Wednesday, October 27, 2010

France in Revolt: The Struggle Against Austerity Politics

i.                     The politics of austerity and the continuing crisis of capital

France is once again at the center stage of class struggle in Europe. Sarkozy is implementing a “reform” to the pension system, which would allow retired workers to collect their pension at 62, as opposed to 60, and collect full benefits at 67, as opposed to 65. This is a direct attack on the living standards of French workers and is part of a strategy to strengthen neoliberalism all across Europe, and in the world really. Talk of “fiscal consolidation”, “debt reconsolidation” and of “shared sacrifices” has surfaced in Europe, in particular in recent months in Britain and in Greece. The same could be said here in the U.S. as politicians are beginning to start an offensive on the Social Security System and candidate for N.Y. Governor Andrew Cuomo has promised to slash wages and state jobs. The ideas behind these attacks are to make working class people pay for the Great Recession caused by the bankers and the rich. These aggressive attacks are a neoliberal solution to the crisis, i.e. privatization, cuts on social spending, and a general attack on workers living standards.  Throughout the world, the talk has been between a double dip recession and the quagmire of the first. IMF reports that in the U.S. 7.5 million people since 2007 have been added to the unemployment roll. Furthermore, they report, “over 210 million people across the globe are estimated to be unemployed at the moment, an increase of more than 30 million since 2007. Three quarters of the increase in the number of unemployed people has occurred in the advanced economies and the remainder among emerging market economies.” Capitalism stills finds itself in a crisis of overproduction and has no sign of emerging out of its slump unless it is in the back of workers.

ii.                     Sarkozy vs French workers & the left

It’s in this context that we can understand the struggle unfolding in France. Sarkozy’s stubborn attempt to reform the pension system is part of France trying to reshape and to make more competitive its working class for an ever increasing globalized economy. In 2005, former PM Chirac signed a law which would make it easier for bosses to hire and fire workers under 26, effectively creating a two-tier system of workers in France. This was met with the same ferocity as today’s protesters, and was ultimately defeated. Today’s struggle in France partially comes out of the struggles to defeat Chirac’s attempt at “reform”. But more importantly, France has a strong tradition of militant unionism and has a strong left wing tradition. With the activism of large parties like the Socialist Party, Communist Party, and the more revolutionary New Anti-Capitalist Party (NPE), a leftwing alternative to politics of austerity can be provided.

The struggle in France has reached every sector of the population, over 70% of  France support the striking workers and student. The struggle has spread across major cities like Paris and Marseilles into smaller towns across the country. And the waves of strikes haven’t been just through unionized and public sector workers, but through the privatized sector workers, non-unionized workers, and millions of youth. Also true Sarkozy’s popularity level is at its lowest, at around 25%. This is important, considering that just several months ago Sarkozy’s government was going after Roma immigrants and the rights of Arabs and Muslims but yet still had broad public support. This isn’t to say that over night French society reached left-wing conclusions, but it goes to show when workers struggle and are forced to unite, class consciousness rises and backward ideas meet reality. No longer are immigrants or Arabs seen as the enemy, but the enemy is the government that is going after your pensions and living standards. It also goes to show what happens when a clear left-wing alternative to austerity measures are articulated. French workers could have taken this “reform” lying down, but a clear strategy of class struggle unionism and street democracy presented by the revolutionary left and by rank-file union leaders were able to sway French society.

iii.                   Looking Forward
Our solution to the crisis is by not paying national debts, nationalizing the banks, introducing capital controls, programs of public investment and in the long-term, replacing the profit system, with a system based on workers democracy and workers needs. Sarkozy’s pension bill has already passed the senate and will soon arrive on his desk for signing. The ruling class of France has learned their lesson with the Chirac fiasco back in 2005, never give an inch to street democracy. However, if the pressure continues from oil workers, transportation workers, dock workers, nurses, teachers and students, Sarkozy will most likely be pressured to save France’s business image in the world market. However, the main unions of France C.F.D.T and the C.G.T have been dialoguing with the president and there already have been promises of discussing the pension bill on a later date once it has been in effect. This would be an obvious defeat. We should reject dialogue with Sarkozy, and continue the pressure from below, on the streets, in the factories, in the universities, and in the docks of France. Sarkozy has already lost his aspiration of running for presidency in the next year, the popular struggle needs to continue to put the pressure, and also link arms with their brothers and sisters across Europe facing similar attacks. Sarkozy can be forced to drop the bill but workers need to keep the pressure up.

Monday, October 11, 2010

Medellin: Poverty, Blame the victims






On a recent personal trip to Medellin, Colombia's second most populous city, I encountered this sign in one of the city's biggest slums, Las Comunas. It's translation is this: "Bro, I'm pregnant." With two advices following: "To get pregnant you need two, A pregnant girl or adolescent is poverty for sure". I have many problems with this sign. First, the sign lays the responsibility on poor Colombians to get out of poverty, leaving the criminal government of Colombia off the hook.
It's your classic, focus on the victim argument. Study after study has shown that when women are giving access to higher education and have a higher level of living standards their more inclined to have children later in life. The argument that poor people of Las Comunas just need to have planned pregnancy or not produce children at all won't do anything to help them out of their misery. It's concrete government projects, employment opportunities, access to free public education, free healthcare. This is where the center of attention should be, what is the government of Medellin doing to fight poverty? Not on public ads focusing on the non-existing choices poor people of Las Comunas have.
This is very reminiscent to Barack Obama's fathers day speech when he had the audacity to lay the blame the reason for why Blacks continue to be left behind in society on absent black fathers. As if black fathers have control over the incarceration rates of the black population. As if black fathers have control of the unemployment levels in their communities. As if black fathers have control on who gets access to higher education. We need to systematically reject the blame the victims argument, and lay the blame where it should be, on those who run our society.

Friday, October 1, 2010

Correa Under Attack: Ecuador's Political Crisis

Ecuador's political climate reached a boiling point yesterday. President Rafeal Correa was punched, tear gassed and put on a stretcher, after he sought to have a personal dialogue with striking policemen in a barracks in Quito. The police force was responding to an attempt by the government to hold off on paying bonuses and increases in salaries. What followed took on the character of coup, but really was a coordinated national general strike by a large section of the police force, primarily in the capital and in the coastal city of Guayaquil. The military seemed to be by the side of the president at all times, an indeed rescued him at a hospital where he was being held hostage by striking policemen. Across major cities and towns of Ecuador thousands poured out in the streets against the attack on Correa and democracy. Workers marched to the presidential palace and key government buildings to make sure it remained out of the hands of malicious forces. The government and Correa's Partido Alianza Paz (AP) responded swiftly by encouraging people to come out in the streets peacefully and by shutting down the airwaves. The latter, a key tool the oligarchy of Ecuador has used to spread misinformation and to slander the president.
The backdrop of the current crisis, stems from the right-wings paranoia of Correa's leftward shift and his broad public support which caused his reelection last year. Correa has recently joined the Bolivarian Alliance For The People of Our America (ALBA) and his presidency was key in ratifying a new constitution. The world economic recession has also forced the hand of Correa, which has led to austerity measures being implemented.
The attack on Correa, however, will have the effect of increasing his stature as a leader for change and will continue to marginalize the Ecuadorian ruling class and the already much hated police force. International support for Correa also came pouring in, with calls to defend the institutions of democracy.
The events that occurred yesterday and the actions that the masses took will serve as a key rehearsal for a future coup that is always lingering in Latin America. In Ecuador alone there has been three presidents overthrown in the last 15 years, however, these were rebellions from below. The threat today in Ecuador is a coup fabricated by the U.S. and possibly the Colombian military and the rich of Ecuador.
Although many in the mainstream media called the attack on Correa an attempted coup, it did not look like the police force had an actual plan for the conquest of political power and /or a plan to rule the country.
Yesterday's attack on Correa demonstrates the necessity for working class revolutionary politics and organization. Ecuador will be in a state of emergency for a week, but the threat of U.S. imperialism, which is trying hard to regain control of it's "backyard", and the threat of the bourgeoisie of Ecuador and Colombia still remains.

Thursday, September 30, 2010

The Significance of Venezuela's Parliamentary Elections

On Sunday September 26th Venezuelan's voted on a new parliament. Hugo Chavez's Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) won a clear majority, winning 98 of the 165 national assembly seats, short of the two-thirds needed to easily pass legislation. In the Latin American Parliament, the PSUV won 6 out of 12 seats. The National Electoral Council reported a record turnout for the elections, over 66% of eligible voters voted. The headlines of the day was the seats gained by the right-wing, the Mesa de Unidad Democratica (MUD). Although, the elections show that the majority of Venezuelans support Hugo Chavez and the PSUV, it also reveals that the right-wing is gaining ground. A right-wing whose platform is staunchly anti-Chavez, pro-business, and which we should have every reason to suspect is being funded by Washington D.C.
The results signify an increasing class and political polarization in Venezuela. The battles between Chavez and the MUD are about to get stormier. With a stronger voice in the national political scene, the right-wing will begin to undermine Chavez' attempt to legislate reforms and his vision of "Socialism for the 21st Century". A battle that will ultimately culminate in 2012, when Chavez will seek another presidential election.  
The results also put in question the strategy the PSUV has taken to organize mass working class support for Chavez. As has been the case since he was first elected in 1998, the terms of the debate are: are you for the Bolivarian Revolution or against it? And since Chavez is the leader of the movement, even non-presidential elections feel like referendums to his presidency. Moreover, the right-wing strategy is also Chavez centered, with no real alternatives besides anything anti-Chavez and return to pre-1998 Venezuela. The right-wing still has not claimed it's legitimacy after it's failed 2002 attempted coup. So how do you explain MUD's gain in the elections? The economy.
The economic situation in Venezuela, i.e. oil prices and the world recession, have had a devastating impact on many social programs. An example is the national healthcare system which is on the brink of collapse. Furthermore, the massive bureaucracy around the Chavez government and the core of the PSUV, a party which claims six million members, is becoming a constant frustration for ordinary Venezuelans. Also telling is the way Chavez has handled the indigenous movement in Zulia, where they have been fighting the take over of their lands by a state owned coal company. He has referred to them as "counterrevolutionaries", which is reminiscent to how Evo Morales dealt with striking miners in Bolivia. For the last six years, Chavez was able to use oil money to fund important social services to tackle poverty, with adequate healthcare and free education, but with the world recession, and a looming double-dip recession, it seams like his ability to do so has been grounded to a halt. The effect of this will be the decline of working class support.
Chavez subscribes to a Stalinist idea, albeit with Latin American characteristics, of socialism, which to the PSUV means state-ownership of basic industry. However, an always important question to ask is who will control the state and by what means? Will it be Chavez "representing" the working class, or the workers directly controlling the means of production? We must remember the import lessons of Chile 1973 and Allende's flawed parliamentary road to socialism, you cannot legislate socialism or create a revolutionary movement from the top-down, but the only way to actually fight for a new society is through working class revolutionary self-organization.






Tuesday, September 28, 2010

The Witch Hunt of Senator Piedad Cordoba

The Colombia government, led by the Santos administration is once again going after politicians who differ on their approach to dealing with the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia). An once again the target is Senator Piedad Cordoba from the Colombian Liberal Party. 
The evidence against her is in Raul Reyes' famous laptop that some how survived an intense shoot out in the jungles of Ecuador. The same laptop that links Hugo Chavez to the FARC. This is political maneuvering by the Attorney General. Of course, Cordoba has contacts with the FARC, so does hundred of journalists who visit their camps on a weekly basis. Moreover, her connection with the FARC has led to the release of 12 hostages in the last few years. 
The mainstream press quickly celebrated the decision of the attorney general reached just after midnight today, to banish her from the senate, and viewed it as yet another blow to the guerrillas. It's disgusting to see the celebration of someone being criminalized for having a social justice approach to bringing peace to Colombia. We need to go beyond CARACOL & RCN News. In Colombia, if you don't agree with the government, you are labeled as "the FARC", and subsequently you are demonized. It's time we rose above that and understood the root's of Colombia's problem, which the government loves to simply lay blame to the guerrillas.
Simply put, the Santos administration does not appreciate Cordoba's strategy of dialogue with the FARC because it undermines their strategy of all out war and the business behind that. The rich of Colombia depend on war with the FARC/ELN (National Liberation Army of Colombia), it's how they receive staunch financial and military support from the U.S. The FARC and the "war on terror" is a key component in the argument and justification for the countless acts of aggression towards student activists, labor leaders, the indigenous population and now to politicians who differ on the approach to peace in Colombia. We should stand in solidarity with her!

Monday, September 27, 2010

FBI Try to Intimidate Activists with Raids

The FBI raided several homes of activists in the Twin Cities and in Chicago, and also included the offices of the Anti-War Committee of Minneapolis. The goal was to find evidence that these certain activists were in some form connected with groups like the militant Muslim group Hezbollah of Lebanon, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) or the guerrillas of the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia).The activists targeted worked with various different groups including, The Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO), the Palestine Solidarity Group, Students for a Democratic Society, the Twin Cities Anti-War Committee, the Colombia Action Network, and the National Committee to Free Ricardo Palmera (a Colombian political prisoner).

These raids are a clear violation of our democratic rights to free speech and right to organize. Furthermore, the U.S. government is no position to tell us who we can and cannot support. After all, any group or organization that is against U.S. hegemony is labeled "terrorist". The U.S. record of demonizing certain groups and individuals is long, think Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress (ANC). A united response from progressives, activists and socialists is crucial. We will not allow FBI intimidation tactics to scare us. The struggle lives on, here is what we can do to fight back,

Contact U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder at 202-353-1555 or askdoj@usdoj.gov to demand an end to the repression of antiwar and international solidarity activists.
You can join protests planned for the coming days around the country:
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27
Minneapolis, 4:30 p.m., FBI office, 111 Washington Ave. S.
Chicago, 4:30 p.m., FBI office, 2111 W. Roosevelt Road
Kalamazoo, Mich., 4:30 p.m., Federal Building, 410 W. Michigan Ave.
Salt Lake City, 9 a.m., Federal Building
Durham, N.C., 12 Noon, Federal Building, 323 E. Chapel Hill St.
Buffalo, N.Y., 4:30 p.m., FBI office, corner of S. Elmwood Avenue and Niagra Street
Gainesville, Fla., 4:30 p.m., FBI office
Boston, 4 p.m., JFK Federal Building, Government Center
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28
New York City, 4:30 p.m., Federal Building, 26 Federal Plaza
Newark, N.J., 5 p.m., Federal Building, Broad Street
Philadelphia, 4:30 p.m., Federal Building, 6th and Market
Washington, D.C., 4:30 p.m., FBI Building, 935 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Boston, 5 p.m., JFK Federal Building
Detroit, 4:30 p.m., McNamara Federal Building, Michigan Avenue at Cass
Raleigh, N.C., 9 a.m., Federal Building, 310 New Bern Ave.
Asheville, N.C., 5 p.m., Federal Building
Atlanta, 12 Noon, FBI Building
Los Angeles, 5 p.m., Downtown Federal Building, 300 N. Los Angeles St.
Tucson, Ariz., 5 p.m., Federal Building
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29
Albany, N.Y., 5 p.m., Federal Building

Friday, September 24, 2010

Mono Jojoy is killed, Colombia's Civil War Continues


The mainstream press in Colombia and in the U.S. (Caracol, RCN, CNN) responded like a loyal choir with enthusiasm to the death of FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionaria de Colombia) guerrilla leader Mono Jojoy. Mono Jojoy had a been a leading figure in the FARC since 1976, and along with 'Raul Reyes' and 'Tirofijo', is now added to the list of killed/deceased leaders in the past five years.

The newly elected Santos administration in Colombia was quick to claim that this continues to signify the end of the FARC, and shows that the Colombia government strategy of no dialogue and all out war with guerrilla "terrorists" is working. Two points should be made to counter these claims;
1) The killings of key military figures in the FARC do not mean that they're winning. Those military leaders will simply be replaced by next best cadre. The social, political and economic situation in Colombia will continue to supply the FARC with brand new recruits.
2) The Colombian economy is financially dependent on the war against the guerrilla insurgents. It does not benefit the ruling class of Colombia to actually take up a dialogue with the FARC or the ELN (Erjecito Liberacion Nacional) because it benefits from the flow of cash entering from Washington. Additionally, the real crises of Colombia, unemployment, poverty, displacement, deforestation, assassinations of activists, and racism, are all taboo topics, because the ruling class use the FARC as scapegoats and as a diversion from other serious issues concerning working and poor people.

The forces on the left in Colombia continually face state harassment, with anyone to the left of mainstream politics labeled as 'FARC'. However, this hasn't prevented a strong social justice and peace movement from taking form. Senator Gloria Ines Ramirez of the POLO Democratico Alternativo, spoke out against the gun-ho reaction of the Santos administration, and argued for a true road to peace in Colombia by a negotiated dialogue. Nonetheless, much more pressure will need to be put on the ruling establishment to take true peace seriously. This pressure will need to come from state sector worker's who are continuously facing privatization, from displaced indigenous populations, students and poor workers who haven't seen their living standards increased amidst talk of the "new Colombia" of Alvaro Uribe, and from the massive black population who face Jim Crow style racism.

Sunday, September 12, 2010

Is A Revolution Possible in the U.S.?

Below is a talk I gave at Hunter College last semester (Spring 10) titled, Is A Revolution Possible in the U.S. Hope you enjoy!


When you look at today’s world, it isn’t hard to see that we need fundamental change in our society. If we take a look at the Gulf of Mexico, instead of seeing a blue sea, what you have is oil, due to the disastrous spill caused by BP’s blind hunger to pump out more of the black gold at all cost. Even if it means destroying our natural habitat and putting millions of working peoples livelihoods in danger. Or we can look at the state of Arizona, which recently passed a racist law criminalizing undocumented workers. The reason, to prevent more immigrants from “stealing jobs” and more importantly, to use immigrants as scapegoats and blame them for the state of the U.S.’s economy. As if immigrants ran Wall Street banks. Through out the U.S. and in fact the world, politicians have gone after workers living standards, firing public sector workers, making sure workers take huge pay cuts and cutting social services. The reason, according to them, is so that we can collectively share the burden of the Great Recession, as if we ever collectively shared the profit that has been made by capitalists. What all this has come to show is that these problems, whether it be the attack on working peoples living standards, the war in the middle east, the destruction of the environment, or the racist attacks on immigrants, Arabs and Muslims , all come back to the systematic problem of capitalism.
In the U.S., the rich have never been richer, and in fact are still making money as national economies go bankrupt. And the class-divide between workers and superrich continues to get starker and starker, both national and internationally. This past week a general strike in Greece paralyzed the country and brought the EU to its knees. Prompting, EU to pass a stimulus package. In Puerto Rico, students have also responded to attacks by occupying their schools. In the U.S., although we haven’t seen general strikes, the national demonstrations on March 4th against budgets cuts brought out a fresh new generation of students and workers, willing to stand up for their rights. What all these struggles show is that there are two antagonistic classes clashing together for different ways forward. For the capitalists, the solution to the global economic crisis is to make the workers pay, and to restore profit. For workers, is to do away with the for-profit system, and set-up a new system based on human need. Up to this point masses of workers aren’t at the White House yet, but what is important to understand is that the great recession has made clearer that there are two-sides to this battle, worker and capitalist. That is precisely the contradiction of capitalism. On one hand you have a tiny minority of people who decide what products are going to be made, how those products will be made, what wars are to be fought, what will be our living wage, and what conditions do we work in. On the other hand, you have the actual mass of workers that have no say whatsoever on how things should run, besides electing every couple of years capitalist A or capitalist B. The problem for capitalist is that workers control the flow of capitalism on the day-to-day level, and in practice proves that indeed capitalists aren’t even needed. And there lies the contradiction of capitalism. A contradiction, which can only be solved through a revolution, a socialist revolution. A revolution that would alter fundamentally the social, economic and political relationships in our society, and put working people in power, in the schools, communities and work places.
Now some people might argue that the idea of a revolution is too far-fetched, especially here in the belly of the beast. However, history would disagree. After all, this country was founded by two radical and bloody revolutions, one to overthrow British imperialism and the other to do away with slavery. And not as your high school history teacher would have seem, but these revolutions weren’t just due to the brilliance of Thomas Paine or Abraham Lincoln, but involved, like genuine revolutions, the masses of people. I say this, not to give you a boring history lesson, but to argue that revolutions are necessary products of historical circumstances, and do not occur based on ones good or bad choice, but instead occur because it is the only way forward both politically and economically. These revolutions were very much radical in their day, however the discussion today is about a socialist revolution, one that both changes the social and economic functioning’s in our society, and destroys the old system of capitalism. Once again the idea of a revolution and in particular a socialist revolution isn’t alien to workers in this country. A couple of examples, In 1919, dock workers and all workers in Seattle went on a general strike, one of their reasons were to be in solidarity with the socialist revolution in Russia of 1917. The American anti-war activist Eugene Debs, around the same time was jailed for speaking against World War 1, and from his jail cell, ran for president as a socialist. He received a million votes, the highest ever for a third party candidate. And all this was occurring after a period of red scare where any type of radical was vilified as unpatriotic. We can also take a look at the history of the 1930’s and the Great Depression, which was a decade of huge radical and working class rebellions which achieved tremendous gains for us, like worker’s right to unionized, the social security system, the welfare system etc. These working class upsurges had everything to do with ordinary people, many of them socialist or led by socialist, fighting for their basic rights to a fair living standard. And in the process of fighting for that, discovered the collective power they had as a class, to strike, shutdown production and on some instances to run the factories on their own.
The civil rights movement of the early 60’s and the radical movements that developed in the end of the decade is another testament to the rich tradition of working class people mobilizing and fighting for change. Some people might think that was then, and that this is now. However, the U.S. working class has a very explosive character to it. For example the mass radicalizations of the 1930’s, 1960’s and to some extent the openness to radical ideas today, were preceded by moments of rightwing dominance and working class defeats. Think of the red scare of the 1920’s also known as the roaring twenties for the super rich of this country. Where you had on one end capitalists making the largest profits ever seen till than, and on the other, you had working people increasingly struggling just to get by. The McCarthyist period of the 1950’s, saw one of the most conservative and racist period in the so-called greatest democracy in the world, with the witch hunt against radicals and the beginning of the civil rights movement that challenged Jim Crow south. The Bush era, similarly saw an intensification in the divide between working people and rich, and the racist attacks against Arabs, Muslims and immigrants. I say all of this because it is important to understand the contradictions that existed before the historical outbursts of struggles of the 30’s and 60’s. And this is, I think, one of the more important dynamics to understand about the class struggle in this country, it is both explosive, and should be seen as a part of the larger revolutionary process. Meaning that the struggles for reforms being fought in the here and now, and the defeats and the small victories, all form part of the collective class-consciousness of working people. And although it might not be evident at times, the working class and the capitalists are constantly in a class struggle, a struggle that in the last three decades the super rich have been winning. However, the important thing to understand is that capitalism forces these two classes to struggle, in its simplest terms higher profits equal lower wages for us, tax cuts for the rich, mean higher taxes for us, and so on. And taking a closer look at it, its not that we have an affixation with struggling against capitalists, however the conditions created in this society forces us to do so. As long as capitalism fails to delivery in economic and social needs, workers will struggle for it. As Karl Marx put it, the driving force of history has been the clash of classes, and in the case of capitalism, worker vs. capitalists.
But then how do you explain why struggle has been so low in the U.S. as compared to lets say France or Greece? Where is the class struggle and the revolution here? The reason why is because working class people have little to no representation at all for their interest. Due to the assault on unions, workers here have been stripped of the most basic elementary form of fighting for their rights. And, do to the two-party system of the Democrats and Republicans; working class people do not have the voice of a third-party, which exists in other countries. All this means that it makes it much difficult to actually struggle against attacks we face as working people, if we don’t have unions that bring us together, or a working class party that can challenge the everyday politics of Washington. And it also means that it can be hard to say where working class radicalism is at, since we don’t see millions of people out on the streets. However, these conditions mean that working class radicalism occurs on a subterranean level, and that when circumstances deem it fit, can cause a massive wave of activism and renewed sense of fight back. The most recent example of this was in the spring of 2006, when millions of immigrant workers walked out of their jobs and took to the streets demanding full legalization, and reigniting the celebration of the historically working class holiday May 1st. Once again, this outburst of struggle didn’t just come out of nowhere. If we take a look at the 1990’s which saw one of the largest increases of migration to the U.S., mostly due to the U.S. free trade policies with Mexico which destroyed their national agriculture system and left many Mexican farmers heading north for jobs. The 1990’s also saw many immigrants becoming much more integrated to the American workforce, joining unions and becoming much more involved in there community. So when the racist Sensenbrenner bill in 2006 was proposed, the immigrant community responded by taking over the streets of every major city. However, what happened to this movement is very telling of the process of class struggle in this country. Because of the relative weakness of the radical left and radical ideas, the militant movement for immigrant’s rights which was out in the streets and forced the debate of immigration onto the national spotlight was instead channeled into the Democratic Party’s get out to vote for 2008. And in turn two years later we are stuck at square one, fighting another racist anti-immigrant legislation. A movement that in its very character expressed the class anger that exists in our society, but nonetheless the movement was disarmed by the Democratic Party and those who argued that protesting wouldn’t get us anywhere. But just cause people struggle doesn’t mean we will win or that we will choose the most effective strategy to do so. Many people feel voting for democrats every year, or just by signing online petitions is enough. And even the most effective and collective strategy for class struggle, the strike weapon, isn’t a guarantee to success, just think about the MTA strike in 2005. But what’s important to understand is that, yes class struggle is inevitable, but whether our side wins or loses has everything to do with what kind of strategy we use, how we implement it, and what our goals are.
Taking look at the world around us today, the election of the first African American president has raised a new sense of hope and higher expectations that the political establishment will follow through on its promises of change. Obama’s election was a rejection of the status-quo and it reinvigorated millions of people to join his political campaign and engage in politics in general. Although Obama’s election expressed the mass desire for change in this country, it has also shown that the vehicle for change isn’t based on whose in the White House, but as always been the case, based on whose protesting outside of the white house, and in the streets. Many people are realizing this including workers who have seen their wages reduced, teachers who are seeing the pink slip this fall, and ordinary people who have seen social services cut. And what they have seen is Obama play the role of moderate and doing nothing but offer more cuts and giving more of our money to the Wall Street bankers. However, people are not drawing pessimistic conclusions, but are instead becoming much more politically involved and realizing that it will take ordinary peoples involvement in the day-to-day struggles that can actually bring change. All this being said, the majority of Americans have not reached the conclusion that capitalism has to be overthrown, nor do we have a significant number of people in the population who consider themselves revolutionaries, as was the case in the 1960’s. But the point to understand is that capitalism has an inherent inability to satisfy the needs of the working majority, and workers are continuously forced to fight back in order to defend there living standards. It is under these conditions, and these struggles for reforms, that working class people become political, become confident that they can win bigger reforms, and ultimately begin to develop revolutionary conclusions once they realize through there struggles that capitalism ultimately is a flawed system that cannot be tweaked or reformed. The German revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg summed it up best when she said: : “The daily struggle for reforms, for the amelioration of the condition of the workers within the framework of the existing social order, and for democratic institutions, offers to socialists the only means of engaging in the proletarian class war and working in the direction of the final goal--the conquest of political power and the suppression of wage labor.
Knowing what we know, capitalism inability to satisfy our needs, the ever-increasing tension between the have and the have-nots, and that class struggle is inevitable, it is important that we prepare ourselves for when the mass of working people begin to radicalize and reach revolutionary conclusions. The opportunity for building a revolutionary movement exists in the U.S. today, even though a full fledge revolution isn’t on the table. But we need to keep our eyes on the goal, and understand that the struggles we fight for today are the stepping stones to a revolution. In struggle, people’s ideas change rapidly. Millions of people who only yesterday fought for reforms, have the ability when circumstances deem it fit to leap forward and focus there attention on the transformation of our society. A transformation that will not be lead by a smart elite or by specialized armed guerrilla leaders, but by the masses of working people. One of the main leaders of the Russian Revolution, Leon Trotsky, had this to say about what a revolution looks like:
The most dubitable feature of a revolution is the direct interference of the masses in historic events. In ordinary times, the state--be it monarchical or democratic--elevates itself above the nation, and history is made by specialists in that line of business--kings, ministers, bureaucrats, parliamentarians, journalists.
But at those crucial moments when the old order becomes no longer endurable to the masses, they break over the barriers excluding them from the political arena, sweep aside their traditional representatives and create by their own interference the initial groundwork for a new regime...The history of a revolution is for us first of all a history of the forcible entrance of the masses into the realm of rulership over their own destiny.
And it’s for that historical task that we want to begin to lay the foundations. Not only is a revolution possible in the U.S. but it is absolutely necessary and urgently needed to put an end to poverty, war and oppression, and in its place a society where justice, real freedom, and human need is the order of the day.