Bloomberg: de Blasio's campaign racist and class warfare

The "racist" campaign literature

by Richard Mellor
Afscme Local 444, retired

You gotta laugh at politics in America.  The race for mayor of NYC is heating up. Present mayor, Michael Bloomberg who is owner of Business Week magazine and is described in the media as a “self made”billionaire, has accused one of the candidates hoping to replace him of running a “racist” campaign based on “class warfare.” In an interview with New York Magazine Bloomberg said that Democrat Bill de Blasio’s is "in some ways ... a class-warfare campaign……..class-warfare and racist.”.

What the hell is a “self made” billionaire anyway?  Is there a collectively made billionaire? A billionaire by committee? What does “self made” mean? Is there anyone that believes you can accumulate billions of dollars all on your own, working lots of overtime and stashing away savings. But I must let that sidetrack me.

When asked what is racist about Democrat Bill de Blasio’s campaign, Bloomberg says, according to the Associated Press, "Well, no, no, I mean he's making an appeal using his family to gain support. I think it's pretty obvious to anyone watching what he's been doing. I do not think he himself is racist. It's comparable to me pointing out I'm Jewish in attracting the Jewish vote."

Is Bloomberg Jewish? I’d never have thought it. Bill de Blasio is married to a black woman and apparently his campaign ads have featured his family. Have we ever seen such a thing in American politics, a candidate having their partner, kids and dog on stage with them or in campaign ads with them?

I would say its one of the standard sickening practices we see every election time as these people try to appeal to the conservative elements in society showing that they are “normal” people in a normal god-fearing marriage, a man, a woman, two kids and a dog.

The real issue is not that de Blasio has an interracial family. It’s that he’s striking a bit of a populist tone. He’s not obscuring the fact that there is a class war, that’s the problem.  De Blasio has attacked Bloomberg for not doing enough to help the poor and that New York has become “two cities”, one for the rich and one for everyone else. De Blasio is well aware of the mood out there in the aftermath of the Great Recession and is tapping in to the anger and hatred for the rich that lies beneath the surface, but so is Bloomberg which is why he has reacted so strongly.  Bloomberg, a coupon clipper, is the 7^thrichest man in the US worth about $27 billion. He is as detached from American working class life as Putin is.

He comes to the defense of his coupon clipper colleagues, many of whom live in NYC. But first he attacks the poor in NYC, “By most of the world’s standards, you ain’t poor,” he says reminding us that when compared to most places in the world “…our poor are wealthy.”  You see, you don’t have to be bright to be wealthy and won a major magazine.

Bloomberg is quite hurt by de Blasio’s assault on the NY City’s billionaires as they contribute so much to the city in the form of tax revenue. "The way to help those who are less fortunate is, number one, to attract more very fortunate people. They are the ones that pay the bills. The people that would get very badly hurt here if you drive out the very wealthy are the people he professes to try to help," Bloomberg says.

He gets a little madder and reveals to us his real view of the world when he says that “…this city is

Bloomberg, worth $27 billion

not two groups, and if to some extent it is, it's one group paying for services for the other." We should all be grateful to the Michael Bloomberg, Donald Trumps and Warren Buffets of this word for giving us miserable wretches an existence.

The fact that poverty and unemployment and all the negative aspects of their so-called free market hits black folks, as a percentage of the population, far worse than most groups, with the exception of Native Americans perhaps, is definitely an issue when a white candidate with a black wife, a multi-racial family, is speaking about how the world actually is, is raising the class divide as Jesse Jackson did in his first presidential campaign before the Democratic Party hacks gave him a good talking to before the national convention. Plus, the Great Recession has hit a lot of people who thought they were safe; pointing fingers at the 1% in this climate is a dangerous game.

De Blasio has been getting a lot of support from the black community according to reports but I’ll wager it is predominantly for his populist rhetoric.  Were his wife to take a cue from Bill Cosby and chide black folks for not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and going out there and “gettin’ it” as opposed to complaining all the time, there’d be no accusation of racism from Bloomberg then.

I saw a plug for “Crossfire” on TV tonight as I was flipping through channels and it had two Democrats and two Republicans in the plug and it was making the point about issues and differences being discussed.  But there is not significant difference between these two parties on the fundamentals.  They both agree that workers and the middle class must pay for their crisis and would both oppose a real candidate that made the class war that is forced on us daily an issue. It’s as if there is only a Democratic and republican view of the world.

This support that Occupy initially got and the support that de Blasio is getting is an indication of the mood that exists in society and that a genuine mass party of working people could have significant success in the political arena.  The 128 million or so of Americans that didn’t vote in the last election cycle aren’t all asleep, they have simply given up, recognizing correctly that on the basic issues, food, shelter, health care, workplace and civil rights, both parties are against them.

As for Bloomberg threatening that if you attack those “more fortunate” we will have no services or they’ll leave town, our response is that we won’t let you, or we won’t let you with all the money you’ve stolen from those who work and create the wealth in society. His solution to poverty, he says, is to make more rich people.

Every human being deserves a secure and productive life.  A society that cannot provide that is not a civilized society.  It is not simply the billions they waste on predatory wars and such that we must take and allocate more efficiently in a humane sense, but the personal billions they have stashed away, what they call private money or their “personal” wealth.  They never earned that money; it’s a collective product. Michael Bloomberg should be guaranteed a decent and secure life, and most socialists and ordinary workers would agree, just not off the backs of the rest of us.  We would guarantee them what they deny us.

Read More

US politics and the hidden agenda

by Richard Mellor

I was watching the evening news not so long ago.  Don’t get me wrong, I almost never watch the evening news.  After all, Seinfeld is on at this time and why would I watch the evening news when I can watch that for the 20^th time?

But this time it was the same but different.  What was different was that I was paying extreme attention.

It was about this guy. In fact, a fair amount of time was given to this guy.  He walked in to a bank in Marin Country.  He had robbed this bank before and a cashier recognized him.   The cops followed or chased him and eventually caught the guy.

After I watched this garbage I thought to myself, “What sot of guy walks in to a bank he’d robbed before, knowing as I do and he must, that they have cameras, and doesn’t think he’d get caught?”

In answer to my own question I say, “A stupid guy. That’s who.”

But in the mass media, this poor, working class or just plain stupid guy who is so disconnected that he robs a store where the chance of someone recognizing him is strong, becomes some sort of newsworthy criminal.

Why is that?  Obama is not portrayed as a criminal.  The imbecile Bush is not portrayed as a criminal.  And war criminals like Dick Cheney are not portrayed as criminals.

Well, this is just the world we live in. The class that rules never writes about events or history like we would.  When I was active in the leadership of my Union there were people that opposed my and our point of view who always attacked us on the basis that we “had and agenda”. Well “we” did have an agenda, and we were open with it and urged our co-workers to vote for us if they agreed with that agenda.

The real objection from our opponents was that they couldn’t openly argue against our agenda.  They couldn’t defend their point of view, so they attacked us as if we had some sort of hidden views.  This strategy failed and the reason it failed is because we were always open and up front with our members.

I love those lines from Bob Dylan’s Ballad of Hattie Carroll as the rich murderer of this working class black woman, his maid, was facing his day in court:

In the courtroom of honor, the judge pounded his gavel

To show that all's equal and that the courts are on the level

And that the strings in the books ain't pulled and persuaded

And that even the nobles get properly handled

Once that the cops have chased after and caught 'em

And that ladder of law has no top and no bottom

Stared at the person who killed for no reason

Who just happened to be feelin' that way without warnin'

And he spoke through his cloak, most deep and distinguished

And handed out strongly, for penalty and repentance

William Zanzinger with a six-month sentence

Ah, but you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears

Bury the rag deep in your face

For now's the time for your tears.

Here in the US, whenever the politicians of the 1% in the two Wall Street Parties want to attack their opponents they accuse them of "playing politics" or using politics to stonewall.  But politics is life, it is about how society functions, where money is allocated whether we eat, receive medical attention or have a place to live. It is about wages and working conditions and whether we can send our children to school.  The personalized nonsense that comes out of the mouths of Democrats and Republicans at election times is designed to obscure this.  They represent "all" the people is their mantra when in fact they do not, they represent the material interests of their constituents.  As capitalist parties that means the interests of big capital. 

Never trust anyone in politics or the Union that tells you they don’t have an agenda.  Everyone has an agenda, being open with it is the issue.

Read More

Lobbyists, politicians and owners responsible for deaths in West Texas explosion

by Richard Mellor

The efficiency that the authorities, (FBI, Homeland Security, police etc) showed in capturing the alleged Boston bombers is nothing less than remarkable.  It’s incredible what they can do nowadays, including pinpointing a “terrorist” in a pick up 6000 miles away and blowing them to bits, along with their family of course.

If only finding out who is responsible for the 14 deaths and massive destruction after the fertilizer plant exploded in West, Texas was so easy. Texas lawmakers, which means politicians form the two Wall Street parties, are trying to “..sort out who in the state is responsible for monitoring the safety of such plants like West Fertilzer Co…” the Wall Street Journal reports. How difficult can that be unless you don’t want to find out?

As is normally the case, a struggle of sorts has been taking place between various forces. Such anti-American elements like “Environmental groups and Unions..” have been pressuring the federal government to “mandate”new safety procedures. This is more of the same “big government” policies that are destroying the 1%’s way of life and is typical of these commie type organizations.

Fortunately the real Americans step to the plate.  “..agricultural and chemical lobbying groups have long opposed laws that would require it…”  the WSJ reports.  And it’s hard to argue with their reasoning, any such laws or safety measures, “..would be unnecessary, costly, or impractical.” Profit is king for these patriotic fellows.

That’s enough satirical humor about this tragic event, an act of terrorism on Texas soil. As I commented in a previous piece on this tragedy, government agencies like OSHA are a joke.  OSHA is a social service, just like public transportation or education; it’s “money out” for the coupon clippers and crowds them and private capital from the marketplace.  Dan Keeney, speaking for the Fertilizer company says that the company’s focus now “..is on doing whatever we can to make sure this never happens in any community again.”

 Well, we’ve heard that before. And I shudder to think what 14 deaths and the destruction of homes has done to the psychology of this small rural community.  Even if he means it, Mr. Keeney cannot stop this happening again as it is a by-product of the market, as natural to it as the air we breathe. The capitalist system of production and the class that governs it is responsible.

The reason for this has already been explained in the quote above from those who make a living bribing the corporate politicians, “unnecessary” (profits), “costly” (profits), impractical, (profits). And in case the reader missed that the WSJ gives us a little more information.  A Democratic politician proposed legislation earlier this year that would have required, “….certain chemical facilities to adopt technologies to reduce the impact of an accident or terrorist attack.” Note the use of the word “accident”here.  The dictionary describes an “accident” as, among other things, chance, mishap, coincidence fate.  This tragedy was none of these; it was a product of conscious design.

The above politicians proposal, and it’s hard not to laugh at this were the results not so tragic,  “..wouldn’t apply if it impaired the facility operator’s business.” You can’t put it any clearer than that? Is that what the average American, what millions of workers and the owners of most community businesses would argue is sound judgment, good political and legal practices? Are you a commie and anti-American if you put the interests of an entire community above the right of a capitalist or group of capitalists, many of them nothing but clippers of coupons?  It appears you are. So be it.

West, Texas: not an accident

Even this weak-toothed attempt at safeguarding workers and our communities is opposed by the terrorists that represent big capital.  Mike Pomeo, a Kansas Republican has introduced a bill that would “…bar the EPA from imposing obligations on companies to use a particular approach to making and storing chemicals,” (“big government” again.)  The 1 percent’s politicians have waged a successful war against any restrictions on these companies. 

So despite investigators from the US Chemical Safety Board claiming that they found the “..damage in the areas surrounding the plant, ‘The worst we’ve seen at any accident site.’” , the culprits will  not be apprehended.  We know who they are, they could be found as quickly as the alleged Boston Bombers who were not able to inflict as much damage to American life and property.  They are lobbyists, bribers of all sorts, some higher ups in government regulatory agencies, owners of business and the US Chamber of Commerce.  We should remember as I wrote earlier that the US Chamber of Commerce opposed OSHA as worthless as it is. OSHA’s role (and not fault to the grunts that work there) is to tally up the dead after these things occur and issue a few citations.

We know who the politicians are that have used their positions to undermine the safety of our communities in the interest of profits. They are guilty.  But most of all is that the system is at fault.  Leaving aside whether we would actually need such chemically based fertilizers if human food production was not an industrialized for-profit venture, a major step toward reducing such tragedies along with other tragedies like the BP spill, is a strong and militant union presence on the job.  In this way, rank and file safety reps could shut down jobs and refuse to work whenever workers and our communities were in danger; no worker or middle class people would oppose such measures that protected their lives, homes and schools. There’s a reason for the misnamed “right to work” legislation. It’s actually the “right to profit”. The “right to exploit.”  And coerce.

We must call for the banning of all lobbyists as an independent political presence and build an independent political party of working people based on our organizations, our communities and the youth in the schools and colleges as an alternative to the two parties of the one percent.

We have no party of our own here in the US.  When a worker says he or she is a Democrat it means they vote Democratic, the Democratic Party is not a living active party with millions of workers in attendance in branches throughout the country. It is a thoroughly corrupt big business machine and millions of workers have drawn the correct conclusion that on the basics it doesn’t make much difference who they vote for and abstain from electoral politics in disgust. The Democratic Party was the party of slavery and is the only political party in human history that has dropped nuclear weapons on densely populated urban centers.

Through such independent political action, the major industries that are crucial to the production of our needs from food production to transportation can be taken under public ownership and management, and must include the storage houses of capital, the financial industry.  This is the only way free market terror like the death and destruction in West Texas can genuinely “never happen again”.

More on West, Texas explosion here  and here

Read More

What the 1% Heard During Obama's State of the Union Speech

Saturday, 23 February 2013 10:09 By Shamus Cooke, Countercurrents Op-Ed

President Barack Obama acknowledges applause before he delivers the State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., February 12, 2013. (Photo: Pete Souza / White House)When President Obama speaks, most Americans hear what he wants them to hear: lofty rhetoric and a "progressive" vision. But just below the surface the president has a subtly-delivered message for the 1%, whose ears prick up when their buzzwords are mentioned. Obama's State of the Union address was such a speech – a pro-corporate agenda packaged with chocolate covered rhetoric for the masses; easy to swallow, but deadly poisonous.

Much of Obama's speech was pleasant to the ears, but there were key moments where he was speaking exclusively to the 1%. Exposing these hidden agenda points in the speech requires that we ignore the fluff and use English the way the 1% does. Every time Obama says the words "reform" or "savings,” insert the word "cuts.” Here are some of the more nefarious moments of Obama's :

"And those of us who care deeply about programs like Medicare must embrace the need for modest reforms [cuts]..."   

"On Medicare, I'm prepared to enact reforms [cuts] that will achieve the same amount of health care savings [cuts] by the beginning of the next decade as the reforms [cuts] proposed by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission."

This ultra-vague sentence was meant exclusively for the 1%.   What are some of the recommendations from the right-wing Simpson-Bowles commission? Obama doesn't say. Talking Points Memo explains:

Force more low-income individuals into Medicaid managed care.
Increase Medicaid co-pays.
Accelerate already-planned cuts to Medicare Advantage and home health care programs.
Create a cap for Medicaid/Medicare growth that will force Congress and the president to increase premiums or co-pays or raise the Medicare eligibility age (among other options) if the system encounters cost overruns over the course of 5 years.

There were many other subtly-delivered attacks on Medicare in Obama's speech, all ignored by most labor and progressive groups, who clung tightly to the "progressive" smoke Obama blew in their face. Obama's speech also included a frightening vision of a national privatization scheme to previously publicly owned resources. But it was phrased so inspirationally that only the 1% seemed to notice:

"I'm also proposing a Partnership to Rebuild America that attracts private capital [wealthy investors] to upgrade what our businesses need most: modern ports to move our goods; modern pipelines to withstand a storm; modern schools worthy of our children...we'll reward schools that develop new partnerships with colleges and employers [corporations]..."

Obama's proposal plans to "rebuild America" in the image of the wealthy and corporations, who only put forth their "private capital" when it results in a profitable investment; resources that previously functioned for the public good will now be channeled into the pockets of the rich, to the detriment of everyone else.

Allowing the rich to privatize and profit from public education and publicly owned infrastructure (ports and pipelines, etc.) has been a right-wing dream for years. This will result in massive user fees for the rest of us, while further dismembering public education, which Obama's ill-named "Race to the Top" education reform is already successfully accomplishing. 

Obama's speech also put forth two massive pro-corporate international free trade deals, which would further drive down wages in the United States: 

"We intend to complete negotiations on a Trans-Pacific Partnership [a massive free trade deal focused mainly on Asian nations]. And tonight, I am announcing that we will launch talks on a comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership [free trade deal] with the European Union – because trade that is free and fair across the Atlantic supports millions of good-paying American jobs."

While praising free trade Obama disarmed labor and progressive groups by throwing in the meaningless word "fair.”  

Lastly, Obama's drone assassination policy was further enshrined in his speech. Drone assassinations are obvious war crimes — see the Geneva Convention — while also ignoring that pesky due process clause — innocent until proven guilty — of the constitution.  

But Obama said that these programs will be "legal" and "transparent,” apparently good enough to keep most progressive groups quite on the issue. 

There were plenty of other examples of sugar-coated poison in Obama's speech. It outlined a thoroughly right-wing agenda with no plan to address the jobs crisis — sprinkled with pretty words and "inspiring" catchphrases. 

Some labor leaders and "progressive" groups seem dazzled by the speech. President of the union federation, AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, praised Obama's anti-worker speech:

"Tonight President Obama sent a clear message to the world that he will stand and fight for working America's values and priorities. And with the foundation he laid, working families will fight by his side to build an economy that works for all."

And here is the real problem; as President Obama follows in the footsteps of President Bush, labor and progressive groups have found their independent voice stifled. The close ties between these groups and the Democratic Party have become heavy chains for working people, who find themselves under assault with no leadership willing to educate them about the truth, let alone organize a national fightback to win a massive jobs-creation program, prevent cuts to social programs, and fully fund public education. Obama's second term will teach millions these lessons via experience.

Read More

Will Rand Paul try to convert the Jews to save them?

Remember Paul's supporters dealing with this woman?

by Richard Mellor

I see the Christian Zionist, Libertarian and Tea Bagger, Rand Paul is in Israel affirming his support for the land where Jesus will return. 

Paul, like his father is a doctor (I wonder if he receives Medicare money) and will no doubt by-pass Gaza.  No one wants to have to look at victims living in concentration camps for fear of having to do something about it. Paul supports the right to life but not for Palestinian children. Paul’s trip is funded by the American Family Association, and organized by “evangelical kingmaker David Lane and former pharmaceuticals executive Richard Roberts, a prominent member of the Orthodox Jewish community who donates heavily to the GOP” according to Business Insider. Politics makes strange bedfellows as the saying goes. I don’t suppose Paul will remind the Jews there that they will burn in hell if they don’t convert to his religion when Jesus gets back. I suppose the evangelical organizations that make this happen are tax-exempt not being political. This is a religious pilgrimage no doubt.

Paul is looking at a presidential run next election as a Republican and is looking for support; after all, Obama raised $1 billion.   For that he needs to schmooze with American Zionists and the powerful pro Israel lobby, AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee.)

He will be meeting this week with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Shimon Peres, as well as other influential people favored by Washington and the Pentagon, president of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas and former king of Saudi Arabia Abdulluh, one of the family of theocratic thugs that runs the country. Abdullah is one of the world’s wealthiest individuals at about $21 billion according to Forbes.  He is also considered one of the world’s worst dictators but that’s never stopped US presidents and politicians before. After 911 Saudi royals got a cheap flight out of the US.  Gays, women and other religions are not the favorite of these thugs and Unions are a definite no-no. The whole group, Rand included, is like the employment line for the job with Hedley Lamarr in Blazing saddles, barring the two at the end of the line that is.

Rand, like Obama and Madonna before him won’t be chatting with Hamas, the freely elected government of the concentration camp we know as Gaza.  Hamas are “terrorists” says Washington and too cruel to talk to. 

How could he meet with Hamas? Paul is a doctor and values human life which is why he opposes abortion and supports a Human Life Amendment that would overturn Roe V Wade.  It shouldn't surprise anyone, defending Herman Cain during his scandal he complained that, "these days it seems like women can’t take a joke." If he’s like his Libertarian daddy he would also support workers organizing but not forcing employers to increase wages through withholding our Labor power, that’s terrorism too isn’t it?

Paul, like his father also wants small government and opposes government involvement in health care. Health care is best served by market forces like most of society’s needs. He likes medicine being a business as he is in the medical business himself. Paul also supports the misnamed Right to Work legislation that is aimed at keeping workers from organizing for better wages and conditions.  He should get along well with King Abdullah.

By my estimation, some 140 million Americans opted out of the electoral process last election.  I wonder why.

Read More

Millions of Americans disgusted with Democrats and Republicans

There is no doubt that class polarization has increased in US society.  The massive widening of the inequality gap is accepted barring a few nutcases, the same types that might deny that global temperatures are on the rise, or that label climate change as a hoax.

In the electoral arena we have a dictatorship, a monopoly of the electoral process by the Democrats and the Republicans, the two political parties representing the corporations and Wall Street.  They have mapped out the electoral turf and designed it so that there are fewer and fewer areas that might be called “swing” states so that, as the Wall Street Journal points out, Republican areas are growing “darker red”while Democratic areas “darker blue.”

This is very useful in that there is no need for politicians of either party to waste much time in these “safe”areas.  The name of the game is to simply increase the number of “safe” areas for each party and battle it out on a much smaller scale for the rest. Their media will reach the others; that's what ads are for. That's one reason why elections cost hundreds billions of dollars really.  Outside of these safe areas, the red or the blue, the so-called “swing states”are rapidly declining in number. “The number of states that are so clearly red or so clearly blue that they aren’t seriously contested in presidential races, is climbing while the number of swing states in the middle is falling” the Journal reports. In 1960, 20 states were tight races, with the outcome decided by less than 5% of the votes. In 2000, only 12 were considered competitive states and this year only 4.

The Journal explains (something we all pretty much know) that there are many states, “..that have become so clearly aligned in presidential politics…..that neither parties presidential contenders seriously compete in them.”

This is all interesting stuff.  But there is a very stark and obvious statistic that doesn’t find its way in to the mix and that is those who have withdrawn from the political process altogether. It’s hard to determine that but we can get some idea. According to the Elections Project and leaving out the 5 million or more felons denied the right to vote because of felony disenfranchisement, there are 240,926,957 Americans of voting age.  Although the turnout for the fall election has not yet been calculated, the Bipartisan Research Center estimates it at 57.5% of the eligible voters.  I am assuming “eligible” is the same as voting age minus felon disenfranchisement, those living abroad etc. By my estimation that means that 138,000,000 Americans able to vote chose not to.

How can a figure like this be ignored?  It’s not hard to figure that out. If we take the right to vote, it was won from the capitalist class through a long heroic struggle.  White men without property were unable to vote, blacks were unable to vote, not even considered citizens, women etc. Full enfranchisement was realized in 1965 with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the ratification of the 24th Amendmentin 1964.  (See here)

One hundred and thirty eight million possible voters are ignored because the political parties and their representatives have nothing to say to them that might inspire them to.  In some of these local elections, candidates are endorsed by the local trade Union movement (which means the leadership), as well as the Chamber of Commerce.  This is absurd when you think about it.  The US Chamber of Commerce supports the Right to Work (for less) laws and is anti-Union.

Some people argue that these people don’t vote because Americans are “apathetic”or we “don’t care”.  But this is the wrong conclusion to draw. They have simply drawn the conclusion that in the main their lives will not change that much, certainly on the issues that matter most, food, shelter, a job that pays the rent, health care, etc. Because the two Wall Street parties both agree that the burden of the capitalist crisis will borne born by workers, the poor and sections of the middle class, people who feel they must vote (for the right reasons) tend to vote on “moral”issues of importance to them personally, identity politics is the result: abortion or gun rights, prayer in school gay marriage etc.  It’s not that these issues are not important to people but the issues that matter most are food, shelter, security, health a job etc. If you’re going to earn $8 an hour no matter who gets in, then the other issues take on a greater importance.

The unfortunate aspect of this is that millions make the mistake that all politics is bad, all politicians are corrupt. Many young people are completely opposed to political activity due to this view that is strengthened with the absence of a genuine mass workers party.  That we have no party of our own is primarily the fault of the heads of organized Labor who are wedded to capitalism, the market and the Democratic Party.

This absence of a political alternative for workers has meant huge and at times violent battles in the streets and workplaces. We have seen a resurgence of this side of our heroic traditions with the Occupy Movement, that with all its weaknesses used direct action and open defiance of their laws while the Labor officialdom bow down to their laws, their courts and legality; the capitalist class responds to this with violence.   And despite the success of the Democrats and their allies atop organized labor to derail it, we saw 100,000 workers, many fresh layers, on the streets of Madison Wisconsin.  It’s clear that organized labor has been working inside Walmart and other retailers and the fast food industry trying to organize as recent actions in this sector show. The Union hierarchy sees tremendous revenue potential here. But, as is always the case, regardless of the intentions of those that initially give it life, a movement can get out of their control.

These 138 million people, and those that felt the need to vote if just to keep the nastier and most openly racist of the parties out of the White House, are not the conservative mass that the mass media would have us believe.  The continued attacks on basic Union rights is likely to intensify clashes on the streets and in the workplaces in the period ahead, especially as further economic crisis looms, and it is most likely out of such movements the workers’ independent political voice will be born.

Read More