the future direction of organized labour

With organized labour once again on the ropes, it may time for labour to rethink modern-day contract unionism, which relies on bloated bureaucracies and effectively neuters unions with its no-strike clause, and go back to the more 'radical' roots of the American labour movement—a time when, in the words of Stanley Aronowitz, "Workers ... used to fight for their demands continuously and agree to return to work only when they were met."

One option could be, as some within the IWW have recently argued doing themselves, for unions to move in the direction of 'direct unionism', where the focus isn't on contracts, workplace elections, or legal procedures, but building "networks of militants in whatever industry they are employed" who'll then "agitate amongst their co-workers and lead direct actions over specific grievances in their own workplaces." The goal essentially being to start small and "build up leadership and consciousness amongst other workers" that'll eventually lead to "large scale industrial actions that address issues of wages and conditions across entire regions or even whole countries" rather than just "union recognition from a single boss" and the signing of contracts that ultimately seek to de-radicalize workers.

Whether or not it's a direction labour wants to take, I think it's definitely time to try something new. The current direction is going nowhere fast.

the making of the american 99%

This article by Barbara Ehrenreich (author of Nickel and Dimed) and John Ehrenreich presents an interesting look at the coalescence of the 99%:

The Making of the American 99%

It suggests to me that, among other things, what we often call 'class' is ultimately a social relationship, which, in the words of Edward Thompson, "happens when some [people], as a result of common experiences (inherited or shared), feel and articulate the identity of their interests as between themselves, and as against other [people] whose interests are different from (and usually opposed to) theirs." The implication being that, for the Occupy movement to continue to grow and truly become "a force to change the world," divisions within the 99% need to be patiently confronted and resolved (or at least put aside), and common interests need to be identified and made into an increasingly more conscious, unifying force.

obama to sign indefinite detention bill into law

When I've said in the past that there's not much difference between Republicans and Democrats in practice, it's things like this that I'm referring to, where the current Democratic president is continuing, and even expanding, the previous Republican president's policies, going so far as to enshrine indefinite detention without trial into US law:

Obama to sign indefinite detention bill into law

Ultimately, I don't think the problem lies within the two dominant political parties themselves so much as within the structure of the system itself, which actively promotes a two party duopoly, produces toxic accumulations of both wealth and power (which seem to go hand in hand in politics), and serves to protect the economic, legal, and political hegemony of the ruling class. That's why it seems to me that, even when people who have the best interests of the citizenry in mind get elected to office, the system often forces their hand and they end up being like every other politician, or else the system just runs them over (metaphorically speaking, of course).

Hence, the candidate in 2008 who, assuming he was genuine, strongly criticized what he called "the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo," now continues where his predecessor left off by being a proponent of, and codifying into law, what the Bush administration argued the original 2001 AUMF against terrorism already empowered them to do, i.e., to, in the words of Greenwald, "imprison people without charges, use force against even U.S. citizens without due process (Anwar Awlaki), and target not only members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban (as the law states) but also anyone who 'substantially supports' those groups and/or 'associated forces' (whatever those terms mean)."

In my opinion, once people start to realize that voting for one party or the other (an electoral version of the 'lesser of two evils' principle) doesn't really make that much of a difference, that there's something inherently wrong with the system itself, the better off we'll be.

if i were a poor black kid

A friend of mine posted this Forbes article by Gene Marks on Facebook yesterday, and I couldn't help but read it:

If I Were A Poor Black Kid

What it sounds like he's trying to say is, "I know things are harder for poor, black youths in this country, but there are tools out there that can help you succeed. If I were in your place, knowing what I know, here's what I'd do." What I'm actually hearing, however, is, "If you're poor and black, you have to work a million times harder than any white kid from the suburbs, and that's just the way it is. Deal with it."

I think the sentiment is genuinely sympathetic; but the presentation is terribly condescending, and essentially glosses over the roles things like class and race play in keeping minorities from succeeding in our society, not to mention ultimately placing the blame on 'poor black kids' for not succeeding instead of questioning a system that makes it so disproportionality difficult in the first place.

In other words, I think we need to be challenging this historically classist, racist, and sexist socio-economic paradigm instead of simply accepting it as a fact of life—a sentiment that's seemingly echoed by, surprisingly enough, fellow Forbes contributor Charles Green:

You conclude by saying, “…the opportunity is still there in this country for those that are smart enough to go for it.”

So, if poor black kids seem to be disproportionately not going for it, your conclusion would be, what–they’re just dumb? Come on, spell out what you’re trying to suggest here!

Viktor Frankl emerged from Nazi death camps stronger for the experience. That doesn’t justify prison camps.

The fact that a few people can escape overwhelming social forces doesn’t prove much of anything. The much more important question is, if millions of people are doing worse than millions of others, what the heck is going on? And to suggest the answer lies in IQ is simply disgusting.

Social mobility is measurable, and is measured. And social mobility in this country is declining. We are less socially mobile than almost every country in Europe now except for Britain and Italy. The land of opportunity–defined as the chance to do better than your parents–is now demonstrably better in a lot of what Americans like to call “socialist” countries.

We need to stop listening to ignorance like this and get a grip.

led by the child who simply knew

Just read this extremely touching article about Nicole, a transgender teen:

Led by the child who simply knew

I know this story may be difficult for some people to read, especially for many social and religious conservatives; but I think it's important to understand some of the struggles transgender individuals have to go through, and that they need our support rather than our scorn.

It's heartening to see such a relatively positive story; but many transgender children (as well as adults) aren't as lucky as Nicole, and many suffer lives of intense abuse, bullying, discrimination, and ostracization, often leading to suicide or ending in murder.

It makes me incredibly sad that we live in a world where intolerant and insecure people harass and hurt others simply because of their gender or sexuality or anything else for that matter. In my opinion, we'll never truly be a 'civilized society' until we stop hating and hurting others simply for being who they are.

support occupy the ports

I understand why some people are critical of the port shutdowns. For one, it ends up financially hurting front-line workers like longshoremen and truck drivers. That said, the plight of the working class is generally ignored unless something big happens, and drastic actions such as port shutdowns and strikes seem to be the only way to get people's attention.

Nobody seems to take notice or care, especially the 1%, until the flow of commodities and capital stop, or at least is impeded. One of the few nonviolent tactics the working class has at its disposal is to withhold its labour and/or impede the flow of noncritical goods and services. Yes, it hurts the working class more in the short-term; but it also makes enough noise to really get people's attention and make them realize that the 99% is serious about addressing pressing socio-economic issues.

Furthermore, purely electoral solutions are limited. The logic of the present system itself seems to produce toxic accumulations of debt, wealth, and power (especially in the sense that money equals social power). That's why it seems to me that, even when people who profess to have the best interests of the 99% in mind gain political office, the system often forces their hand and they end up being like every other politician, catering to the needs of the 1%, or else the system just runs them over (metaphorically speaking, of course).

So, in the end, I support these kinds of tactics, and I hope to see them spread to more than just ports. The working class needs to unite in this fight. That way, maybe we'll actually see some real solutions to these problems instead of business as usual in Washington and Wall Street, which, for all intents and purposes, are practically one and the same.

my body, my rules: a case for rape and domestic violence survivors becoming workplace organizers

This emotionally raw yet well-written article/essay has been making the rounds pretty quickly on the interwebs, and I can see why:

My body, my rules: a case for rape and domestic violence survivors becoming workplace organizers

It presents an interesting (and horrifying) perspective on the unequal social relations created by a system where one class of people is forced to sell their labour in order to survive while another thrives by exploiting that labour; as well as powerful a reminder that the right to organize is one of the few tools workers have to shift the (in my opinion, unfair) balance of power in their favour.

The main lesson I take from it, however, is that we shouldn't let the proverbial (or even literal) 'pizza party' make us forget where our strength lies, or pacify our struggle for workplace democracy.