Tucker Carlson & Martha's Vineyard

iew YouTube video Tucker Carlson: Is an

Tucker Carlson is having a field day (actually, at least two of them) talking about Martha's Vineyard. This video is 21 minutes long, but I recommend watching it. He makes the Trumpian point very clearly, though please remember that he's an entertainer first (a very good one) and a political pundit only second. He points out the stunning hypocrisy of the Vineyarders (who sport signs saying "hate has no business here") as they arranged for the military to escort all 50 brown faces off their precious island within 24 hours. One resident said it was "like taking out the trash" (though he apparently intended his remarks to be attributed to DeSantis, but that was not clear from his context. The tweet was removed).

In a previous video Tucker suggests the Vineyarders should be joyful that 50 Venezuelans were sent to join them. After all, the island is 89% white, and since "diversity is our strength," welcoming 50 diverse Venezuelans should be a cause for celebration. But no joy--diversity was gone by military escort the following day.

So Mr. DeSantis has learned trolling from the master himself. And it's worked like a charm. It wiped Trump completely off the front pages for at least two days--important since the Dems want the election to be all about Trump. It makes the Dems left look ridiculous and hypocritical, reduced to phony accusations like "kidnapping" and "human trafficking, and asserting that everybody else is racist except for the enlightened denizens of Martha's Vineyard. Apparently Mr. DeSantis' trick forced the Biden administration to actually admit to a high-level meeting about immigration. Until now they've publicly ignored the issue. 

Though I've read enough commentary to realize that the Dem counterargument isn't entirely off-base, though it's clear Republicans won the news cycle by a country mile. The best Dem talking point was that the islanders' reception was not as hostile as Tucker will have you believe. (His "Froot Loops" segment is by far the weakest part of the video.) There were islanders who worked hard to make sure the Venezuelans got fed, showered, clothed and put up for the night. Yet it's odd that they couldn't persuade even 5 or 6 of them to stay on the island. Surely, with the nationwide labor shortage, there'd be more than enough work for them to do. And with the off-season island now full of empty hotel rooms, the purported lack of housing doesn't ring true either.

It was noted (I read this somewhere) that while the seasonal residents are the privileged, ultra-wealthy Obama-types, the year-round residents of the island are not like that at all. Instead, they're the servant class: the housemaids, groundskeepers, cops, chauffeurs, local officials, etc. Thus they responded as do similar workers in red states, i.e., with hostility to a large group of people who are coming to compete with them for jobs. (Not sure I believe that, though it could be part of the story.) As Tucker points out, red-staters in such circumstances are accused of being deplorable, bitter clinging racists. Obviously the Dems can't charge their own servants with such crimes--and hence the embarrassment. 

But both Tucker and the Dems miss the elephant in the room. They both conflate the Venezuelans with our American homeless population. And perhaps that's understandable, for they are, at least for the moment, homeless. They sleep on sidewalks, they haven't showered in weeks, they walked through the Darien Gap jungle, etc. The only thing missing are the hypodermic needles sticking out of their arms.

But the refugees are as different from our mentally-ill, addicted homeless people as night is from day. For the Venezuelans were, until a few years ago, solidly members of the middle class. Recall that their country used to be the richest in South America, until Hugo Chavez (enthusiastically cheered on by Progressives everywhere) put Venezuela on a path toward economic suicide. So these poor people have now spent the very last of their assets to come to the United States.

But, lack of money notwithstanding, these aren't really poor people. They're people with substance and middle class attitudes. They will do very well in America--like the Cubans before them.

• In three months they'll have a job and a place to live.
• In two years they'll speak English and own a car.
• In five years they'll have professional jobs and some of them will be buying houses.
• In fifteen years many of them will be citizens and they will vote.

None of these people will ever vote for anything that even remotely smells like socialism! That's why I call them the Future Republicans of America. Tucker sells them short--he thinks they're gonna be indigent indefinitely (as is likely true of many Salvadorans). He's afraid that they'll never assimilate into American culture and will change the country for the worse. He is just wrong!

The Dems are also wrong--though maybe deep down they realize what's happening. Inviting a whole bunch of incipient Republicans to NYC and DC (not to mention Martha's Vineyard) puts Democratic urban machine politics at risk. That's perhaps why they actually hate the immigrants so much that they have to get rid of them as fast as possible.

Tucker is wrong in another way as well. He shows a clip of Joe Biden saying that a country of 330 million can afford to bring in another two million immigrants. For once I'll side with Joe--he's right. Not only can we do it--we have to do it. American total fertility rates since the pandemic have dropped to about 1.7--well below replacement rate. We're not having enough babies. If red-staters really are worried about being "replaced," then part of the problem begins at home, specifically in the bedroom.

So we need a lot of new immigrants--but they shouldn't have to come this way. Why should a family have to traipse through the Darien Gap, and pay their very last coin to the Mexican Drug cartels in order to come the USA? There is absolutely no reason for that. We need the immigrants, and they want to come. We have to find a way to allow for legal immigration. There is more support for that than our media (left and right) are willing to admit.

But there are some conditions. The wall is a prerequisite. Before we can accept any large number of legal immigrants, we have to stop the illegal sort. We have to get control over our southern border. Second, we can't just accept low wage immigrants--that's unfair to our domestic workers. For every Honduran and Salvadoran, we need to also accept somebody with genuine skills, like nurses (e.g., more Filipinos). 

Biden, by irresponsibly and incompetently stopping the wall, has set back the cause for a higher rate of legal immigration by at least a decade. This, along with the disgraceful withdrawal from Afghanistan, will mark his administration with shame.

Further Reading:

• A Leftist Criticizes the Left on Immigration
• Good Trump, Bad Trump
• Book Review: Nigel Farage

John Studer Makes a Boo-Boo

John Studer
(Source: The Militant/Phil Norris)

John Studer, who is about my age, joined the SWP (Socialist Workers Party, aka the Party) before I did. Which means he's been a member of the Party for more than fifty years now! In that time he's risen to what I'll dub the Chief Competence Officer, i.e., he's the only guy still in the Movement who can actually get anything done. Accordingly, he's currently the Party's Campaign Manager and also the editor of The Militant (the Party's newspaper).

For all that, he has no genuine authority. The leading triumvirate of the Party is Jack Barnes, Mary-Alice Waters and Steve Clark, Comrades Jack and Mary-Alice are octogenarians and are showing signs of age. Comrade Steve is, I believe, a year or two younger than I am, but he has largely disappeared from the pages of The Militant, so I'll speculate he's in declining health.

The Big Three's gradual exit does not imply more authority for Mr. Studer, because the man has a minder--as if the Party doesn't trust him to make decisions. While Mr. Studer is The Militant's editor, a fellow named "Terry Evans" is assigned as "managing editor" (not to be confused with the business manager, who is Bob Bruce).

What does a managing editor do? I don't know, but I'll surmise he's kind of like the commissar in Trotsky's Red Army.

All work must be carried out in the presence of the commissar, but the primary command responsibility for specialized military decisions belongs not to the commissar, but to the military specialist who works closely with him.

The commissar is not responsible for the success of purely military operational or battle orders. This is totally the responsibility of the military commander. The commissar’s signature on an operational order indicates that he vouches for the fact that it was dictated by operational and not some other (counterrevolutionary) considerations.

Terry Evans' job is to make sure that Mr. Studer stays on the straight and narrow and doesn't do anything "counterrevolutionary".

Though it stretches credulity to think that Mr. Studer is at this stage of his career in any way disloyal. Still, occasionally (or rather frequently in recent years) The Militant changes its mind on some topic or another and needs to issue a correction or a retraction. That is, Terry Evans keeps comrade Studer on a short leash.

Which means Mr. Studer's real job is to be the fall guy. He's the chump who has to eat crow whenever anything gets past the editor's desk that shouldn't have. He may be the workaday editor of the paper, but the power behind his desk is Terry Evans. 

I continue to think that "Terry Evans" is a pseudonym, likely for the very talented Brian Williams. My frequent commenter, John B., agrees with me about the pseudonym, though he might dispute the association with Mr. Williams. In any case, he has rather little respect for Mr. Evans. (See comments associated with posts here and here.)

Comrade Studer's chain got pulled in a dramatic fashion last November when he was forced to publish a major grovel (boldface mine).

The article “Would a Joe Biden White House Be Better for Cuba?” appeared under the byline of Miami Militant  correspondent Steve Warshell, but responsibility for its line and content lies with the Militant editor. The editor retracted the article and pulled it from the online edition as soon as the SWP National Committee pointed out that it was contrary to the longstanding positions of the Militant  as well as those of the Socialist Workers Party. The print edition, however, had already been mailed to subscribers and distributors in the U.S.

The difference between Mr. Warshell's article and the replacement by The Militant is inconsequential. I covered the flap in detail here and here.

Our competent comrade is in the woodshed again recently because--in support of an SWP candidate in Pennsylvania--he is quoted saying this:

“We are supporters of the Constitution, as written and strengthened by dozens of amendments, many the result of pressure from the working masses; the federal system in the U.S., with three chambers of government and checks and balances put in place by the young coalition of merchants, slave owners and farmers on the backs of the American Revolution,” said Studer. “Of course it’s a bourgeois Constitution and government, but it provides space and powerful rights against government attack that are good for the working class and our struggles.”

This, apparently, is wrong, and the following week The Militant issued a 600+ word rebuttal. 

The importance for working people in defending our constitutional rights and protections from government interference has been driven home by the Aug. 8 raid by the FBI, Washington’s political police, at former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.

Since the working class first began organizing to defend itself, free speech and assembly and protection from unreasonable search and seizure, to name but a few of the rights conquered in the Constitution, have been crucial. It is the utilization of these rights by millions in hard-fought class battles that has been integral to building unions, organizing opposition to Washington’s wars, bringing down Jim Crow segregation and fighting for women’s emancipation.

But that is far from the same as saying, as John Studer, the Socialist Workers Party campaign director, is quoted saying in the last issue of the Militant, that SWP members “are supporters of the Constitution, as written and strengthened by dozens of amendments.”

Put in my own words, the dispute boils down to this:

John Studer: "We are supporters of the Constitution as written and strengthened by dozens of amendments... "

The rebuttal:  We are supporters of the words and concepts in the Constitution, especially as amended. But we don't like the Constitution itself because it was written by a bunch of old white men who were capitalists and slaveowners looking out for their own class interests.

This is really a distinction without a difference. Ultimately, who cares how or why the Constitution got written. The only important thing (which both Mr. Studer and the Rebuttal seem to agree on) is that it is likely the best such document in the world today.

I think there are two reasons for this fake dispute. One is the Party wants to put some distance (however small) between itself and the Republican Party, which it sees as its primary competition for members.

The second reason (probably more important) is to put Mr. Competence in his place. With a leadership struggle imminent, this is a preliminary skirmish for who is gonna take over after the triumvirate is gone. "Terry Evans", whoever he is, wants to make sure the Comrade Studer doesn't grab the brass ring.

Though for Communists generally, competence won't get you very far. Just look at the efflorescence of incompetence, cruelty and mediocrity that accompanied all successful revolutions to date: e.g., Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela.

John Studer doesn't stand a chance.

Further Reading:

• Wittenberg, 2022
• Has the SWP Moved Right? Or the Republicans Left?
• The Revenge of the Lumpen Proletariat

Left Voice and the SWP

The personal is political.

That adage is taken to heart by Maryam Alaniz, a correspondent for Left Voice. In a speech she gave to Mexican comrades entitled Trotsky’s Legacy Today: Class Struggle, the Left, and the Need for a Revolutionary Party she shares much about her personal history. Her byline states that

Maryam Alaniz is a socialist journalist, activist, and PhD student living in NYC. She is an editor for the international section of Left Voice.

In the text she identifies herself as a "young worker," though we are not told what "work" she actually does. Is she a truck driver?--in imitation of workers in the 1930s who founded the Teamsters Union, ably aided by the Trotskyist Farrell Dobbs (whose books about the event are still worth reading). Or perhaps she works at Walmart, or Starbucks, or in an Amazon warehouse? Those are all honest jobs done by hardworking people.

But I'll hazard that she doesn't work at anything like that. (If she did she would have told us.) No, Ms. Alaniz is an intellectual and she's much too smart and too valuable to waste her time on honest day's labor. Instead, her role as a "grad student" likely earns her a small income as a teaching or research assistant, or perhaps she's an adjunct professor somewhere. To her this must seem like "work," but it isn't really. What it really is is a claim on a government paycheck--otherwise known as "welfare." In a word, our young lady friend is a grifter.

One does hope--at very least--that her graduate studies are in something useful, like computer science or engineering, or nursing. Something that would enable her to earn an honest living. Again, if that were true I think she would've told us. So I surmise that she studies something utterly useless, such as education or women's studies. The former is just a redoubt for over-the-hill Leftists who can't do anything else, while the latter is propaganda thinly disguised as "scholarship." These topics (and many others) will at best earn her a government paycheck--more grifting--but have no purchase in the marketplace where people voluntarily pay for useful services. Because these services are not useful.

She claims to be a "young" worker, but from her speech I infer she's in her early thirties. That's really too old to still be going to school! She's on the verge of declaring final vows as a Sister in the Convent of the Perpetual Student. These are women who, in their quest for ever more education, take lifelong vows of poverty and chastity infertility. They'll never get married and they'll never have children. And worse--they'll never have grandchildren. 

But I do hope that her parents are proud of her.

I don't know what Ms. Alaniz looks like today, but let me speculate on what she'll look like 35 years from now.

SWP Oberlin Conference Attendees (Photo credit: Mike Shur; The Militant)

I suggest that one of those ladies in the foreground is a spitting image of Ms. Alaniz in the year 2057--a grandma-aged woman who doesn't have any grandchildren, and who spends her free time applauding Jack Barnes' speeches.

The picture was taken at the 2019 Oberlin conference--the annual confab held by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). Which is fitting, because the topic of our lady comrade's speech was the task of rebuilding a Trotskyist party today.

From the experience of the Minneapolis and Toledo strikes and at Trotsky’s urging, the American Workers Party emerged in 1934 as a result of a fusion between the Communist League of America and the Workers Party of America. A year later, in 1935, Trotsky helped lead a political struggle within the American Workers Party to have a special tactic toward the new workers and youth of the American Socialist Party, who had been radicalized by international events such as the rise of fascism. The Socialist Workers Party emerged from this experience in 1936. 

Me and my comrades in Left Voice hope to place ourselves within this tradition of struggle in the Trotskyist movement and aim to play a role in engaging and fusing with the most revolutionary elements of the most dynamic phenomena today, making common experiences in class struggle and leading political struggles, using our website as a tool to do so, to reach the sectors we are in dialogue with – left youth, workers, and the oppressed – beyond our forces alone.

Which raises several questions. First, why doesn't she join the existing SWP? One reason is obvious--she's way too young (or they're too old). But that's a social reason, not a political one. Indeed, it's plausible that old people know more about politics than she does and she might learn something.

Second, why bother rebuilding Trotskyism? It didn't work in the 1930s. It didn't work in the 1970s, when the SWP membership was at its apogee, and when I was a member. It has never worked anywhere in the world--ever. It didn't even work during the Russian Revolution! If anything is a proven failure in politics, it's Trotskyism.

Third--and probably most important--is I doubt the SWP would accept her as a member. The Party adamantly opposes the Democratic Party as being agents of the bourgeoisie. This is very much unlike Ms. Alaniz, who despite her professed opposition nevertheless supports every talking point mouthed by any progressive Democrat anywhere--including Bernie Sanders. In other words, she can talk the Trotsky talk--but she can't walk the Trotsky walk. Her political program--from climate catastrophism to supporting the (fascist) BLM movement to outright antisemitism--is straight out of the Democrat Party/Davos playbook.

The real Trotskyists--best represented by today's SWP--realize that 63% of America's white working class (defined as white voters without a college degree) voted for Trump in 2020, as did 37% of Hispanic voters and 10% of Black voters. The latter two numbers are at record high for any Republican candidate--though it also shows that Blacks are somewhat weak in the class solidarity department.

If the working class--I mean the real working class and not the grifters getting a government welfare check--in their majority voted for Trump, then that tells you something about Trump. He's saying something that resonates with the proletariat. The grifters, of course, just like their friends in the Democratic Party, claim that American workers are all racists, homophobes, sexists and deplorables. Only the grifters understand, as does Ms. Alaniz, that the only way to become an anti-racist is to get a PhD in some completely useless subject.

So what's different about the SWP that distinguishes them from all the other so-called Trotskyist grouplets in the country? After all, like me, all those baby boomers who joined the Party in the '70s were recruited off college campuses. We all aspired to be grifters (and a few of us, like me, succeeded). But the grifter wannabes all gradually dropped out or were expelled. What's left are a group of people who sacrificed marriage, family, close friends outside the Party, and a stable life so that they could take jobs at Walmart, in meatpacking plants, in factories, and at Amazon. Whatever their petty bourgeois roots may have been in 1975, spending 45 years in low-wage, boring jobs will turn anyone into a proletarian. (The fact that they donated much of their income to Jack Barnes is a sad story for another day.)

The SWP understands the working class in a way that grifter-wannabe Maryam Alaniz never will. But all is not lost. If she really, really wants to be a Trotskyist, she'll join the Socialist Workers Party.

I don't recommend that. But please--stop being a grifter and build a real career that can earn you an honest living. And get married and have children--so that your parents can have some grandchildren, and so that you can also eventually have some grandchildren.

Don't waste your life on Trotskyism. Remember--Darwin rules. The people who have grandchildren will determine the future.

Note: This is my 400th post since the inception of this blog on December 6th, 2012.

Further Reading:

• James P. Cannon Was Spectacularly Wrong
• "A Program to Unify the Exploited and Oppressed"
• Keith Leslie's International Report

"Pedagogy of the Oppressed"

Paulo Freire (1921 - 1997) was a Brazilian, Marxist theologian who wrote a famous book entitled Pedagogy of the Oppressed, first published in 1968. (It can be downloaded for free here.)

I have not read the book. The first two lines (not counting prefatory material) are

While the problem of humanization has always, from an axiological point of view, been humankind's central problem, it now takes on the character of an inescapable concern. Concern for humanization leads at once to the recognition of dehumanization, not only as an ontological possibility but as an historical reality.

To me this is pretentious gibberish. I have no idea what it means--perhaps I'm just not intellectual enough. Whatever--I have no intention of reading the rest of the book.

So I'm grateful to a fellow named Kendall Gregory who writes an article for Left Voice entitled A Critique of ‘Pedagogy of the Oppressed’ . Mr. Gregory writes clearly and cogently, so we'll use his piece as a guide to Mr. Freire. The lede paragraphs of his article set the context.

In the past few weeks a debate has been taking place inside the recently formed Revolutionary Socialist Organizing Project (RSOP). The debate centers around revolutionary organization, what the orientation of revolutionaries should be, how we engage with the broader Left, and what methods are needed to politically develop the revolutionary vanguard and the broader working-class and oppressed masses.

A faction within the RSOP raised Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed as a model that revolutionaries can use to answer some of the issues raised in the debate. What follows is a critique of Freire’s work, one that points out the flaws of using his work as a model for revolutionary organizing.

Mr. Freire (per Mr. Gregory) compares two models of education, which he calls the banking method and the problem-posing method. The former casts 

the teacher is the sole arbiter of truth. The students know nothing and must learn by receiving “deposits” of knowledge. According to Freire, those who approach education with the banking method view it as an exercise in rote memorization and blind acceptance of a list of facts, procured by the teacher. Freire criticizes this system as dehumanizing.

Today this might be referred to as the sage on the stage model, where the teacher stands behind a podium and feeds the students knowledge through power point slides.

This contrasts with the problem-posing method

wherein the teacher and the student both learn as co-investigators of the subject. Rather than “depositing” knowledge, the teacher poses problems to the students and works with them to find solutions. Though the teacher may know a solution, they do not directly state it, instead probing and guiding the students until they come up with a solution themselves.

Today this is called active learning. In previous eras it was known as the Socratic method, a term that suggests there is nothing particularly novel about Mr. Freire's insight. Active learning has earned a fanatical following whose adherents sometimes claim it should replace the traditional lecture altogether.

As a retired college professor and long-time teacher of introductory college chemistry classes, I'm convinced that the truth lies in the middle, and that both lecture and active learning are essential to success in a chemistry class. I guess that reveals my petty bourgeois class origins, because Mr. Freire puts it in political, class-consciousness terms.

He argues the banking model serves the interests of the oppressors, and he promotes problem-posing education as a liberatory alternative. He argues that the banking method cannot be used for liberatory purposes.

Mr. Freire apparently believes that full "liberation" is acquired only if the students arrive at the conclusion on their own, ideally without any perfidious influence from their professors. Mr. Gregory is right to condemn this as unrealistic. In a chemistry class, for example, it is surely impossible for students to regenerate 250 years of scientific progress without any reference to a textbook and/or a professor's power point slides. At the same time, it is the poor professor who doesn't insist that the students do their homework and so internalize the "knowledge" and make it their own. There has to be an active learning component.

But teaching students to be revolutionary socialists is apparently different than teaching them chemistry. To become revolutionaries, according to Mr. Freire, the students need to study the depths of their oppression. They do this by reflecting on their everyday life--how it's really hard, how in Brazil they sometimes go hungry, how the wages are too low to live well, and of course about the (imaginary?) danger of  "climate apocalypse," etc. In other words, students should learn to feel deeply sorry for themselves (which is easy to do if you just try).

The problem with teachers is that they always come up with solutions less draconian than revolution. Thus chemistry profs inform students about how new materials and modern medicines are produced. Or how environmental problems can be mitigated. We present a ray of hope--leading one to become a chemist or a doctor or an engineer, etc.

A mentor can teach you a trade, or instruct you how to open a bank account, or reveal to you the miracle of compound interest--suggesting a path to a more secure retirement. In Mr. Freire's world, all this does is reinforce oppression. The rays of hope are all false, and your teachers are agents of the bourgeoisie. To be a full-fledged, card-carrying member of the oppressed, you must see yourself as a worthless, helpless human being, armed only with a bottomless reservoir of self-pity.

Even Mr. Gregory proposes a solution: Marxism-Leninism. He writes

To really win a revolution, or even reform struggles, firm, tested ideas are required. The role of Marxists is to furnish these firm, tested ideas to the working class in the course of struggle. As Lenin said, revolutionary socialists must “patiently explain” and win over workers to their viewpoint. There is no substitute for democratic political debate. There is no substitute for revolutionary leadership. This is not the same thing as imposing a political regime from above; in fact, to win a real revolution, workers must be completely convinced of the superiority and necessity of socialism.

The job of the RSOP, in his view, is to educate us masses in "tested ideas" as the opportunities to do so arise. Simply feeling sorry for yourself is not enough--you need a teacher armed with power point slides to help you out.

Mr. Gregory perceptively points out another flaw in the Freirean world view, and that is a false dichotomy between the oppressor and the oppressed. He puts it simply and clearly:

[Freire's overly simplified idealism] leads him to ascribe every reactionary tendency of the oppressed merely to internalizing the image of their oppressor, while the actions of the oppressor are completely intentional and malicious. There is no discussion of the economic interests of either “class” in the book, no discussion whatsoever of how the objective circumstances shape the people in question. The oppressed are merely confused saints waiting to take their rightful place as humanity’s savior, while the oppressors are irredeemable demons.

A modern term for this effect is moral dyadism, which briefly states that The Oppressed have feelings, but no agency; The Oppressors have agency, but no feelings. You can apply this to all the intersectional divides in our society: Black people have feelings and no agency, and thus were right to react in riotous, impotent rage during BLM's summer, while white people have agency but no feelings, as evidenced by the supposedly passionless actions of the police. Similarly, women are passive victims of violence and discrimination, which they feel deeply but can't do anything about. Conversely, men are without fail sexist psychopaths who want only harm to befall their mothers, wives, sisters and daughters. Etc.

Anyway, I appreciate Mr. Gregory's clear and concise exposition of Paulo Freire's work.

Further Reading:

• Althusser in America
• The Fourth International--Trotskyist Faction Tried to Ruin my Breakfast
• Book Review: Kim Jong-Un

Labor Notes 2022: Starbucks

The inspiration for this post comes from Left Voice (LV) with an article entitled Labor Notes 2022: Which Way Forward for the Movement?. It was written by a team of Left Voice journalists who attended the Labor Notes 2022 conference, held in Chicago June 17th-19th. 

The article led me to the Labor Notes webpage, and specifically the page reporting on the conference, which contains numerous videos of the proceedings. Most interesting to me was the panel discussion by people who organized the first Starbucks union--I listened to about an hour of the 95 minute video.

The LV journalists describe the conference this way:

It is in [today's] context that the biggest Labor Notes conference ever began today in Chicago. More than 4,000 workers, unionists, activists, labor journalists, and scholars are coming together to debate the strategies and tactics for taking the labor movement forward.

I'm don't think this is entirely accurate--at least based on the portions of the plenary sessions that I watched. Very little debate of "strategies and tactics" took place. Instead there was music, poetry, chanting and inspirational speeches. It had more the feeling of religious revival than any kind of serious discussion. Like a revival, the purpose was group solidarity, a sense of belonging, and a sense of purpose. In this it very much succeeded.

The breakout sessions were more substantive, but even there the word "debate" doesn't really fit. Sharing is a better descriptor. The Starbucks breakout (which is the only one I listened to at length) was show and tell from start to finish. The LV authors report that "...the socialist Left is banned from even handing out pamphlets or newspapers at the event, ..." suggests that debate was never on the agenda.

So here are my impressions of the Starbucks union organizers.

But for one older gentleman (who looked to be about 50, and who was the only person I saw wearing a wedding ring) the others were in their 20s or early 30s. One lady informed us of her pronoun, but the others all looked very normal and heterosexual. The youngest was a lady who started at Starbucks at age 17 and got fired--she is likely now about 20, or perhaps not even that old.

These people LOVE Starbucks. They refer to each other by the corporate lingo, i.e., as "partners." It seems like they buy the Starbucks' Mission and Values statements lock, stock and barrel. They like their customers, they're proud of where they work, and one bragged about the fancy drinks he'd learned to make. It's all very endearing.

Starbucks apparently has a serious management problem. The partners complained that their stores had cycled through a sequence of unsuccessful managers--as many as four or five in a year. This made it difficult for them to do their jobs, and more importantly, impossible to live the Starbucks Dream.

I have criticized unions for adding an extra layer of management to a business, and thereby adding to expenses without improving the customer's experience. But in this case that appears less true. These partners seem more interested in competent management than anything else, and if the company can't provide it they'll try to do it themselves. It won't work, but one can't blame them for trying.

If there's an enemy, it's nobody in the store, but district managers are frequently blamed, and probably with some justification.

I think these partners love Starbucks too much! They regard the company as a family, and as such it's supposed to take care of personal problems. For example, the very young lady mentioned above got fired because she had medical issues and also wanted time off to go to school. The company agreed to keep her on, but demanded that she demote herself and take a pay cut. For a company this is a very reasonable request. But it's not something that a family would insist upon--their favors are dispensed unconditionally. The woman's irresolvable dispute with Starbucks was that they refused to treat her like family member.

In a nutshell, these partners expect way too much from Starbucks. It's not just a workplace, but it's a way of life, a cause, a home, a place that's supposed to love you. To be fair, the Mission and Values seem to promise as much, but in fact there is no way a customer-driven company can meet those expectations from its employees.

It seems to me (and this is very speculative) that the union organizers have no personal life outside of Starbucks. They're not married (apart from the old guy), they have no children, and perhaps they're estranged from their parents. They're not members of a church or involved in other extracurricular that would give their lives meaning beyond the workplace.

The union is not being organized because of low salaries or poor working conditions (though too much overtime was a complaint). Instead the union is needed because the partners aren't getting enough love. They want to be loved and appreciated. And the messenger of that love should, by all rights, be the store manager--who because of the high turnover rate is effectively not there.

What the world needs now is love, sweet love
It's the only thing that there's just too little of
What the world needs now is love, sweet love
No not just for some, but for everyone

Failing that, let's all go on strike.

Which brings us back to the article in LV. They write (links omitted)

While labor unions and other organizations of working people have enormous power to fight both the exploitation and oppression of capitalism, the state is always seeking to co-opt, limit, and control that power. And the Democratic Party is one of the main weapons of the ruling class in this process. Unfortunately, both the traditional bureaucracy and the so-called independent unions have ties to the establishment or progressive wings of the Democratic Party. Our union leaders use our dues to campaign for and support Democratic politicians and almost never consult us, except in the most obligatory ways, when endorsing candidates. And those candidates, even when they claim to care about working people, always support U.S. capitalism and almost always endorse war and imperialism abroad.

In light of the video of Starbucks union organizers telling their story in their own words--this seems all fantastically irrelevant. The partners aren't worried about the "exploitation and oppression of capitalism." Quite the contrary--they want to work at Starbucks for a long time, and the last thing they want is for the stores to close and/or the company to go bankrupt. They're definitely not revolutionaries!

The partners don't care about the class nature of the Democratic Party. Most of them are probably Democrats themselves, and in any case it doesn't make a dime's worth of difference.

The LV authors fret about "imperialism." It's a meaningless term, and it has zero relevance to anything that happens at Starbucks. 

In a word, Left Voice lives on a completely different planet from the partners at Starbucks. The latter are sane and honest people who work hard and towards whom I have considerable sympathy. The former are a bunch of overpaid, petty bourgeois college professors.

PS--When I was their age I was a member of and 100% committed to the Socialist Workers Party. That was far less constructive than our partners' 100% reliance on Starbucks for their life's meaning. But I'd advise them (based on my experience) to get a life--that is, do something important that's not part of Starbucks. The best is to get married and have children--nobody will ever love you more than your children. And hopefully you'll eventually have some grandchildren. Failing that, join a church, or a bowling league, or a Friday night poker club. Do something that gives your life structure and meaning that doesn't depend on Starbucks.

Further Reading:

• Lost in the Amazon
• "A Program to Unify the Exploited and Oppressed"
• Unionizing Hotels

Althusser in America

I'm proud of the zoo that Trotsky's Children has accumulated over the years. Of course there are the Trotskyists of various denominations that play the lead role on this blog. But many other grouplets and individuals make cameo appearances. I'm pleased to have dubbed Jeff Mackler (who owns Socialist Action) as a Brezhnevist. Solidarity might best be described as eco-feminist, a term that also fits the Freedom Socialist Party. Then there is the last gasp of the DeLeon movement, represented by the now defunct Socialist Labor Party. Don't forget the late Louis Proyect, a longstanding staple of this blog who was a free thinker. For bizarre species, let's include the Bob Avakian Fan Club--they're self-proclaimed Stalinists.

But surely the rarest bird of all--the very capstone of my collection--is a genuine Althusserist (or is that Althusserite? I'm not sure.), named after the French, Marxist philosopher of modest renown, Louis Pierre Althusser (1918-1990). While I have heard of Mr. Althusser, I confess that I have neither read anything by him nor about him, so an informed criticism of Althusserian dogma will not be found here.

Anyway, America's resident Althusser aficionado is a fellow by the name of Warren Montag. I think the German form of address describes him best: Herr Doktor Professor Montag--anything less is an injustice. For this guy's nose is so far up in the air that he can no longer smell the roses. The good Herr Doktor is the Louis M. Brown Family Professor in Literature in English at Occidental College, and he contributes to an article that during the past week headlined the Left Voice website, entitled ‘A United Labor Movement Can Stop the Far Right’: An Interview with Warren Montag.

Left Voice, as readers may recall, is a quality blog run by a claque of NYC college professors and their groupies. It makes sense that they'd choose the good Professor to inform us about the labor movement and the "far right"--despite the fact that he knows next to nothing about either topic. A more on-the-nose self parody of the petty bourgeois Left is hard to imagine.

For what it's worth, Occidental College is one of those fancy-pants places in L.A. catering to the spoiled youth of the upper middle class--and ripping them off for a pretty penny. The annual sticker price tuition & fees exceeds $60K. For that money they get to subsidize Professor Montag's continuing efforts to elucidate Althusserian thought and practice.

Professor Montag states:

Even if Trump 2020 was a lost cause, there was a clear pathway to the institutionalization of the rule of the Far Right. The GOP’s alliance with the organizations like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers had awakened its primal instincts and showed the party what tens of millions shared with it: racism, misogyny, Christian nationalism, imperialism, the abandonment of the subaltern classes to the gospel of personal responsibility and the sanctity of private property.

There's so much to unpack in this paragraph. First he claims that the GOP is being taken over by the "far right," in which he includes groups such as the Proud Boys. Wikipedia notes that "[t]he total number of Proud Boys members is unknown. Reports estimate membership between several hundred up to 6,000." Let's flatter Professor Montag and accept the high estimate. Recall that 77 million people voted for Trump in 2020--that means the Proud Boys are 0.0078% of all people who voted Republican. This hardly seems like a takeover to me.

Then Professor Montag refers to the Proud Boys as "far right." I'd go further and call them fascist. My shorthand definition of fascism is people who believe we're poor because the foreigners stole all the money. The goal of a fascist group is to restore their chosen race/ethnicity to pride of place. For the Proud Boys, the foreigners are Jews, Black people, and immigrants.

Of course, by my definition BLM is also fascist. The only difference between BLM and Proud Boys is who they class as foreigners. For BLM it's Jews, White people, and immigrants. Reverse the colors and these two groups have an identical ideology. Some people will classify BLM as "far left." I can go along with that, too. But whatever term you apply to BLM, to be consistent you must use the same term for Proud Boys. You can't say one is far right while the other is far left. Pick one.

In reality, the Proud Boys and BLM both live on the dark side of the moon where Left and Right come together. Neither of them believes in civil rights, the rule of law, free markets, constitutional governance--or any of the other principles of a liberal society upon which both Democrats and Republicans largely agree.

Then--to those 77 million Trump voters--Professor Montag attributes a list of sins. It appears that Herr Doktor Montag has never in his entire life met or talked to even one of those voters. Almost all Trump voters will deny being racist. Trump himself denies being a racist, and there is little to suggest that he's wrong. (Trump has never opposed affirmative action; he does not advocate segregation; and unlike BLM, he adamantly defended the right of Black people to use the 911 emergency system.) Professor Montag claims to know what's in the heart of the average Trump voter better than they know themselves--despite never having ever talked to one. I can't take Professor Montag's opinion on this seriously.

Trump voters are no more misogynist than they are racist.

"Christian nationalism" is a pejorative term invented by non-Christians to justify their irrational bias against Christians. Christianity is a lifestyle choice that imposes no cost on anybody who is not a Christian. There is no reason to denigrate it.

"Imperialism" is a completely meaningless term anyway, but how an individual person can commit the sin of "imperialism" is beyond me.

Does Professor Montag really believe that personal responsibility is irrelevant? Surely it is up to the individual to take care of one's health, to tend to one's children, and to maximize one's income as much as possible. Conversely, nobody--certainly not Trump supporters--believes that everything results from individual effort.

Professor Montag paints with a very broad brush. According to Vox, 63% of the white working class (defined as non-college educated whites) voted for Trump. As did 37% of Latino voters and 10% of Black voters. Does our Herr Doktor Professor friend really think all these people are racist, misogynist scoundrels? If so, how does he ever expect there to be a working-class led revolution?

In reality, it's Professor Montag who is ripping off 19 year-olds for the purpose of feeding his Althusser ego-trip. The student loan crisis is at least partly his fault. I hope he'll be contributing his share toward paying off those debts.

Further Reading:

• Jeff Mackler Channels Michael Roberts
• It's Not Just About Abortion
• Good Trump, Bad Trump

A Tale of Two Conferences

The first was A Conference to Support Wealth and Prosperity. The second was A Conference to Support Poverty and Destitution.

Of course I'm being facetious. Those weren't the real names. Journalist Rick Sterling, in an article posted at Socialist Action, tells the truth in his lede paragraph,

Last week (June 8-10) there were two summits in Los Angeles, California:  the Summit of the Americas hosted by the US State Department and the Peoples Summit hosted by US and international activist organizations. The two summits were held in the same city at the same time but could not be otherwise more different.

The Summit of the Americas is the one I'd like to call A Conference to Support Wealth and Prosperity. Unfortunately the name doesn't really fit. Mr. Sterling describes it this way.

Begun in 1994, in the heyday of US international dominance, the Summit of the Americas is officially a function of the Organization of American States. It is meant to coordinate and consolidate US economic, political and cultural interests.

Of course there is nothing wrong with this. "US international dominance" is a given, what with the USA having a bigger population than any other country in the hemisphere, with by far the biggest military in the world, along with a GDP that that is 4x bigger than all Latin American & Caribbean countries combined.  Countries that can trade with the United States will definitely be richer than countries that can't. 

Compare, e.g., the Dominican Republic and Bolivia. Bolivian per capita GDP is $7,900, while Dominican per capita GDP is $17,000. The difference is that the DR has extensive trade with the US, while only 6% of Bolivian exports go to the US. The US is a huge market in which to sell, and a similarly huge agricultural and industrial powerhouse from which to buy. Countries that can trade with the USA have more money, and more products to buy with that money.

Nevertheless, two possible issues rendered the conference a failure. Mr. Sterling reports on one of them.

Despite threats to boycott the gathering by many Latin American and Caribbean presidents, the US chose to exclude Cuban, Nicaragua and Venezuela. This resulted in seven country presidents choosing not to attend: Mexico, Bolivia, Honduras, St Vincent, Antigua, Guatemala, El Salvador.  Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) said simply, “There cannot be a summit of the Americas if all the countries of the American continent do not participate. Or there can be, but …. it is just a continuation of the old policy of interventionism or disrespect of nations and their peoples.”

Of these, Antigua and St. Vincent are too small to matter, and, as mentioned, Bolivia has no trade with the US anyway. Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador are "shit-hole" countries--to use Mr. Trump's impolitic but apt phrase--whose citizens are risking life and limb for the chance of a better life in the USA. For that matter, Mr. Trump's moniker applies equally well to Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela, from all of which large numbers of people are fleeing across the Rio Grande. Collectively, these new immigrants are the "Future Republicans of America." They know what it's like to live in a "shit-hole" country, and they don't want their newfound home to turn into one.

So only Mexico's absence is worthy of note. Mexico is our second largest trading partner, trailing only Canada. Perhaps AMLO is sincere in his demand that all countries participate--including even Antigua and St. Vincent! On the other hand, perhaps he realized the whole affair was a gigantic waste of time and not worth his attention. Besides which he doesn't have much respect for Mr. Biden.

Mr. Sterling links to two articles that make this case. (In this he distinguishes himself from Socialist Action's editor, Jeff Mackler, who rarely cites external references and usually just makes stuff up.) One of them, in The Atlantic by William Neumann, states what I think is the true reason for AMLO's absence.

None of that [preparation--ed] seemed to occur with this year’s meeting, which close observers said was marked by poor planning and a lack of preparation. Despite daunting challenges, such as countering the growing influence of China and Russia and addressing deep poverty that has been exacerbated by the pandemic, the proposals that would normally have been hashed out in detail months ahead of time were, in many cases, slapped together late in the process and not shared in advance with other nations. The whole enterprise evoked the image of a privileged but lazy student who figures he can get an A on the test even if he doesn’t study or do his homework. On the final day, a South American diplomat summed up the meeting in a word: “improvised.”

In other words, Mr. Biden's characteristic incompetence was on full display. On top of which Kamala Harris gave a speech. No wonder Mr. Lopez Obrador didn't bother showing up.

By contrast, the second conference, the Peoples (sic) Summit, fits my description to a tee. It really was A Conference to Support Poverty and Destitution.

Mr. Sterling describes the proceedings this way.

A wide array of domestic and international issues were addressed at the Peoples Summit.  They included Health as a Human Right, Gender Violence, Food Sovereignty and Climate Justice, Cultural Resistance, Youth Organizing Strategies, Justice for TPS and Undocumented Community, Lessons from Below and Organizing Unhoused Communities.  Plus many more.

What's notable is the complete absence of any discussion about how to earn a living! They're all ways in which the money is supposed to get spent. Even assuming all the items on Mr. Sterling's list were beneficial, they all require money to become reality.

Take Honduras as an example. In 2019 the country had exports totaling $7.16 billion, and imports totaling $11.5 billion. This is augmented by remittances representing about a fifth of GDP, or approximately $10 billion. What's amazing is how tiny these numbers are! By comparison, Walmart's revenue in 2019 was $514 billion--or roughly 30x Honduras' foreign exchange earnings.

Obviously, on such a minuscule budget none of the items on Mr. Sterling's wishlist can come to fruition. "Health as a Human Right" is obviously impossible without the cash to pay for it. "Organizing Unhoused Communities" makes no sense with no money. Etc.

Even in an American context Mr. Sterling's remarks make no sense. Walmart generally fixes its operating margin at 3%, which means that 97% of total revenue is used to pay expenses. The biggest expense is cost of sales (mostly paid to product suppliers), which is roughly 75% of revenue. Most of the remainder is paid out as wages to employees--let's estimate the wage bill at about $80 billion spread amongst 2.3 million employees.

The average wage is thus about $35,000 per annum. That has to include benefits. Any additional amount that Walmart pays in taxes will reduce the amount that Walmart can pay in wages. Mr. Sterling wants to tax Walmart--i.e., Walmart employees--so that the "unhoused" (who contribute nothing to the economy) can get "free" housing. This is deeply unfair and makes people poorer.

A Honduran working at Walmart sends money home to support her family--that's a remittance. Mr. Sterling proposes to take away her money and give it to the "unhoused."

"Food Sovereignty and Climate Justice" is just a plea for more subsistence farming. After all, only a peasant on two acres of land is "sovereign," and "climate justice" demands that he work without fertilizers, seeds, and mechanization. I don't think too many peasants will sign up for that lifestyle--and it's a little rich coming from an American journalist who gets all the food he wants from the local grocery store.

I don't doubt Mr. Sterling's intentions--of course he wants a better world. But he has no clue how to get there.

Further Reading:

• Jeff Mackler Channels Michael Roberts
• Socialist Action Believes American Children Should Freeze to Death
• Book Review: Walmart