A Woman's Place Is....

(By janeyhenning - Flickr: stirring, CC BY 2.0)

Allegedly we Trump-supporting, MAGA-types will finish the title sentence with: A woman's place is in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. The Trotskyist retort is that we want deny women their Constitutional rights--and even their humanity--by forcing her back in the kitchen. We're not gonna force her to do anything.

But now comes The Militant (published by the Socialist Workers Party--SWP) with a feature article entitled Fight for women’s rights expanded when millions joined the workforce, authored by Maggie Trowe. I'm not clear how Ms. Trowe will complete the sentence. How about

A woman's place is on the construction site, wearing steel-toed boots and pregnant?

Or perhaps the boots should be replaced by steel-toed high heels? Either way our young lady needs to be pregnant. The working class depends on it. Ms. Trowe's lede paragraph:

The falling birth rate and rising obstacles workers face to being able to afford to raise children have become key issues in the 2024 presidential campaign. Decades of employer attacks on wages and working conditions have made starting a family much more difficult for workers and produced conditions that reinforce the second-class status of women under capitalism. 

And, later on, she writes

The U.S. birth rate in 2023 was 1.62 births per woman, down from 3.65 in 1960, and below the rate required to maintain the population.

Capitalist pundits who used to write articles warning of the dangers of “overpopulation,” now sound alarms about the “increasing burden of too many old people.” Their real concern is that with fewer young, healthy workers the capitalist class can’t count on a sufficient supply of labor to exploit.

There's a minor technical error here: Ms. Trowe's number is the fertility rate (the average number of children women bear over a lifetime), and not the birth rate (which was about 11 live births per 1000 women in 2021). But her larger point is absolutely correct. As a nation (and also as a working class) we don't have enough babies! More women need to get pregnant, like pronto!

Weirdly, in the same issue The Militant publishes an editorial praising Cuba, where the fertility rate has declined from just under 4.7 in 1963 to 1.57 today. It's been below 2.1 (the rate necessary to sustain the population) since 1978. So when it comes to having babies, the Cubans can't even keep up with the USA, where the fertility rate didn't drop below 2.1 until 2007. Unlike the US, Cuba can't accept immigrants. Indeed, folks are fleeing the island faster than they're being born, and Cuba's population is in absolute decline. Not exactly a role model for a baby boom.

Still, much credit to Ms. Trowe because she is the only Trotskyist on my beat that even mentions declining fertility rates. At least she acknowledges the problem.

She writes,

The average cost of childbirth today is $18,865. For those with insurance, the average off-the-top expense is $2,854. Feeding a hungry newborn can set you back $50 for a can of baby formula at Walmart. A box of Pampers is $35. When you add these to the persistently high cost of rent, food, transportation and child care, is it any wonder young workers have doubts about raising a family or that women are putting off decisions about whether to have children?

And she is right! It's very expensive to raise a child--and always has been. Though I'd argue that it's cheaper now than anytime in prior human history. When my daughter was born we toyed with buying cloth diapers and laundering them, presumably saving money. We quickly gave up on that and went for the disposable kind. Does anybody today still have to launder diapers?

So what's the SWP's solution to the not-as-sorry-state-of-affairs-as-it-used-to-be? For that Ms. Trowe turns to the SWP's presidential candidate, Rachele Fruit, who tells us exactly what we should do. Ms. Trowe describes her view this way,

Such a party [a hypothetical labor party --Ed] would fight for a massive, federally funded jobs program to put millions to work at union-scale pay, for wage and benefit adjustments so that every time prices rise our wages go up automatically...

Another name for this program is inflation. If you increase the money supply (needed to pay the additional wages) without proportionately increasing the quantity of goods sold, then everything just has to cost that much more.

How is this going to make raising a child cheaper?

Chief SWP honcho Jack Barnes describes the Party's economic plan this way:

At the same time, in face of capitalism’s accompanying curse of unemployment, the working class and unions must fight for a shorter workweek, with no cut in pay. And for a massive, government-funded program of public works to provide jobs at union-scale wages building housing, schools, hospitals, child care centers, rural development and other things working people need.

So the number of unemployed construction workers is probably around 1%. As a society we're maxxed out on construction--we can't possibly build all that extra stuff that Mr. Barnes (and also Ms. Fruit) thinks are needed without not building the stuff already under construction.

There's only one way around it--grow the labor force. As Ms. Trowe points out, non-pregnant women are already working, so now we need to get those pregnant ladies out of the kitchen and on the job as well. Girl, put on your hard hat and steel-toed high heels and get your tush busy building that new school that Her Brilliancy Rachele Fruit says we need. Even if you're pregnant. Especially if you're pregnant--who needs a new school if there won't be any children? 

Lay that cinderblock on the wall--from a scaffold 20 ft up in the air. High heels are really good for climbing ladders. Clean out that old asbestos. Girl, you gotta do your share--our socialist future depends on it. Set a role model for your sisters for appropriate choice of footwear. We need the babies and we need the construction workers. Remember, construction work (esp. asbestos removal) is safer for babies than smoking or using cocaine.

A few weeks ago I had a new roof installed on my house. About ten guys came over and did the job in a bit over six hours. No women--it was rampant discrimination. Surely a pregnant lady can climb ladders, not lose her balance on a sloped roof, haul 50 lb bags of shingles around, and handle a nail gun. It's never too early for a baby to start absorbing proletons and learning the benefits of a hard day's work. Pregnant women need to do their share!

Apparently being pregnant isn't hard enough. The SWP's economic plan says they also have to install roofs.

Nobody on my side of the aisle will require a pregnant woman to stay barefoot in the kitchen. But if you're pregnant, it does rather seem like a good idea. Much better than enduring 90 degree heat on a hot roof. The woman in the picture doesn't exactly look unhappy.

It's easy to poke fun at Ms. Trowe's article and the Party's nonsensical economic agenda. But I have to give Ms. Trowe a lot of credit--at least compared to other tendencies on the Trotskyist left. She at least understands that to have a socialist society--or any kind of society--there have to be children. She realizes that "freedom" doesn't reduce to the freedom to kill your baby. There are other more important things in life--like loving your child, and having a husband who can do the dirty, dangerous jobs that men often have to do, and who can earn you a living.

She understands that abortion has to be legal--it's an unfortunate corollary of modern medicine. But it's not a virtue. It's not something to be proud of.

Ms. Trowe is on the right side of a basic issue. And my poking fun at her kinda misses the point--which is to honor and cherish pregnant women. I think Ms. Trowe agrees with me.

Further Reading:

• Whiners & Complainers
• The SWIP Flips to SWOP
• The American Right and Trans Rights

 

Socialism, 2024

The Socialism Conference, apparently an annual event, was held this year in Chicago and attracted 2,000 participants. I was not present, but fortunately Left Voice's intrepid reporter, Ben Marenlensky, was there and covers all the details. The article is Socialism 2024 Conference: We Need to Address the Donkey in the Room. Which is a clever title given our author's concerns about the Democratic Party.

While there may be a donkey in the room, I can't help but notice the elephant in the room--namely the oversized Hamas flag decorating the dais. I don't know for sure how the conference participants interpret this flag, but it's unambiguous what Hamas means by it: that all Jews in Israel/Palestine should be killed and/or driven into exile. And if you take another of their slogans seriously--Globalize the Intifada--then all Jews around the world should be murdered.

Our conference participants--to avoid being accused of antisemitism--have watered this down slightly. For the word Jew, they substitute the term Zionist. The idea is that Jew is an ethnicity or religion, while Zionism is a political belief. Therefore--in their mind--the murder/exile of all Zionists in Palestine/Israel is A-OK. Go for it. No more ballots. Only bullets. Zionism is a capital offense.

Of course within Israel, 95% of all Jews are also Zionists, so this seems to be a distinction without much difference. In the US the populations don't overlap as exactly--while most Jews are Zionists, so are a large number of other Americans. But no matter--they all deserve to die.

But don't you dare accuse any of the participants of antisemitism. Quite the contrary--they love the Jews, and claim to have their best interests at heart. Bullshit.

Mr. Marenlensky opening paragraph reads, (links in original

The Socialism Conference is an annual event hosted by Haymarket Books in Chicago. This year, it brought together about 2,000 left-wing activists and academics of various tendencies, especially social democrats and Trotskyists, but also Stalinists, Maoists, anarchists, national liberationists, and social justice groups. This year’s conference took place in the context of the ongoing genocide in Palestine, and a U.S. election in which both major parties repeatedly declare their unwavering support for Israel. Attendees of Socialism, in contrast, were united in support for Palestine, and there was a genuine desire for ideas about how to best combat Zionism and U.S. imperialism.

Fortunately, the dishonest term "genocide" appears only twice in Mr. Marenlensky's piece. Unfortunately, "genocide" was a major topic of discussion at the conference--practically every speech was about that. I've taken it on in many posts, eg, here, so I'm going to ignore it for now.

So enough about the elephant; let's get back to the donkeys, ie, the Democrats.

Mr. Marenlensky follows the standard Trotskyist position, namely there is a sharp class line running through society. There are bourgeois organizations, and then there are labor organizations--and never the twain should meet. The picture is muddied a bit (actually, a lot) by the existence of petty bourgeois groupings, that at bottom are really just stalking horses for the bourgeoisie. The Socialism Conference appears to be one of those.

A fundamental Trotskyist principle is to Never Cross the Class Line, ie, under no circumstances should one support bourgeois organizations or parties. Therefore it is fine to team up with unions--those are working class groups. But the Democratic Party is (in Trotskyist sociology) a bourgeois party and one should never support it no matter what.

Forming a coalition with working class organizations is called a united front. Forming a coalition with a bourgeois party is called a popular front. The Stalinist communist parties were big on popular fronts--and that is why (in the Trotskyist imagination) they lost so many battles (eg, the Spanish Civil War). So Mr. Marenlensky, being a Trotskyist, is adamantly opposed to any alliance with any part of the Democrat party. That's a popular front that crosses the class line, and is therefore doomed to failure.

The problem for Mr. Marenlensky is that the Socialism Conference is, inherently, a popular front. The comrades in that movement want to work with Progressive Democrats, including voting for Progressives Democrats in elections. That crosses the class line and is an absolute no-no.

So his first task is to criticize the way the conference is organized. He writes, referring to the Democratic party,

So much energy on the U.S. Left is wasted trying to galvanize support for a party that presents itself as the most responsible manager of capitalism. That energy could be spent campaigning for a workers’ party that fights for socialism. The Socialism Conference should have been an opportunity for both sides of this debate to confront the question in a constructive, comradely way. Unfortunately, this opportunity was largely squandered for a combination of political and structural reasons.

The "political and structural" reasons reduce to this: the Conference's participants want to have some impact on the real world. In the real world, Progressive Democrats have money and power and the ability to win elections. Trotskyists have none of that. Despite (or more likely, because of) their stand on high principles, Trotskyists never have any power or influence at all. All they do is kibbutz from the sidelines. So teaming up with Progressive Democrats just makes nothing but sense.

At least that's the way the conference organizers see it, and probably also a large majority of the participants. For these people the whole point of the conference is to tighten the alliance with segments of the Democratic Party, and to win over as many as they can to their ideas. What Trotskyists see as crossing the class line is seen by Conference attendees as practical politics.

And the attendees are not wrong. Progressive Democrats do occasionally win some real victories, notably in Blue States. All sorts of progressive policies are in place in California and New York, eg, rent control, prevailing wage laws, decriminalization of marijuana, social welfare efforts and social justice efforts. One can criticize them for only winning half a loaf--but the Trotskyists have never won any loaf--they've never succeeded in winning even a few crumbs.

As a political movement, Trotskyism is a proven failure. It's never been a success anywhere in the world, which is why the Socialism conferees don't have time for Trotskyists. For example, compare the Socialism Conference (2000 attendees) with Left Voice's recent convention (50 attendees; my review here). Would Left Voice--at their convention--allowed outsiders to discuss the virtues of forming popular fronts? Not likely--that conversation would not be allowed.

Likewise the Conference leaders and attendees are not interested in "forming an independent labor party," which is the rallying cry of all Trotskyists, including Left Voice. And for good reason: it's never happened, and it never will. There's no point in putting it on the agenda.

In his final paragraph, Mr. Maralensky puts it this way, claiming that Lenin (1870 - 1924) offered a useful guide to modern American politics.

In his seminal pamphlet, What Is To Be Done, Lenin describes a “marsh” of collaboration with the bourgeoisie, and that our task is to “fight not only against the marsh, but also against those who are turning towards the marsh!” In other words, it’s not enough to struggle against collaboration with the class enemy, but also against those who want to turn toward, accommodate, or coddle the collaborators. The Socialism Conference needs to be organized in a way that facilitates this struggle, and Marxists need to be willing to wage it.

He is spitting into the wind. 

Further Reading:

• Is Trotskyism Dead?
• Nazis
• Unions and Work From Home

Whiners & Complainers

(Source)

Tatiana Cozzarelli must really hate her job! She writes

Another school year is starting at the City University of New York (CUNY).  We’ll arrive on campuses that are dilapidated and falling apart. Broken elevators and escalators plague campuses across the city. Some departments are in a last-minute scramble to hire adjuncts for classes. It’s an affront to us as workers and to our students who deserve a quality education. 

Even though I’ve spent all week preparing for the semester, adjuncts and many others don’t get paid until two weeks into the semester. I have $30 in my bank account and I have to borrow money from friends again. Some adjuncts are on food stamps. Adjunct wages — and wages for most CUNY faculty and staff — are just not enough. We’ve been working with an expired contract for a year and a half, which means a year and a half without raises despite skyrocketing inflation and cost of living in New York City. 

Such is the start of the school year at CUNY. 

Those are the lede paragraphs from an article in Left Voice entitled CUNY Workers and Students Will Write A New Chapter of Class Struggle This Semester. While I never worked for CUNY, I am retired after long service at SUNY, New York's other public college & university system. Like CUNY, SUNY suffers from many of the same problems: declining enrollments, too many faculty & staff for the existing population, an aging infrastructure, and fewer jobs for graduates. Left Voice has covered some of those problems.

I'll take issue with one of Ms. Cozzarelli's claims--from my experience I think she exaggerates CUNY's state of disrepair. On the other matters she is likely correct. Adjuncts and grad students are poorly paid. Of course the reason for the stingy salaries is not because of evil administrators. It's because there are way more adjuncts and grad students available than there are classes for them to teach. Salaries are low to spread the money around as far as possible.

So if it's that bad, why does Ms. Cozzarelli still work there? She really should quit her job. She'd make more money doing almost anything else, eg, driving an Uber car. She identifies herself as a PhD student in "urban education," and she'd probably qualify as a teacher in New York state (and almost any other state). That job would definitely pay better than being an adjunct at CUNY. Why doesn't she do that?

No good reason, I fear. I suppose she wants to be a tenured professor somewhere. I don't know how many professorships there are in "urban education," but it can't be very many. So I think she has unreasonable expectations. Meanwhile, she is being supported in some part by CUNY students' tuition, but mostly by tax dollars from New York State and City taxpayers. In a word, she's on the public dole--aka welfare. If she went and got a real job she'd save us all a lot of money, and also lead a happier life.

Go back and read the above quoted paragraphs again, for what immediately follows is probably the biggest non sequitur of the year.

As I realize that none of the outlets in my windowless classroom work, it’s hard not to think about the billions of dollars being sent to kill Palestinians. There are no universities left in Gaza.

So there you have it. Not only does CUNY have to fix all the outlets and escalators, and pay the adjuncts and grad students more, but CUNY also has to settle the war in Gaza. She probably needs to take that up with her department chair, or if she's serious, even the Dean!

Is Ms. Cozzarelli really so foolish as to believe that some administrator at CUNY is gonna solve the war in Gaza? And why just Gaza? What about the war in Ukraine? Not to mention the starving children of Darfur. She should talk to her Dean about those problems as well.

She's not serious. But wait--Maybe she is? It's "billions" of dollars being wasted in Gaza, and Ms. Cozzarelli has her eyes on that prize. Apparently all of those billions (ALL of them) should be spent on CUNY to fix all the outlets and to give her a big fat raise. What should her salary be? $100K? $300K? Hell, let's go for it--Ms. Cozzarelli should demand at least a million, what with all the moral virtue on her side.

Left Voice author Maryam Alaniz, the daughter of Iranian immigrants, takes her antisemitism anti-Zionism seriously. She really believes that every Zionist in the world should be murdered. As such, she's a strong supporter of Hamas, an outfit she dubs "pro-Palestinian." Hamas is no more "pro-Palestinian" than the Khmer Rouge was pro-Cambodian. Hamas--if given the power--will not just murder all Zionists, but probably the major portion of the Palestinian population as well. It is a death cult, pure and simple.

Ms. Alaniz believes that Israel is exclusively responsible for all civilian war deaths in Gaza. She's wrong. Hamas bears at least half the responsibility--in any war it takes two to tango. The political benefits of dead women and children accrue entirely to Hamas--and discredit Israel. Accordingly, Hamas has worked hard to put as many women and children in harm's way as possible.

She pens an article in Left Voice entitled As Classes Start, Universities Begin a New Wave of Repression Against the Palestine Movement. She writes,

The administrative bureaucracies of the U.S. academy have played a key role since the start of the movement for Palestine to discourage and repress students and staff speaking out against the genocide. In that sense, the university presidents and bureaucracy are strategically linked to maintaining the interests of the bipartisan regime as well as the material interests that many of these universities have with the state of Israel.

There are two obvious errors in these paragraphs.

1. There is no genocide happening in Gaza. The war has gone on for nearly a year now, and Israel has come nowhere close to killing all 2.3 million Gazans. Even if you believe Hamas' inflated figures of about 40,000 dead (not all of whom were civilians), the war has hardly made a dent in the overall population. If Israel were intent on genocide, surely they would have eliminated most Gazans by now. It's not like they don't have the weaponry to do so. Use of the word "genocide" in this context is blatantly dishonest.
2. It is not true that "administrative bureaucracies of the U.S. academy have played a key role ...  to discourage and repress students and staff speaking out against the genocide." Nobody is being discouraged from speaking out. However vile, supporting Hamas and the murder of all Zionists is still protected speech in this country. What is NOT protected is camping out on university property, harassing and threatening other students, disturbing the peace at all hours of the day & night, and committing various acts of vandalism. Universities have an obligation to punish those violent protests.
   
   As an aside, I will add that demanding the murder of all Zionists should disqualify one from a professorship at any American university. There is no constitutional right to a job.

So, apart from her irrational antisemitism anti-Zionism, why does Ms. Alaniz even care? She, too, is a PhD student in NYC, studying who-knows-what (obviously nothing useful), and like her colleague she ardently believes her paycheck welfare check isn't high enough. She writes,

Clearly, the struggle against Zionism within universities has shown the way that these institutions act like businesses and landlords under capitalism, always looking out for their bottom line and afraid to upset their donors. The encampments encouraged us to think of a new kind of university: one that is free, open to the public, run by faculty, staff, and students for the working class and oppressed.

Ms. Alaniz, living as she does off the public dole, is not part of the working class, and she's not oppressed. She's a parasite mooching off other people's tax dollars. What she wants is even more of those tax dollars. She is asking for a blank check, where only the people who spend the money get to allocate it, while the people who pay the money should have no say. 

The third complainer falls into a completely different category. Left Voice author Pola Posen actually has a real job providing real goods and services to consumers around the world. She works at an Amazon warehouse, and writes to complain about how she was mistreated during the Prime Day promotion. The article is entitled “The Myth of Our Disposability”: Reflections from an Amazon Warehouse Worker on Prime Day. The article has one big virtue: the word "genocide" doesn't appear even once.

I can't argue with her. I have never worked at an Amazon warehouse. It is obviously a very demanding job, and many people don't like it. Though I think some people do, but Ms.Posen is certainly entitled to her opinion. 

Ms. Posen writes,

Amazon created Prime Day, its own commercial holiday, in 2015. The holiday reflects Amazon’s global ascendency and the increasing centrality of the logistics industry in the United States. Other companies, like Walmart, Target, and Temu, have been forced to create their own sales in July to compete with Prime Day. In the United States, there are about 170 million Amazon Prime members, or about half of the country’s population. Amazon Prime is enormously popular, but our warehouse labor is invisibilized—the hours, stress, and life force that this mammoth industry extracts from us and relies on to feed its own rise.

The company made $14.2 billion in profits during Prime this year, an 11 percent increase from last year. That same week, I earned $900 for working a mandatory 60 hours.

At least one correction: Amazon didn't earn $14.2 billion in profits from Prime Day--that was its total revenue. Profit only made up a small fraction of that--probably in the low single digit percent. The rest went to pay utilities, debt service, taxes, and--getting the largest share--labor. Ms. Posen's salary came out of that $14.2 billion. The 11% increase in revenue from last year benefits the workers more than the capitalists.

Then the capitalists don't pay Ms. Posen's salary. It's the 170 million Amazon Prime members who pay her salary (along with the profits, however big or small they are). The video she links to says it all--Ms. Posen, along with her colleagues, provide customers with all those myriad goods and services, and add so much convenience and joy to the world that we should be forever grateful.

I know I am. I use Amazon Prime once or twice per week. In my old age going to the store isn't as easy as it used to be. I pay the $140 annual fee along with for all the goods that are delivered. Some of that payment accrues to Ms. Polen--and she deserves every penny! I don't begrudge her a cent.

If her pay is too low, don't blame Mr. Bezos. Blame people like me. We consumers, we're fickle. A small price increase will send us to Walmart or some other competitor. Amazon's revenue will go down, and take Ms. Posen's salary down with it.

Ms. Posen, who works very hard at an honest job, has a right to complain. I'll consider paying more for the dish detergent I buy.

Further Reading:

• Cozzarelli on Chicago's Mayor Race
• Academic Workers on the Rampage
• Left Voice and the SWP

Oberlin, 2024

 

84 year-old Jack Barnes, leader of the Socialist Workers Party since 1972.
(Source)

“Every class struggle is a political struggle.” With that statement Jack Barnes, national secretary of the Socialist Workers PartyI [SWP - ed], opened his report to an International Socialist Educational Conference in Oberlin, Ohio. ...

Barnes was quoting an 1895 tribute by communist leader V.I. Lenin to Frederick Engels, who along with Karl Marx founded and led the modern revolutionary workers movement. In October 1917, after the horrors of more than three years of imperialist war, the Bolshevik Party, under Lenin’s leadership, led the working class and exploited peasants in Russia to the conquest of power and establishment of the first workers state in history. It was the world’s first victorious socialist revolution.

That is an excerpt from Steve Clark's long article reporting on the 2024 Oberlin Conference held June 13-15, 2024. The article is entitled Forging a proletarian party in the class struggle today.

I previously suggested that there was no Oberlin conference this year, offering to eat crow if I was proven wrong. Well, I had a large helping of finely cooked, elegantly spiced crow for breakfast this morning--in honor of the fact that I'm happy to be wrong, as detailed in my previous article. Why it took Mr. Clark more than two months to write the report, I don't know. I also don't understand why the event wasn't advertised in advance (at least not that I noticed).

I will say the lack of advertising didn't make much difference in attendance--Mr. Clark reports that 330 comrades and friends attended, including visitors from Australia, France, UK, Iceland, Greece and Norway. This is in line with attendance in previous years.

Friend and commenter John B. points out that nothing much of importance seems to have happened this year. And he's right--but this year's report has a noticeably different tone from those of prior years. Previous reports from Oberlin have led off with the topics of the day, followed by (at least in attenuated form) what the Party is gonna do in response.

That's not true this year. Mr. Clark's article is mostly about the past--beginning with that 1895 quote from Lenin. Current events are reserved to the very end, and there is almost no discussion of the Party's tasks for the coming period.

It's all very sentimental. It has a swan-song vibe to it--as if Mr. Barnes is in his final year of leadership. It's more a funeral than a new beginning.

As detailed in my last post, both capitalists and workers have a strong, common interest in maximizing a business's revenue--on that they are very much on the same side. Indeed, labor almost always gets the lion's share of revenue. The necessity to maximize revenue dwarfs the conflict over how it's divided between wages and profits. With no revenue, there won't be either. Marx never understood that.

Quoting Mr. Barnes, Mr. Clark writes,

“Workers and our allies need a party of independent working-class political action — class against class — in factories and other workplaces, in army barracks, and in the neighborhoods, towns and streets where working people live and labor.”

The Party has been demanding this since its inception in 1938. More, this is the key demand of all the "Trotskyist" offspring that this blog covers--they all want an independent working class party. Indeed, Marx and Engels made the same demand in the Communist Manifesto, published in 1848. If there ever was a consistent theme in Marxism/Leninism/Trotskyism, it's that there needs to be an independent labor party.

In the United States that has never happened. There have been labor parties in other countries--eg, Canada and the UK. And many European countries still have Social Democratic parties, which were originally founded by Marx himself (and led, in Germany, by the redoubtable Karl Kautsky). Yet all labor and social democratic parties have evolved toward "reformism," and in the modern era have faded into insignificance. In Germany recent polling gives the Social Democrats only 14% of the vote.

The reason is because Marxism is wrong. Class struggle does NOT drive human history (though it is a factor, probably minor). Revenue is more important to workers than profit. A zero-sum conflict between workers and capitalists does not exist.

If Marxism were right, then why is the SWP today still a tiny party of 330 comrades and sympathizers with an average age of about 70? They haven't grown. They haven't convinced any large number of people of the correctness of their opinions.

Mr. Clark (describing Mr. Barnes' speech) gives a long list of positions the Party has taken that he says have since proven correct. He touts the most recent political report entitled The low point of labor resistance is behind us (my review here). The major thesis of that book, published in 2022, is that the union movement has been revived and will start growing again. Recent evidence for that are successful strikes at Amazon and Starbucks, and by the UAW.

And the Party was correct (at least in a minor way). In 2022 we had a major labor shortage and all workers--union and non-union alike--were getting significant raises. Whether that caused inflation or was the result of inflation is a chicken-egg question that I won't answer--but it did happen. And it made it look as though unions were on the upswing.

But that's not true today. Today 4+ million new immigrants have joined the labor force. All the help wanted signs that decorated stores and restaurants in 2022 have disappeared. Labor participation rates are at a recent high. 

There is no labor shortage. The days of easy raises for employees is over. Indeed, white collar workers--especially in the tech industry--are taking pay cuts, often big ones. That trend may be spreading into the blue collar field as well. The Party was right in 2022. Now it's wrong.

Even if you grant that the Party was right in 2022, it was also wrong. Because many of the successful strikes were by public employee unions, eg, teachers, college professors and grad students, social welfare workers, etc. These are described in loving detail by our friends over at Left Voice, a Trotskyist grouplet made up of college professors and assorted failed academics. But public employees--however occasionally necessary their services--do not improve our standard of living. They're paid from taxes paid involuntarily mostly by working people, and not from revenue which comes from consumers voluntarily spending their money on products they want to buy. Growth in the public employee unions does not represent the revival of the labor movement.

The Party--to its great credit--has mostly championed revenue-making businesses that actually improve our lives. Their candidate for mayor of Chicago in 2023, Ilona Gersh, was a good example of this.

Among the most ludicrous of the supposedly correct positions is (italics in original),

The Socialist Workers Party said, “No!” U.S. imperialism has lost the Cold War, not won it. The fall of the Stalinist apparatuses eliminated a class-collaborationist crutch the imperialist rulers had relied on for more than six decades to undermine national and class battles the world over and block extension of the socialist revolution.

Note to Mr. Barnes and all other comrades: The US won the cold war. The Soviet state, born of the supposedly successful Russian Revolution of 1917, has disintegrated. Russia is but an empty husk of its former self, suffering demographic, economic, technological, and now military decline. Even if it somehow wins the war in Ukraine, it will be a pyrrhic victory that won't help at all.

But Mr. Clark does correctly note that world disorder is increasing. Some of that is technological: eg, the Houthis are firing thousand dollar drones at ships in the Red Sea while the US Navy is shooting them down with million dollar missiles. This is obviously unsustainable.

Or put more generally, because of the Soviet Union the US had to acquire allies around the world. It did that by bribing them with foreign aid, by granting them tariff-free access to US markets, and by militarily guaranteeing their borders from invasion. But today the Soviet Union is no longer a threat. We don't need all those allies, and countries that used to get aid from Uncle Sam (Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Egypt, South Africa, etc.) are just shit out of luck.

We're the most self-sufficient country on Earth.

Like their Trotskyist competitors, the Party is obsessed with the word imperialism. It's an imaginary boogeyman invented by Lenin designed to bamboozle the ignorant. At bottom, it's just a giant conspiracy theory. The word fragment imperial- occurs in Mr. Clark's essay 31 times. This is just meaningless Trotsky-talk.

The Party takes the honorable position on two issues. First, it truly understands that Hamas is a murderous, fascist organization. The compare Hamas to Nazis. The comparison isn't wrong, but I think it's more precise to compare them with the Khmer Rouge. They're not motivated by ideological fascism so much as just murderous nihilism. If there's any method to Hamas's madness, I certainly don't know what it is.

Second, they understand that the egregious lawfare against Donald Trump is an attack on the basic civil liberties of all Americans. The SWP has long defended civil liberties, going all the way back to the Smith trials of the 1950s. Their defense of Trump is entirely consistent with that proud tradition. Kudos.

The final paragraph of Mr. Clark's report is this.

It’s along that historic line of march, Barnes said, that a tested proletarian party will be forged in class battles, capable of organizing and leading the great working-class majority in the United States in a mass revolutionary movement that will decide which class will rule.

Big words, that. Mr. Barnes likely expressed that same thought 52 years ago when he first became National Secretary. In the intervening decades it doesn't look like he's made any progress. Indeed, the opposite. His tiny band of aging comrades are not the next generation of fighters, and Mr. Barnes--still pretty fit for an 84 year-old--looks every bit his age.

The Good Bye has taken too long. The Socialist Workers Party needs new leaders and a new program.

Further Reading:

• Amazon, Teamsters & Contract
• SWP Announces 2024 Presidential Campaign
• Cuba Needs More Communism

Left Voice Demands 5 Things of UAW's Shawn Fain

UAW president Shawn Fain (Source)

Left Voice author James Dennis Hoff demonstrates his astonishing misunderstanding of the labor movement in an article entitled Five Things Shawn Fain and the UAW Could Do Instead of Campaigning for Harris and Walz. The author, a professor of English at City University of New York campus, seemingly has never met a workplace he didn't want to shut down, including his own employer. Had he succeeded in that misguided effort, 40,000 people would have been out of work and without paychecks for an indefinite (probably long) period.

The primary reason for his misunderstanding is Marxism, which on the subject of labor/company relations is completely wrong. In the Marxist world view, the sole goal of labor is to confiscate the capitalist's profit. Marxists see the very existence of profit as a great injustice. Of course they're wrong--capital will have to win a return no matter who owns the means of production. Profit can never be eliminated and the efforts to do so have all led to destruction. See, eg, Cuba, Venezuela, and the former Soviet Union.

But that's not the primary error we examine here. There are two ways to judge a company's success: one can measure total revenue, and/or one can measure total profit, which is some fraction of that revenue. Marxists somehow seem to forget about the revenue part. But it is revenue that is split between wages and profit, and without revenue neither the worker nor the capitalist will make any money.

For example, Walmart's net revenue for the year ending June 30th was $648 billion. The net profit was about $16.3 billion, or 2.34% of revenue. The remaining revenue went employee salaries, rents, utilities, etc. The workers can legitimately fight over Walmart's profit. If they got all of it they'd get a 2.34% raise (after which the company would promptly go bankrupt).

But the elephant in the room--the fact that Professor Hoff studiously ignores--is revenue. Increases in revenue--even small ones--will have a much larger effect on workers' well-being than chipping away at the profit margin. After all, the workers get the lion's share of that revenue.

So the workers and their bosses have one big task in common--maximizing revenue. This is very complicated problem, for it depends on the mix of products sold (keeping the optimal mix of products in stock), then pricing them at a level that optimizes revenue, and finally ensuring that the products are displayed attractively and can be purchased by consumers with minimal inconvenience. A given Walmart Super Center will carry approximately 120,000 stock-keeping units, each of which has to carried in proper quantity and priced optimally.

Both workers and capitalists have a strong interest in maximizing revenue. The capitalists certainly understand that--their profit is a fraction of total revenue. And workers understand that--the security of their employment along with the size of their wages ultimately depends on revenue. The union understands it most of all--the dollar value of union dues collected will depend only on revenue.

Which is why workers are not particularly interested in going on strike. Strikes do not enhance revenue. They hurt the company and union alike. Note that the recent UAW strike was structured in a way that minimized revenue losses.

But Marxists don't get it at all. They think it's all about quibbling over profit. Profit is a sideshow for the workers--it's the revenue that really counts. When it comes to revenue, the workers, the company and the union are all on the same side. Consumers are on the opposite side.

In that light, let's now consider Professor Hoff's five demands on Shawn Fain's union.

1: Build the Fight Against the Far Right

"It is a fool’s errand to believe that we can defeat the nationalist, misogynist, xenophobic, racist, and anti-queer politics of the Far Right by voting," says Professor Hoff. He is correct; it's likely that the "far right" is gonna win the election. Win or lose, any party that can get 70 million+ votes in an election can't really be called "far" or "extremist." They are, in fact, rather mainstream.

Then I'm not sure why you'd want to defeat the "far right." UAW workers manufacture a lot of pickup trucks. Who buys them? Does Professor Hoff own a pickup truck? Almost certainly not because he lives in New York City. The consumers who buy pickup trucks live in suburbs, exurbs and small-towns across America. They live in Trump Country. Indeed, I'll bet a lot more Trump voters own pickup trucks than voters in blue states. Why should the UAW leader purposely diss the majority of his customers? Picking a fight with Trump's voters is definitely not a way to maximize revenue. 

When it comes to maximizing revenue, staying out of politics altogether seems like the best bet.

2: Take the Struggle for a Free Palestine into the Workplaces

Surely you're joking, Professor Hoff? How can slaughtering the world's Jewry increase revenue? Even if you think Hamas doesn't intend to kill everybody, I still don't see how siding with a bunch of murderous, nihilist thugs helps make American workers richer. Siding with Israel also probably won't help any. So just stay out of it, which seems to be what Shawn Fain is doing as best he can. He's right.

3: Take Seriously the Fight for a 32-Hour Work Week and Other Progressive Demands 

You can take it as seriously as you want, but please remember that the company is already maximizing revenue. A 32 hour work week (with 40 hours pay) is a nice idea, but it's not something that's affordable on a 3% profit margin. Prices would have to go up--by a lot. Such a rise in prices will lower revenue, not raise it. The workers (and the company and consumers) will ultimately come out losers. This is a demand--from the textbook on Free Lunch Economics--that only an English PhD ignoramus could love.

4: Bring Back the Political Strike and Dismantle Taft-Hartley

As said, Professor Hoff has never seen a workplace he didn't want to shut down. And they should shut down for totally frivolous reasons. Eg,

But why shouldn’t nurses and teachers, for instance, be able to go on strike to support their brothers and sisters who drive the buses and trains, and why shouldn’t working people be able to strike collectively to demand basic human rights like access to healthcare, higher education, child care, and pensions?

Most teachers (and most nurses through Medicare & Medicaid) are public employees and get paid at the expense of other workers. It's workers, after all, who pay the majority of taxes that covers their salaries. As the professor admits, a solidarity strike by teachers serves only to stuff teachers' own pockets, especially his demand for more higher education funding. We have way more higher education in this country than we need, and I don't see why the average UAW member should be forced to pay for it. They each already pay thousands of dollars in taxes to support the professors' unions.

5. Break from the Two Parties of Capital and Build a Class Independent Union Movement

Spitting into the wind, Professor Hoff writes,

But more than anything else, the first and most important step that the UAW and every union in the country could take right now to strengthen its membership and prepare for the struggles ahead is to finally break with the two parties of capital once and for all.

Our Trotskyist friends and their predecessors have been demanding this ever since the publication of the Communist Manifesto in 1846. In America it's never happened, and that's because the Marxist model of capitalists and workers permanently locked in a zero-sum fight for profits is just plain wrong.  Workers know that. Workers (real ones--not fake ones like professors) understand that it's revenue that butters their bread, and they're not gonna do anything to stop the flow.

That's why Left Voice only numbers about 50 comrades, and not 50 million.

Further Reading:

• The UAW Strike
  
• The Professors' Congress: The International Situation
  
• Unions and Work From Home
  

Left Voice on the Economic Crisis

Graph of a crisis happening somewhere (Source)

Kudos to Left Voice author Jason Koslowski for a serious attempt to understand the modern economy, in an article entitled The Economics of Lesser Evilism. But Mr. Koslowski (who self-identifies as "a contingent college teacher and union organizer who lives in Philadelphia") suffers from two serious handicaps in his efforts: 1) he's a Marxist, which means he doesn't understand economics; and 2) he thinks everything is always and everywhere in a crisis.

For all that, Mr. Koslowski writes this paragraph:

Marx writes in Capital that in capitalism, the rate of profit — the rate of return on capitalist investment — tends to fall. That’s because profit only comes from human labor. Capitalists, though — in their endless competition with each other — try to ramp up the productivity of labor. That makes it cheaper to produce a commodity, and can temporarily ramp up profits too, while also reducing the amount of labor needed for production. That’s the problem: capitalism tends to rely more and more on labor-saving techniques and technology, but relatively less on human labor. But as competition drives other firms to adopt that same approach, the rate of profit tends to take a hit; the amount of profit-producing human labor relatively decreases.

This is a model of clarity and concision that is rare in Leftist writing, and which shows that our friend has some talent as a journalist.

Despite that, it's wrong--but let's blame Karl Marx rather than Mr. Koslowski. It's worth taking the paragraph apart.

The first sentence does represent confusion on the part of Mr. Koslowski. He confuses the rate of profit with the rate of return on investment. These are two different things. The "rate of profit" stands for operating profit--aka earnings. That is the percent of total sales revenue that can be counted as profit, which is what Marx meant by the word. Walmart, for example, famously sets this number to 3%. If operating profits rise above that then they lower prices. If they irredeemably fall below that, then they close the store. Thus Walmart--almost definitionally--can never experience a declining rate of profit. It's always 3%.

The rate of return on investment is something completely different: that depends on the stock price. It is calculated by the price/earnings (PE) ratio, namely the price of a share of Walmart stock divided by the (recent or projected) earnings (or profit) per share. Again, using Walmart as an example, the current price of the stock is about $73/share, while the earnings per share for the past year was $1.92. This yields a PE ratio of about 38--roughly typical for an S&P 500 company.

The rate of return on investment (the PE ratio) depends on many things: the marginal rate of return (aka profit), the stock price, current interest rates, and investors' assessment of the company's future. That number can never systematically decline--since if operating margins go down then the stock price will also go down. (Marx has a completely weird way of calculating capital that had nothing to do with the stock price. Nobody today knows how to do the Marxist calculation--not even Michael Roberts.)

The next sentence is also wrong. Profit does NOT come only from human labor, though that is certainly part of it. It's the consumer who sets the value of goods and services--not labor or any other cost of production.

For example, in my old age I prefer to fly business class, which means I'm paying 3x or 4x more than those in basic economy. Most people aren't willing to spend that much money on a plane ticket--and I can do it only because I don't fly all that often. Let's use my most recent trip as an example: RT from Newark to Chicago, my ticket cost $734. By comparison a basic economy seat costs $150 (though the real cost is higher coz they nickel and dime you for everything).

The following statements are true:

• The airline earns a profit on the basic economy seat--probably the margin is similar to Walmart's. Basic economy travel is a commodity, and prices go down as airlines become more efficient. Say the profit margin is 5%.
• My business class seat takes up about twice the space of a basic economy seat. So the business class cabin (which had 16 seats) could have fit 32 people if sold as economy seats. So effectively it costs the airline twice as much to fly me to Chicago than it does the economy passenger.
• More, the airline has to hire an additional flight attendant to take care of us business class folks. And we got "free" drinks. For a longer flight we would've gotten "free" and higher quality meals, but my flight was too short for meal service.
• I don't have to pay any baggage fees.
• All sixteen seats in the business cabin were occupied. That's 16 people who paid something like $700 for a RT ticket.

So an educated guess is that it costs the airline 3x more to fly me to Chicago than a basic economy passenger. Yet the price is 5x higher, or if you account for the nickels and dimes, perhaps only 4x higher. But that's an extra $150 that the airline can book as pure profit--in addition to the 5% they get from all the other seats.

That extra profit comes only because I'm willing to pay for it! And apparently 15 other people made the same choice. When considering my alternatives in making the reservation, I didn't take the cost of labor into account at all. All I considered was the relative value I got from spending an extra $500. What else would I have rather spent $500 on? Nothing, apparently, because I spent it on business class airfare.

The airline priced business class at a level that maximized their revenue. If they charged more, they wouldn't have filled all 16 seats. If they charged less they would have just left money sitting on the table. The cost of labor doesn't enter into their calculation either.

So the labor theory of value is wrong--except for commodities. And on this Mr. Koslowski is correct. The cost of labor (or, more accurately, the total cost of production) does determine the price of a commodity--that's the very definition of a commodity. An alternative definition is that commodities compete only on price--nothing else. Basic economy airfares are a commodity, which is why they cost almost the same independently of airline. Business class airfares are not commodities, which is why they vary widely in price depending on the airline. (Business class travel to East Asia varies from about $3500 to almost $10,000. You choose your comfort level accordingly.)

Mr. Koslowski's last few sentences are mostly correct. To increase their profits companies automate their processes (substituting capital for labor) and thereby lower their costs. But competition forces them to lower their prices, and so there is a declining rate of profit. (Again, this holds true only for commodity products.) But this is a good thing--because it lowers prices. Consumers are better off, and our standard of living improves. Indeed, the major beneficiary of capitalism is and always has been the consumer, which is why our standard of living has risen dramatically since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

Mr. Koslowski thinks the current economy is in a "crisis."

Both campaigns are pitched to win support, and money, from the ruling class. They are offering competing visions of how to return the economy to “normal” after the emergency of the pandemic crisis.

But “normal” is a crisis. The campaigns are funded by a ruling class trapped inside a global economy that’s struggled to grow and return profits for decades. That class’s hunt for profits, amid deep, decades-old contradictions of capitalism, keeps on fueling the danger of financial crisis — the recent market plunge is a sign of that danger — and ever-sharper imperialist conflicts. ... That’s the “order” Trump and Harris want to preserve.

Of course there always is a danger of a financial crisis--that's been true since ancient times. Even socialist heaven-states like Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea experience financial crises. So there is nothing capitalists or socialists or anybody can do about that. Other words here--imperialist, contradictions--are just meaningless Trotsky-talk, aka gobbledygook.

But the fact is We are not in a crisis! The long-predicted recession has still not happened. The financial markets have their ups and downs--Mr. Koslowski's article was written on a down day--but there don't seem to be too many bubbles there. Of course there are problems--inflation, housing--but that's all within the normal warp and woof of everyday events.

I will posit (and what follows is not original to me) that we're in stagnation--the complete opposite of crisis. Few people are getting laid off. Few people are hiring. Few people are quitting. The job market is pretty much frozen solid. That wasn't true last year--then there was a serious labor shortage. But in the interim we've admitted millions of new immigrants--quasi-Americans--who have eliminated the shortage (apart from some skilled labor categories).

It's because of quasi-Americans that inflation has gone down. It's because of quasi-Americans that unemployment has begun to tick upwards. Whatever new jobs have been created over the past year, it's quasi-Americans that have filled them. (Most of those new jobs have been in healthcare--disproportionately as home healthcare aides.)

There is no crisis--at least not today. There is no economic crisis. There is no climate crisis. There is no education crisis. There is no democracy crisis. There just isn't any crisis. I know that's a deep disappointment to our Trotskyist friends who are always and everywhere predicting a crisis here and a crisis there and a crisis everywhere.

But they're wrong. At least for now.

Further Reading:

• Cheapskate Consumers in China
  
• The Professors' Congress: The International Situation
  
• Three Militant Articles on the Economy
  

Amazon, Teamsters & Contract

Left Voice journalist and comrade Luigi Morris spent a season last year working in a UPS sorting facility. He did not enjoy the experience, writing,

I get up for work at 3 am, with intense back pain from working this job, and deeply exhausted from working at UPS and various additional gigs to make ends meet. With this contract, there is no substantive change in my life. It doesn’t feel historic. I get better pay, but not enough to make ends meet. I get two more sick days, which as I reflect on the pain in my back, I know isn’t enough. I can only imagine what it feels like for single parents who not only need to struggle to make ends meet for themselves, but also for their children. I think about the parents who can’t even pick up their kids due to back aches and who cannot take days off to care for kids when they get sick.

Which gives him some street cred for this week's article about the new Amazon Labor Union (ALU) and its impending merger with the Teamsters. The article is entitled Amazon Labor Union Affiliates With Teamsters: What Does This Mean for Amazon Workers and the Labor Movement? (with co-author Pola Posen).

Mr. Morris' reaction to warehouse work is not necessarily representative. Indeed.com posts reviews from people who work at Amazon, and they're all over the map: some rate the experience excellent (5), others horrible (1), and most others in between. Among the most positive reviews (as an antidote to Mr. Morris' bad experience) reads

Working at Amazon as a warehouse worker has been a fantastic experience for me. The pay is competitive, and the benefits package is comprehensive, including health insurance and stock options. The management is supportive and encourages career growth through training and advancement opportunities. The work environment is dynamic yet well-organized, ensuring efficient operations while maintaining a positive atmosphere. Overall, I am grateful for the opportunity to work at Amazon and would highly recommend it to anyone seeking a rewarding job with a reputable company.

Indeed.com reports that salaries for NYC Amazon warehouse workers are around $17/hr. It's obviously not for everybody.

Mr. Morris clearly knows a lot about unions. The  Amazon warehouse on Staten Island, NY, JFK8, was successfully unionized in 2022, due in large part to the efforts of Chris Smalls. For more I'll refer the reader to the excellent journalism of Left Voice authors Tatania Cozzarelli and James Dennis Hoff. My comments on their report are here.

Since the union vote, no contract has been signed with the company. To help speed the process along Mr. Smalls is resigning from any leadership role in the ALU, and has arranged (in Mr. Morris' opinion with some subterfuge) for the union to affiliate with the Teamsters--to be designated ALU-IBT Local 1. The idea is that negotiating a contract requires more and different experience than Mr. Smalls can offer--he being a charismatic and successful organizer, but not especially interested in the weeds of a contract negotiation. Presumably the Teamsters are better at negotiating.

I think it's going to be very difficult for any contract to be signed--especially now.

Mr. Morris--as is typical of Left Voice journalists--may know a lot about unions, but he knows nothing about economics. Even worse, he apparently never reads the business pages. For he surely should know (as I document here) that Amazon is actually three, largely independent businesses. By far the most profitable is Amazon Web Services (AWS), which competes in the cloud-computing space with Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud. By contrast, the Amazon Retail business is just barely profitable, and in 2021 was actually losing money. (The third business is Amazon Prime, which competes with Netflix, et al.)

Amazon retail goes head to head against Walmart, Aldi, Target and Dollar General, among many others. All of these businesses run on very thin margins--Walmart's margin is typically 3%, and we can assume that Amazon Retail's margin isn't any more than that. That means that if Amazon sacrificed its entire profit margin, the workers would get a 3% raise (after which the company would immediately go bankrupt).

3% hardly justifies Mr. Morris' descriptions as "hyper exploitation" and "unchecked exploitation." As a Marxist, Mr. Morris should understand this--Marxists keep yammering about the "declining rate of profit." In general this isn't true, but for commodities it is true--and Amazon and its competitors are very much in a commodity business. Profit margins are reduced to a minimum.

So there's not very much to negotiate for. If Amazon is forced to raise wages, then it will have to shrink the workforce and raise productivity. If Amazon raises prices it will lose market share and earn even less revenue. More, Amazon can't raise wages at JFK8 beyond what they pay at their other warehouses--that would be grossly unfair. There is no way Amazon can give workers any significant wage increase. (I mean in real terms. If inflation goes up then Amazon can raise wages with inflation--since prices and everything else will be going up simultaneously. But that doesn't increase anybody's standard of living.)

It gets worse. The Teamsters need to collect union dues. I'm not saying that's their only goal, but it certainly is essential to their business model. If union dues are 1% of a worker's paycheck, then a 1% raise will simply cover the dues. Given that there's only a 3% margin, letting the union get a third of that is probably a non-starter.

The only way this kind of works is if there is continued inflation. If inflation goes up 2.5%, then the union can negotiate a 2.5% wage increase. Of course this is phony, but they'll take credit for it anyway. And remember that the union is now gonna get its 1% cut, so in real terms the workers will be left worse off.

And it gets even worse than that! Even Mr. Morris should be aware that last Thursday and Friday the Dow Jones went down about 1200 points--3%. The reason is taken to be the weak labor report, showing only 114,000 new jobs were created in July, with unemployment edging up to 4.3%. This is commonly believed to auger the beginning of a recession. (Markets are not always right with their predictions.) Recessions are a terrible time to be asking for raises--indeed, Amazon is more likely to be laying people off.

Unionization efforts work best when there is a labor shortage, such as existed from 2021 into 2023, caused by the pandemic-inspired early retirement of about 4 million baby boomers. Those retirees have since been replaced by 8 million new immigrants--there is no longer a labor shortage, but possibly even a labor surplus. Unions do not do well in such an environment, and ALU-IBT Local 1 will be no exception.

I predict that no contract will be signed in the foreseeable future.

Further Reading:

• Unions and Work From Home
• Professor Wants to Shut Down CUNY
• Book Review: The Everything Store