Field Observations – USSF 2007,
Bridgette Portman
UC-Irvine
“Government
as an Agent of Social and Economic Justice”
---
Organizer: Democratic Socialists of
Date:
Event Description: [From the USSF
website] This workshop will examine how progressives frame the issue of
government in their rhetoric about specific issues that involve an expanded
role for government and in their conception of the importance of a robust,
well-funded public sector. The workshop starts from the perspective that
corporations have so much economic and political power as a result of thirty
years of nearly uninterrupted right wing power that government must be re
organized so that it is not simply neutral but weighted toward working people,
unions, community based organizations etc. How do we advance the idea that
government must have as an explicit part of its mission countering the
destructive and disruptive effects of the so called “free market?”
Estimated # of attendees: 17
Composition of attendees (gender, age, ethnicity,
nationality, languages used, etc):
Attendees were polarized in age, with 7 individuals
appearing older than 50 years, 9 younger than 30 years, and
Describe Panelists (name, organizational affiliation,
union, country, etc):
Frank Llewellyn is a middle-aged white man from
Emahunn Campbell is a young black man from the
Will Emmons is a young white man from
Summarize speakers’ main points and any debates that
arose during the event.
Frank began the session by talking about the role of
government in achieving progressive change.
There is not a consensus among activists about whether government is
good or bad, and he hopes we can have a dialogue about it here. His opinion is that corporate power is an
“enormous elephant with its foot on the world” and is too strong for social
movements to combat without the help of state power, especially now that the
Emahunn spoke next.
He said that we cannot depend upon our current government, but must
organize and try to change it. He made
references to both Antonio Gramsci and Martin Luther King, both of whom knew
they had to change the status quo. He
also said that more black people need to be involved, but that they have seen
government fail to keep its promises to them and this has generated skepticism among
them about the role of government.
Will spoke of the need for a society where everyone
can develop to his or her full potential -- this is his definition of
socialism. However, “history has proven”
that the old socialist theories of central planning and a state-run economy are
not good; instead, we need to use government to regulate the market. Although anarchists disagree and think the
state is always bad, Will argues that the state can be a force for good. It is a mechanism of class oppression but it
can be used to “repress” bourgeois forces.
There is also a danger in propagating a paternalist view of the state as
something that simply gives us what we need -- it is necessary to find ways to
use the state to empower people. He
mentioned the example of having the government give tax credit to worker-owned
businesses.
Question/Discussion Time:
After the panelists’ presentation, the session was
opened up for discussion. An older white
man asked how we can talk to people about government as a positive force when
so many people are cynical and distrustful of it. A woman agreed that this is difficult, and
suggested that perhaps we might only get through to people when economic
inequality becomes greater. She said
that although she was influenced herself by anarchist thought, she believes
that some kind of representational system is necessary. A young man suggested giving examples to
people of situations in which the government can help them, such as providing universal
healthcare (an example repeatedly brought up) and grants and loans for
tuition. The woman controlling the video
camera gave the example of farmers’ markets on city-owned land, as well as
railroads in
An older white woman admitted feeling “fairly
frustrated” about the pace of change, and asked the young man from
A slight controversy came up when one man argued that
we should heed Engels and be careful not to reify the state. This also generated a brief discussion about
what the world “reify” meant, for the sake of the people who might watch the
recorded session online. The man who brought
it up said that he meant we should not make the state into something godlike
and beyond human beings. He argued that
we should not forget the importance of the people in the movement, who will
need to organize and help themselves. He
also argued that we need an analysis of class that includes more than just
workers and capitalists, as there are many other economic gradations.
Several young people commented about how government
can help students. A young white man
from
Another issue brought up was military spending. Frank argued that we need to cut back on the
military budget in order to increase funding for social programs. When these programs lack the necessary
funding, they are perceived to have failed, further reducing people’s
confidence in the government.
Corporations also profit off of war spending.
Were plans for specific actions or future campaigns
discussed?
In the beginning of the session, Frank introduced the
initial draft of a document, “Toward an Economic Justice Agenda,” that is a
project of DSA. According to the
document, “Our hope is that this project can lead to a consensual economic
justice program that a broad coalition of left and progressive groups will
eventually coalesce behind.” This is
still an evolving document, and Frank invited us to give our comments and
feedback on it. The specific goals
listed in the Agenda include a single-payer national health insurance system,
increased funding for education, and stronger rights for workers in the
workplace.
Were any cross-movement or transnational networks or
coalitions discussed?
They were not directly discussed; however, one man
suggested to the Venezuelan attendee that DSA should invite a group of
Venezuelan workers here to the
Describe any evidence of networking you see among
attendees.
No contact sheet was passed around, but in the
beginning of the session all of the attendees took turns briefly introducing
themselves, giving their names and group affiliations. Frank then urged us to give out fliers to
people at other sessions, and told us about DSA’s staffed table, and about
DSA’s publication, “Democratic Left,” which has a special issue about the
Social Forum. He also encouraged those
who were not members of DSA or YDS to join up, and told us about a party
planned for Saturday night. In addition,
there was a list on the table of all the events in which DSA was participating
or organizing at the Social Forum.
THEMATIC ISSUES:
There was no discussion of the USSF/WSF process
itself. The focus was on reformist
change in that although the panelists and participants had an explicitly
socialist and anti-capitalist perspective, they did not advocate achieving that
change through revolution, and they seemed to envision socialism as a kind of
market arrangement in which the state would act as regulator to restrict
corporate power. Indeed, it was
difficult to see how this vision differed from a stronger version of welfare-state
capitalism. They saw a positive role for
government, while acknowledging that the current government, including the
Democratic Party, is not progressive enough, and that any use of state power
must rest upon a foundation of social movement organizing. There was no real discussion of international
institutions or organizations, although the Economic Justice Agenda document
does contain a section about this. One
woman did mention that she thought the
Although 6 of the attendees were from the
Frank Llewellyn (left),
Emahunn Campbell, and Will Emmons (speaking)
“The
US
---
Organizer: Solidarity
Date:
Event Description: [From the USSF
website] SOLIDARITY will serve as the lead organization for a panel and
discussion (two-hour session) to include representatives from publications and
organizations that have longstanding involvements in the U.S. working class
movement -- broadly defined to include trade union movements but also rank and
file organizing, workers centers and social movements around issues that affect
working people. Panelists will include representatives of the publications
AGAINST THE CURRENT, the magazine sponsored by Solidarity; INTERNATIONAL
SOCIALIST REVIEW, published by the International Socialist Organization; and
DEMOCRATIC LEFT, published by Democratic Socialists of America. (Other
magazines are being solicited for participation, with responses pending at the
time of submission.) Initial presentations will be structured to take no more
than 40-45 minutes in total (divided equally among the panelists) to be
followed by a brief follow-up exchange and then contributions from the floor.
Speakers in the discussion period will be limited to three minutes to ensure
maximum participation. The chair will have discretion and be positively
encouraged to give priority to women, youth and peopled of color in calling on
participants in the discussion. Panelists will have brief wrap-up statements.
This panel will represent a diversity of views and strategic perspectives on
important questions, while sharing a common view that rebuilding a class
movement in this country -- a movement that embraces the liberation of women
and oppressed people and resists imperialist wars, as well as fighting for
economic justice -- is central to defeating the right wing and breaking the
stranglehold of reaction on politics in this country. The presentations will
take this framework as the starting point for an exchange of ideas on the
openings and the obstacles to this effort.
Estimated # of attendees: 27
Composition of attendees (gender, age, ethnicity,
nationality, languages used, etc):
About 9 of the attendees appeared to be older than 50
and 6 younger than 30, with the rest in the 30-50 range. Two thirds (18) of the
individuals were male and one third were female. The attendees were
overwhelmingly white, with the exception of 2 women who appeared to be of
possible Latino origin. One young man was Swedish while the rest of the
individuals were from the
Describe Panelists (name, organizational affiliation,
union, country, etc):
Dianne Feeley is a white woman appearing to be in her
60’s; she is on the editorial board of Against the Current.
Milt Tambor is a white man in his 50’s or 60’s; he is
chair of Atlanta DSA. He also attended the
Ashley Smith is a middle-aged white man on the
editorial board of the International Socialist Review.
Summarize speakers’ main points and any debates that
arose during the event.
Dianne started out with some brief comments about the
potential power of the working class in the
Milt, who has spent 30 years in the labor movement,
discussed neoliberalism and its results -- the weakening of unions and the
public sector, the increase of the power of global corporations, the
undermining of the values of liberty, equality and fraternity, the mantra that
there can be no alternative to a market economy. He gave out some statistics about the
deteriorating condition of the working class in the
Ashley explained how 9/11 resulted in a rollback of
the “radicalization” of the working class that had been in progress in the late
1990’s. The Bush administration, “with
the willing cooperation of the Democratic Party,” took advantage of the
aftermath of 9/11 to put reactionary pro-corporate measures into effect. Since then, an international resistance to
the
Dianne spoke forcefully about some of the challenges
still faced by the left: Workers have misconceptions about their rights, and
“there’s not one voice in Congress” willing to help workers against the power
of corporations. Even unions are not
much help, as they are too willing to make concessions and are not democratic
enough. Corporations use a strategy of
“management by stress,” pitting workers against one another to keep them from
uniting. We need to focus on the issues
that unite people in order to build a new, stronger movement.
Discussion/Question Time:
One debate that came up concerned the attitude of
activists toward the Democratic Party and toward unions. One woman complained about the lack of a
party or candidate that really represents the working class, and thought that a
third party is needed. She also thought
that the leadership of the labor movement might need to be altogether
replaced. Another woman claimed, “In no
way will I lift a finger to help the Democratic Party” and criticized the
AFL-CIO for not being close enough to rank-and-file workers. Milt, however, contended that it is important
to work within the Democratic Party, not as an exclusive strategy, but as one
tactic. He also to some extent defended
unions, pointing out that they are sometimes put in difficult situations that
require compromises. Ashley did not
think that the Democratic Party could ever be a workers’ party because it is
too tied to corporations, but said that many of the people who support it do so
for the right reasons and that we need to be patient with them.
Another interesting debate centered around the use of
the term “socialism.” An older woman
wondered whether it is to use that term when people have so many misconceptions
about it. “Don’t say it,” one woman
responded. She thought that the working
class is not radical enough to hear about socialism yet, and that activists
should focus on concrete issues instead of getting “hung up” on the idea of
socialism. Another woman disagreed,
arguing that people are interested in knowing what socialism means. Later in the discussion a man expressed the
same idea, arguing that it is important to connect specific issues to a larger
vision. He thought that the leftist
movements in the 1960’s and 1970’s failed for just this reason -- they had no
vision beyond specific issues to keep them together.
Were plans for specific actions or future campaigns
discussed?
Milt, who had also been present at the DSA meeting
earlier today, brought up the four pillars of the Economic Justice Agenda,
listed above. This was probably the
closest thing to a specific campaign that was discussed.
Were any cross-movement or transnational networks or
coalitions discussed?
No official coalitions were discussed, but other
movements did enter the conversation.
Ashley, who has worked with Iraqi Veterans Against the War, mentioned
the
Describe any evidence of networking you see among
attendees.
No contact sheet was passed around, but in the
beginning participants briefly introduced themselves, giving their names and
organizational affiliations. There was
informational material provided and Milt invited us to share it with others to
help educate people. He also told us
about an upcoming party hosted by Jobs for Justice. In addition, Dianne made an announcement about
a group of Iraqi trade unionists at the USSF and encouraged us to hear them
speak.
THEMATIC ISSUES:
A middle-aged man complained that most people at the
Social Forum are not connected with the labor movement. The demographics of the people in this room
(mostly white and middle-aged) do not reflect those of the rest of the Social
Forum, which is largely young people and people of color. He wondered how we can make this discussion
relevant to their experiences. A young
man responded by saying that he had been to a workshop on minority unions, and
the demographics there were very different, very young and diverse, but he
agreed that socialists have not yet made their ideas relevant enough to a lot
of people. Other than this comment, the
USSF/WSF was not discussed.
The goals of this group seemed to be somewhat radical,
in that they expressed a definite socialist, anti-capitalist, anti-neoliberal
perspective, but there was no discussion of radical means to achieve it, and
the change they seemed to be looking forward to was a gradual one. When one man asked how we can build a
revolutionary workers party, Ashley responded by urging patience, not to expect
too much too fast, and that workers cannot become revolutionaries overnight.
As described above, participants had mixed views about
the usefulness of the Democratic Party and trade unions under their current
leadership. Dianne stressed the need to
make unions more democratic.
International organizations or institutions were not discussed, other
than Milt’s mention of the need to reform NAFTA so that it includes labor and
environmental protections.
For
the most part, the issue was framed as a national one -- the struggle between
labor and capital in the
“The Struggle of Workers in the Rust Belt”
---
Date:
Event Description: [from USSF website] A workshop on "The Struggle of Rust Belt Workers"
will address the devastating effects of
Estimated # of attendees: 24
Composition of attendees (gender, age,
ethnicity, nationality, languages used, etc):
A majority of the attendees were middle aged; 5 or 6
appeared to be in their 50’s, 8 younger than 30, and the rest in the 30-50
range. None appeared to be older than
60. About 13 of the attendees were
white, 4 were black, 4 were Latino, and 1 was Asian. Roughly one third (9) of the individuals were
female. English was the only spoken
language used, although fliers were available in both English and Spanish.
Describe Panelists (name, organizational
affiliation, union, country, etc):
Noel Beasley is the International Vice President of
UNITE HERE. He is a middle-aged white
man from
Kathy Hanshew is a white woman appearing to be in her
30’s. She is currently a union
representative in
Jacquie Chapman is a middle-aged black woman who has
also worked in the auto parts industry. She is currently a member of a local in
Kenny Harrison is a middle-aged black man involved in
organizing workers in the Redcats garment industry. He is president of a local in
George Long is a middle-aged black man; he is
president of a local in
Margarito Diaz is a young Latino man involved in
organizing workers of 5-Star laundry in
Paula Lenchan is a middle-aged white woman; she is
president of a local that organizes casino workers in
Summarize speakers’ main points and any debates that
arose during the event. Include discussions of problems facing workers,
strategies for social change, etc.
Noel Beasley began the event by introducing UNITE
HERE, an affiliation of unions that represents both industrial workers and
workers in the service industry -- including laundry, food service, hotel and
casino workers. Many of their members
have moved back and forth between the two sectors. He stated that they came to the USSF to exchange
ideas about the problems facing workers in both of these sectors in the “Rust
Belt” (the upper
Kathy Hanshew spoke about her experiences organizing
workers in an
Jacquie Chapman also worked in auto parts
manufacturing; she described her work for Ford Motor Company starting in the
late 1970s. She described layoffs in the
1980s as Ford contracted to cheaper labor overseas. She claimed that now workers in this industry
are even worse off; she lamented that workers today make less than what they
earned in the 1980s and that layoffs and plant closings in the auto industry
have affected the whole region. Part of
the problem facing unions is that many workers don’t understand the benefits
that unions can bring, even those that are members, and are afraid of the
repercussions of speaking out. “They
don’t want to lose what they have, but they don’t want to fight for what they could
have.”
Kenny Harrison was part of an effort around 5-7 years
ago to organize workers in an
In introducing the next speaker, Noel discussed how
UNITE HERE has made efforts to unify the significant immigrant workforce in the
upper
Margarito Diaz spoke about the problems facing workers
for the 5-Star laundry company in urban
The final speaker, Paula Lenchan, spoke briefly about
workers in Ceasar’s Casino in
Noel concluded the panelist portion of the session by
reiterating that workers in the upper
Question/Discussion Period:
A number of questions were taken from the audience in
the second half of the session. Noel was
the main panelist to answer, but sometimes the others joined in.
Much of the questions and discussion focused on UNITE
HERE’s training programs for workplace leaders.
Noel described their “3 ½ Day” schools that use documentaries and guest
speakers to educate workplace leaders from a wide geographical range. They offer four or five of these schools per
year, each training 20 to 25 workplace leaders.
A Latino man and woman who were involved with these schools elaborated
on them. These schools are also
conducted in Spanish for immigrant workers.
Many workers that come from
While Noel was positive about these training programs,
he was critical of traditional union meetings, which he said are really only
perfunctory. Workers don’t want to come to them. The best way to really meet
with workers is in the workplace itself.
The Latino man who spoke earlier about the training
program argued that we need to have a debate about the future of work in
Another topic that arose was how to go about educating
average workers about what unions can do for them. Jacquie replied that we need to talk to
people one-on-one and inform them of the positive things about unions, to
counter negative preconceptions, e.g. “they only take our dues.” Noel added that the use of video and DVD as
educational tools has been very successful.
Workers can be shown films during their lunch breaks or given DVDs to
take home.
Were plans for actions or future campaigns discussed?
Several specific campaigns were mentioned. Just before the panelists opened up the
session to questions, a representative from
Also, during the question/discussion period a young
man passed around a petition to “Repeal the Carolina Bargaining Ban.” A
Were any cross-movement or transnational networks or
coalitions discussed?
There was no discussion of cross-movement
networks. Although the struggle for
immigrant rights was a theme, this was framed in terms of a challenge for the
labor movement. The only discussion of
transnational networks emerged in the context of the international struggle
against the France-based garment company, which involved European trade unions,
particularly French, in addition to Kenny’s union. At another point, Noel mentioned sometimes
bringing Columbian trade union leaders to his meetings, which helped put
current struggles in perspective for American workers. In
Did you notice any networking happening among
attendees?
I did not notice any networking in terms of exchanging
personal information, other than the petition that was passed around and the
pledge cards for the “American Vulture” boycott. One woman also spoke up and advertised a
documentary about workers and globalization that her group was distributing,
and provided a web address where it could be found.
THEMATIC ISSUES:
There was very little discussion of the USSF/WSF
process itself. In the beginning, Noel
stated that UNITE HERE came to the USSF to exchange ideas. However, near the end he also said that -- at
least regarding the issue of resources for returning war veterans, one topic
that came up -- we need to start coming to some conclusions at these forums and
are at the point where we need to develop a practical program. He did not elaborate on this.
The session emphasized reformist goals -- although
globalization and neoliberal trade laws were identified as the key causes of
job loss, no one expressed explicitly anti-capitalist attitudes.
The role of government was not a major theme in this
session. When it did come up, it was
presented as at best a possible tool to help workers, and at worst part of the
problem. Noel was critical of the Bush
administration’s lack of accountability and expressed regret that Congress was
unable to pass its latest attempt at an immigration reform bill. While Noel did not support the legislation
itself, he thought that it was good that Congress was discussing the
issue. He also mentioned that the
struggle for universal healthcare is currently his union’s main political
fight. Overall, the attitude toward
politics expressed here seemed to be one of engagement, but without
illusions. The only international
institution mentioned was the ILO, in the context of the petition against
All of the participants seemed to identity strongly
with the labor movement and there was no clear evidence of identification with
other social movements, a global left, or the WSF process itself. This session focused explicitly on the upper
Midwest and issues were generally framed as regional concerns, although there
was an attempt to connect them to nationwide problems -- for example, the
declining strength of unions in the
“There
is an Alternative: Economic Democracy”
---
Organizer: SolidarityEconomy.net
Date:
Event Description: [From the USSF
website] Another world is possible?
We keep repeating these words, but what exactly would that world look
like? More specifically, what might be
its underlying economic structure? Since
the Reagan/Thatcher days, TINA has been the mantra: there is no viable
alternative (to capitalism.) In Thomas Friedman’s words, “There’s only free
market capitalism or
Estimated # of attendees: 100
Composition of attendees (gender, age, ethnicity,
nationality, languages used, etc):
This was a popular workshop among young people; as
high as 60-70% of the attendees appeared to be under the age of 30. The number of males and females was roughly
equal. The large majority were white; nonwhite attendees comprised roughly 15%
and included black and Latino individuals. One young woman videotaped the event. The workshop was conducted in English, but a
Spanish interpreter was provided for one (or perhaps several) Latino
individuals on the far side of the room from where I was sitting.
Describe Panelists (name, organizational affiliation,
union, country, etc):
David Schweickart is a middle-aged white man and
author of several books, including After Capitalism. He is a philosophy professor at
Michael Albert is a middle-aged white man and has also
written several books, including Parecon: Life After Capitalism. He is founder of Znet and co-founder of Z
Magazine.
Carl Davidson, one of the editors of
SolidarityEconomy.net, was the moderator of this session.
Summarize speakers’ main points and any debates that
arose during the event.
This was a highly structured workshop: The two
panelists gave their arguments and then several questions were taken from the
audience. Carl Davidson began by
introducing the session and the two speakers.
The first to speak was David Schweickart. David started out by stating that he and
Michael Albert agree on several things: Capitalism is flawed and must be
replaced; Soviet-style centralized planning is not the answer; participatory
democracy is a must. They disagree,
however, in their attitudes toward the market.
While Michael thinks that all markets must be abolished, David thinks
that a competitive market for goods and services is okay -- it is only the
capital and labor markets that are destructive.
In his proposed system of “economic democracy,” firms would be democratically
run through worker councils that appoint the management, but these firms would
still be able to compete in a market. In
addition, there would be a flat tax on all enterprises that would be invested
back into the economy, generating “social control of investment.” According to David, this sort of system would
abolish the destructive aspects of a market system while preserving its good
elements, creating “a democratic order genuinely responsive to human needs.” Other elements of this system include a
living wage and guarantee of full employment, a permitted small business
sector, and “socialist protectionism” that shields workers from competition
from cheap labor overseas -- with the caveat that proceeds from tariffs should
go back to those poorer countries. David
believes that this system could come into effect easily, perhaps initiated by a
progressive political party. Of
Michael’s vision of the future, David calls it “obsessively egalitarian” and
nonviable, and claims that it ignores the problems with information and
incentives that will occur in the absence of a market system.
Michael spoke next, introducing his vision of “parecon,”
or participatory economics. It is
imperative, according to Michael, to create a classless society where people will
not have opposing interests, and in which people do not have the incentive to
be selfish. He calls himself a “market
abolitionist” and is certain that in 50 or 100 years people looking back on the
present day will see markets as highly destructive. Instead of markets, he foresees a form of
planning in which worker and consumer councils will cooperatively decide what
needs to be produced. This is not
centralized planning but a democratic, cooperative process. This would avoid the adversity between buyers
and sellers that is inherent in market systems, and ensure that goods are
allocated not on the basis of happenstance or inborn skills and talents, but
according to how much and how hard people work.
It would also avoid the harmful effects, such as environmental damage,
that come with making decisions on the basis of profit.
Question and Answer Period:
The last 40 minutes of the session were devoted to
questions from the audience. This was
also very structured. Many people raised
their hands with questions, and Carl chose nine who went up to the microphone
in turn and directed their questions to one or both of the panelists.
One of the subjects that came up was the process of
economic planning. One man talked
(rather at length) about Mao’s approach to planning and argued that there does
need to be some form of centralized planning, in order to ensure that society
is moving toward certain overarching goals.
He asked the panelists to respond to this -- what would be the
relationship between planning on a local level and planning at a more central
level? Michael’s answer was that better
results are achieved when planning is done in a democratic and participatory
way, because it is the people themselves who know their preferences and what is
best to produce.
Several questions dealt with the transition from the
current system to the new one. One man
said “I hate to sound like a Marxist, but…” and asked about what sort of crisis
could serve as a trigger for bringing this new system into existence. Michael’s response was that we do not need
the transition to be a “crisis” -- we would be more likely to end up with
fascism than anything else if that happened.
Both he and David agreed that the transition should be a gradual
one. People cannot become radicalized
overnight, but must be gradually persuaded of the advantages of an alternative
society.
Another topic that came up was education. After a woman asked about changing the
university system, David remarked that it needs to be made more democratic. Michael said that the university system as it
now exists trains 80 percent of its graduates to be obedient workers who do not
participate in making decisions -- and this needs to change.
Finally, one young woman challenged Michael by
describing what she felt was an example of a successful market system, one
created by a Buddhist movement in
Were plans for specific actions or future campaigns
discussed?
The closest to this came when David mentioned some
specific reforms that should be fought for as a starting point. These included more worker cooperatives, a
capital asset tax on corporations, more job security in capitalist firms, and
fair trade policies.
Were any cross-movement or transnational networks or
coalitions discussed?
David and Michael both agreed that numerous leftist
social movements needed to be involved in the transition to a new society. In response to one woman’s question, David
said that structuring the economy in a new way would not be enough to ensure a
just society -- the actions of groups like environmentalists and anti-racists
will be crucial as well. Michael said
that a leftist alliance should be formed, encompassing feminist,
environmentalist, cultural, and other movements. In this alliance, each component should
recognize the importance of the others and realize that their own victory
depends on the victory of all.
Describe any evidence of networking you see among
attendees.