On Obama

I've resisted so far.

Two quick points. I explained to one of my friends last night that whilst I am pleased Obama won - on the level of it representing an amazing change in circumstance for African Americans in less than fifty years, and a change in the perception of race the world over (I think Socialist Economic Bulletin had some interesting thoughts about this); I'm also pleased that Obama may have some policies that, as Chomsky notes, will tendentially benefit the working class stateside more; I'm also pleased more people were drawn to the polls (64% according to Wikipedia, which, whilst not through the ceiling by other countries' standards, is high for stateside); but I still would not have voted for Obama had I been a yanklander myself.

Howard Zinn seems, as ever to spell it out beautifully:

I CONFESS I am excited by the thought of Obama becoming president, even though I am painfully aware of his limitations–his smooth, articulate intelligence covering up a quite traditional approach to domestic and foreign policy, aided and abetted by a group of advisers recycled from the Clinton administration and other parts of the Establishment.

Does he really think Robert Rubin will come up with a bold approach to the economy? Or that Madeleine Albright will carve a new path in foreign policy? (It was she who ran around the country in 1998 to defend Clinton’s bombing of Iraq, warning of “weapons of mass destruction.”)

If Richard Hofstadter were adding to his book The American Political Tradition, in which he found both “conservative” and “liberal” presidents, both Democrats and Republicans, maintaining for dear life the two critical characteristics of the American system, nationalism and capitalism, Obama would fit the pattern.

His obsequious joining with McCain in approving the $700 billion “bailout” for the financial giants is a sad sign. See my article (I say arrogantly) in a recent issue of the Nation about the bailout, as a futile “trickle-down” act, instead of using the money directly for the people Obama claims to represent.

So it will take a revivified social movement to do for Obama what the strikers and tenant organizers and unemployed councils and agitators of the early 1930s did for FDR, pushing him into new paths, so angering the super rich that FDR, in one of his best moments, said, “They hate me, and I welcome their hatred!”

Obama needs such fire. It is up to us, the citizenry–and non-citizens too!–to ignite it.

Obama is most emphatically not a socialist, and whilst a level of public engagement by the population would be welcome and would open minds to more socialistic ideas, I doubt even he could be lurched leftwards. Still, the SPGB's height was during a period of reformist hope, and socialism is bred from promise not despair. After all, building such a movement can lead to a genuine socialist movement being built, why ask them in power when you can begin to do it yourself?

Getting the vote out...

It is instructive, not to say intriguing, to hear about ballot access in the states. Looking over at the web page of the so-called Socialist Party USA candidate for president, we see how few states they have their name on the ballot paper (eight in all, including Florida and Ohio, so they're playing for swing state voters). On a few more they have "official write-in status" presumably that means if someone write in a name resembling theirs they will get the vote.

As this post illustrates, they are facing official obstructions from officials keeping them off the ballot. You have to wonder, if officials can attempt to manipulate the election by making getting on the ballot at all prohibitively hard for small party candidates, no wonder they are tempted to try it for the main contenders.

The fact is, America's democracy has always been rough and ready, gerrymandering (a word invented state side) has always been there, you could call it corruption by consent, in as much as the powers that be do what they think they can get away with. After all, a bit of voter fraud when you have a landslide anyway is neither here nor there, it only comes out when races are close.

Of course, what this does is enforce the two party system, constraining rational choice.

Really, running for president shouldn't be an option, the SPUSA admit their aim is to influence the big parties. Unless and until you hold a few congressional seats and maybe control one state legislature they shouldn't even bother.

I've been quiet too long...

So, I'll just quote the CIA World Fact book:

The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $46,000. In this market-oriented economy, private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions, and the federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace. US business firms enjoy greater flexibility than their counterparts in Western Europe and Japan in decisions to expand capital plant, to lay off surplus workers, and to develop new products. At the same time, they face higher barriers to enter their rivals' home markets than foreign firms face entering US markets. US firms are at or near the forefront in technological advances, especially in computers and in medical, aerospace, and military equipment; their advantage has narrowed since the end of World War II. The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get
comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. The response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 showed the remarkable resilience of the economy. The war in March-April 2003 between a US-led coalition and Iraq, and the subsequent occupation of Iraq, required major shifts in national resources to the military. The rise in GDP in 2004-07 was undergirded by substantial gains in labor productivity. Hurricane Katrina caused extensive damage in the Gulf Coast region in August 2005, but had a small impact on overall GDP growth for the year. Soaring oil prices in 2005-2007 threatened inflation and unemployment, yet the economy continued to grow through year-end 2007. Imported oil accounts for about two-thirds of US consumption. Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups. The merchandise trade deficit reached a record $847 billion in 2007. Together, these problems caused a marked reduction in the value and status of the dollar worldwide in 2007.

The free market in action

The US government is going to provide security on the firms Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae (the ones that provide security on mortgages).

This is the free market in action, it seems - in the heart of free enterprise capitalism, the state is going to prop up the finances of the capitalists who own the firm, let their bankruptcy leads to social collapse.

Just as the Inca Empire used to keep on operating the property of the dead kings as if they were still alive, enacting the will of the long dead - just so the functionaries of the US state capitalism will continue to obey the formalities of private ownership whilst in effect socialising the risk of capital.

Will this have a long term effect? Well, it will if things get so bad that they have to explicitly break with the formalities of private capitalism. Until then, if stability is maintained, and the fiction of private capitalism is maintained, then things will carry on as before. Watch this space.

Update: The New York Times covers the story nicely...

Food insecurity

Inspired by a book in my hand that gives out a factoid. In the United States there are 13.5 million households that are food insecure, 4.4 million of which are fiood insecure and hungry (according to official definitions thereof). Put another way, 33.6 million people were food insecure in 2001, and by 2004 that rose to 38.2.

These are from this site, apparently.

Return of the repression

Well, I reported ont he Goodyear tyre factory strike. Seems they won - Goodyear that is.

Money shot:

The world's third-largest tiremaker said Tuesday the multimillion dollar cost of a three-month strike by union workers is well worth the long-term savings Goodyear expects to see from the new labor deal.

The strikers included about 2,000 workers at a plant in Fayetteville, N.C.

During a conference call with analysts and reporters, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. chief financial officer Richard Kramer said the strike that began Oct. 5 and ended last week drained between $30 million and $35 million a week from the company.

At 12 weeks long, that means the work stoppage by the United Steelworkers union representing some 15,000 workers could cost Goodyear between $360 million and $420 million, most of it in the fourth quarter ended Dec. 31.

Kramer and Goodyear Chief Executive Robert Keegan cushioned the news by saying the company plans to save $610 million over three years because of the agreement reached with the union two weeks ago and annual savings of about $300 million after that.

That's a hell of a balance sheet, losing $420 million to make $610 million - but the point is, they won.

The Kansan lists the trophies:

INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY: $300 million, including $60 million in overtime cuts and $90 million by paying new hires a lower starting wage and benefits package.

REDUCED CAPACITY: $75 million through cutting jobs, including closing unprofitable Tyler, Texas, plant that employs 1,100 people and reducing the number of tires made by about 21 million.

CUTTING RETIREE COSTS: $275 million by eliminating Goodyear's future obligation to health care for retired union workers by making a one-time $1 billion contribution to an independent Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association trust fund.

These are the stakes we are fighting for, this is what we are against - seems its a day of wine and roses for the bosses, no bread and roses for the workers. Wages down, health protection cut, unemployment - the scrap heap, the scrap heap.

Got that - the workers and the capitalists have nothing in common, and their conflict of inetrests results in a Class War. Never forget.

It seems to be spreading....

Via the Ingrate:

IWW in NYC retaliates against warehouse workers mass firings
Submitted by tmalchi on Wed, 01/10/2007 - 5:39am.
Members of the Industrial Workers of the World, organizers at New York warehouses were sacked over the festive period, in retaliation for their successful unionising drive...

This week owners from four different warehouses illegally threatened to call immigration or terminate union workers due to their immigration status in clear retaliation for the workers' union activities. Tuesday's march and picket will target Amersino Marketing Group, 161 Gardner Ave, Brooklyn, NY.

Over the last year and half, food distribution warehouse workers in northern Brooklyn and Queens have organized a union with the IWW. The campaign has met with resounding success: workers have organized in five different warehouses, several of which have been certified in National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) elections, they have forced their bosses towards full compliance with wage and hour laws, and they have won several major wage and hour violation cases while still other complaints totaling more than $100,000 have been filed with the Department of Labor.

Thanks to the efforts of the Food Industry and Allied Workers Union, workers have witnessed an increasing number of bosses abide by minimum wage and overtime laws across the food distribution industry. As a result of their successes, workers have met escalating employer opposition. While this week's coordinated threats by warehouse owners regarding workers' immigration status may be their trump card, it represents only the latest in a series of unsavory maneuvers designed to hamper the union drive.

Last year, Amersino owner Yu Q "Henry" Wang, who has robbed workers out of hundreds of thousands of dollars in wages, responded to workers exercising their lawful right to organize by threatening workers, deceitfully rigging an NLRB union election, and firing union leaders.

Lester Wen, owner of the restaurant wholesaler EZ-Supply, refused to bargain in good faith after workers won an NLRB union election almost a year ago. In response, the union has put pressure on EZ-Supply by targeting its customers ­ restaurants in park slope, the upper west side and the village ­ and convincing them to switch to other companies. At the end of November, the union and Mr. Wen's lawyer reached a tentative agreement on a landmark contract, with workers winning wage increases, a grievance procedure, paid time off and much more ( http://www.iww.org/en/node/3052). On December 26, 2006, in a shockingly crass maneuver, Lester "the Grinch" Wen and his lackeys reneged on the agreement reached in negotiations and illegally threatened workers regarding their immigration status. In response, workers walked off the job in a wildcat strike and only returned after the union assured them that legal action would be taken.

The IWW Food Industry and allied Workers Union calls on the owners of EZ-Supply, Amersino, Handyfat, and Top City Produce to cease its anti-union activities, reinstate fired workers, and to negotiate contract with the union in good faith. The legal institutions in NYC must act immediately to secure the rights of workers to organize and protect workers from the unlawful retaliatory activities of employers in the food industry.

http://www.iww.org/en/node/3120

There could be a bit of a barny brewing at my work too, they've just fundamentally altered redundancy rules (without consultation, which is de facto derecognition in my book). I'll keep you posted...