IPS provides an English translation of Márquez's article: "Black Contribution to Local Culture Has Been Largely Ignored" (August 26, 2004).
The exhibition was brought to my attention by an email newsletter of TransAfrica Forum, an important network of Black intellectuals on the broadly left side of the political spectrum. It is doubtful, however, that Venezuela (or Haiti, Nigeria, Sudan, international debt, and other issues discussed in the same TransAfrica newsletter) is on the radar of politically conscious segments of the Black working class in the United States in the same way as South Africa during the anti-Apartheid struggle, national liberation movements in the rest of Africa, and the Cuban Revolution once were. At least not yet. How do we expand international solidarity beyond links to intellectuals?
Carl Mayer, who served on the Township Committee of Princeton, New Jersey and ran on the Green Party ticket for Congress, wrote an acerbic commentary on the Cobb/LaMarche candidacy in Dissident Voice: "Cobb's Cool-Aid: Why the Green Party Will Implode if the Green Party Doesn't Dump Cobb Now" (August 24, 2004). Mayer lists a host of problems:
Cobb "has no paid staff and only a handful of people working on his non-effort, which he runs out of his house, using a P.O. Box, part-time."
"The Cobb for President Meet-Ups attract all of 167 people, WORLDWIDE: up from 57 people WORLDWIDE before the convention."
"Cobb is missing the deadline to get on the ballot in state after state, assuring that he will be on the ballot in many fewer states than the 43 that Nader was on last time."
Cobb's ally Medea Benjamin "has written that Cobb should not campaign in 23 battleground states. Assuming Cobb gets on the ballot in 33 states -- a reasonable assumption -- this mean Cobb will be running a 10 state or less non-campaign."
"Cobb's VP candidate, Pat LaMarche, when campaigning in her home state of Maine, announced at a press conference that she was NOT committed to voting for her running mate, David Cobb, and would vote for Kerry unless Kerry was 70 points ahead in Maine, in which case she could safely vote for Cobb. Well, since Kerry is not going to win any state by 70 points, that means LaMarche will not be voting for the top of her own ticket."
Cobb "will get, at most, 250,000 votes nationwide. This means Cobb will have shrunk the Green Party to 1/10 of its size in terms of votes (Nader received 2.7 million in 2000) and to less than 1/20 of its size in terms of money raised."
On the other hand, the Green Party is running the total of 405 candidates in 2004, of whom slightly less than a quarter may be expected to be elected, based on the average of "victory rates" (victories/candidates) of Green candidates 1985-2003 -- thus continuing the party's steady progress in increasing its number of local officeholders despite the certainty that Cobb/LaMarche 2004 will receive fewer votes than Nader/LaDuke 2000 did. That is not an unreasonable hypothesis, as many of the Green candidates are running for nonpartisan local offices and are likely to win or lose mainly on the strengths and weaknesses of their own campaigns, regardless of the fortune of the party's presidential ticket.
The question is whether the Green Party's local progress and national retreat is a one-time event, a temporary concession to the Democratic Party's aggressive Anybody But Nader campaign against a prominent left-wing alternative to John Kerry, or it becomes a precedent which will define the Green Party's future, effectively making it irrelevant in national politics. If the former, leftists who want a party of the working class and our allies can make the Green Party our home, working within it to make it a viable challenger to the Democratic and Republican Parties in national politics in 2008, recruiting activists and organizers for it out of such social movements as movements against the occupations of Iraq and Palestine. If the latter, however, we may have to conclude that the Green Party is going the way of other recent attempts at third-party building like the Labor Party and create a new political party willing to fight for the allegiance of working-class voters in not just one-party states but also battleground states, expanding the scope of working-class political participation and challenging rank-and-file Democrats at odds with the Democratic Party elite to join us.
After the November election, leftists inside and outside the Green Party who are discontent with the Green Party's AWOL from national politics in 2004 should get together and discuss what is to be done.
Roberta Smith's review "Caution: Angry Artists at Work" surveys myriad works of activist art created in outraged reaction to the George W. Bush administration, displayed all over New York City, scheduled to coincide with the Republican National Convention: "At the moment, President Bush and the G.O.P. are the chief art-world targets: no one seems to have a critical word to say about the failings of the Democrats" (New York Times, August 27, 2004). Even among the works reviewed by Smith, however, there are exceptions. For instance, Paul Chan's film Baghdad in No Particular Order (2003), "an impressionistic meditation on prewar Iraq that from the present perspective amounts to an unusually strong antiwar statement" (Smith, August 27, 2004).
Chan created a companion website of the same title, which, as well as the film itself, presents a montage of "[n]otes, gifts, promises, paintings, trash, and other ephemera from the city which is now hardly a city." The montage tells us: "This Is the Baghdad You Destroyed." Chan's work reminds us that the destruction had already begun long before Bush took the White House: "Baghdad reminds me of Paris and Detroit. The Tigris cuts the city like the Seine. And because the city has not been able to rebuild after the first gulf war, buildings and streets display signs of past carnage. Magnificent and ruinous cityscapes. Like Detroit" (Chan, "Map," Baghdad in No Particular Order).
President Bush has moved past Sen. John F. Kerry in three of the most hotly contested Midwestern battleground states despite continued doubts about the country's direction and the president's policies, new Los Angeles Times polls have found. . . .
In Missouri, Bush leads among registered voters 46% to 44%; in Wisconsin, he leads 48% to 44%; and in Ohio, the president holds a 49% to 44% advantage, the surveys found.
Like a national Times poll released Wednesday, the surveys underscore the difficulty Kerry has had converting a general desire for change into support for his candidacy. The Massachusetts senator trails Bush even though a majority of voters in all three states said the country is not better off because of Bush's policies and "needs to move in a new direction."
But while Bush is drawing support from virtually all the voters who back his policy direction, Kerry is attracting only about four-fifths or fewer of the voters in the three states who said they want a new course. . . .
Times polls in June showed Kerry and Bush tied in Wisconsin, Kerry holding a statistically insignificant one-point advantage in Ohio, and the president leading 48% to 42% in Missouri. Compared to those numbers, the race has tightened somewhat in Missouri and edged slightly toward Bush in Wisconsin and Ohio. . . .
In Ohio, Bush's overall approval rating remained mired at 47%, unchanged from June, with 50% disapproving. And in Missouri and Wisconsin, slightly more voters disapproved than approved of his handling of the economy; the dissatisfaction peaked in Ohio, which has lost 230,000 jobs since Bush took office, with 52% disapproving. (emphasis added, Ronald Brownstein and Kathleen Hennessey, "Bush Leads Kerry in 3 Key States," August 26, 2004)
There is a chance that the Nader/Camejo campaign will attract more than one fifth of the voters who "want a new course" and yet cannot believe that Kerry would provide it.
Hence the Democratic Party's battle to exclude Nader/Camejo from the ballots -- even in Ohio, where "Ralph Nader's Ohio supporters on Wednesday turned in petitions with 14,473 signatures to Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, nearly three times the 5,000 signatures needed to get Nader on the state's Nov. 2 presidential ballot as an independent" (emphasis added, "Signatures Exceed Count Needed for Ohio Ballot," Indianapolis Star, August 19, 2004).
The Butler County Board of Elections ruled that only 24 of Nader's 633 petition signatures -- less than 4 percent -- were valid in the county.
Butler was the first major Ohio county to verify its share of petitions carrying a total 14,473 signatures submitted by Nader backers to Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell Aug. 18, said Dan Trevas of the Ohio Democratic Party [dan@ohiodems.org/614-221-6563 x129], which has asked election boards to scrutinize Nader petitions. . . .
"Boy, they sure don't want anyone to have a choice, do they?" Kevin Zeese, national spokesman for the Nader campaign, said Wednesday. He called the Butler County ruling "disgusting."
Carlo LoParo, spokesman for Blackwell, said that "a 95 percent error rate is extremely high, and perhaps unprecedented." (emphasis added, John Kiesewetter, "Nader Campaign Set Back: Butler Co. Accepts Only 4% of Ballot Petition Signatures," Cincinnati Enquirer, August 26, 2004)
See, also, Mary Lolli, "County Rejects Most Nader Petitions" (Journal News, August 27, 2004). And who says the Republicans support the Nader/Camejo campaign? In Butler, Board of Elections Deputy Director Betty McGary, a Democrat, and Board of Elections Director Robert Mosketti, a Republican, collaborated with each other to disqualify the signatures.
The Democrats' "Anybody But Nader" campaign is nationwide, as documented, for instance, by Patrick Martin in "Democrats’ Drive to Keep Nader off Ballot: a Reactionary Attack on Democratic Rights" (WSWS.org, August 26, 2004), encompassing not just battleground states like Michigan but also such one-party states as Illinois. Intellectuals such as Medea Benjamin and Ted Glick have argued that the Green Party should adopt a "safe state" strategy. However, a "safe state" strategy is not even feasible, much less strategic, since the Democratic Party is bent on kicking Any Prominent Leftist off the ballot everywhere, as it always has and will be.
Pop culture often becomes a medium through which the politically repressed returns. The Manchurian Candidate -- in which "[t]he chief danger to the republic . . . emanates not from the extremes -- a fanatical foreign enemy combined with a zealous administration -- but from the center, from the moderate wing of the opposition party and its corporate sponsors" (A. O. Scott, "Remembrance of Things Planted Deep in the Mind," New York Times, July 30, 2004) -- is one example. Alien vs. Predator is another. Its tagline, "Whoever Wins . . . We Lose," succinctly sums up the 2004 presidential election. Not surprisingly, it has already inspired a number of visual parodies.
One of the best kept secrets of this presidential election year is that Ralph Nader has been polling better in 2004 than 2000, despite the relentless barrage of attacks by Anybody But Nader intellectuals: "Nader 2004 > Nader 2000" (August 07, 2004); and "One Vote, One Party, NO Choice" (August 13, 2004). Another is higher levels of Black and Latino support for Nader/Camejo in 2004 than 2000:
With Nader thrown in, Kerry's percentage among black voters declined from 81 percent to 73 percent. Nader drew 10 percent of black voters, dropping Bush to only 9 percent.
Among Latino voters in a three-way race, Kerry's support fell from 57 percent to 52 percent, while Bush's fell from 38 percent to 35 percent. Nader was the choice of 8 percent of Latino voters. (emphasis added, CNN, "Poll: Kerry Leads among Minority Voters," July 6, 2004)
As liberal intellectuals have moved to the right, working-class voters, especially working-class voters of color, have moved to the left.
MoveOn, a Democratic Party front group, is said to have 2.5 million "members" (Don Hazen, "Taking It to the Streets," AlterNet, August 25, 2004). Supporters of the Democratic Party are duly impressed, but should we, leftists who seek to create a political party of the working class and our allies?
According to the latest Gallup survey of voters in Ohio, among the registered voters, Ralph Nader gets 5%, and among the likely voters, he gets 4% (David W. Moore, "Close Presidential Race in Ohio: Kerry 48%, Bush 46% among Likely Voters," Gallup.com, August 19, 2004). Nationwide, 3% of likely voters and 5% of registered voters say they support Nader/Camejo 2004 ("USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll Results," USA Today, August 23, 2004). It is safe to say that Nader/Camejo supporters in the USA, not counting non-citizens, number six millions or more this year (calculated conservatively based on the 2000 data of registered voters: "Registered Voter Turnout Improved in 2000 Presidential Election, Census Bureau Reports," February 27, 2004). That is a group larger than and to the left of the subscribers to MoveOn mailing lists.
Leftists ought to take interest in organizing six-million-strong Nader/Camejo supporters. Don't leave the task of organizing to the Nader/Camejo campaign.
After the 2000 election, some -- Greens and non-Greens -- grumbled that "Nader didn't organize the Nader voters." Nonsense. Nader's job is to serve as a figurehead, lending us his hard-earned national name recognition -- no more and no less. It is our job, i.e. the job of rank-and-file organizers, to make use of Nader's name to find and organize Nader supporters. For leftists, an electoral campaign like Nader/Camejo 2004 is a means, not an end in itself. Use the campaign as an occasion that allows us to go out and discover our allies who have not met us -- and one another -- yet. We should be building our own network -- a collection of lists of names and contact information -- of citizens and residents of the United States who are opposed to the rule of capitalist empire as a matter of principle, and there is no better way of doing so than asking people whether they support Nader/Camejo this year. And that's the network that we can use after November 2, 2004. To rebuild the movement against the occupations of Iraq and Palestine, and to organize core supporters of independent political action, i.e. political action by and for the working class and our allies, unbounded by the limits of acceptable speech and behavior dictated by the Democratic Party elite.
The Democrats claim that they are campaigning for "Anybody But Bush." That is either a lie or a bad faith. Their creed is, in truth, Anybody But Nader.
I hate George W. Bush more than Democrats do. I've certainly organized and participated in more anti-Bush protests than them. In fact, my fellow left-wing activists and I were already doing all we could to build up opposition to the war on Afghanistan for which all Democratic politicians except for The Honorable Barbara Lee voted.
The Anybody But Nader gang do prefer John Kerry to Bush, but they are NOT opposed to Bush being on the ballots, and they would live with Bush should Kerry manage to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. What they ARE opposed to is Nader getting on the ballots, for they can't tolerate the fact that anyone as well known as Nader is running without ruling-class permission, challenging the elite consensus for plutocracy and imperialism. Hence their crusade against the most basic of democratic rights -- the right to participate in politics: e.g.,
Ralph Nader's efforts to get his name on presidential ballots in important swing states are becoming mired in legal challenges and charges of fraud by Democrats who have mounted an extensive campaign to keep him from becoming a factor in this year's election.
. . . [L]ocal Democratic parties across the country, aided by a group of lawyers calling themselves the Ballot Project Inc., have initiated mini-campaigns to stop him, state by state.
"The Democrats are making this as difficult and as debilitating for him as possible, making him expend blood, sweat and tears for every inch," said Charles E. Cook Jr., a nonpartisan analyst who tracks races in every state. "He has only so many hours in the day and so many resources. And to the extent that he's tied up trying to get on the ballots, he's not getting any kind of message across."
So far, only three states have closed the door on Mr. Nader: Georgia, Oklahoma and Indiana. He seems close to getting on the ballot in 11 states, either on the Reform Party line or as an independent, though he could still face challenges in some. He has filed petitions in about 20 others and is awaiting rulings on their validity. He has yet to file in 18 states.
Most of Mr. Nader's deadlines come this month: the due dates for 23 states fall from Aug. 2 to Aug. 24, meaning he has had to meet almost daily deadlines across the country while fending off lawsuits.
He is entangled in an assortment of suits, many in states that may be the most contested in November. He is in court in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona and West Virginia, and faces potential suits or administrative challenges in Oregon, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and Maine. He is also in court in Texas and Illinois, which are not swing states but where his challenge to state ballot requirement is diverting his time and resources.
The legal strategies in most states are being developed by local Democrats, but the Ballot Project is helping them to find lawyers to work pro bono and share information. "We're doing everything we can to facilitate lawyers in over 20 states," said Toby Moffett, a Washington lobbyist and former Connecticut congressman, who, with Elizabeth Holtzman, a former congresswoman from New York, is overseeing the Ballot Project.
Because of federal campaign finance laws, the project cannot coordinate its activities with either the Kerry campaign or the national Democratic Party, but the party approves of the legal challenges, said Jano Cabrera, a spokesman, and is closely monitoring Mr. Nader's progress.
. . . The requirements vary from the minimal in Louisiana and Colorado, which require only that a candidate pay $500, to the more onerous, like Texas, which required 64,000 signatures as early as May 10.
"There is no other country in the world that has free elections that forces a candidate for chief executive to have to wrestle with 51 separate sets of laws," said Richard Winger, an expert on ballot access laws. . . .
"Where are the battles?" asked Kevin Zeese, Mr. Nader's spokesman. "Everywhere. It doesn't matter if it's a swing state or a safe state. The Democrats are doing their best to harass us everywhere. Their goal is to divert our resources and bleed our campaign."
At the same time, challenging the Nader petitions is "extremely difficult," said Dan Booker, a partner at Reed Smith, a Pittsburgh law firm that helped build the case against Mr. Nader in Pennsylvania.
The drive by Pennsylvania Democrats is one of the most extensive and offers a glimpse into what it takes to mount such a challenge.
Mr. Booker said that 8 to 10 lawyers in his firm were working pro bono on the case, 80 hours each a week for two weeks, and could end up working six more weeks. The firm also took on more than 100 volunteers.
Working with Reed Smith was a Philadelphia lawyer, Gregory M. Harvey, an elections specialist who has been detached from his firm while he organized 70 volunteers at his end of the state. . . .
On Aug. 2, the Nader campaign filed about 47,000 signatures in Harrisburg. The Democrats responded with the equivalent of a statewide bucket brigade: Officials in Harrisburg, under the auspices of H. William DeWeese, the House minority leader, photocopied the 47,000 signatures and trucked them to Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, where volunteers began examining them line by line. They had one week in which to file their challenge.
In Pittsburgh, software programmers and data-entry volunteers occupied three conference rooms at Reed Smith, where they created a database of the 47,000 names that were checked against the state's list of registered voters.
In Philadelphia, Mr. Harvey sent volunteers to the city board of elections, where they compared the signatures from the petitions with those on voter registration lists.
. . . On Aug. 11, James Gardner Colins, president judge of the Commonwealth Court, ordered all parties to meet Thursday to set a date for hearing the evidence. He took the highly unusual step of ordering at least five judges in courtrooms throughout the state to hear the individual signature challenges simultaneously. That means at least five cadres of lawyers for the challengers and for Mr. Nader and probably handwriting experts for each side in each courtroom. . . .
Mr. Zeese said it was "crazy" to have to appear in five courtrooms at once. "This is a perfect game plan for how to destroy independent politics in this country," he said, accusing Democrats of "antidemocratic activities." (Katharine Q. Seelye, "Democrats' Legal Challenges Impede Nader," August 19, 2004)
Democrats will soon air TV ads in Wisconsin and New Mexico trying to link Republican groups to independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader.
The Nader Factor -- led by former campaign workers for presidential hopefuls Wesley Clark, John Edwards, Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt -- expects to spend up to $50,000 on the ads.
The spots are set to launch Tuesday in Madison and Albuquerque, N.M., and run through Sunday. (Juliet Williams/The Associated Press, "Anti-Nader Coalition to Air Ads in Wisconsin," The Post-Crescent, August 21, 2004)
Ohio, too, may become a ballot access battleground. Even though Ohio petitioners for Nader/Camejo submitted 14,473 signatures -- nearly three times the required 5,000 in Ohio -- "Don McTigue, a Columbus lawyer who specializes in election law, was hired by the Ohio Democratic Party to scrutinize" them; and Ohio Democratic Party spokesman Dan Trevas (dan@ohiodems.org/614-221-6563 x129) "said party officials will decide, in consultation with McTigue, whether they want to file legal challenges to Nader's petition" (Alan Johnson and Jonathan Riskind, "Nader Petitions Questioned: Ohio Democrats Might Fight Independent's Bid to Get on Ballot," Columbus Dispatch, August 21, 2004, p. B1).
If the Ohio Democrats do file legal challenges, all who defend voting rights, not just Nader/Camjo supporters, should hold a protest or a sit-in or street theater at the Ohio Democratic Party headquarters (271 E. State St. Columbus, Ohio 43215)!!! And so should all who live in the states where the Democrats have already trampled, or are trampling, on the civil rights of Nader/Camejo voters. The Nader/Camjo campaign now needs to become more than a good fight on the electoral front. It's time to take action in the streets.
Walt Contreras Sheasby, an outstanding Red/Green activist and theorist, died. His life was tragically cut short by the West Nile virus, the spread of which has been associated with climate change exacerbated by capitalism.
Here is a bibliography of recent works (both theoretical inquiries and occasional polemics) by Walt. My fellow activists -- read them and learn from him, so we can carry on the unfinished work of bringing about a new world free from brutal exploitation, dehumanizing oppression, and uncontrollable destruction of nature:
"Ralph Nader and the Legacy of Revolt" (Against the Current 15.4 [88], September/October 2000; 15.5 [89], November/December 2000; 15.6 [90], January/February 2001)
George W. Bush has been exploiting Iraqi athletes for his "re-election" campaign ads: "In those spots, the flags of Iraq and Afghanistan appear as a narrator says, 'At this Olympics there will be two more free nations -- and two fewer terrorist regimes'" (Grant Wahl, "Iraqi Soccer players Angered by Bush Campaign Ads," Sports Illustrated, August 19, 2004). Sports Illustrated reports that Iraqi footballers are outraged:
"Iraq as a team does not want Mr. Bush to use us for the presidential campaign," [Iraqi midfielder Salih] Sadir told SI.com through a translator, speaking calmly and directly. "He can find another way to advertise himself."
Salih Sadir, left, has celebrated two goals for the surprising Iraqis in Greece, but will find his return home quite sobering. (Nick Laham/Getty Images)
Ahmed Manajid, who played as a midfielder on Wednesday, had an even stronger response when asked about Bush's TV advertisement. "How will he meet his god having slaughtered so many men and women?" Manajid told me. "He has committed so many crimes." . . .
But they also find it offensive that Bush is using Iraq for his own gain when they do not support his administration's actions. "My problems are not with the American people," says Iraqi soccer coach Adnan Hamad. "They are with what America has done in Iraq: destroy everything. The American army has killed so many people in Iraq. What is freedom when I go to the [national] stadium and there are shootings on the road?" . . .
Sadir, Wednesday's goal-scorer, used to be the star player for the professional soccer team in Najaf. In the city in which 20,000 fans used to fill the stadium and chant Sadir's name, U.S. and Iraqi forces have battled loyalists to rebel cleric Moktada al-Sadr for the past two weeks. Najaf lies in ruins.
When the Games are over, though, Coach Hamad says, they will have to return home to a place where they fear walking the streets. "The war is not secure," says Hamad, 43. "Many people hate America now. The Americans have lost many people around the world -- and that is what is happening in America also." (Wahl, August 19, 2004)
"Ralph Nader's Ohio supporters on Wednesday turned in petitions with 14,473 signatures to Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, nearly three times the 5,000 signatures needed to get Nader on the state's Nov. 2 presidential ballot as an independent" (emphasis added, "Signatures Exceed Count Needed for Ohio Ballot," Indianapolis Star, August 19, 2004).
According to the latest Gallup survey of voters in Ohio, among the registered voters, Nader gets 5%, and among the likely voters, he gets 4% (David W. Moore, "Close Presidential Race in Ohio: Kerry 48%, Bush 46% among Likely Voters," Gallup.com, August 19, 2004).
Is there a line of attack that can potentially unite leftists interested in a campaign to divest from the Israeli occupation, a rank-and-file campaign to promote union democracy, and a campaign to create a political party of the working class and our allies? Here’s a hint:
There are approximately 9,500 pension funds, 3,500 banks, 1,500 labor unions, and 500 insurance companies in the United States that invest in Israel Bonds. School districts, municipalities, and other large institutions also purchase them. One of the largest sources of institutional investment capital in Israel is from U.S. pension funds through the purchase of Israeli government bonds. (Global Exchange, "Israel Bonds: A Bad Investment," 2003)
First of all, from a purely financial point of view, Israeli bonds are poor investments. "[B]ased on the findings of a visit by the IMF to Israel in December 2003. . . , [t]he IMF estimates the accumulated GDP loss from the security situation at 6-8% of GDP" (emphasis added, "IMF Sees 2.5% Growth for Israel in 2004; The International Monetary Fund Estimates the Accumulated Loss from the Security Situation at 6-8% of GDP," Globes [online] - Israel's Business Arena, June 06, 2004) -- a self-inflicted pain caused by the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and Palestinian resistance to it. It is no wonder, then, that “[t]he major credit rating services give Israel Bonds the sixth rating, classifying them as only an ‘upper medium investment’” ("Israel Bonds: A Bad Investment," 2003). In addition, “[u]nlike most securities, Israel Bonds cannot be traded on the open market or easily converted into cash” ("Israel Bonds: A Bad Investment," 2003).
What if activists for Palestinian solidarity, union democracy, the Green Party, and so forth joined hands, exposing financially unwise decisions undemocratically made by leaders of political parties and trade unions who claim to advocate but act against the interests of the working class? Misuse of pension funds to financially support the Israeli government is an issue that can bring a seemingly remote question of the Israeli occupation home to many American workers. At the same time, the way that such investment decisions are made, without active consent of workers, highlights lack of democratic control over both trade unions and governments. Moreover, like James E. McGreevey who invested New Jersey Public Employees Pension Funds in Israeli bonds while advocating for privatization of their management, leaders who misuse pension funds for an immoral political purpose are, more often than not, engaged in simultaneous attacks on workers on other fronts. Most importantly, the problem is one that the Democratic Party, a close ally of Zionists -- especially those in the Labor Party of Israel -- cannot address, much less solve, without ceasing to be what it is. There is no other issue -- aside from the US occupation of Iraq -- that is a better argument for the urgent need for a political party of the working class and our allies, a party that is not controlled by the US power elite, the majority of whom have seen in Israel a useful instrument to prevent or destroy the rise of Arab masses for democracy in their own countries.
Ever wonder why labor unions in the United States are so weak? One of many reasons is that union officials are too busy electing their class enemy and excluding their petit-bourgeois ally from ballots to focus on putting movement back into the "labor movement."
"A union backing Sen. John Kerry for president charged the Ralph Nader petition campaign with fraud and forgery Monday in its effort to place Nader on the presidential ballot in Oregon. Leaders of the Service Employees International Union, Local 49, said they analyzed some Nader petitions and found that two-thirds of the names might be fraudulent" (Don Hamilton, "Union Blasts Nader Petitions," Portland Tribune, August 17, 2004).
"The service employees union . . . said it has spent as much as $25,000 to investigate Nader's petition drive" (emphasis added, Jeff Mapes, "Service Union Contends Signatures for Nader Petition Faulty," The Oregonian, August 17, 2004).
[Greg] Kafoury [a Portland attorney who is Nader's top campaign aide in Oregon] said he was incensed that union investigators had visited many canvassers to deliver a letter warning that falsifying petitions is a felony. He said the letter was worded to scare petitioners into thinking they could be held liable for an invalid signature, even if they believed the signer was a properly registered voter.
"The obvious goal is to intimidate people so they stop gathering signatures because they know we are close," Kafoury said. "Visiting people at their homes at night to threaten them with prison is gangster tactics. Nothing like this has ever been seen in Oregon before."
The letter tells petitioners that "your signature certifies that you personally witnessed each signature collected on the petition and that you obtained the signatures from qualified voters. Falsely signing the petition may result in conviction of a felony with a fine of up to $100,000 or prison for up to five years." (emphasis added, Mapes, August 17, 2004)
It's ironic that one of the few things that union officials expect the Democratic Party to do is to allow card check. What if bosses are to show the same zeal shown by SEIU Local 49 above in beating back card check drives, spending big bucks to "investigate" the validity of signatures on union authorization forms, to propagandize that they are fraudulent, to deliver threatening letters to volunteer organizers at night, and even to recruit a few workers to become turncoats who claim that they did not actually sign the authorization forms? That will reduce the utility of card check to virtually nothing.
Union officials would certainly protest if the same tactics used by SEIU Local 49 against the Nader/Camejo campaign were used against their own organizing campaigns. They would rightly call it undemocratic.
However, something more than a simple inability to remove the beam from their own eye may lurk in the conduct of SEIU Local 49 officials. Commonly, unions negotiate with employers for "neutrality agreements" (i.e., the employers' promise not to conduct an anti-union campaign) in card check drives. Such neutrality agreements do not come without a cost to workers. For example,
The UAW International has entered into an agreement with a fast-growing auto parts maker, Metaldyne, to remain neutral in union organizing drives. So far, so good. And in at least two of Metaldyne’s plants already represented by the UAW, the union has negotiated a wage of $16.21 an hour. That’s higher than many auto parts workers, though not in the top range. So far, pretty good again.
But in both these cases, $16.21 represents a wage cut. In one of the plants, a New Castle, Indiana machining facility, production workers have been making close to $26 an hour.
Those 1,200 New Castle workers are still employees, for now, of DaimlerChrysler. But after September 14, when the current UAW-DCX contract expires -- and along with it a ban on plant sales -- the factory will be sold to Metaldyne, which already owns 40% as of early this year.
Metaldyne has about 5-6,000 hourly workers in 26 small plants in the U.S., mostly in the Midwest. They are represented by the UAW, the Steelworkers (who were given a neutrality agreement in exchange for an investment in Metaldyne from the union’s pension fund), the United Electrical Workers, and an independent union, with ten plants still non-union. . . .
In the recent past, in 1999 and 2000, when GM and Ford sold off their parts divisions, the UAW negotiated for the affected workers to continue to receive Big Three-level wages and benefits from their new companies, Delphi and Visteon. Many had over 20 years’ seniority and had expected to retire with a Big Three pension. The Metaldyne sale indicates a change of policy -- apparently in exchange for the organizing neutrality agreement. (by Jane Slaughter, "UAW Trades Pay Cut for Neutrality," Labor Notes, July 2003)
Union officials used to the idea of making concessions to employers in exchange for neutrality agreements may be thinking in the same way about elections: neutrality is not a right but a privilege you pay for. Therefore, looking at the Nader/Camejo campaign, they think, "The chutzpah of running an electoral campaign without making concessions to the Democratic Party bosses first!"
The number one reason why most Americans avoid political organizing is probably lack of free time. Can they take a page from the latest slacker manifesto from France?
Bonjour paresse (Hello Laziness), a call to middle managers of the world to rise up and throw out their laptops, organigrams and mission statements, is the unexpected publishing sensation of the summer in France. Subtitled "The Art and the Importance of Doing the Least Possible in the Workplace", the 113-page "ephlet" (part-essay, part-pamphlet) is to France's managerial class -- the cadres -- what the Communist Manifesto once was to the lumpen proletariat.
Bonjour paresse is a slacker's bible, a manual for those who devote their professional lives to the sole pursuit of idleness. There have been many works in praise of idleness over the decades, but with the French work ethic weakened by the introduction of the 35- hour work week, the siren's appeal has never been stronger. . . .
Over lunch at the Cafe Bonaparte off the Boulevard Saint Germain, the 40-year-old mother of two says it is time for wage slaves to hit back. "Businesses don't wish you well and don't respect the values they champion. This book will help you take advantage of your company, rather than the other way around. It will explain why it's in your interest to work as little as possible and how to screw the system from within without anyone noticing."
Many already are. An IFOP poll cited in the book claims 17 per cent of French managers are already so "actively disengaged" with their work that they are practically committing industrial sabotage.
Even if Bonjour paresse is obviously a tongue-in-cheek send-up of French corporate life, EDF is far from amused and has started disciplinary action. But the book is about so much more than EDF. It is a book of its time and place. France is entering a long- promised Age of Leisure. No other OECD country has witnessed as dramatic a fall in the number of hours worked per inhabitant. In its 2004 employment outlook, the OECD reported that the French worked 24 per cent fewer hours than in 1970, whereas Americans toiled 20 per cent more. France was not alone. Large declines were also seen in Germany and Japan. But the situation in France is extreme.
Two factors explain why. First, the proportion of people of working age in France who manage to find jobs has plunged to 61.9 per cent, compared with over 70 per cent in the UK, the US and Denmark. Second, the introduction of the 35-hour week means French workers put in less time than ever. Maier, who works just two-and-a-half days a week, is hardly unusual. The average French worker clocks only 1,459 hours per year, compared with a mean of 1,762 for the OECD as a whole and almost 2,000 for the Stakhanovites in the Czech Republic. . . .
The disenchantment with corporate life is total. Forget In Praise of Slow, Carl Honore's faddish new treatise on "marrying la dolce vita with the dynamism of the information age" and all the other wimpy pleas for work-life balance. It is hard to see Maier and her electrician buddies rushing into new Spanish "siesta salons" selling 20 minutes of sleep for E4. They'd much rather zonk out on the job for free. There's no "I don't know how she does it" quest for the tempo giusto because the object of work is simply to do as little of it as possible. . . .
Bonjour paresse initially seemed destined to disappear without a trace. Published at the end of April by the little-known Editions Michalon, the book, whose title is a nod to Francoise Sagan's 1954 novel Bonjour tristesse,generated little comment. At the end of July, however, Le Monde, France's leading daily, unexpectedly devoted a front page article to EDF's disciplinary action against the book's author. The newspaper of reference reported that Maier had been summoned to a preliminary hearing on August 17.
Failing to see the funny side, EDF accused Maier of "repeatedly failing to respect her obligations of loyalty towards the company" and of running a "personal campaign, clearly proclaimed in the book, to spread gangrene through the system from within". Citing her habit of reading newspapers in meetings and of leaving one gathering early on May 3, the charge sheet also alleged she had neglected to secure permission to mention on the back cover that she worked for EDF.
Corinne Maier is as bolshy and unrepentant as her book leads you to expect. Her motor-bike helmet by her side and her long brown hair looking like it could use a good brush, she declares she has no intention of attending the disciplinary meeting. "It's the middle of August and I will obviously be on holiday," she says. "I have sent them copies of my train and ferry reservations to prove it."
Born into a family of aluminium siding salesmen, she studied in Paris at Sciences-Po, the French equivalent of the London School of Economics, before taking further degrees in industrial economics and later a doctorate in psychoanalysis. She has found time to write eight books since 2001, including several works on Jacques Lacan, the French psychoanalyst. Three of these come out later this year, two introductory books on Gaullism and Nazi Germany and a more "intello" book on Pasteur.
France's unions have championed her cause. They see EDF as determined to crush all sources of dissent to its transformation from quintessential symbol of the French public service into a regular societe anonyme, a public company that the centre-right government will then be able to privatise. An umbrella body representing the six main unions at EDF has issued a statement defending Maier's freedom of speech, saying she had "not revealed any secrets, jeopardised any business or even mentioned EDF by name once in the book".
"EDF has cited the pettiest offences," says Maier. "The real reason is that they don't like my book." Refusing to comment on "an ongoing disciplinary procedure", EDF is belatedly trying to bury the row its own clumsy response had started. The book, however, is already being reprinted. "My publisher is delighted with EDF's reaction," says Maier. "It is all thanks to them that we have a bestseller. We have had interest from numerous overseas publishers wanting the translation rights."
1. You are a modern day slave. There is no scope for personal fulfilment. You work for your pay-cheque at the end of the month, full stop.
3. What you do is pointless. You can be replaced from one day to the next by any cretin sitting next to you. So work as little as possible and spend time (not too much, if you can help it) cultivating your personal network so that you're untouchable when the next restructuring comes around.
4. You're not judged on merit, but on whether you look and sound the part. Speak lots of leaden jargon: people will suspect you have an inside track
5. Never accept a position of responsibility for any reason. You'll only have to work harder for what amounts to peanuts.
6. Make a beeline for the most useless positions, (research, strategy and business development), where it is impossible to assess your 'contribution to the wealth of the firm'. Avoid 'on the ground' operational roles like the plague.
8. Learn to identify kindred spirits who, like you, believe the system is absurd through discreet signs (quirks in clothing, peculiar jokes, warm smiles).
10. Tell yourself that the absurd ideology underpinning this corporate bullshit cannot last for ever. It will go the same way as the dialectical materialism of the communist system. The problem is knowing when...
Then again, if you don't first build labor unions, political parties, and social movements on the left that militantly fight for the rights to leisure and free speech -- institutions originally created by fighters who, pace Maier, didn't think that "It's pointless to try to change the system. Opposing it simply makes it stronger" -- you can't easily follow in the footsteps of French slackers.
President Bush on Monday announced plans to bring home up to 70,000 troops from Europe and Asia within a decade. . . .
At the Pentagon, defense officials said a "significant portion" of the 60,000 to 70,000 troops and 100,000 family members and civilian personnel in question would come out of Europe, including about 30,000 troops in two heavy divisions in Germany.
They said moves would not begin until at least 2006 after decisions are made on new domestic base closings, and that a brigade of Army Stryker armored vehicles with 5,000 troops would be deployed to Germany as part of the U.S. shift away from ponderous forces toward mobility.
The United States now has about 115,000 troops stationed in Europe and another 97,000 in the Asia-Pacific region. A senior State Department official said troop reductions in Asia would be "not very dramatic" but gave no details. (Adam Entous, "U.S. to Remove Up to 70,000 Troops from Europe, Asia," August 16, 2004)
Advisers to Democratic presidential rival John Kerry warned the plan could make America more vulnerable. . . .
"As we face a global war on terror with al Qaeda active in more than 60 countries, now is not the time to pull back our forces," asserted [Gen. Wesley] Clark, a former supreme commander of all NATO forces in Europe. (Entous, August 16, 2004)
Essentially, Washington has three choices, all of which are unattractive to the power elite: end the US occupation of Iraq, withdraw US troops from Europe and East Asia to deploy them in the Middle East and Central Asia, or resort to conscription. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are ready to evacuate US troops from Iraq yet, unless allied governments contribute more troops, which is unlikely. The Republicans, who lack working-class support to resume the draft, are losing parts of the empire in order to hold onto Iraq. The Democrats, as well as the ruling class, are exasperated by what they think of as the Bush Team 's incompetent imperialism, but they will have no choice but to take a highly unpopular measure of reinstating the draft if they are to continue the occupation of Iraq while maintaining Washington's spheres of influence in Europe and Asia at the same time. That will prove, in the end, an even more destructive and self-destructive course of action than the Bush administration's.
Now that the votes are counted, it is clear that Hugo Chávez Frias won a landslide victory in the August 15 referendum in Venezuela:
With 94 percent of the votes counted, Chavez had 58 percent of the vote and the opposition 42 percent, according to Francisco Carrasquero, president of the National Elections Council. . . .
Carrasquero said 4,991,483 votes were cast against recalling the former army paratrooper, and 3,576,517 in favor. (Andrew Selsky/The Associated Press, "Carter Endorses Chavez Win in Venezuela," August 16, 2004)
Supporters of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez celebrate in fornt of Miraflores Palace in Caracas, August 16, 2004. Venezuela's National Electoral Council announced to the nation preliminary official results showing that President Hugo Chavez had survived the recall vote. A spokesman said the 'No' option opposing Chavez's recall had obtained just over 58 percent of the vote, while the 'Yes' vote obtained nearly 42 percent. (REUTERS/Jose Miguel Gomez)
Even Jimmy "Carter and the head of the Organization of American States, who led observer teams, said the voting appeared clean" (Selsky, August 16, 2004). Nevertheless, Juan Forero of the New York Times, as anti-Chávez as ever, is spinning furiously to discount the victory of the Venezuelan masses: "But the voting, if anything, showed clearly that millions of Venezuelans -- not just the very rich, as Mr. Chávez contends -- want him out" ("Chávez Is Declared the Winner in Venezuela Referendum," August 16, 2004).
The number of eligible voters in Venezuela is roughly 14 million. That means that approximately 26% of the eligible Venezuelan voters voted SI, in favor of recalling Chavez. That's more or less in keeping with the proportion of the rich and comfortable in Venezuela.
Also, keep in mind that, like most nations in the world, Venezuela has traditionally had high rates of working-class abstention and disenfranchisement -- the problems that Bolivarians have made efforts to correct but probably have yet to fully remedy:
As the August 15 recall referendum on President Chavez's mandate approaches, pro-government sectors have complained to Venezuela's National Electoral Council (CNE) about the disparity in the number of voting centers between working-class and wealthier neighborhoods.
During a press conference last Tuesday, Jorge Rodriguez, member of the board of directors of the CNE, expressed his "indignation due to the absolutely lack of democracy, lack of justice, and of equality with regard to the distribution of voting centers."
Rodriguez, who is serving at the CNE since late last year, when Venezuela's Supreme Court appointed him and other directors to lead the elections commission, criticized the way the voting centers have traditionally been set up, especially in big urban centers. After reviewing the voting centers' distribution by zone and population in Caracas and other cities, Rodriguez concluded that their unequal distribution amounts to discrimination against the poor.
A high percentage the population of the valley of Caracas, who live in shanty towns built in the city's hills, must travel long distances to find their assigned voting place as none is located in those hills, according to Rodriguez.
"In Las Minas de Baruta (a predominantly working-class zone outside Caracas), there are 25.000 citizens registered to vote, but only 4 voting centers. In the same municipality, in El Cafetal (a middle, and upper-middle class sector), there are 40.000 registered voters, and 40 voting centers."
Rodriguez also mentioned the case of El Paraiso, a middle-class neighborhood in southwestern Caracas, with 14 voting centers. The working-class neighborhood next to it, La Cota 905, with a similar population, only has only one voting center.
"This situation repeats itself throughout the country, and it clearly violates the principles of equality of rights, especially human rights as expressed by the Constitution," said Rodriguez.
Rodriguez announced that, in response to this problem, the CNE started a study to determine where new voting places could be opened "so that all citizens have equal opportunity to exercise their voting rights."
“The United States has the same problem in the South,” said a Hector Madera, a reporter for Negro Primero community radio, who covered Rodriguez’s press conference. “But the goal of the dominant classes there is to prevent poor blacks and Hispanics from voting, and artificially causing long lines is one of the tactics they use as people get discouraged from voting,” Madera said.
Government officials and pro-government political commentators have also complained about the fact that opinion polls are inaccurate as polling companies don't take into account poor areas of the cities.
The 40% -- 50% of the population which according to some polls approve of Chavez's presidency is concentrated in working-class zones. These zones traditionally have high abstention rates, as an important percentage of their inhabitants who are eligible to vote, don’t have non-expired ID cards or are not registered to vote.
Part of the government's strategy is to get the poor to get or renew their national ID card, and to register to vote. “It hurts them that we are finally issuing ID cards for the poor,” said Chavez last night during his new weekly radio program “Patrolling with Chavez”. “Everybody has the right to vote, to participate, and to ratify mandates. This is a participatory democracy,” said Chavez.
Venezuelans traditionally have to stand in line for several hours to have their ID cards issued or renewed, and then wait several months to get receive their cards. Since last year, the government has set up ID card centers at special locations, and it is using modern machines that allow citizens to obtain their cards in minutes.
Considering the aforementioned problems that the Bolivarian government inherited, we may say that Chávez's victory is truly a landslide, clearly the fruit of drives to register voters and naturalize immigrants of the working class.