THE “JOBS FOR ALL” LETTER AGAINST THE CURRENT NASTILY REFUSED TO PRINT

Recently, I tried to post the following Letter to the Editors of Against the Current on Occupy movements and the unemployment crisis:

To the Editors of ATC:

While I appreciate the coverage of left movements I get from Against the Current (ATC), including the extensive posts on the Occupy movements in the latest issue, #156, January/February 2012, as a very much "self-interested" unemployed worker I have to object to the consistent exclusion of articles in ATC that has been going on for the last couple of years (only one exception), the unemployment crisis, which is at the heart of the people's massive misery caused by the Great Recession. I can't help but personally feel that this exclusion flows from the fact that the left generally has no personal understanding or awareness of the severity of the crisis, and cannot seem to grasp its devastating impact on the unemployed themselves, who often feel psychologically as though trapped in the lowest rungs of Dante’s hell.

Noted socialist writer Upton Sinclair wrote, "It is difficult to make a man understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." That doesn't just apply to the business and managerial classes alone--I submit, it can also apply to those who are economically comfortable either as workers or as retirees--and thus have no inkling of what it's like to be one of the working poor, what it's like to be chronically unemployed and "living" on a mere $600/month in unemployment compensation, to live constantly desperate. Such as I do, even as a college graduate (but with the "wrong" degree for the job market!), along with my college graduate friends who also have the "wrong" degrees, who are also older (as I am), who have to try and subsist on only temp agency work that pays $10/hour or less (as I had to do for 10 years, before being cut loose even from this kind of employment!) And yes, Upton Sinclair's remark applies to many a putative socialist as well, and to numerous "activists" in Occupy movements and left groups who don't have to worry about the economic wolf at the door, at least for the time being.

It is literally shameful the way the U.S. left has ignored the unemployment crisis, either slighting it through silence altogether, or not proposing bold Keynesian measures such as a new WPA, which created 8.5 million jobs in the 1930s and provided paychecks to 9.7 workers then, according the UCubed, the "union of the unemployed" set up by the Machinists' union (but which is not conceived as an "unemployed council" such as were established in the 1930s, but merely as a voting bloc to pressure Obama and the Democratic Party to "do right."). The reformist socialists such as DSA and CCDS only advocate for Obama's tepid jobs program, which will create merely 1.2 million jobs in an economy with a far bigger workforce than existed in the 1930s. The "revolutionary" socialists are even worse, aiming their fire at the "inadequacy" and merely "reformist" measures that would result from implementing Keynesian measures such as were instituted during the New Deal. So afraid of "saving capitalism," our "revolutionaries" would rather sacrifice the unemployed upon the altar of ideological purity, thus presenting themselves through their inaction as tacitly “aligned” (though for much different reasons) with the obstructionist Republicans and Tea Partiers--who also don't want any Keynesian measures applied to help the unemployed by providing decent-paying, productive, valuable jobs that fulfill real economic needs such as repairing infrastructure, and can actually become Green jobs.

Fortunately, there is one honorable socialist exception, the semi-Trotskyist/Third Camp socialist journal and website New Politics, http://newpol.org, of which ATC Editor David Finkel is a Sponsor, and of which leading Solidarity member Dan La Botz is an Editor. I published on New Politics online on February 3, 2011 my "Open Programmatic Proposal to the Broad U.S. Left for Directly Dealing with the Present Unemployment Crisis" calling for a new WPA, http://newpol.org/node/425; in this I was ably seconded by Brian King's supportive article and history of the WPA, "Jobs for All," http://newpol.org/node/445. Radical historian Jesse Lemisch also contributed mightily to this discussion with two articles on New Politics online, "Occupy the American Historical Association: Demand a WPA Federal Writers' Project," http://newpol.org/node/555, and "A WPA for History: Occupy the American Historical Association," http://newpol.org/node/582. I also briefly discussed Occupy youth and their roles as probably unemployed workers once they leave the student confines in "Carl Davidson, Bill Ayers, and Zig Ziglar Moments," http://newpol.org/node/568, where I pointedly noted in a footnote that, according to the New York Times, only 56% of the graduates of the Class of 2010 had found jobs by 2011! But these are virtually unique in what is otherwise a blackout of articles and analyses on the unemployment crisis in "revolutionary" socialist publications!

Jack Rasmus’ article in ATC 135 (July/August 2008), “A New Phase of Economic Crisis,” http://solidarity-us.org/site/node/1608, which was touted to me by one of the Editors of ATC as an exception to my claim of silence on the unemployment crisis, is no exception, really, to this blackout. Much of the article is but a compendium of economic statistics that leads only to the weak, deterministic conclusion that essentially the unemployment and ancillary crises caused by the Great Recession can’t even be seriously ameliorated under capitalism. A “revolutionary” call to passivity in concrete action now while calling for the overthrow of capitalism in the indefinite future. Certainly not a call for a “Jobs for All” new WPA as we called for in New Politics, which, while possibly “saving capitalism from itself” (albeit with major restructuring of this “saved” capitalism), would directly benefit millions, galvanize and energize them, and draw them into more militant political action precisely because they would now feel a sense of real hope and empowerment—plus having the material means to live a decent life, not merely scrounge to survive! Same as the (admittedly) reformist and inadequate New Deal did in the 1930s—which aside from achieving real changes in the way capitalism worked, also radicalized millions and pushed the “limits of the possible” much further to the left. Good things, yes? One would really think so, especially on the part of the “revolutionary” left as represented by ATC and Solidarity, but—these “revolutionaries” tragically disappoint by only wanting to say “no” to this.

But as my comrade and fellow New Politics contributor Brain King put it in an e-mail comment to me that was shared with this ATC Editor, “Why don't ‘Socialist’ groups and journals want to support ‘Jobs for All’? That's a tough one, but it's gotta have something to do with how they see their own group interests and the maintenance of their institutions. They must figure that it's much cooler to promote some pie-in-the-sky version of an ethereal state of affairs called ‘socialism’ than to get jobs for all, gain a lot of control over labor markets, but leave capitalism still functioning. I also think a lot of these so-called ‘socialists’ don't much like the idea of being involved with a lot of politically incorrect schlubs, like me and you. If your gonna build a mass movement, you're gonna have to learn to get along with a lot of working people without left pedigrees.” [As originally written by King—GF]

Leaving socialists such as myself, Brian King and Jesse Lemisch who are aware of the horridness of the unemployment crisis and the sting of unemployment between the Scylla of reformist tailing after Obama's inadequate approach, or the Charybdis or the tacit “alignment” with the Republicans against Keynesian measures that would actually work by the "revolutionary" left (although, again, for entirely different reasons), as demonstrated by the deafening silence coming from the "revolutionaries”!

I write this letter out of my great respect and appreciation for ATC.

George Fish

This was a revised version of an earlier draft I’d sent to this socialist bimonthly—most notably revised from the original in that I’d excised some language that Against the Current Managing Editor and Editorial Board Member David Finkel had vehemently objected to. For in the original I’d talked of persons on the left not understanding what it was like to be unemployed because many of them were among the “smug employed” and the “smug retired.” Finkel also drew my attention to the article by Jack Rasmus, on which I commented in the revised letter. Those were the two notable changes made, and made specifically to answer Finkel’s objections; and so I sent off the revised letter to Against the Current for re-consideration. Despite Finkel’s nastily reproachful tone, I’d been professional enough to take his objections into consideration, and revise accordingly. I expected no problems with the revised letter, even though personal relations with him were strained, had been for some time, and in the fall of 2010 Finkel personally instigated proceedings that led to my expulsion from Solidarity, the socialist grouplet (only 200-some members nationally) that publishes Against the Current as a ‘broader” left magazine. In fact, many’s the time I’d previously published in Against the Current, frequently with Finkel’s previous encouragement and approval. (It should be mentioned here that David Finkel is also a listed Sponsor of the New Politics hard-copy journal.)

What I got instead from Against the Current was this below, directly from Finkel:

My final note to you, last week, very explicitly stated that “…you don’t need to send us any more ‘letters to the editor’ or proposals for articles, and in fact you can stop sending messages here on anything whatsoever. If there is any part of the above that is not clear, please re-read as many times as necessary.” There is no way to make the point clearer. We will not acknowledge or respond to any further communications from you.

There it is, ladies and gentlemen, friends and comrades! Just like Lucifer, I’ve now been cast into the pit of hell by Almighty God himself, in the form of a Managing Editor of a small, and to most people, highly obscure, magazine of the left with which I’d been associated with before; and had even been told by Finkel himself that I could submit proposed articles and letters to Against the Current even after I’d been expelled from Solidarity.

What’s particularly interesting, I think, in all this is not any objection to “offensive” language (which had been excised, anyway, in my revision) on the part of Against the Current, but the fact that, like much of the left today, it doesn’t really want to talk about “Jobs for All” new WPA-style programs. New Politics online has been the only notable (and to me, honorable) exception, having first published my awkwardly-titled "Open Programmatic Proposal to the Broad U.S. Left for Directly Dealing with the Present Unemployment Crisis" that called for such a new WPA, which was ably seconded on New Politics online by Brian King; further, also on New Politics online, radical historian Jesse Lemisch posted three articles in support of a WPA-like proposal for unemployed cultural and intellectual workers. (Two of Lemisch’s articles are linked above in the letter, as are King’s and my articles).

That “Jobs for All” programs and the left’s failure to adequately address the unemployment crisis because new-WPA proposals are seen as either inherently “reformist,” or conversely, other elements of the left don’t want to destroy “unity” by going beyond what Obama’s proposed, seems to me what’ at the ideological crux of Against the Current’s refusal, not language that had since been removed. That was seen to be the ideological issue involved by Brian King and three other friends and comrades of mine, who sent me the following remarks on my original draft, and whose words of support had been passed on to Finkel. They wrote, from a variety of political orientations, as seen below.

Greg King, member of CCDS, shop steward, SEIU Local 888, Boston city workers:

George, the Left hasn't been completely silent on the unemployment issue. They probably haven't devoted anywhere near as much time and energy to the crisis as it deserves. Discussing & pushing for solutions such as your WPA proposal would be a very good thing to do. Sometimes there is too much posturing and abstract theorizing, not enough attention to the real problems of real people.

Also, I didn't think your letter was that offensive. I thought it was well-argued and frank.

Harold Karabell, former left activist in Indianapolis, now living in St. Louis, Missouri:

In addition to infrastructure work, my own city could use a few thousand trees in various neighborhoods.

So perhaps it's time to revive the CCC as well!

Brian King, comrade from Seattle, long-time activist, contributor to New Politics:

I'm not surprised that ATC refused to publish your letter. For the record, I thought it was very good, and, for you, remarkably restrained. [I admit to sometimes getting carried away with harsh language—GF] My experience with all these guys (ATC, CCDS, DSA, Monthly Review, Nation) is that they are very uncomfortable with the idea of Jobs for All and the idea of building a movement for a new WPA. Actually, as far as I know, the only person of national prominence who supports us is Robert Reich, Clinton's old Secretary of Labor.

Why don't "Socialist" groups and journals want to support "Jobs for All"? That's a tough one, but it's gotta have something to do with how they see their own group interests and the maintenance of their institutions. They must figure that it's much cooler to promote some pie-in-the-sky version of an ethereal state of affairs called "socialism" than to get jobs for all, gain a lot of control over labor markets, but leave capitalism still functioning. I also think a lot of these so-called "socialists" don't much like the idea of being involved with a lot of politically incorrect schlubs, like me and you. If your gonna build a mass movement, you're gonna have to learn to get along with a lot of working people without left pedigrees.

and Phil Davis, former member of Solidarity, unemployed recent college graduate:

I think Dave should publish your letter regardless of whether or not he agrees with it. He could perhaps publish it and then write a rebuttal explaining why he disagrees with you. Instead, he chooses not to publish it at all. This is sad and unfortunate and yes it is censorship…you are correct.

Yes, I agree with you that "Jobs for All" is the slogan we should be fighting for. As someone who is unemployed, I believe that's a very, very important demand. I think Finkel should publish your letter regardless of whether or not he personally agrees with it. He could always write some type of rebuttal explaining why he disagrees with it, but I guess he won't even be doing that.

Refusal to even discuss “Jobs for All” programs compounded by censorship. Those are the political issues at the heart of Against the Current’s vehement refusal to print my Letter to the Editors, nor even allow the issue to be raised, even in a miniscule journal of the U.S. left where, given the mood of the U.S.’s also-miniscule left as a whole, both the letter itself and the issues it addresses would soon be forgotten. If anyone on the left ever wonders why, in this time of continuing deep economic recession, there exists this historical anomaly of the great bulk of the 99% not identifying with the left, nor wishing to get involved, even in amorphous Occupy movements, we need look no further than this incident for at least partial explanations.

Reflections on the Recent Indiana Workers' Upsurge

It’s over with now, but for two exciting, event-filled months, mid-February to mid-April, 2011, Indiana workers and the Democratic legislators of the General Assembly stood up to the Republicans who wanted to make Indiana a “right-to-work” state, gut teachers’ collective bargaining powers, and generally make life even more miserable for those who actually work for a living, instead of clipping coupons or entering politics from previously being a corporate CEO. For the first time in the 40 years I’ve lived in Indiana this time around, I felt proud to be a Hoosier. Not a small feat, because usually I find my life so frustrating in the State of Indiana I want to leave and retreat to the State of Intoxication! After all, life and culture in Indiana is shaped very much by the fact that the Hoosier state is at the confluence of three other states—the State of Smugness, the State of Complacency, and the State of Mediocrity, and is the place where not all of Indiana’s pigs are found on CAFOs. They abound aplenty, especially the two-legged variety; and they’re joined by flocks of Indiana two-legged sheep as well.

But this time in Indiana, I felt that I was actually in the presence of the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Wonders of the World—an Indiana AFL-CIO with guts, an Indiana Democratic Party with guts, and even more amazingly, both of them showing guts at the same time, and cooperating in their open, public display of guts! For once, both Hoosiers of political prominence, and the Hoosier rank-and-file, stood up to the arrogant Republican majority in the State House and Governor’s mansion, and brought their ambitions to a grinding, screeching halt. When the Democratic members of the House of Representatives and the Senate walked out on the Indiana General Assembly and relocated for an indefinite sojourn in Illinois, they deprived the legislative session of a quorum; which meant the Republican majority was at an impasse, legally barred from ramming their anti-worker legislation down the Democratic minority’s, and the Hoosier public’s, throats. Immovable Democrats holed up in extradition-free Illinois, and vociferous protestors every day in front of the State House, actively organized by the state AFL-CIO unions, defied the Republicans both by their absence and by their presence, and made it known, “You’re just not going to do this!”

So the Republicans had to shelve “right-to-work,” had to shelve gutting teachers’ bargaining rights, had to deal with the Democrats whose power in absentia enabled them to call at least some of the shots. Both inside and outside the State House thousands of workers from all over the state converged in a massive display of ordinary people’s determination and fight-back spirit. Both together caused the Republicans to be unable to do anything but sputter, at least for a while, their major legislative goals unattainable; and perhaps even this whiff of defeat will still linger in the air not just in 2011, but in 2012 as well, at the polls and in the halls of the General Assembly. As in Wisconsin and Ohio, the Republicans had overreached, and had garnered for themselves not easy legislative pushovers, but massive, angry protest that took them aback—for at least the time being. For Indiana stood proudly in solidarity with the same kinds of protests in Wisconsin and Ohio, and if that still didn’t make the streets of downtown Indianapolis resemble the streets of Tunis or Tahrir Square in Cairo, at least the potential to become so is now there, when it wasn’t there before. After all, people remember again what they once did, when they recall the victories they had before, when they milled into the streets and defied power, when the occasion for such rises again. As it surely will. Republicans are too much like Bourbons, never remembering and never forgetting. But if the Hoosier people had been forgetting Republican trepidations for too long too many times before, they’re liable to remember the next time around. And a next time will come around—while Republicans will always be Republicans, so will the people once mobilized and energized, having shown to themselves and to others the strength of their numbers and determination.

A good reason for me to have savored that intoxication that came, not from substance abuse in the State of Intoxication, but by the heady sobriety of realizing the enormity of what had happened. And still savor it, even now.

To be sure, it wasn’t all victories. Even as the worker protests surged, a bill undermining unemployment benefits and eligibility for them, which takes effect July 1, did get through under stealth. While union teachers still kept their bargaining rights, more charter schools were authorized. Planned Parenthood was defunded, and Medicaid recipients are not allowed to utilize Planned Parenthood clinics. All the above gleefully signed into law by Republican Governor Mitch Daniels, former Office of Management and Budget head under George W. Bush; former CEO of Indianapolis Power and Light, where he used his power to privatize it, to his personal enrichment, at the cost of destroying workers’ pensions; and also, former CEO of Eli Lilly and Co., the major drug manufacturer and Indiana political powerhouse, where he earned $27 million in salary the year before running for Governor in 2004.

Also, in the last days of the General Assembly, after the Democrats had come back and walked out again in protest, the Republican minority rammed through a bill making further legislative walkouts illegal. Hopefully, this law will be challenged in the courts, and future Democratic legislators will show the same guts and determination again, as they did in 2011. But I don’t count on it. All of us who’ve watched Indiana politics before know how the Democrats have always talked a good fight, but always caved in before. Which is what made the Democrats this time so amazing. But, unfortunately, Democratic caving-in has a well-established tradition, not only in Indiana, but elsewhere; and so notably at the national level, with the Obama White House showing the lead these past few years, and with Democratic Congresspersons and Senators, with few exceptions, closing ranks and following suit. And Indiana Democrats have never been known for being particularly “liberal,” but have timidly adapted time in and time out to Indiana’s notorious conservatism. After all, this is the state that produced leading Senate Blue Dog Evan Bayh, and which ran another notable Blue Dog, Brad Ellsworth, for Senate in 2010. And no Indiana Democrats who can be considered as part of the "liberal camp” has ever distinguished him/herself as a Dennis Kucinich or a Bernie Sanders.

But at least one of the Republican victories given above turned into defeat. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has declared Indiana’s plan to defund Planned Parenthood illegal, and could pressure the state to drop it altogether by withholding funds. As it stands right now, lawyers are scrambling to find some way to salvage it; I join many other Hoosiers in hoping they fail, and that HHS stands behind its position.

I wasn’t able to participate in these events as much as I wanted to, despite having the time available due to layoff. For the State House, locus of all the activity, is in the heart of downtown Indianapolis, heart of much-touted upscale urban development; so that “ever new, ever more exciting”—ever more upscale and prohibitively expensive—“downtown Indianapolis” (to paraphrase one of the city’s trendy slogans) made affording parking far too expensive, and public transportation in Indianapolis is so lousy it really wasn’t an option from where I lived. But I was able to attend one State House rally on a late February Saturday, when downtown metered parking is free, and was glad to mill with the enthusiastic crowd, and see many of my friends and acquaintances there too, all just as eager and excited as I was.

Interestingly enough, I didn’t see but one of my former socialist “comrades,” whose personal treachery and do-nothingness I’ve recounted in two other blog entries here on “Politically Incorrect Leftist,” “Dregs” and “’Dregs’ Aftermath1.” And this was a big rally, specially organized and advertised! But the one fellow socialist I did see was quite friendly and glad to see me, as were the other local “progressives” I encountered, with whom I’m frequently on the outs with. But we of the left here in Indianapolis are all very small fish in a very big Red State sea, and under such conditions, sectarianism, cliquishness and purely personal umbrage become a part of life—especially in a social milieu already given to xenophobia and cliquishness to begin with. So-called Hoosier Hospitality is a mask used to gull tourists and out-of-state visitors to get them to part with their money. So says my cynical but realistic self, having lived in Indy now for over 30 years, and in Indiana for 40.

I’m a non-union worker, not by choice, and a temp at that— a group of workers precluded from organizing by a George W. Bush-era NLRB decision. But I am very much a supporter of unions and union rights, even if I feel I must stand in dismay at this atrophied giant still in stupor most of the time. That’s another thing that amazed me by the protests—an AFL-CIO actually energized and fighting back for workers, even if (as was the case) only defensively, pushed to the wall with nowhere else to go by Republican arrogance. But as one of those 88.1% of the workforce not represented by a union (for only 11.9% of all U.S. workers are unionized, and fewer than 7% in the private sector), my support has to be tempered by frustration and chagrin. It still rankles me to recall the 2009 Central Indiana Job with Justice (JwJ) meeting where I was reprimanded by the head of AFSCME District 62, “You temps make more than my union workers.” Yeah. At $10/hour with no benefits, uncertain work, and having had to stomach pay cuts to keep my temp job—which requires a college degree! But I was there with my homemade sign, “I’m Non-Union & I Support You. But Will You Support Me?” To me, a good sentiment, and a very good question. And I’m sure I’m not the only non-union worker to feel this way.

The AFL-CIO protests attracted union celebrities to address the throngs. Actor Danny Glover, President of the Screen Actors Guild, addressed a rally, as did Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). Their presence was an important, very much public, demonstration of solidarity, and connected Indiana’s struggles with those elsewhere, uniting workers in struggle in Indiana with workers in struggle elsewhere, especially in Wisconsin and Ohio; most important in a state known for its overwhelming hidebound parochialism. Further, Weingarten’s public support for Indiana teachers is an important political gesture in a state where “education reform” battles are high on the agenda, and where privatization, charter schools and undermining public education are espoused by many, with much support. Unfortunately, AFT’s hawkish positions on wars in the Middle East and Central Asia, coupled with its uncritical support for Israel, are a damper on attempts to unite labor forces with antiwar forces. And while JwJ is active several places in the state, its typical labor-movement evasion of antiwar protest, and social justice issues not involving labor directly, is another hindrance. As for the Indiana AFL-CIO generally, it is still beset in many circles with a “Scoop” Jackson “guns and butter” mentality (after Henry “Scoop” Jackson, former Democratic Senator from the State of Washington—nicknamed the “Senator from Boeing” for his hawkish military stance and friendliness toward military contractors); and before the upsurge, devoted much of its time to organizing chauvinistic “Buy American” campaigns.

African American presence was notable, although most of the upsurge participants were white, same as in Wisconsin and Ohio. But it was good to see fellow white Hoosiers rallying for justice rather than going to Tea Party demonstrations.

As is fairly well-known nationally, two lawyers employed by Indiana government agencies were fired for ugly remarks on the protestors in Wisconsin, where the upsurge protests were greatest. One of them, an Assistant Attorney General even, called for using “deadly force” against protestors there, while the other urged Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker to fabricate an incident that could then be used to break up the protests. The Republicans in Indiana at one point cut off power lines at the State House, so that protestors could not use microphones. True examples indeed of class warfare by the rich and powerful against the working class, which is something Karl Marx never needed to invent. It’s always been there, even when hidden and insidious; but the workers’ upsurge in Indiana and elsewhere brought it out into the open, and what a bringing out! Makes one want to paraphrase Che Guevara: “Create, two, there, many Wisconsins, Ohios and Indianas! Create two, three, many Tunisias and Egypts! Workers of the world, unite!” Yes, indeed.