Commie Curmudgeon

I probably won’t be doing anything but sleeping this May Day, because I’ve suddenly had one of those slow kinds of weeks that I hadn’t had in months, with only one day of work so far, and I’m feeling a bit too panicky to skip my usual Saturday night midnight shift (although there is the chance now that I might lose all or half of that shift because the bosses are cracking down on temps on the nights when there isn’t any work). Nonetheless, there isn’t anything happening in New York City that appeals much to me as a Mayday celebration anyway.

There are one or two anti-war marches and there’s also some four-day-long anarchist May Day festival, but these events just don’t seem that inspiring to me as ways to observe the true international Labor Day. Especially when I look at the schedule for this festival, I see a situation that is all too familiar to me. I recognize most of the groups and the people, and where I don’t see groups and people that I recognize, I see projects that I recognize that I could probably connect to people I've known. Additionally, it looks so very youth-oriented, from what I can tell. In other words, this resembles many anarcho-activists' festivals that we've had before big protests over the years. (Although there are some more class-struggle-oriented events listed specifically for May Day that look a little better to me...but these also appear to be originating from outside of the small crowd putting on the prior stuff.)

Now, I don’t want to knock the festival too much, because it's being put together by some good groups and I'm sure it will be rewarding to some people; plus, anything that’s officially endorsed by Bombs and Shields must be worthwhile to some extent. But, speaking strictly from my perspective, the kind of May Day event that I would like to see would be quite a bit different from this. Specifically...

For May Day, for the international Labor Day, I would like to see something connected to labor, only in a new and vibrant kind of way. I'd like to see something in which the organizers and participants are acutely conscious of the changing nature of labor and the challenges that we have to face. I’d also, frankly, like to see something that might be at least a little connected to my own experience as a temp worker, because I appreciate opportunities to participate in the workers’ struggle directly, speaking to and about (and maybe even acting upon) my own situation.

Those are some of the reasons why I’m very interested in the EuroMayDay event, with its focus on precarity. It seems to me that the Europeans are way ahead of Americans in addressing the newest challenges in the class struggle (but, then, what else is new?)… There seems to be a strong consciousness in Europe about the increasing precarity in labor, that is, the increase in workers’ dependence on work that is contingent/ temporary/"flexible" and/or increasingly insecure in other ways (e.g., there are major issues surrounding the increased necessity for migraton). These, of course, are problems and challenges that are just as acute in the U.S.A. – in fact, possibly even more so, for a variety of reasons, such as the fact that, unlike in the advanced-capitalist European countries, when workers here become temps, they very often lose affordable access to healthcare. But I don’t see much activity or conscious struggle in the U.S. addressing these trends.

In Europe, by contrast, there are people who are not only conscious of precarity, but they’re pushing this issue to the forefront of the class struggle. Thus, it’s not even really surprising that some people have come up with a Europe-wide event centered on precarity, in observance of May Day.

I also find the description of the EuroMayDay to be both exciting and highly intelligent, free of the grandiosity, sloganeering and/or outright cliches that are so common in calls to action for radical protests and events (especially, probably, in the U.S.). Certainly, this language is much more attention-getting to me than what I’ve seen in most paper or Internet-based flyers coming out locally:

Precarity is the most widespread condition of labour and life in Europe today. It affects everyone, everyday, in every part of life: whether chosen or imposed, precarity is a generalised condition experienced by the majority of people.

Precarious people are now the corner-stone of the wealth production process. Notwithstanding this, we are invisible and count for nothing in the traditional forms of social and political representation or in the European agenda.

As precarious of Europe - flex, temp and contortionist workers, migrants, students, researchers, unmotivated wage slaves, pissed off and happy part-timers, insecure temps, willingly or unwillingly unemployed - we are acting so as to grasp the moment/our time and struggle for new collective rights and our individual and collective possibility to choose our future.

This is why we are building a public space on a European level to catalyse new forms of social cooperation, and maximize the sharing of skills, experiences and resources: to construct and bring to life a new social imagination.

I am aware that written descriptions are one thing, while actual realization will be something else. But to me, the conceptual framework of this endeavor/event/possible movement is a major first step. And it’s a great way to keep the focus of May Day on workers’ struggle, while attempting to move forward with that struggle, rather than getting too stuck on capitalist conditions and anti-capitalist struggles of May Days long past.
__________________

P.S. For a very good worldwide list of Mayday events, go to To the Barricades.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1. Toothpaste for Dinner

Referring to some typically depressing Dilbert-type cubicle-angst cartoons from Toothpaste for Dinner, David Grenier writes:

The sad thing is, even though this type of experience seems near-universal for young white-collar workers (with a whole different set of humiliations reserved for blue and pink color workers) lots of people still seem to insist that unions are irrelevant . So while many young cubicle drones feel subversive for tacking a Dilbert cartoon to their wall and fantasize about quitting (as if the Company will fall apart without them or their next job will be any better) my wife gets job security, full health and dental, seniority-based shift bids (rather than the normal nepotocracy), a good retirement plan, a 40-hour work-week, a living wage, protection from management harassment, and will be making $50K a year (before any overtime she chooses to work) at her blue collar job once she's been there 10 years....

When younger workers decide to actually fight back and win the life they want, they can have it. But as long as prioritize snarkiness over organization and choose only between kissing the boss' ass or quitting to go to an equally crappy job somewhere else, they'll keep having to put up with the same shit over and over and over again for pretty much the rest of their lives. Unless they are "lucky" enough to become the pointy-haired boss they so despise.

Unfortunately, although I share David's frustration with the "snarkiness" of many younger workers (as I agree with David on many things; I consider him to be one of just a few comrades in the politically frustrating world of blogging)...I've got to disagree with many aspects of his latest post. So, as sometimes happens, I started writing something in the Comments box but decided to turn it into a blog post instead - which post wanders into territory far beyond anything that David was talking about...

2. Trade Unions and the Big Picture

Should we blame younger workers and workers within the new industries, service sector, new precarious and contingent workers, etc. (including some of us not-so-young-anymore temp workers) for not belonging to unions, or should we, maybe, consider that unions and organized labor as we know it have failed to reach out to, and successfully advocate for, the new kinds of workers? And, shouldn't we also consider that maybe, for a variety of reasons, the old methods of organization that helped to gain some ground for workers in the 20th century (when capitalism was also in a different stage) simply aren't going to work the same anymore?

I don't think that "organized labor" as we know it, which now represents less than 9 percent of the private sector, is going to expand much or offer much hope of including all the workers to whom it doesn't apply. I think that, maybe, at least in the short run, workers might make some minor gains by exploring new tactics, or very old tactics resurrected (taking some cues from the "anti-globalization" movement, for instance, which, as those of us who've been anarchists know, resurrected at least some tactics from old militant labor struggles).

3. NOT Building to Revolution

In the long run, I think that workers will make significant permanent gains only when they/we have a chance to set up collective councils during a revolutionary or pre-revolutionary period. I'm not sure what will or might bring us closer to that revolution, but I don't really believe anymore that we're going to be helped much by any entity that officially calls itself a union; the momentum is going to have to come from somewhere else.

I should add that I'm aware of the IWW (having once been a member myself), so I know all about the industrial union that's supposed to provide the revolutionary alternative. But these days, as far as I can tell, when the IWW really, actually functions as a union, organizing in the workplace, it has to focus on negotiating for immediate gains of workers and basically forget its more revolutionary mission, organizing the working class for the abolition of the wage system, Personally, I've always felt that the IWW of the present day is more useful, at least in terms of pursuing a revolutionary goal, when it takes the more eclectic approach, creating propaganda and agitating for solidarity through various different kinds of groups. Unfortunately, some present-day Wobblies become so eager to prove that the IWW is a "real" union (capable of fighting for workers in the immediate "practical" sense), that they essentially become as conservative as a "real" union, too.

Meanwhile, in the United States, the left (or what’s left of it) often glorifies trade unions to the nth degree. Speaking to most leftists, you’d think that one of the main criteria for being a leftist is unqualified support for, and defense of, the trade unions (which are the sacred cow). Yet, this attitude really ignores a whole lot of leftist theory and a whole lot of history.

Today’s U.S. trade unions are, in my mind, about as progressive (never mind revolutionary) as the trade unions in Germany during the first two decades of the last century. In fact, I was repeatedly reminded of the United States’ present unions a couple of months ago, when I read that book on Karl Kautsky and the fights within Social Democracy. Repeatedly, it was acknowledged that the trade unions were the most conservative force within the workers’ movement, often being outright reactionary. The trade unions were the groups that fought hardest to suppress any genuinely radical political action or revolutionary rhetoric, as well as the first groups to support imperialist wars. (Ring any familiar bells?)

It’s not that unions are totally useless... Even today in the U.S., some unions can still achieve some goals for some workers, although most of their "victories" will be in the context of defensive struggles, fighting against bosses who are trying to take away the advantages that they had gained during better days. Success even in this area will be slim, but it can happen now and then. Of course, the vast majority of workers will never be able to benefit from the negotiations of trade unions, but a few workers here and there will continue to do so, and without aforementioned unions, at least for these workers, things might have gotten a lot worse. (That is part of the reason the Bush government and its corporate sponsors want to crush the trade unions. As conservative as those trade unions may be in relation to any real "left," they will always be high-priority targets for the radical right.)

But workers in recent memory have lost enough ground to show us that many of the gains achieved by the great trade unions were only temporary. Especially when we consider the present phase of capitalism (which is regressing, some would say decaying, and even decomposing – something I hope to write more about soon), workers will never be able to secure long-term improvements in their lives unless and until they find a way to collectively displace the whole system, i.e., replace it with a system, or a new condition, in which no one has to be exploited through wage work anymore.

4. But If We Want to Set Down a Few Bricks...

Of course, I am aware that, at present, the prospects for a world libertarian socialist revolution look pretty bleak. But capitalism itself is obviously stumbling badly and is being sustained by more and more artificial means (from new-imperialist wars to huge buildup of debts, fictitious capital, etc. – you all know the deal). There are also many movements of resistance and struggle springing up around the world (including relatively isolated but inspiring situations in which workers do collectively take over factories and set up councils), and there are still many chances for people to build up consciousness (political consciousness, class consciousness, etc.).

Yet, that consciousness is not going to be built much through the limited, mostly defensive struggles and negotiations being waged by the shrinking trade unions, especially not in the "developed" late-capitalist world. Certainly, some workers (among the few who are in unions) may gain a little from the experience of collective trade union struggle (provided that they actually get to do something as the rank and file and don’t leave everything up to the union bosses), but the trade unions are not going to encourage them to think about the struggle in a big way.

In order to build revolutionary consciousness, political awareness, and/or universal working class solidarity, we’re going to need a lot of activity by political groups. I might say political parties, in a broad sense of the word. They can be decentralized, networked kinds of parties, connecting the autonomous activities of many different groups. But they have to be motivated by the kind of political perspective, and political intention, that you’re not going to find in the trade unions of today.

Thank you to To the Barricades for referring me to an informative and moving report Deadly Consequences, which focuses on the IMF’s recent interaction with Bolivia and its awful results. Specifically, as the author, Jim Shultz, tells us in one of the opening paragraphs:

This report tells the story of Bolivia’s Febrero Negro, Black February. It is not just the story of two tragic days in La Paz, but also of the global economic system that set that violence in motion. All of the major actors in that system are present in this drama: the IMF, World Bank, and their economic policies toward poor countries; a government caught between those policies and the demands of its people; international corporations pressing their interests; workers and social movements taking to the streets; and individuals caught mortally in the crossfire.

It’s nearly remarkable that Shultz manages to describe and discuss all these aspects so effectively in a report that is under 40 pages. And while reading this report, I didn't feel as though he was wasting a single word. But if I could possibly describe the contents of the report even more briefly than he does, just to sum it up…

In order to obtain a desperately needed loan from the IMF, the Bolivian government had to agree to a deficit reduction goal that it knew was impossible to achieve. In its efforts to do this, the nation’s leaders passed through a tax plan that would place impossible demands on the working poor, including the underpaid police. In response, the police led active protests that also included many students and other citizens. However, the army took the role of defending the Bolivian government (especially when the protests began to occupy government grounds), and this eventually led to a violent confrontation in the streets between the army and the police. Tragically (though hardly surprisingly), the unarmed citizens got caught up in the crossfire – which sometimes didn’t seem like such an accidental consequence, as when the central dramatic figure in this story, a unformed nurse, was shot by an army sharpshooter on the roof of a building, where she was trying to save the life of a repairman who had also been shot…

One of the main morals of this story seems to be that the members of the IMF are too committed to their dry ideological theories to see the actual consequences – implying, I would guess, that they might act differently if only they were more aware of the human drama. Shultz spells this problem out when he tells us:

I do not believe that the people who work at the International Monetary Fund, or the World Bank, get up each morning and ask themselves, “What can I do today to make the lives of the poor more difficult?” The problem, I believe, is not one of bad intention, but of bad theory, combined with institutional arrogance and a complete lack of accountability to the people whose lives are so profoundly affected by its actions.

The IMF and the World Bank operate in a world of theory. Ideas of how the world works are laid out neatly on sheets of white paper. Economic formulas and findings are shared with other economists in well-appointed conference rooms. None of the officials who work for these institutions live in poverty. None must live with the practical results of what they propose. The staff and leaders of these institutions believe not only that they are right in their assessments of what is best for poor countries, but that they know better than the people who live there.

However, I would say that Shultz gives the members of these institutions far too much benefit of the doubt. It’s not that people in the IMF and World Bank "get up each morning and ask themselves, 'What can I do today to make the lives of the poor more difficult?'" but they do probably get up and ask themselves, in one way or another, how they might help to improve the conditions for the corporations and governments that are the focus of their own political, economic, and class interests (some of which corporations and governments also happen to be the source of their own jobs). Shultz actually comes closer to this reality a few pages earlier in the document when he writes:

For the US and other wealthy nations, support for the Fund and the World Bank is not simply an act of charity, or an extension of conservative economic ideology. That support is also a calculated and lucrative opportunity for return on investment. Bolivian economist Roberto Fernández writes, "Through its own constitution and the distribution of internal power since its birth in Bretton Woods in 1944, the Fund has always favored the economic and political interests of the United States and the countries of the current European Union."

When I read Shultz’s document, I had just finished taking a class that discussed Michael Hudson’s book, Super Imperialism. That book shows in heavy detail the myriad ways that the IMF, World Bank, and other essentially U.S.-based institutions manipulated the world economy to favor U.S.-based capital. (Hopefully, I’ll be able to write more extensively on that work in a later post, although Hudson’s book is much more dense and difficult reading, harder to summarize within the limits of a blog.) I have also read various other recent histories that give clear evidence that, whatever its stated intentions at its inception (and there was probably a big difference between the stated and the actual), the IMF was never an institution that set out simply to help poor nations and the poor people of the world. In fact, its usual goals are far from altruistic or even even-handed. Many people, myself included, knew this all too well when we participated in some major protests against the IMF and World Bank in Washington, DC, five years ago last weekend, and we should never stop shouting and fighting for the abolition of these institutions, even if we presently seem to be taking more of a break from such active street protests. (Of course, in my own opinion, we shouldn't stop there; we should work toward the abolition of capitalistm - or for a better world to replace it when capitalism finally completely collapses.)

And I would bet that, despite the relative disappearance of these major street protests, at least here in the U.S., there are more people now than ever who distrust institutions like the IMF and World Bank and would be happy to see them go.

If some people still doubt that such institutions do more harm than good, especiallly with respect to the poor people and poor nations they allegedly are out to help, they should read a little more about the subject, starting with this report from Jim Shultz, which spells out just one example in a clear and dramatic way.

Thanks to Shawn Ewald's Public Humiliation for linking us to a post at something called Cult of the Dead Cow that tells us a few things about where we're all headed economically:

There are really almost no Americans left who are true masters of their own domain. There are only proletarians: some slightly better paid than others, of course, but proletarians all the same. Not only does the level of American debt create an overarching dependence on "the system" for proles on a financial level, but it also fosters a servile, pandering mentality which makes everyone believe (rightly so) that they are dependent on Big Brother for their weekly pittance. It's much more American to own your own hot dog stand than to put on corporate kneepads at some dime-a-dozen tech McJob, but most people simply do not think this way...

What we have created - some say unwittingly, I believe at least in part by design - is a system that can have no other end result than the eventual destruction of the last vestiges of the middle class - leaving as a replacement a polyglot nation of obsequious peasants who have lost all capacity for independent thought. If you think the "by design" part is a stretch - well, I would advise reading a bit about the Weimar Republic. If you're "liquid," millions of people flooding the market with real estate that they've had to default on at bargain-bin prices only means that you're going to be able to scoop up some primo apartment buildings on the cheap. When the peasants have been stripped of the last semblance of their property ownership, you can say "Hola!" to an America that is simply a replica of yet another Third World banana republic, where 1% of the population owns about 95% of all of the wealth.

And thanks in turn to above-mentioned "Cult" for linking us to a post on the The New Amercian Slavery by Jolly Roger. To me, this latter post seems a little too anti-immigrant/nationalistic in the beginning (with lines like, "They're only here for what they can grab, and our government has welcomed them with open arms, because they're grabbing it from you"), but later on, it says a lot of stuff that I have to agree with. Here are some thoughts to ponder if you ever think of planning for your old age:

You're already working much longer, and much harder, to achieve a much lower standard of living than the previous generation, and 25 percent of working Americans no longer even get a vacation. The Social Security retirement age has been raised to match the life expectancy of American males, so apparently, you're also expected to work until you're dead. When you do finally get a vacation, they only trip you'll be taking will be in a pine box, and that's only if you're one of the lucky ones. Most of us will only get the state-issued canvas bag that gets tossed into the pit with all the others. If you don't mind the fact that you'll be working until you're dead, you might also want to consider the fact that you'll get nothing for your labor, because this nation's economy is about to crash like a freight train, and when it does, everything you've worked for will vanish. After the depression gets ugly, and your family has made the adjustment from three meals per day to three meals per week, the newspapers will blame your hunger on "the economy," as if it were some magical force that uncontrollably ruined a couple hundred million lives. Nothing could be further from the truth....

Actually, I'm not sure I completely agree with that last line... I do think that there is something to be said for the idea that this ruin is built right into the economic system called capitalism. The U.S. government and its corporate sponsors are only playing their part in pursuing the capitalist ethos of prioritizing immediate profit (and maybe global domination) over everything else. They're simply helping us along this road to ruin, which is their natural role. It should be the role of others - the exploited proletariat? - to introduce another plan. This does not seem an option that occurs to Jolly Roger, whatever his political origins. But his predictions of doom sound awfully plausible sometimes, as in the following scenario:

What are you going to do when your government forces you into slavery? You can't avoid it, because if you're homeless, you'll be rounded up and brought to a "shelter", where you'll be fed, and probably medicated if you're not happy to be there. With so many people becoming homeless, it will be easy for them to find an apartment for you, and social services will pay your rent, and give you food stamps.

Soon after that they will find you a job, but naturally, you won't be taking home a paycheck because you're in debt to the social service system. They'll tell you that you're working your way back to independence, but since your salary will never be more than your expenses, you'll work for free until you're dead. If you refuse to work, the government "assistance" will be cut off, you'll be back out on the street, and you'll probably do your next job with a shackle around your ankle.

And though Jolly Roger doesn't offer us a lot of hope or political inspiration with regard to changing this fate, he does close with a little worthwhile advice:

I'm not asking that you waste the time or paper required to write your congressman, because they don't care what you think anyway. What I am asking you to do is to remember something. When the economy does crash, and you're forced into the street. I want you to remember that this isn't your fault, and it's not the result of a "bad economy." Please remember that you're poor, hungry and homeless, because that's where our government wants you to be, and they intentionally destroyed the U.S. economy because they want you to suffer, and beg. And regardless of how bad things get, never sell your rifle.

I'm going to be kind of abstract about this, since I don't want to start any arguments, (so I apologize if some of what I'm about to say sounds extremely cagey)... One of the links that I added recently is sort of connected to someone I don't like, who doesn't like me, either. My feeling is that this person hasn't lived up to certain stated princples, and I think the feeling may be mutual (though for different reasons, mine being much more legitimate, of course). But the material in the site itself is fairly good (even if it isn't always that easy to read through), and it's also connected to stuff that I'm very interested in right now. So, I'm overcoming my personal problems or bad experiences with that one particular person whom I mentioned (or maybe two people, come to think of it) and am linking to the material anyway, because I like the material. If the person whom I don't like notices this, please don't think that my inclusion of this link means that I like you now. I still don't like you...but I would like people to see this stuff.

One issue that's been going through my mind a lot in general is how much bad social- personal experiences might discourage me from continuing with (in terms of working with or even referring to) a paricular group or school, scene or faction. I've wondered about this with regard the anarchist scene for a while, and my own increasing distance from capital-"A" anarchism (though the libertarian Marxist "school" of thought that I do pay attention to most these days does, as Noam Chomsky once pointed out, "merge with anarchist currents"). (By the way, I found that quote about 10 years ago in the book Anarchism, Left, Right and Green, by Ulrike Heider - though I think it had originated in various interviews with Chomsky in about 1970.) Anyway, I believe that my increasing distance from capital-"A" anarchism, though possibly influenced by personal disappointment and disillusionment during my involvement in the anarchist scene/"community," has more to do with an increasing dissatisfaction that I've felt with anarchist theory, especially as it pertains to economic and/or class-based struggle. I guess I've found Marxist theory to be much more meaty in this regard at a time when I have increasingly been craving such meat (no offense to all the vegans).

I think that this is the reason for my own recent changes in political direction, and I believe that if there's any personal experience that's pushed me more in the current direction, it's been economic hardship rather than arguments and other ugly interpersonal problems. But, I can't say I'm 100 percent sure of that...

I would guess that everyone's ideas change a little due to personal-social experiences. But I've been more inclined lately to feel that the pursuit of political ideas should be clearly distinct and separate from personal-social feelings regarding, for instance, whom we would most like to party with. I'm increasingly opposed to the notion that political organization and action should somehow be completely intertwined with the desires in one's social life and, especially, the strange equation that people from a variety of different ideological strains seem to make between political parties (broadly speaking) and dancing-and-drinking parties. (As an aside... I often like to say to people, if I have to dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution! Actually, I used to like to dance a lot and still do sometimes, but what's that really got to do with anything?)

Then again, a big problem can arise if we find that certain people's individual conduct or way of doing things is completely inconsistent with their stated political beliefs, and then we have to decide whether this individual inconsistency has any connection to the consistency (or lack thereof) of the group they're involved in. But, getting back to the beginning point of this rambling post... If a group or person espouses ideas that we consider worthwhile, I think it's important to promote those ideas regardless of our personal feelings about (some of) the people who've articulated them. And if someone, because of his/her ideas, seems worthwhile to work with intellectually and/or politically, we've got to make an effort to work with that person in the appropriate context, regardless of whether we would even want to say hello if we saw him or her walking down the street.

I'm saying this all rather insistently because I have not been good about following these dictums myself in the past. But I am determined to try more.