their pay when not working, thus teeing up the Obama Auto Restructuring team to compel the Union to take very significant hits in any survival plan for US auto manufacturing. It does not matter that at the time the UAW negotiated this historic provision in its national agreement, it had limited application, it was intended primarily to discourage runaways to foreign countries, etc. Now, with one in five workers underemployed or unemployed and the rest asked to pay for US auto losses, intentions matter little, and the weakness of syndicalism as a reliable guide to working class policy is revealed.
Syndicalism is elevating unionism to the status of political and social philosophy. The elevation fails when union workers, no matter their best intentions, are not organized to speak for ALL workers. Unions arose in every nation as defenses against the assaults against workers' incomes, conditions of work, and basic rights by corporations. They were never organized to attack or overthrow their employers. But by virtue of being defensive it is rare for the union slogan "an injury to one is an injury to all" to extend very far beyond a particular contractual relationship, except perhaps in song, and impossible for it to challenge the economic management of society. Yet that is what the current restructuring challenge demands: a plan to manage and lead the investment of huge public resources in a manner that helps raise the incomes, conditions and rights of ALL working people.
In many ways the repression of socialist and communist voices in the 50's, including their exclusion from the leadership of most of the labor movement, has now come full circle. There is evidence that, under the pressures of repression, syndicalism in the form of simply tailing labor, or in confining 'radical' social critiques to factional struggles within organized labor, played a corrupting, sectarian role in the US Left as well as within labor. It didn't seem like such an error back then: the labor upsurge culminating in the (almost general) strike of 1946 was incredibly powerful; its achievements under the leadership of unions like the UAW awesome. But now, here we are, in the midst of the greatest crisis of world capitalism since the 1930's, and workers are required to reinvent much that many thought had nearly passed into history: we require a determined political struggle that contends with corporate monopoly power for the leadership of all society and all social institutions. Had socialism and social democracy sunk deeper roots in US soil, had national health care, secure retirement, full retraining and/or national service for all unemployed already become a reality --- then neither the Left, the UAW, nor probably, GM, Chrysler and Ford be in the sad shape we all find ourselves today. Its not that there were no signs along the way: the civil rights movement, the opposition to imperial war were powerful indications that there were majorities for significant change. But the weakness of socialist and social democratic parties made it very difficult to address the economic roots of inequality, true social security, and the imperial-cold-war dangers. Labor, and workers in the main, were confined to ever shrinking bargaining tables -- especially those in the real seats of power.
But that's all going to change now!!!!
A Stalinist comment from the 2oth Century past we must not tolerate:
Ben Sears
There is much food for thought in this essay. I learned much from it. The thoughts about the need for organized labor to expand its horizon and raise its sights are powerful. However, I also think that if the left and the labor movement are to fulfill their potential, or even to begin to do so in the current environment, then we must take an even tougher analytical approach to the movement's history. I'm thinking specifically of the role of Reuther and his group in the UAW (and in the CIO) during the early Cold War years. The fact is that he played a big part in narrowing the outlook of the industrial union movement by, for example, pushing employer negotiated healthcare and unemployment benefits, instead of expanding the New Deal vision of national publicly sponsored programs. And to do this, he had to move aggressively against the left (and the "Communistst" specifically, as he put it "cutting out the cancer") in his union and in the CIO. This part of Reuther's record rarely gets any coverage or discussion among labor historians or reporters. (See for instance, Philip Dine, "State of the Unions", an otherwise very helpful book) So, while I do not mean to overemphasize the significance of one individual, I do think it is important for us to look with merciless objectivity (but constructively of course) at labor's past, especially in regard to the auto industry, given its current high profile status in the national discourse.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Compromise, compromise, compromise
In my opinion there is no more important word in the English language than "compromise."
This letter to the editor appeared in our own newspaper the People's Weekly World.
The letter was written by our own Rosalio Muñoz.
I want to point out Rosalio's use of the word "compromise."
We need to get used to using this word "compromise" more to let our adversaries know that we don't mean to get tough and fight over our demands.
To let our adversaries know that we will settle for considerably less than what we say we want can help solve all kinds of problems without a fight.
We expect that with President Barack Obama imperialism is going to be dismantled without a shot being fired if we stick to "compromise" as our strategy for change.
We and our adversaries can each claim victory if we compromise. This keeps everyone happy; workers and bosses alike.
All we used to hear from those 20th Century Communists was "fight, fight, fight." To them everything was fights and struggles.
Fight imperialism. Struggle against our class enemies.
Now we have found our shining path and our course of action through "compromise."
Everyone back to your desks in your glass offices. Write me a five hundred page essay on "Why Compromise is the new way forward."
Sam Webb
National Chair, CPUSA
This letter to the editor appeared in our own newspaper the People's Weekly World.
The letter was written by our own Rosalio Muñoz.
I want to point out Rosalio's use of the word "compromise."
We need to get used to using this word "compromise" more to let our adversaries know that we don't mean to get tough and fight over our demands.
To let our adversaries know that we will settle for considerably less than what we say we want can help solve all kinds of problems without a fight.
Immigrant and worker rights
I have disagreed with much of what Ray Marshall did and said as Carter’s secretary of labor, starting from when he was nominated for the post and said moving forward on full employment (the Humphrey-Hawkins bill) had to be put off until the problem of undocumented immigrants was solved. It seems he has improved a bit — like his call for improving temporary worker programs rather than expand them.
I say we should nationalize the economic activities where temporary workers are “needed,” with a unionized 21st century WPA. The “adjusted” undocumented here now could be part of such programs with “middle class” jobs, health care, vacations, etc.
Anyway, let’s study what he has to say for “sausage” ideas for a possible compromise package that can get the needed votes.
A May Day idea: The original May Day was a call for solidarity with U.S. workers facing the corporate robber barons who brought us state monopoly capitalism. Such international solidarity can help pass just immigration reform, the Employee Free Choice Act and other labor and democratic rights, especially with the progressive possibilities with the Obama administration and improved Congress.
We face the biggest and strongest ruling class in world history. Equality for immigrants and others at home is key to blocking and eventually dismantling U.S. imperialism.
Rosalio Muñoz
Los Angeles CA
We expect that with President Barack Obama imperialism is going to be dismantled without a shot being fired if we stick to "compromise" as our strategy for change.
We and our adversaries can each claim victory if we compromise. This keeps everyone happy; workers and bosses alike.
All we used to hear from those 20th Century Communists was "fight, fight, fight." To them everything was fights and struggles.
Fight imperialism. Struggle against our class enemies.
Now we have found our shining path and our course of action through "compromise."
Everyone back to your desks in your glass offices. Write me a five hundred page essay on "Why Compromise is the new way forward."
Sam Webb
National Chair, CPUSA
Friday, April 24, 2009
Castro sticks his nose into U.S. business
Friends,
This morning in your packets I have enclosed a copy of "Reflections of Fidel."
Someone should restrain Fidel. He sounds just like Gus Hall.
Fidel is demeaning and ridiculing President Obama just because Obama wants to make friends in the Region.
This is an obvious attempt to soil President Obama's image.
Obama is doing great things for our country. The end of all of our problems is now within sight. Stocks are rebounding. We are getting more inquiries about renting out office space. Our glass cubicles are the envy of the Wall Street crowd. We are leading the way to green with our new glass cubicles. Perhaps if they built Fidel a glass cubicle inside of brick walls he could get a 21st Century view of the world. He could write about what is going on within his glass cubicle and not worry about what is going on at Summits beyond his vision.
Yes, Jarvis, what is it?
"Sam, have you seen the movie Che?"
Che was like Stalin. Yucky, yucky.
No, Jarvis, I haven't seen Che. I am interested in 21st Century politics and economics. Socialism is 20th century politics. Socialism has failed. We need to look at new ideas.
Getting back Fidel maligning President Obama. I expect all board members to read this and write a five-hundred word essay on why Fidel disrespected Obama.
Yes, Scottie, what is it now? By the way, who taught you to use a mop? The floor is still sticky here where I dribble my coffee.
Sam, how should we know why Fidel writes the way he does?
Scottie, use your imagination.
Ok, clear out of the auditorium. I am having a Fuller Brush Party in here in half an hour.
God Bless you.
God bless America.
Thank God for glass cubicles.
Sam Webb
National Chairman, CPUSA
C U B A
Havana. April 23, 2009
Reflections of Fidel
The Summit and the lie
SOME of the things that Daniel [Ortega, President of Nicaragua]told me would be hard to believe if it was not him who told me them and it was not at a Summit of the Americas where they occurred.
The unusual thing is that there was no such consensus on the final document. The ALBA group did not sign it; that was confirmed in the last exchange with Obama in the presence of Manning and the other leaders in the morning of April 19.
At that meeting, [Hugo] Chávez [President of Venezuela], Evo [Morales, President of Bolivia] and Daniel spoke on the issue with total clarity.
It had seemed to me that Daniel had expressed a bitter complaint when, on the day of the Summit’s opening, he said in his speech: "I think that the time I am taking is far less than that I had to spend – three hours – waiting at the airport inside a plane."
I asked him about that and he told me that six high-level leaders had to wait on the runway: Lula of Brazil, Harper of Canada, Bachelet of Chile, Evo of Bolivia, Calderón of Mexico and himself, the sixth. The reason? In an act of adulation, the organizers decided it that way in order to receive the president of the United States. Daniel remained inside the hot LACSA aircraft for three hours under the radiant sun of the Tropics.
He explained to me the conduct of the principal leaders in the Summit, the fundamental and specific problems of each one of the Latin American and Caribbean countries. He did not seem in any way resentful. He was direct, calm and comprehensive. I recalled the times of Reagan’s dirty war, the thousands of weapons launched against Nicaragua in that context, the tens of thousands of dead, the mining of the ports, the utilization of drugs by the U.S. government in order to get around Congress decisions banning funds to finance that cynical war.
We did not overlook the criminal invasion of Panama ordered by Bush Senior, the horrific El Chorrillo massacre, the thousands of dead Panamanians, the invasion of little Grenada with the complicity of other governors in the region, relatively recent events in the tragic history of our hemisphere.
In each one of those crimes was the hand of the OAS, the principal accomplice of the brutal actions of the great military and economic power against our impoverished peoples.
He informed me of the damage that drug trafficking and organized crime is inflicting on the Central American countries, the trafficking of U.S. weapons, the vast market that impels that activity, so harmful for the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean.
He told me of the geothermic potential of Central America as a natural resource of great value. He is of the opinion that, in that way, Nicaragua could reach a generation capacity equivalent to two million kilowatt/hours. At present its total electricity generation, including various energy sources, barely amounts to 700,000 kilowatt/hours and power cuts are frequent.
He spoke of Nicaragua’s capacity for producing food, of the price of milk, distributed at one third of what it costs in the United States, although wages in the latter country are dozens of times higher.
Out conversation gravitated around this and other practical issues. At no point did he seem resentful, and far less suggest extremist measures on economic issues. He is well informed and analyzes what can and should be done with great realism.
I explained that many people in our country had not been able to hear his speech given issues of time and the lack of opportune information on the Summit, and for that reason, I was asking him to agree to explain, in a television program, the issues of most interest related to the Summit of the Americas, to a panel made up of three young journalists, which would certainly be of interest to many Latin Americans, Caribbean people, U.S. Americans and Canadians.
Daniel knows of many concrete possibilities for improving the living conditions of the people of Nicaragua, one of the five poorest nations in the hemisphere as a consequence of U.S. interventions and plunder. Obama’s victory pleased him and he observed him closely in the Summit. He did not like his behavior during the meeting. "He was moving everywhere," he told me, "seeking out people who he could influence, putting ideas into their heads with his power and his praises."
Naturally, for an observer at a distance, as was my case, one could observe a concerted strategy to exalt positions closest to U.S. interests and most opposed to policies favoring social change, unity and the sovereignty of our peoples. In my view, the worst thing was to present a declaration supposedly supported by everybody.
The blockade of Cuba was not even mentioned in the Final Declaration and the president of the United States utilized that to justify his actions and cover up his administration’s alleged concessions to Cuba. We could better understand the new president of the United States’ real limitations in terms of introducing changes in his country’s policy toward our homeland, than the use of a lie to justify his actions.
Should we perchance applaud the aggression of our television and radio space, the use of sophisticated technologies to invade that space from great heights and implement the same Bush policy against Cuba? Should we accept the right of the United States to maintain the blockade during a geological period until bringing capitalist democracy to Cuba?
Obama has admitted that the leaders of the Latin America and Caribbean countries are speaking to him all over the place about the services of Cuban doctors but, nevertheless, stated: "…this is a reminder for us in the United States that if our only interaction with many of these countries is drug interdiction, if our only interaction is military, then we may not be developing the connections that can, over time, increase our influence and have -- have a beneficial effect when we need to try to move policies that are of concern to us forward in the region."
In his subconscious mind, Obama understands that Cuba enjoys prestige on account of its doctors in the region, attaching more importance to it than we do ourselves.
Perhaps he hasn’t even been informed that Cuba has sent its doctors, not only to Latin America and the Caribbean, but to countless African countries, Asian countries; in situations of disaster to little islands of Oceania such as Timor Leste and Kiribati, threatened with being left under water if the climate changes; and even offered to send – in a matter of hours – a complete medical brigade to rescue the Katrina victims when a large part of New Orleans was left defenseless under water and many lives could have been saved. Thousands of young people selected from other countries have been trained as doctors in Cuba, tens of thousands more are currently being trained.
But we have not only cooperated in the field of health, also in those of education, sport, science, culture, energy savings, reforestation, environmental protection and others. A number of UN agencies can testify to that.
Something more: the blood of Cuban patriots was spilled in the struggle against the last bastions of colonialism in Africa and the defeat of apartheid, an ally of the United States.
The most important thing of all, Daniel already said it at the Summit, is the total absence of any conditions in the contribution of Cuba, the little island that the United States is blockading.
We did not do what we did seeking influence and support. They were the principles that sustain our struggle and our resistance. The infant mortality rate in Cuba is lower than that of the United States; there has been no illiteracy for a long time; white, black or mixed race children attend school every day, and have equal possibilities of studying, including those who require special education. We have achieved not only justice, but the maximum of justice possible. All the members of the National Assembly are nominated and elected by the people, more than 90% of the population with the right to vote, use their vote.
We have not asked for the capitalist democracy in which you were educated and in which you sincerely and with every right believe.
We do not aspire to export our political system to the United States.
Fidel Castro Ruz
April 22, 2009
12:53 p.m.
This morning in your packets I have enclosed a copy of "Reflections of Fidel."
Someone should restrain Fidel. He sounds just like Gus Hall.
Fidel is demeaning and ridiculing President Obama just because Obama wants to make friends in the Region.
This is an obvious attempt to soil President Obama's image.
Obama is doing great things for our country. The end of all of our problems is now within sight. Stocks are rebounding. We are getting more inquiries about renting out office space. Our glass cubicles are the envy of the Wall Street crowd. We are leading the way to green with our new glass cubicles. Perhaps if they built Fidel a glass cubicle inside of brick walls he could get a 21st Century view of the world. He could write about what is going on within his glass cubicle and not worry about what is going on at Summits beyond his vision.
Yes, Jarvis, what is it?
"Sam, have you seen the movie Che?"
Che was like Stalin. Yucky, yucky.
No, Jarvis, I haven't seen Che. I am interested in 21st Century politics and economics. Socialism is 20th century politics. Socialism has failed. We need to look at new ideas.
Getting back Fidel maligning President Obama. I expect all board members to read this and write a five-hundred word essay on why Fidel disrespected Obama.
Yes, Scottie, what is it now? By the way, who taught you to use a mop? The floor is still sticky here where I dribble my coffee.
Sam, how should we know why Fidel writes the way he does?
Scottie, use your imagination.
Ok, clear out of the auditorium. I am having a Fuller Brush Party in here in half an hour.
God Bless you.
God bless America.
Thank God for glass cubicles.
Sam Webb
National Chairman, CPUSA
C U B A
Havana. April 23, 2009
Reflections of Fidel
The Summit and the lie
SOME of the things that Daniel [Ortega, President of Nicaragua]told me would be hard to believe if it was not him who told me them and it was not at a Summit of the Americas where they occurred.
The unusual thing is that there was no such consensus on the final document. The ALBA group did not sign it; that was confirmed in the last exchange with Obama in the presence of Manning and the other leaders in the morning of April 19.
At that meeting, [Hugo] Chávez [President of Venezuela], Evo [Morales, President of Bolivia] and Daniel spoke on the issue with total clarity.
It had seemed to me that Daniel had expressed a bitter complaint when, on the day of the Summit’s opening, he said in his speech: "I think that the time I am taking is far less than that I had to spend – three hours – waiting at the airport inside a plane."
I asked him about that and he told me that six high-level leaders had to wait on the runway: Lula of Brazil, Harper of Canada, Bachelet of Chile, Evo of Bolivia, Calderón of Mexico and himself, the sixth. The reason? In an act of adulation, the organizers decided it that way in order to receive the president of the United States. Daniel remained inside the hot LACSA aircraft for three hours under the radiant sun of the Tropics.
He explained to me the conduct of the principal leaders in the Summit, the fundamental and specific problems of each one of the Latin American and Caribbean countries. He did not seem in any way resentful. He was direct, calm and comprehensive. I recalled the times of Reagan’s dirty war, the thousands of weapons launched against Nicaragua in that context, the tens of thousands of dead, the mining of the ports, the utilization of drugs by the U.S. government in order to get around Congress decisions banning funds to finance that cynical war.
We did not overlook the criminal invasion of Panama ordered by Bush Senior, the horrific El Chorrillo massacre, the thousands of dead Panamanians, the invasion of little Grenada with the complicity of other governors in the region, relatively recent events in the tragic history of our hemisphere.
In each one of those crimes was the hand of the OAS, the principal accomplice of the brutal actions of the great military and economic power against our impoverished peoples.
He informed me of the damage that drug trafficking and organized crime is inflicting on the Central American countries, the trafficking of U.S. weapons, the vast market that impels that activity, so harmful for the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean.
He told me of the geothermic potential of Central America as a natural resource of great value. He is of the opinion that, in that way, Nicaragua could reach a generation capacity equivalent to two million kilowatt/hours. At present its total electricity generation, including various energy sources, barely amounts to 700,000 kilowatt/hours and power cuts are frequent.
He spoke of Nicaragua’s capacity for producing food, of the price of milk, distributed at one third of what it costs in the United States, although wages in the latter country are dozens of times higher.
Out conversation gravitated around this and other practical issues. At no point did he seem resentful, and far less suggest extremist measures on economic issues. He is well informed and analyzes what can and should be done with great realism.
I explained that many people in our country had not been able to hear his speech given issues of time and the lack of opportune information on the Summit, and for that reason, I was asking him to agree to explain, in a television program, the issues of most interest related to the Summit of the Americas, to a panel made up of three young journalists, which would certainly be of interest to many Latin Americans, Caribbean people, U.S. Americans and Canadians.
Daniel knows of many concrete possibilities for improving the living conditions of the people of Nicaragua, one of the five poorest nations in the hemisphere as a consequence of U.S. interventions and plunder. Obama’s victory pleased him and he observed him closely in the Summit. He did not like his behavior during the meeting. "He was moving everywhere," he told me, "seeking out people who he could influence, putting ideas into their heads with his power and his praises."
Naturally, for an observer at a distance, as was my case, one could observe a concerted strategy to exalt positions closest to U.S. interests and most opposed to policies favoring social change, unity and the sovereignty of our peoples. In my view, the worst thing was to present a declaration supposedly supported by everybody.
The blockade of Cuba was not even mentioned in the Final Declaration and the president of the United States utilized that to justify his actions and cover up his administration’s alleged concessions to Cuba. We could better understand the new president of the United States’ real limitations in terms of introducing changes in his country’s policy toward our homeland, than the use of a lie to justify his actions.
Should we perchance applaud the aggression of our television and radio space, the use of sophisticated technologies to invade that space from great heights and implement the same Bush policy against Cuba? Should we accept the right of the United States to maintain the blockade during a geological period until bringing capitalist democracy to Cuba?
Obama has admitted that the leaders of the Latin America and Caribbean countries are speaking to him all over the place about the services of Cuban doctors but, nevertheless, stated: "…this is a reminder for us in the United States that if our only interaction with many of these countries is drug interdiction, if our only interaction is military, then we may not be developing the connections that can, over time, increase our influence and have -- have a beneficial effect when we need to try to move policies that are of concern to us forward in the region."
In his subconscious mind, Obama understands that Cuba enjoys prestige on account of its doctors in the region, attaching more importance to it than we do ourselves.
Perhaps he hasn’t even been informed that Cuba has sent its doctors, not only to Latin America and the Caribbean, but to countless African countries, Asian countries; in situations of disaster to little islands of Oceania such as Timor Leste and Kiribati, threatened with being left under water if the climate changes; and even offered to send – in a matter of hours – a complete medical brigade to rescue the Katrina victims when a large part of New Orleans was left defenseless under water and many lives could have been saved. Thousands of young people selected from other countries have been trained as doctors in Cuba, tens of thousands more are currently being trained.
But we have not only cooperated in the field of health, also in those of education, sport, science, culture, energy savings, reforestation, environmental protection and others. A number of UN agencies can testify to that.
Something more: the blood of Cuban patriots was spilled in the struggle against the last bastions of colonialism in Africa and the defeat of apartheid, an ally of the United States.
The most important thing of all, Daniel already said it at the Summit, is the total absence of any conditions in the contribution of Cuba, the little island that the United States is blockading.
We did not do what we did seeking influence and support. They were the principles that sustain our struggle and our resistance. The infant mortality rate in Cuba is lower than that of the United States; there has been no illiteracy for a long time; white, black or mixed race children attend school every day, and have equal possibilities of studying, including those who require special education. We have achieved not only justice, but the maximum of justice possible. All the members of the National Assembly are nominated and elected by the people, more than 90% of the population with the right to vote, use their vote.
We have not asked for the capitalist democracy in which you were educated and in which you sincerely and with every right believe.
We do not aspire to export our political system to the United States.
Fidel Castro Ruz
April 22, 2009
12:53 p.m.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Back to the Minnesota Problem
Comrades,
Well, I'm back!
Colorado was great. They laid out the carpet for me. Scottie asked that it not be red and they refrain from playing the Internationale. I can report to you that we have made some great inroads to the middle class. Slowly but surely we are working our way out of the working class to where the real games are played.
Enough for the good news.
Now the Minnesota Problem. We might as well be going back to the USSR boys.
We have done everything possible as the leaders of this Party to stem the tide of militant workers insisting on the return to Marxism-Leninism in our Party.
I have done everything possible trying to expunge the remnants of 20th Century socialism from influencing our Party and the international movements.
With the aging Castro brothers not giving an inch on the ideological front just 90 miles from our borders to the south and the Stalin worshipers across the northern border in Canada it is very difficult to accomplish the eradication of Marxist-Leninist thinking.
As the revisionist majority or at least the revisionists who have claimed control of this Party we are intent on eradicating all influences of Marxism-Leninism. For today, tomorrow and for all time.
We probably shouldn't be surprised that the Minnesota Problem has been an extremely hard nut to crack. For years we have tried to convince these ultra-leftists to work inside of the Democratic Party without crying and complaining.
But I am at my wit's end trying to figure a way out of this Minnesota Problem.
I thought we were making some headway and then I check out Rita Polewski's blog this morning.
By the way she named her blog just to mock me. She named her blog "The Minnesota Problem." The nerve of this bitch from Duluth!
Can someone get me a paper towel. I just spilled my coffee. Scottie, when I'm done get the mop and go around the podium here. Scottie, please don't frown like that when I tell you do something. You should know by now when your employer tells you to mop you mop. When you are told to write you write. It's my way or the highway for you. Scottie, no back talk. I told you Gus Hall left me in charge here. When I am finished you just go get the mop and bucket out of the glass closet and mop a little around here. You got some time before you get out another Labor Up Front blog. Scottie. Please. No back talk. I told you before Gus Hall willed me the leadership of the CPUSA. No, Scottie. I will not show you Gus Hall's last will and testament. If I wanted to show it to you I would. I could go to my office right now and take it out of my desk drawer if I wanted to but I don't want to. Do a little work so you earn the title of worker so when you are asked what kind of work you have done before becoming middle class you can tell them you worked for me.
We are trying so hard to convince workers that Barack Obama is their friend and look what this bitch from Duluth has posted to her blog. I come to the office and I am staring at this scandalous defamation of Barack Obama. My day is topsy turvy before I have my first cup of fresh Star Bucks Coffee. Its bad enough I had to listen to some crybaby talking wobbly one big union bullshit just trying to get a cup of java:
We just got done writing marvelous articles for the PWW and PA about how the Castro boys were finally coming to their senses about Barack Obama.
Now I come into the office to this. The Castro's trying to knock Barack Obama down a peg or two and this bitch from Duluth jumping all over Barack.
All the good PR work we got paid to do has come to naught.
What can we do?
The only thing we can do. Start over again helping Barack repair the damage.
Someone get on the horn to Cuba. Someone else get me a ticket to the Twin Cities. I'm going to go talk to Erwin Marquit and Peter Molenaar personally to find out what they have been doing. I'll check out the bars and see if I can't find Mark Froemke too.
What is it Jarvis? You have been sitting there with your hand in the air for a good twenty minutes. My God, do you know how distracting that is to see a hand waving around when I'm trying to talk. What is it now?
No, Jarvis, I am not going into northern Minnesota. Are you nuts or what? There are more Marxists-Leninists in northern Minnesota than there are Republicans. I'm not going to even try talking to those damn red Finns. They call me a "traitor" and "sellout." I can't take that. Just standing in a crowd of them makes my hair stand up.
Just look at me. My hair is standing on end now. I can feel it. Just thinking about northern Minnesota and those damn red Finns.
Ok, the hair on my head is sticking out and my hands are shaking in anger. I can't drink my coffee without my Mickey Mouse bib.
I'm going to my desk now. Everyone else do the same. Scottie, you get the mop.
I'm sorry I couldn't cover the problems in United for Peach and Justice. Perhaps next time during my briefing I will touch on the Peach problems.
What is it Jarvis? Oh, did I say peach instead of peace? Thank you for correcting me. I am glad you pay such close attention to what I say.
Damn. Now I got a headache. My head is just throbbing. All I hear in my head is "back to the USSR, boys."
God bless you.
God bless America.
Remember, this is Earth Day. God bless those working on the garbage barge. May the contents find a nook in some other country so the garbage doesn't have to be dumped at sea.
Sam Webb
National Chairman, Communist Party USA
Well, I'm back!
Colorado was great. They laid out the carpet for me. Scottie asked that it not be red and they refrain from playing the Internationale. I can report to you that we have made some great inroads to the middle class. Slowly but surely we are working our way out of the working class to where the real games are played.
Enough for the good news.
Now the Minnesota Problem. We might as well be going back to the USSR boys.
We have done everything possible as the leaders of this Party to stem the tide of militant workers insisting on the return to Marxism-Leninism in our Party.
I have done everything possible trying to expunge the remnants of 20th Century socialism from influencing our Party and the international movements.
With the aging Castro brothers not giving an inch on the ideological front just 90 miles from our borders to the south and the Stalin worshipers across the northern border in Canada it is very difficult to accomplish the eradication of Marxist-Leninist thinking.
As the revisionist majority or at least the revisionists who have claimed control of this Party we are intent on eradicating all influences of Marxism-Leninism. For today, tomorrow and for all time.
We probably shouldn't be surprised that the Minnesota Problem has been an extremely hard nut to crack. For years we have tried to convince these ultra-leftists to work inside of the Democratic Party without crying and complaining.
But I am at my wit's end trying to figure a way out of this Minnesota Problem.
I thought we were making some headway and then I check out Rita Polewski's blog this morning.
By the way she named her blog just to mock me. She named her blog "The Minnesota Problem." The nerve of this bitch from Duluth!
Can someone get me a paper towel. I just spilled my coffee. Scottie, when I'm done get the mop and go around the podium here. Scottie, please don't frown like that when I tell you do something. You should know by now when your employer tells you to mop you mop. When you are told to write you write. It's my way or the highway for you. Scottie, no back talk. I told you Gus Hall left me in charge here. When I am finished you just go get the mop and bucket out of the glass closet and mop a little around here. You got some time before you get out another Labor Up Front blog. Scottie. Please. No back talk. I told you before Gus Hall willed me the leadership of the CPUSA. No, Scottie. I will not show you Gus Hall's last will and testament. If I wanted to show it to you I would. I could go to my office right now and take it out of my desk drawer if I wanted to but I don't want to. Do a little work so you earn the title of worker so when you are asked what kind of work you have done before becoming middle class you can tell them you worked for me.
We are trying so hard to convince workers that Barack Obama is their friend and look what this bitch from Duluth has posted to her blog. I come to the office and I am staring at this scandalous defamation of Barack Obama. My day is topsy turvy before I have my first cup of fresh Star Bucks Coffee. Its bad enough I had to listen to some crybaby talking wobbly one big union bullshit just trying to get a cup of java:
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Fidel Castro: Obama 'misinterpreted' Raul's words
Everyone knew that President Obama lied and intentionally misinterpreted Raul Castro's words.
The question Obama needs to be asked is "why" he lied.
The world deserves an answer from Barack Obama. Not an answer from Obama's public relations people We are entitled to the answer to this question directly from the mouth of Barack Obama. We don't need to have Obama reading from his teleprompter either.
We just got rid of one president who could never tell the truth about anything and now we have another president who can't tell the truth about anything.
Until Obama tells the truth about why he misinterpreted and lied about what Cuban President Raul Castro said no other leader in the world will feel comfortable and confident that they can trust Barack Obama to convey the truth about what they say to the American people.
From Obama's silence while playing on the beaches of Hawaii as thousands of Palestinians were killed and murdered in cold blood by the racist Israeli government to all the lies about the economy to the Obama led U.S. boycott of Durban II we have had nothing but lie after lie after lie from Barack Obama who promised an open and truthful government.
Obama promised change.
Even the lies have not changed.
Where is the change?
We have had one hundred days of lies.
We have had one hundred days of foreclosures and evictions.
We have had another one hundred days without access to health care.
We have had one hundred days of soaring unemployment.
We have had another one hundred days of wars.
During Obama's first one hundred days in office the killing in Gaza has continued.
During these one hundred first days of Barack Obama's presidency the bankers and Wall Street have been bailed out while the people of main street have gotten the shaft.
During these one hundred days global warming has continued without viable solutions even worked on.
I voted for Cynthia McKinney for president because I never believed any of Barack Obama's hype about change.
When will this grassroots constituency that supported Obama demand the change they voted for?
Obama is no friend of working people. Obama works for the wealthy and filthy rich of Wall Street just like George Bush did. Barack Obama lies just like George Bush did too.
Rita
Fidel Castro: Obama 'misinterpreted' Raul's words
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20090422/D97NFV900.html
Apr 22, 7:29 AM (ET)
By WILL WEISSERT
HAVANA (AP) - Fidel Castro says President Barack Obama "misinterpreted" his brother Raul's remarks regarding the United States and bristled at the suggestion that Cuba should free political prisoners or cut taxes on remittances from abroad as a goodwill gesture to the U.S.
Raul Castro touched off a whirlwind of speculation last week that the U.S. and Cuba could be headed toward a thaw in nearly a half-century of chilly relations. The speculation began when the Cuban president said leaders would be willing to sit down with their U.S. counterparts and discuss "everything," including human rights, freedom of the press and expression, and political prisoners on the island.
Obama responded at the Summit of the Americas by saying Washington seeks a new beginning with Cuba, but he also said Sunday that Cuba should release some political prisoners and reduce official taxes on remittances sent to the island from the U.S.
That appeared to enrage Fidel Castro, 82, who wrote in an essay posted on a government Web site that Obama "without a doubt misinterpreted Raul's declarations."
The former president appeared to be throwing a dose of cold water on growing expectations for improved bilateral relations - suggesting Obama had no right to dare suggest that Cuba make even small concessions. He also seemed to suggest too much was being made of Raul's comments about discussing "everything" with U.S. authorities.
"Affirming that the president of Cuba is ready to discuss any topic with the president of the United States expresses that he's not afraid to broach any subject," Fidel Castro wrote of his 77-year-old brother, who succeeded him as president 14 months ago.
"It's a sign of bravery and confidence in the principles of the revolution," he said, referring to the rebel uprising that toppled dictator Fulgencio Batista and brought the Castros to power on New Year's Day 1959.
"Nobody should assume that he was talking about pardoning those sentenced in March 2003 and sending all of them to the United States, if the country were willing to liberate the five Cuban anti-terrorist heroes," Castro wrote.
He was referring to 75 leading political opposition leaders who were rounded up and imprisoned six years ago. Some 54 of them remain behind bars, though Raul Castro suggested last year that Cuba would be willing to liberate some political prisoners if U.S. authorities would free five Cuban spies.
Castro compared the prisoners arrested in 2003 to exiles who attacked the island's southern coast during the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 and said they were "at the service of a foreign power that threatens and blockades our country," referring to charges they conspired with Washington to destabilize the communist system.
The ex-president had previously expressed his admiration for Obama, but this time Castro blasted the new U.S. president for showing signs of "superficiality."
He also defended Cuba's right to levy a 10 percent fee on every U.S. dollar sent to relatives on the island by Cuban-Americans, saying if the money arriving from abroad "is in dollars, all the more reason we should do it because it is the currency of the country that blockades us."
All top Cuban leaders routinely call the 47-year-old trade embargo against this country a blockade.
"Not all Cubans have family members overseas that send remittances," Castro said, adding that Cuba uses the revenue from fees on exchanging dollars to provide free health care, education and subsidized food to all of its population.
We just got done writing marvelous articles for the PWW and PA about how the Castro boys were finally coming to their senses about Barack Obama.
Now I come into the office to this. The Castro's trying to knock Barack Obama down a peg or two and this bitch from Duluth jumping all over Barack.
All the good PR work we got paid to do has come to naught.
What can we do?
The only thing we can do. Start over again helping Barack repair the damage.
Someone get on the horn to Cuba. Someone else get me a ticket to the Twin Cities. I'm going to go talk to Erwin Marquit and Peter Molenaar personally to find out what they have been doing. I'll check out the bars and see if I can't find Mark Froemke too.
What is it Jarvis? You have been sitting there with your hand in the air for a good twenty minutes. My God, do you know how distracting that is to see a hand waving around when I'm trying to talk. What is it now?
No, Jarvis, I am not going into northern Minnesota. Are you nuts or what? There are more Marxists-Leninists in northern Minnesota than there are Republicans. I'm not going to even try talking to those damn red Finns. They call me a "traitor" and "sellout." I can't take that. Just standing in a crowd of them makes my hair stand up.
Just look at me. My hair is standing on end now. I can feel it. Just thinking about northern Minnesota and those damn red Finns.
Ok, the hair on my head is sticking out and my hands are shaking in anger. I can't drink my coffee without my Mickey Mouse bib.
I'm going to my desk now. Everyone else do the same. Scottie, you get the mop.I'm sorry I couldn't cover the problems in United for Peach and Justice. Perhaps next time during my briefing I will touch on the Peach problems.
What is it Jarvis? Oh, did I say peach instead of peace? Thank you for correcting me. I am glad you pay such close attention to what I say.
Damn. Now I got a headache. My head is just throbbing. All I hear in my head is "back to the USSR, boys."
God bless you.
God bless America.
Remember, this is Earth Day. God bless those working on the garbage barge. May the contents find a nook in some other country so the garbage doesn't have to be dumped at sea.
Sam Webb
National Chairman, Communist Party USA
Friday, April 17, 2009
Shoe-repairman, veteran, bobbin boy, Communist: 93 years with a twinkle in his eye
Shoe-repairman, veteran, bobbin boy, Communist: 93 years with a twinkle in his eye
Author: Susan Webb
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 04/07/09 13:59
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — John Hovan has been reading this newspaper, and its predecessors going back to the Daily Worker, since the early 1930s — in the depths of the Great Depression. It’s been a key to his lifetime of activism for the working class.
Hovan will celebrate his 93rd birthday on May 19. “I have lived through a whole century of historic events,” he noted this week, sitting at the dining table in his senior apartment here. “I was born in the middle of World War I and I grew up in the biggest, deepest economic depression in the history of this country. Ironically, I am ending my life with another deep economic crisis.”
At age 15, he had to drop out of school to find work. He learned the shoe-repair trade. Became an organizer of unemployed workers in his home state of Florida. Volunteered with the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, fighting fascism in Spain. Three and a half years in the Navy during World War II, with a stint on Midway Island, where he repaired the sailors’ shoes. Then learned a new trade — “bobbin boy” and weaver — for a decade of work and union activism in Rhode Island textile mills. Lost his job in the McCarthy anti-Communist witchhunts, with the local paper’s headline blaring: “John Hovan, Communist.” Undaunted, learned yet another trade — installing linoleum — kept working, raised a family, continued activism in his community.
He recalled his start in the rayon mill with a chuckle. As a bobbin boy, he had to get the correct colors of thread to the weavers, “and I’m color-blind — they all looked red to me.” He figured out how to get the weavers to help him, then he watched them at their work and learned that job. “They showed me how to tie the knots, how to start and stop the loom.” He was hired on as a weaver, and later became president of his United Textile Workers (AFL) local. After that plant shut down, he got a job at a Ciba-Geigy chemical plant, where he was a picket captain in the frequent strike battles that the CIO union there had to wage.
Then, when the McCarthy red-scare hysteria hit, “Not only did I lose my job, but my house was fired on, my windows were broken by rocks, there were swastikas painted on it. It wasn’t easy,” he said, but “I knew I had the strength to endure.”
So how did he become a lifelong organizer, a Communist, and not get discouraged or give up?
“I was fortunate,” he said, “because my father, a Czech immigrant, was progressive-minded, a strong union person.” Socialist and communist foreign-language immigrants’ newspapers loomed large in Hovan’s early years.
“All of my years growing up I would hear my father talk to my mother about what he was reading in the left-wing Slovak-American newspaper, Rovnost L'udu (Equality of the People),” Hovan said.
When his father, with too many mouths to feed, told him he’d have to quit school and “make it on my own, that really made me angry,” Hovan said. “I had learned that this is the richest country in the world. I learned about the threat of fascism and another war breaking out in Europe. I read the Daily Worker and saw how people were struggling. It’s the right thing to do, I thought.”
As an apprentice shoe-repairman, he came across left Jewish workers and their newspapers too. He subscribed to the Daily Worker “with one of the first paychecks I got.”
Today, Hovan has to use a magnifier to read the paper, but his blue eyes twinkle with a combination of tenacity, humor and optimism.
Reflecting on his 93rd year, he said, “I’m more convinced than ever that Karl Marx was right.” Marx and his followers “didn’t have all the answers, but they know a lot more than the jerks that tried to run the country into the ground.”
He noted with pleasure that President Obama acknowledged the other day that today’s financial crisis began right here in New York, in Washington.
“The tide is against imperialism, against capitalism. It can’t continue,” Hovan said.
His advice: “Keep reading the People’s Weekly World and supporting it.”
suewebb@pww.org
Author: Susan Webb
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 04/07/09 13:59
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — John Hovan has been reading this newspaper, and its predecessors going back to the Daily Worker, since the early 1930s — in the depths of the Great Depression. It’s been a key to his lifetime of activism for the working class.
Hovan will celebrate his 93rd birthday on May 19. “I have lived through a whole century of historic events,” he noted this week, sitting at the dining table in his senior apartment here. “I was born in the middle of World War I and I grew up in the biggest, deepest economic depression in the history of this country. Ironically, I am ending my life with another deep economic crisis.”
At age 15, he had to drop out of school to find work. He learned the shoe-repair trade. Became an organizer of unemployed workers in his home state of Florida. Volunteered with the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, fighting fascism in Spain. Three and a half years in the Navy during World War II, with a stint on Midway Island, where he repaired the sailors’ shoes. Then learned a new trade — “bobbin boy” and weaver — for a decade of work and union activism in Rhode Island textile mills. Lost his job in the McCarthy anti-Communist witchhunts, with the local paper’s headline blaring: “John Hovan, Communist.” Undaunted, learned yet another trade — installing linoleum — kept working, raised a family, continued activism in his community.
He recalled his start in the rayon mill with a chuckle. As a bobbin boy, he had to get the correct colors of thread to the weavers, “and I’m color-blind — they all looked red to me.” He figured out how to get the weavers to help him, then he watched them at their work and learned that job. “They showed me how to tie the knots, how to start and stop the loom.” He was hired on as a weaver, and later became president of his United Textile Workers (AFL) local. After that plant shut down, he got a job at a Ciba-Geigy chemical plant, where he was a picket captain in the frequent strike battles that the CIO union there had to wage.
Then, when the McCarthy red-scare hysteria hit, “Not only did I lose my job, but my house was fired on, my windows were broken by rocks, there were swastikas painted on it. It wasn’t easy,” he said, but “I knew I had the strength to endure.”
So how did he become a lifelong organizer, a Communist, and not get discouraged or give up?
“I was fortunate,” he said, “because my father, a Czech immigrant, was progressive-minded, a strong union person.” Socialist and communist foreign-language immigrants’ newspapers loomed large in Hovan’s early years.
“All of my years growing up I would hear my father talk to my mother about what he was reading in the left-wing Slovak-American newspaper, Rovnost L'udu (Equality of the People),” Hovan said.
When his father, with too many mouths to feed, told him he’d have to quit school and “make it on my own, that really made me angry,” Hovan said. “I had learned that this is the richest country in the world. I learned about the threat of fascism and another war breaking out in Europe. I read the Daily Worker and saw how people were struggling. It’s the right thing to do, I thought.”
As an apprentice shoe-repairman, he came across left Jewish workers and their newspapers too. He subscribed to the Daily Worker “with one of the first paychecks I got.”
Today, Hovan has to use a magnifier to read the paper, but his blue eyes twinkle with a combination of tenacity, humor and optimism.
Reflecting on his 93rd year, he said, “I’m more convinced than ever that Karl Marx was right.” Marx and his followers “didn’t have all the answers, but they know a lot more than the jerks that tried to run the country into the ground.”
He noted with pleasure that President Obama acknowledged the other day that today’s financial crisis began right here in New York, in Washington.
“The tide is against imperialism, against capitalism. It can’t continue,” Hovan said.
His advice: “Keep reading the People’s Weekly World and supporting it.”
suewebb@pww.org
Thursday, April 16, 2009
May Day – a great day to support the workers’ newspaper
May Day – a great day to support the workers’ newspaper
Author: PWW Editorial Board
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 04/02/09 15:54
May 1 — May Day — International Workers’ Holiday, and now, increasingly, a day to march for immigrant rights. This important world celebration, which was born right here in Chicago, USA, is being reclaimed by the labor and immigrant rights movements in this country, after years of being buried under Cold War, anti-communist debris.
What better way to celebrate than making a donation to the newspaper that has celebrated May Day since our first issue in 1924 with an editorial mission of “Workers and oppressed of the world, unite!”
And there are a few ways to do it.
The People’s Weekly World/Nuestro Mundo will run three weeks of May Day ads. You can take out an ad — or get your union or neighborhood block club to take out an ad — to celebrate and publicize people’s causes like the Employee Free Choice Act.
Large ads: $300 — maximum size is 6”x 5”
Medium ads: $150 — maximum size is 5”x3.5”
Small ads: $25 — maximum size is 2.5”x1.5”
Deadlines for ads are: April 13, April 20, April 27 for the three issues dated April 25-May 1, May 2-8, May 9-15, respectively.
You can also celebrate Cinco de Mayo (May 5) — an important holiday among many Mexican Americans that honors Mexican culture and heritage — along with the May Day ads.
Plus, the first two weeks of May are PWW pledge weeks: Time to make a pledge for as generous a donation as you can to help keep this voice of the labor and people’s movements going. Expect calls and letters from our staff and volunteers about making a pledge.
Contact Barb Russum (773) 446-9920 x.205 or e-mail pww@pww.orgfor ad space and to learn how you can become involved in the May Day pledges.
Author: PWW Editorial Board
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 04/02/09 15:54
May 1 — May Day — International Workers’ Holiday, and now, increasingly, a day to march for immigrant rights. This important world celebration, which was born right here in Chicago, USA, is being reclaimed by the labor and immigrant rights movements in this country, after years of being buried under Cold War, anti-communist debris.
What better way to celebrate than making a donation to the newspaper that has celebrated May Day since our first issue in 1924 with an editorial mission of “Workers and oppressed of the world, unite!”
And there are a few ways to do it.
The People’s Weekly World/Nuestro Mundo will run three weeks of May Day ads. You can take out an ad — or get your union or neighborhood block club to take out an ad — to celebrate and publicize people’s causes like the Employee Free Choice Act.
Large ads: $300 — maximum size is 6”x 5”
Medium ads: $150 — maximum size is 5”x3.5”
Small ads: $25 — maximum size is 2.5”x1.5”
Deadlines for ads are: April 13, April 20, April 27 for the three issues dated April 25-May 1, May 2-8, May 9-15, respectively.
You can also celebrate Cinco de Mayo (May 5) — an important holiday among many Mexican Americans that honors Mexican culture and heritage — along with the May Day ads.
Plus, the first two weeks of May are PWW pledge weeks: Time to make a pledge for as generous a donation as you can to help keep this voice of the labor and people’s movements going. Expect calls and letters from our staff and volunteers about making a pledge.
Contact Barb Russum (773) 446-9920 x.205 or e-mail pww@pww.orgfor ad space and to learn how you can become involved in the May Day pledges.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)