How We Struck the Flint Red Cross for Six Weeks, Cleaned Their Clock, and Had Lots of Fun (Part 1)

 (Note: This is a two part article. Part One below is the narrative of the strike including some neccesary background information. Part 2 is an analysis and commentary as to why the strike was successful, and will include what lessons I learned  through the strike, and how what I learned is relevant to the recent Amazon organizing drive and the current PRO Act legislation,) 

The first union staff job I had was with OPEIU (Office and Professional Employees International Union), Local 459, headquartered in Lansing, Michigan. For a number of years, I had been serving as the shop steward at the Lansing Red Cross in “Distribution Department;, that is the Lansing Red Cross’s blood shipping operation. In 1987, I received a call from Local 459’s one staff representative, asking if I wanted to come on board as a second staff representative? I agreed to join Local 459’s staff.

Fast forward to 1992 through 1994. Local 459 had just won an NLRB election certifying that Local 459 was the bargaining union for about 60 phlebotomists, nurses and drivers at the Flint, Michigan Red Cross’s blood operation. The key issue was wages. Yeah, it was 1992 through 1994, wages were a lot lower overall and everywhere (politically, us on the Left were pushing for $10 minimum wage). But the Flint Red Cross’s wages were particularly bad. We had workers in the bargaining unit working for wages in the area of $5.80 to $6.30 an hour, and these were drivers and phlebotomists who ran the Red Cross’s mobile blood drives on a daily basis.

Once the organizing drive was completed, I took over as the bargaining representative from the union as we moved on to negotiating the first contract. 

The first contract was hard bargaining. There was certainly a struggle over wages, but the real difficulty was that wages were all over the map. Workers were hired by the Red Cross at all sorts of different rates, often regardless of classification and experience. The result was we had people working radically different wage rates, within the same classifications, with an often 50% differential between workers. 

What the first contract achieved was a series of classification wage scales with a progressive wage structure, some  pretty good boilerplate language (“boilerplate” language is a short-hand expression for the union rights, workers’ rights, and non-economic portions of the contract). Some workers (especially low-paid) received some pretty good wage increases (on paper). The raises were in the area of 5% to 8% for the low paid workers. But, like we often joked, 10% of nothing is still nothing. And of course, the middle and upper waged workers got comparatively  much smaller raises. So, lots had not been solved with the first contract, and thus, the first contract had a short duration of one year.

The second contract came around pretty soon (one year contract). From the start, before the first proposal was written, before the bargaining team had been elected, the atmosphere around the second contract had escalated. At the first union meeting around the upcoming contract, I could literally feel and smell a strike in the offing; it was palpable,I knew a strike was going to happen, it was, as the expression goes, “in the air”. 

Most unions will go to great lengths to avoid a strike. For lots of unions, especially after the de-industrialization of the 1980s, including capitals’ use of permanent replacements (scabs) to bust strikes, a strike was seen as a very risky affair. Everything, the bargaining unit, the contract, the workers themselves, could be lost in a strike. Lots of unions looked on strikes as an existential threat to themselves, and management attorneys and companies knew it! This is still, even in 2021, the feeling of many unions when it comes to strikes.

Local 459, me, the workers at the Flint Red Cross knew better (and Lansing Red Cross, we’d struck the Lansing Red Cross on a number of occasions with very good results). The Flint Red Cross, in the event of a strike, was very vulnerable. If the Red Cross tried using replacements (permanent and temporary), they’d never be invited to run a mobile blood draw again in any union shop, and the UAW was still a big player in Michigan. Likewise, we knew that the Flint Red Cross was contracted to many hospitals in Michigan’s lower east region. We knew that if we could stop Flint’s mobile blood drives, they’d be forced to import the blood and blood products from the Lansing Red Cross and Detroit Red Cross in order to fulfill their contractual obligations to regional hospitals; a real economic blow to the Flint Red Cross! 

While everybody agreed that the first contract was insufficient, nobody was mad at the union, the bargaining team, or me. The bargaining team for the first contract was re-elected. I was welcomed back with open arms. I embraced the strike threat that was simmering among the workers and bargaining team, because the bargaining team and I agreed that we could indeed beat the Flint Red Cross!

Our bargaining proposals were a bit revolutionary as well. Instead of raises based on percentages, we decided we’d bargain wages based on flat rate dollar amounts. Thus, our initial wage proposal was for a flat rate of $1 per hour. We proposed flat rates because a flat rate structure is most effective in raising wages quickly for low paid workers and because percentage based wage increases lead to greater and greater wage differences between higher paid and low paid workers over time; something we didn’t want to do. We also proposed a series of wage differentials on top of the flat rate, as many of the drivers and phlebotomists were at work at 4 in the morning, or returning back from a drive in the evening.

The other thing we did which was a bit unusual was that we took a strike vote as bargaining was beginning. We asked members to authorize the bargaining team to call a strike if a strike was necessary. In a well attended meeting, members voted by over 90% to allow the bargaining team to call a strike. 

Bargaining was indeed slow and tedious. Our proposal for $1 per hour was met with a counter proposal for a 1% wage increase. As we got near the end of bargaining, the Flint Red Cross threw in an extra percent to 2%, and then, as things were meeting their climax, they threw in another whopping ½% wage increase.

The Flint Red Cross’s management kept talking about how they didn’t have the money to fund our raises; that we’d break their bank. In truth, they were in pretty bad economic shape after years and years of mis-management. On the other hand, we kept telling management that their economic problems were their problems and not ours. Our problem we told them was extremely low wages, and our position is that we were not going to continue to subsidize their economic mis-management on our backs. Management wasn’t budging, and we weren’t either. A war was in the offing!

The Strike Begins:

The Red Cross proposed mediation, and we agreed. We got a real good Federal Mediator, a woman who had spent decades as a negotiator for the Teamsters before becoming a mediat

But meditation didn’t work. The Red Cross’s lead negotiator was a hired management attorney named Gary (last name not used to protect Gary’s identi Seems that Gary held the opinion that workers and their union would never strike, period. Gary’s approach was that it was the 1990s, and unions didn’t strike anymore. Gary looked at a trend and mistook this trend for an absolute rule.

Even as we fine tuned strike plans in the presence of the mediator, I believe her name was Beth (we wanted Beth to be able to tell management that indeed a strike was imminent, which Beth dutifully did). All the same, Beth struck out too, in great frustration also calling Gary and managements’ team a bunch of idiots.

Truth be told, loose strike planning began almost immediately after the ratification of the first contract. My contribution to the strike strategy was a suggestion that we develop “flying pickets”.

Very simply, the Flint Red Cross collected most of their blood donations through mobile donation drives held throughout the Flint Red Cross’s region. The Flint Red Cross also had a substation for blood collection in Alpena, Michigan, about 200 miles away in the northern region of Michaigan’s lower peninsula. Alpena based workers were also part of the union and were active as well. 

The Red Cross never used temporary or permanent replacement workers. But the Red Cross tried to run mobile blood drives during the strike using management staff. Our “flying pickets”  would show up at the mobile blood drive, set up pickets, and basically reduced mobile blood drives to collection levels that could be counted on the fingers of one hand.

Workers loved the “flying picket” concept!. The mechanics of the flying pickets were run by one of the drivers, Barney, who was also on the bargaining team. Barney made  contact with sympathizers in the Lab (outside the bargaining unit) and thus we had a little spy network who would tell us day by day where the mobile blood drive was going. From there, Barney would line up the picketers and drivers, and we never missed a mobile blood drive.

The International Union came through big time. With a strike vote of over 90%, the International approved the strike, which in turn opened up the International strike fund, which meant the Union covered healthcare premiums, and paid workers who picketed  $200 per week in strike pay for the duration of the strike. If readers remember, we had workers making as little as $5.80 to $6.00 per hour. If you do the math, $6.00 per hour, at 40 hours is a working wage of $240 per week. With a $200 strike benefit, lots of workers weren’t losing that much money. 

Secondly, the bargaining team and Union set up picketing requirements in order to receive strike pay, and strike pay was paid in cash on the picket line. You had to be an active striker to get the strike benefits. In practice, just about everyone did their picket duty happily….. Solidarity Forever was an active force in this strike.

And then there was the weather. As I remember, the strike began on June 1, in the spring going into summer. The weather was beautiful (Michigan is a hard place if you have to strike in winter). With workers receiving decent strike benefits there was no atmosphere of the wolf being at the door for any of the strikers. Thus, the picket line stretched out in front of the Red Cross increasingly took on the feel of a daily picnic and barbeque. A grill was out on the picket line every day. Sympathetic visitors were always offered a hamburger or hot dog. The umbrellas and sun shades were always set up. Workers were pretty impressed with what they were doing.

Last to mention is the contract campaign itself. Early in the strike planning stage, a woman named Maria was put in charge of the contract campaign. Maria didn’t make a big deal of the contract campaign. On the first day of the strike, Maria simply grabbed a few of the lower paid strikers and they just disappeared.

Maria and her delegation showed up again at the end of the day. Seems that Maria and her delegation made the rounds. First they visited the UAW CAP council. Not a big, planned meeting; Maria and her delegation just showed up with picket signs and asked the UAW to cancel all the blood drives scheduled by UAW and GM in the auto factories, for the duration of the strike. The UAW responded by canceling all of its blood drives.

From there, Maria and workers went to the Urban League and got the Urban League to endorse the strike as an anti-poverty action. Finally, the delegation stopped at the United Way. The United Way offered all sorts of help in keeping strikers solvent, which we really didn’t need. The Flint Red Cross was however a major recipient of United Way donations for its non-blood related services and the United Way didn’t want to be known as a social service organization that was funding an agency being struck for low wages.

 

For me, the whole experience of the Flint Red Cross strike was surprising in that it was such an easy strike for me, as the staff rep. From the start, the strike was run by the strikers. Once Maria and her delegation had done their diplomatic mission, and Barney had the flying pickets organized, the strike ran itself. Anyone on the bargaining team, or for that matter, anyone on the picket line was perfectly capable of speaking to the press, OPEIU Local 459 itself was an amalgamated Local with 44 bargaining units spread across Michigan’s lower peninsula. Thus, with only two staff reps, it just wasn’t possible for a staff rep to be on the picket line every day; which really didn’t matter because the workers were running the strike just fine.

The strike itself was a war of attrition. We knew we were impacting the Red Cross’s economics severely. Management and Gary were starting to figure out that workers were miles from being beaten. For instance, we had some bargaining sessions during the strike. Thus, I would occasionally need to talk to Gary to schedule the bargaining sessions. As time went on, Gary would make some sly comments looking for information; like, “Your folks must be getting desperate”. I’d respond to Gary, “Oh no, not desperate at all. We’re doing just fine, you should stop by our picket line sometime, and if you’re really nice, I bet the strikers would be happy to get you a hamburger or hotdog”. This was not what Gary wanted to hear!

Six weeks into the strike, Beth the Mediator, scheduled a bargaining session. This session was different. Management began agreeing to some of our economic issues like shift differentials, and another half percent on wages. We held firm on wages. Management then caucused for a long time. Late afternoon turned into evening. Finally, the Director of the Flint Red Cross, a guy named Fred Wilson, came in alone to meet with our bargaining team. Fred said simply this: “You win. I don’t know where the money is going to come from to pay for the wages, but this strike is killing us and it needs to end”. 

So this is how 60 odd strikers beat the Flint Red Cross.

 

 

  

SALEM, OREGON DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA PRESS RELEASE AND MEDIA ADVISORY ON RECENT SALEM-KEIZER SCHOOL BOARD ACTIONS AND A SECOND SOCIAL MEDIA STATEMENT FROM SALEM DSA

SALEM, OREGON DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA PRESS RELEASE AND MEDIA ADVISORY ON RECENT SALEM-KEIZER SCHOOL BOARD ACTIONS AND A SECOND SOCIAL MEDIA STATEMENT FROM SALEM DSA

(503) 877-5147
info@SalemDSA.org

Salem Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) protests in the strongest possible terms the efforts by Salem-Keizer School Board Chair Satya Chandragiri and other Board members to deny recognition to a student journalist and to associate this denial with DSA and our support for her recent work. This student journalist was due to be recognized as the 2021 Oregon High School Journalist of the Year, but Chandragiri and his clique pulled this recognition and claimed to be doing so in part because DSA posted an article by her about the Board on our Facebook page.

Salem DSA believes that Salem-Keizer School Board Chair Satya Chandragiri and other Board members are engaging in an attempt to intimidate a journalist and punish free speech because this student journalist exposed unethical funding mechanisms that have been used to elect a right-wing majority to the School Board. Similar means of funding far-right candidates have emerged in the current race for four Board seats that will be decided on May 18, 2021. Dirty money in politics locks out the voices of people of color, students, the poor, and the working-class. This and dysfunctionality at the Board level, disrespect for people of color and workers, premature school reopenings, and the Chair and the Board majority stifling discussion are the real issues before us. Chandragiri and his allies are engaging in subterfuge.

Salem DSA notes that Chandragiri and others are engaging in red-baiting to make their case and are using DSA as their target. The intimidation of journalists, punishing free speech, and red-baiting have a long history in the United States and are used by the most totalitarian forces when they feel threatened. Senator Joe McCarthy did just this between 1950 and 1954. Salem DSA also notes that another elected official who apparently supports Chandragiri and his clique is using Chandragiri’s stand to shamelessly promote four conservative candidates for Board seats by attempting to gin up the public’s emotions and causing DSA to be attacked.

DSA has no connection to the journalist beyond supporting some of her work and appreciating her efforts to shed light on the hidden funding of right-wing School Board candidates. DSA members are active in the Salem-Keizer community by supporting veterans’ housing, serving in our unions, helping the houseless, teaching, volunteering for community projects, and advocating publicly for social, gender, racial, worker, immigrant, and environmental justice. We are parents, educational workers, service providers, lodge members, community gardeners, students, youth who are trying to find a human future. We are care providers and we are differently-abled. We are environmentalists. We are blue-collar, poor, middle-class. We are people of color and we are white. We are multi-generational. We are LGBTQIA+ and we are straight. We come from many faith traditions or we are humanists. We are your family, neighbors, and co-workers. We are transparent in our program, in our goals, and in our organizing.

We do not insist that anyone agree with us. We do insist that the rights to free association and free speech must be respected, and we believe that Chandragiri and certain of his allies are attempting to suppress these rights. We call upon the community to reject red-baiting, division, suppression, and backroom politics.

Salem DSA believes that our most reliable allies are the working-class and oppressed peoples. We call upon our allies to stand together for civil liberties and rights, to vote for positive change on May 18, to support the PRO Act and Labor’s political program in Oregon, to help win healthcare for all, to proclaim that Black Lives Matter, to work for a Green New Deal, and to protest attempts to stifle quality journalism.

And Salem DSA has also issued the following:

Democratic Socialists of America (dsausa.org) supports student organizing for democratic control over their learning and working conditions, particularly through our youth and student section Young Democratic Socialists of America (y.dsausa.org). Salem DSA (SalemDSA.org) is the local chapter for all DSA members in Marion and Polk County, and we all volunteer our time to organize for economic and social justice.

We absolutely support the reporting by Salem-Keizer student Eddy Binford-Ross about the many problems with our current School Board, just as we continue our full support for the years-long campaign led by Salem-Keizer students in Latinos Unidos Siempre (LUS) to end the school-to-prison pipeline. Building knowledge and building unity is what changes the balance of power, and the work of these students is a model for all students in the District.

Chair Chandragiri is not fooling anyone: he’s choosing to deny recognition to one of Salem-Keizer’s most accomplished students because she criticized his politics. This is not new for the Chair, who has a history of silencing all voices who disagree with him or his far-right financial backers, although he has gone to new depths of pettiness by singling out one student in this case.

In December 2020 he shamefully equated public accountability of elected officials to domestic violence, hoping he could ignore LUS’s calls to end the SRO contract (a fight he eventually lost). His new strawman argument is textbook red-baiting. Fred Hampton said, “socialism is the people. If you're afraid of socialism, you're afraid of yourself.” So far Chair Chandragiri has made it clear that he’s afraid of socialism and that he’s afraid of the people—at least the ones who don’t agree with him.

Eddy Binford-Ross has nothing but support and solidarity from Salem DSA. If simply sharing her reporting on Facebook is enough to make Chair Chandragiri and his rich donors nervous, we will feel even better about continuing to do so. We are confident that she will continue to uphold her journalistic integrity in the face of the Chair’s petty rudeness, which is nothing compared to the police violence she faced while reporting in Portland through clouds of teargas last summer.

We urge the Salem-Keizer community to read the March 21 article “Scandals, Special Interests And Dysfunction Plague School Board” and to join with us in winning the School Board back for students, school workers, and the community by voting for all four progressive candidates by May 18th: Osvaldo Avila, Ashley Carson Cottingham, María Cecilia Hinojos Pressey, and Karina Guzmán Ortiz. Contact us at info@SalemDSA.org for ways to get involved.

In solidarity,

Salem DSA Steering Committee

April 11, 2021

Radical Unity by Garrett Snedaker

We are borrowing this post that has been circulating by e-mail because we think that it makes many points that are worth debating and because it expresses in plain language what we think needs to be heard by some local activists who are looking Left.

In spite of some tall hurdles, the opportunity is there for the Democratic Party to help transform society, at a time when the Republican Party is having trouble controlling a monster of its own making. The Democratic Party, though, must be willing to transform itself, requiring new strategies and an impassioned commitment to the sorts of reforms the Democratic Party has long dismissed as too radical. Some will argue that what we really need is a new political party, but I don’t see that as being a viable option, and for the purposes of this essay I’m not considering it. The Democratic Party will need to engage in outreach to rural Americans, as well as cynical or apathetic nonvoters. But not by appealing to a supposed centrism, or by being progressive only in rhetoric and not in deed. On the contrary, the Democratic Party must fully embrace a progressive populism. Frustration with the status quo, including incrementalism, is boiling over. We don’t have time for standard operating procedure, thanks in large part to climate change, nor is it capable of building the sort of broad support needed to, at long last, realize an egalitarian, just and humane society. Before diving into what exactly I think the Democratic Party should be doing, let’s consider some substantial impediments and how we got to where we are.

The US political system is, despite claims to the contrary, incredibly anti-democratic. Defending the US Senate by saying it represents the states and not individuals is disingenuous. As Hans Noel of Vox asks, "Why should it have a veto on any legislation that has nothing to do with states as states?" The US Senate also hands out lifetime appointments to those who rule on matters that affect individuals. It does so in a country that is vastly different than the one of 13 colonies and 2.5 million people. In the 18th century, there were no examples of population disparities that even remotely rival the disparity between California and Wyoming. The anti-majoritarian nature of our political system is only going to get worse, unless we expand who constitutes the majority. It has been estimated that by the year 2040, approximately two-thirds of the US population will be represented by just 30 US Senators. US residents are increasingly concentrated with more than half the US population living in just over 140 of the more than 3000 counties. More than 80 percent of the US population lives in urban areas, whereas only about half did so a century ago and only a fraction as many when the nation's constitution was written. It is now a consistent threat that the electoral college, a remnant of slavery, will be won by a presidential candidate who loses the popular vote by millions. Meanwhile, the supposed people's house, the US House of Representatives, is plagued by gerrymandered, winner-take-all single-member districts. State assemblies, such as the one in Wisconsin, suffer the same ills. If that wasn't enough, the US political scene is awash in dark money. 

Those features of the US political system give aid and comfort to the Republican Party of the 21st century. Still, when Republicans saw the writing on the wall decades ago, they couldn't have liked what they were reading. Demographic shifts, social mores and scientific knowledge were all working against them, meaning an anti-majoritarian political system might not be sufficient to maintain plutocracy. It became imperative that the GOP create an alternate reality, in which the bulk of their base now resides. Trump or Trumpism didn't happen in a vacuum. 50 years of increasingly cruel, unhinged rhetoric and policy is what created a Republican Party that's now dominated by the likes of Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Marsha Blackburn, Jim Jordan, Steve King, Joni Ernst, Paul Gosar, Matt Gaetz, Mo Brooks, Louie Gohmert and some who openly subscribe to QAnonsense. 

When people have a different take on the causes, effects and proper response to a given set of facts, a potentially constructive debate might ensue. When people deny facts and invent their own "alternative facts," no such potential exists. Various surveys have shown that a majority of Republicans disbelieve everything from climate science to evolution to Barack Obama's birth certificate to the results of the 2020 presidential election. A 2014 poll of Louisiana Republicans found that more respondents blamed Obama than blamed George W. Bush  for the federal government's poor response to 2005's Hurricane Katrina. Such ignorance seems benign when considering that, at present, millions of people seem to believe Donald Trump and JFK, Jr. are leading an effort to prevent "Deep State" Democrats from eating babies in pizza shop basements. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene has attributed wildfires to Jewish space lasers, and claims school shootings are false flag operations, yet all but 11 of her GOP colleagues were unwilling to strip her of committee assignments, much less demand her resignation. How in the world did we get here? Contributing factors include social media, the longstanding right wing dominance of talk radio and the 24/7 infotainment industry. The Republican Party itself, though, started laying the groundwork for this alternate reality long ago.

Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy took advantage of a backlash to the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. The Powell Memorandum of the early 1970s served as a blueprint for the corporatization of a nation that, thanks in large part to FDR's New Deal, had seen a reduction in the wealth gap and substantial growth of a middle class. In the late '70s, Moral Majority was founded and worked diligently at turning hate into a family value.

Ronald Reagan, like Margaret Thatcher across the pond, would take the right wing revolution to new heights. Dog whistling, anti-government vitriol and deregulation have been just a few of the tools used. Long before Trump's big lie about the 2020 election being stolen or climate change being a hoax (while, mind you, he applies for a permit to build a giant seawall around his resort in Ireland), there was the big lie known as trickle-down economics, or what George H. W. Bush referred to as "voodoo." 

At the same time profit and not the public interest became primary for an increasingly consolidated media, and the Fairness Doctrine was being repealed, the Republican Party sold another big lie when successfully implanting into the public consciousness the "liberal media" critique. It took the obscene egregiousness of Donald Trump and an insurrection for the infotainment industry to somewhat come to its senses regarding its habit of promoting false equivalencies, suggesting a warped sense of what constitutes fairness. Chris Cilliza, writing for CNN, quotes Rand Paul regarding his 2020 election fraud claims: "Historically what would happen is if I said that I thought that there was fraud, you would interview someone else who said there wasn't. But now you insert yourself in the middle and say that the absolute fact is that everything that I'm saying is a lie." Cilliza responds, "This is a classic appeal to both-sider-ism by Paul. His argument goes like this: I can say anything I want and it's not the job of the media to litigate whether it's true or not. Instead, there should be another guest on the show who says the opposite of what I am saying -- and then the viewers can decide who is right and who is wrong." Cilliza, to his credit, then adds a sad truth: "Paul is right that journalism, for far too long, worked like this." Indeed, for far too long, the media has been like the Discovery Institute with their "Teach the Controversy" campaign. I'm not confident that those days are over, as the profit motive remains in place.

That said, the two major political parties have not functioned as disparately as rhetoric suggests, though they have been moving apart of late. Most unfortunately, many in the Democratic Party establishment have also subscribed to neoliberalism, while maintaining a relatively progressive take on social issues. It is also undeniable that members of both parties have been and remain beholden to moneyed interests. Then-candidate Joe Biden assured wealthy donors at a private fundraiser that, if he becomes president, "No one’s standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change.” Disgust with corruption in Washington is not unjustified, even if those chanting "drain the swamp" have failed to see that their political heroes are themselves swamp creatures.  

So, what is the Democratic Party to do, especially if the anti-democratic system within which it operates is virtually reform-proof? Simply put, Democrats and other organizations must help build the massive multiracial working class alliance that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Fred Hampton and other '60s radicals were attempting to build, that Reverend William Barber is attempting to build today with his Poor People's Campaign. Such an alliance must include millions of rural Americans who currently either don't vote or vote Republican. The Democratic Party must abandon neoliberalism and assist in the development of class consciousness around support for universal programs like Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, worker-owned cooperatives, campaign finance reform, and universal access to preschool and college via progressive taxation and a wealth tax. None of this is to say the Democratic Party shouldn't also concern itself with ending white supremacy and patriarchy. But framing matters, tactics matter and disingenuous prioritization is transparent.

Far too many members of the Democratic Party establishment seem more interested in ensuring that thirteen percent of hedge fund managers are black than in ending predatory capitalism, as if a lack of diversity is the utmost concern. In a 2018 article, Adolph Reed, Jr. writes, "Even when its proponents believe themselves to be radicals, this antiracist politics is a professional-managerial class politics. Its adherents are not concerned with trying to generate the large, broad political base needed to pursue a transformative agenda because they are committed fundamentally to pursuit of racial parity within neoliberalism, not social transformation. In fact, antiracist activists’ and pundits’ insistence during the 2016 election campaign that Bernie Sanders did not address black concerns made that point very clearly because nearly every item on the Sanders campaign’s policy agenda—from the Robin Hood tax on billionaires to free public higher education to the $15/h minimum wage, a single-payer health care system, etc. (Sanders for President)—would disproportionately benefit black and Hispanic populations that are disproportionately working class."

If we're to build an egalitarian, humane nation and world, having only 51 or even 60 percent of the people on board isn't going to cut it. Besides, it is unwise and demonstrates a lack of compassion to leave so many people feeling like they don't belong. But what will unite the masses? Getting money and its corruptive influence out of politics is a concept that people from all across the political spectrum can undoubtedly support. Quality, affordable health care and a living wage are things most everyone wants. With the right framing and persistent outreach, support for community-controlled policing can possibly be developed by tapping into the same desire many have for local control of schools. While many have bought into the notion that climate change is a hoax, those same individuals can understand the importance of breathing clean air and drinking clean water. The Green New Deal is a jobs bill as much as a climate change mitigation bill. Those working in the fossil fuel industry, in Wyoming and North Dakota and elsewhere, need some assurance that shutting down fossil fuel production doesn't mean destroying their livelihood. Green infrastructure projects are key. Another helpful move would be bringing back the Fairness Doctrine and encouraging educators to teach media literacy. The bottom line is that transforming society won't happen with a return to the pre-Trump "normal." 

Above all, I'm advocating that the Democratic Party, along with other organizations, invest heavily in outreach and movement building, particularly in rural areas. And not just during election cycles but between election cycles. Pay people a living wage to knock on doors and hang out at diners and have conversations that uncover common ground. Not for the purpose of helping a candidate win or a ballot measure pass, but to build sustainable solidarity. Face-to-face interactions, once they become safe again, are ideal. The recruiting, planning and paid training can start right away, online or possibly in person. These solidarity organizers must be trained in diplomacy, in how to listen and respond as opposed to react. They should be armed with knowledge, but studies demonstrate that "facts backfire," so organizers must also understand that emotional appeals are vital. There may need to be some biting of tongues at times, not as a suppression of values but as a way to build bridges. Plant seeds that will hopefully take root in the minds of those who may have some detestable views, but do so gracefully, knowing there's more to people than their worst misconceptions. These outreach efforts should extend to the tens of millions of adults who don't vote, at least partly on account of feeling like politicians aren't making their lives appreciably better. 

I'll close with a quote from Dr. King's brilliant 1967 "Beyond Vietnam" speech, when he called for something that has yet come to pass but still can. "I am convinced that if we are to get on to the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a 'thing‐oriented' society to a 'person‐oriented' society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered…True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, 'This is not just.'...A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” 

Garrett Snedaker

2/4/2021

We say that struggle resolves all contradictions. What does this mean? Part 3 of 3.

Our working-class and nationally oppressed peoples are in constant crises, and over the last decade or longer we have seen more of our people showing up with depression, anxiety disorders, social phobias, addictions, and more. We have seen some comrades move from the Left to the far-right not because they have changed their politics so much as they have strong emotional reactions to certain people or to conflict. This is political—this happens because capitalism is in crisis and throws people overboard. It would be one thing if we could put empathy into action and build groups to self-manage their care and healing, occupy a hospital or non-profit and put forward demands, and formulate a program and practice based on oppression and liberation to confront these crises. The comrades who criticize us for ableism and for not doing this are not wrong; we are failing to address crises, and we often view these crises as personal. But we do not have the tools, and we cannot get all of the tools needed, to address the crises that confront our people.

In fact, we do not talk much about “our people” and take responsibility for what is, after all, the country in which we live. Socialist and liberation movements the world over root themselves in the progressive national traditions of their peoples as they resolve the contradictions between their movements and the masses. We are barely in a place where we can talk about solidarity, but we are caught in a situation where some comrades want us to---or need us to---talk about and practice empathy and mutual aid instead, and they damn us when we do not. We need comrade doctors and comrade therapists badly. We are fighting a war of sorts, and every army needs a field hospital. But we also need to know and identify with several tens of millions of people here who are now strangers to us. The particular crises experienced by our people form material impositions by capitalism and also demonstrate our shortcomings.

These difficulties do not excuse us from serving the people and putting "serving" in the proper contexts so that it is not understood as charity or as mutual aid. I recently attended a Web event hosted by a militant Kurdish and Turkish socialist organization that had therapists speaking to their audience, calming and hopeful live music, and a compassionate woman comrade who facilitated the event and gave an in-depth political analysis. We can do this.  

The DSA chapter problems referred to here have taken place within particular contexts. These events transpired while the fascist attacks were underway in D.C. and Salem, or in their aftermath. They took place as a new political moment is opening, and one that most (but not all) of us worked for. They took place as COVID continued to take an out-of-proportion toll in our community. There are particular crises of capitalism present, one of which is increasing automation (and many fewer jobs to return to) as COVID continues and another of which is the purchasing of corporate debt and the consequences of that. The DSA chapter problems occurred as movements around us began to push back, and perhaps to advance. This push-back gives us new opportunities and challenges.

Those are some of the objective conditions that we work with. But there is a contradictory subjective set of conditions as well to consider. There is an experiential gap between leaders and members, and similar gaps between members, and McCarthyite anti-communism is sometimes present and is allowed. A woman comrade has to steel herself for certain meetings because she experiences mansplaining and sniping comments from other comrades. Chapter leadership does not collectively engage with members when backsteps occur. We have no base in the labor movement or in workplace organizing, although we have many union members. A couple of comrades tend to Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy, a few are anarchists, at least two are close to the Solidarity organization, and others fit well into DSA’s “big tent.” But one comrade opposes new anti-terrorism legislation aimed at the far-right, one wants to leave all political questions to “the workers” to settle after they take power, we are attempting to study the Labor Theory of Value because we do not have similar understandings of exploitation and oppression, we do not have unity around the question(s) of self-determination, we passed a resolution calling on Salem’s conservative mayor to lead an anti-racist effort and exceed his authority in certain areas without much discussion. and the comrade who advanced some caustic criticisms mentioned above was told that perhaps he should leave DSA.

In other words, we sometimes depoliticize ourselves, and this time we did it when having the right political line and practice is of special importance. And if what we do is not political, then it becomes personal and we are struggling with feelings and past slights that cannot be put away. We thus take on some aspects of our opposition.

The opposite of “big tent,” or the answer to it and to the movement-destructive behaviors that sometimes come with it, are neither narrow Left sects nor purges. Just the opposite is true: we need a more politicized DSA, with declared factions and tendencies and deep work among the working-class and nationally oppressed masses. There is a need in the U.S. right now for principled mass social-democratic politics and organizing, so let’s think about redesign. Principled mass social-democratic politics should be the right pole or wall of DSA, and with that being the space where DSA’s politics begin. People who are active every day and sharing leadership and activity and participating in actions find ways to resolve or work with their differences that others cannot. They develop a common rhythm of work, and they set about building capacity for struggle and leadership among workers and oppressed peoples. They do that, or they perish. If the numbers of people so engaged do not increase and do not take leadership---if the quantities and qualities of the peoples’ forces do not change for the better---we lose. A principled, mass social-democratic “big tent” organization is needed, but within that effort there should be room for organizations that distinguish between cadre members (the decisive force who unite, serve, and lead the people) and other members as well as organizations in which people are educated, tested, and given the space and means to evolve politically before they become full members. The contradictions between a “big tent” organization and other forms of organization can work for the good if we assume that clear thinking, unity through shared struggles, and a “no enemies on the Left” policy prevails.

We have some great advancements to point to that illustrate this dynamic of people learning to work together and moving Leftward: Salem DSA’s socialist environmentalism, the Chapter’s abilities in initiating and carrying though on some community projects, our ability and willingness to take part in an important coalition effort despite being a minority within that coalition, participation in some electoral work and an almost-won in a City council race, and a willingness by some comrades to study the Labor Theory of Value and engage with basic Marxism. This inspires and empowers people to do additional planning for 2021. One question that we have to answer is if this forward motion weighs more than our backsteps. Another question is how we deliberately correct backward motion.

The primary contradiction is between the working-class and oppressed peoples and capitalism. The secondary contradiction for us is between ourselves and the working-class and nationally oppressed peoples. You can either love the people or hate the system; the choice you make will put you in one place or another. This is one link between the two separate contradictions. The primary contradiction and how we respond to it with the masses are all that we should have room for dealing with in our movement and in DSA. Our work starts with grasping the contradictions. Our growth comes with understanding the overall nature of contradiction and development—and not just with understanding these, but with working with them and applying what we learn in every aspect of our lives. Expect contradiction and conflict, but look at each situation and ask how it arrived at a specific stage and what is happening within it and around it and is moving it forward or backward. We should not over-emphasize negation, but we should not lead with conciliation either. Apply this to relationships in the here-and-now because all relationships are areas of struggle, and all relationships and struggles are joined.

What does this mean in practice for us? Study, engage in mass work, form political factions within DSA as our mass work moves ahead, recognize and respect differences within a socialist framework, reject liberalism and defeatism within and amongst ourselves, let those who do the work speak first, agree that there is no right to speak without first understanding what is at issue, help people develop within and through the organization rather than quickly place them into positions of responsibility, broaden our base and our leadership more carefully than we do, move people and ourselves to the Left, understand this this movement to the Left occurs in stages, and understand that the contradictions between ourselves and the ruling class are fundamentally and irreversibly antagonistic but that the contradictions between ourselves and the masses are not. These methods of work have been formed and tested in every successful revolution. Political debates and discussions are not arguments, and they should not be sources of bitterness. If differences are handled correctly the discussions over differences should lead to greater unity. And remember what Amilcar Cabral said: "Responsible members must take life seriously, conscious of their responsibilities, thoughtful about carrying them out, and with a comradeship based on work and duty done. Nothing of this is incompatible with the joy of living, or with love for life and its amusements, or with confidence in the future and in our work...." All of this is what we mean when we say that struggle resolves all contradictions.

The working-class and nationally oppressed peoples are our only bastions, our only means of defending ourselves. They are the only forces that can lead a revolution. If it seems that the people are opposed to us, or that they consider us to be their enemy, this is because we have not correctly resolved the contradictions between us.

Further and better reading:

1. Mao's On Contradiction: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm

2. Zhou Enlai's Guidelines for Myself: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm

3. Stalin on dialectical materialism: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm

4. M.N. Roy on patriotism: https://www.marxists.org/archive/roy/1923/06/12.htm

5. Marlene Dixon on the oppression of women: https://www.marxists.org/subject/women/authors/dixon-marlene/class-struggle.htm

6. Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism:https://archive.org/details/fundamentalsofma0000unse

7. Amilcar Cabral Tell no lies, Claim no easy victories: https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/cabral/1965/tnlcnev.htm

   

We say that struggle resolves all contradictions. What does that mean? Part 2 of 3.

To this point this has been a poor and second-hand introduction to dialectical materialism. Here is how this works out in practice in a political organization, and here is how we answer the question of what we mean when we say that struggle resolves all contradictions.

Most of the labor and radical political organizations that I have been involved with have had a group of leaders and activists and a rank-and-file who tune in and out. Whether the leaders and activists intend to or not, they often build a moat around themselves. They do ever more work but their energies and numbers diminish over time. At some point some of them turn on one another or turn on the rank-and-file. The rank-and-file, for their part, might have a transactional or user mentality, or they may have signed on because they are good with the organization’s program, or because they want to give financial support but not do more, or because the right person or the right moment needed to move them has not arrived. Leadership may also fall into transactionalism, meaning that inducements of one kind or another are used to get members or to build projects. Or leadership may conciliate with members’ inaction, or they may keep looking for the right thing or a right moment to move people.

Being a socialist does not mean that one is free of all capitalist influences or individualism. And being a socialist now, when much of the U.S. Left has arrived where they are through the Occupy and Sanders movements or through a battered labor movement, often means that counter-culturalism, so-called “identity politics,” forms of liberalism and anarchism, tendencies to work for change “from above” rather than with workers and nationally oppressed peoples at the grassroots, going to the many manuals for social change that are out there for answers, living in the world of the non-profits, and not engaging with the classics of socialism runs pretty strong. We have seen in a very short time the practical disappearance in many areas of a traditional, militant, self-educated Left made up of workers and nationally oppressed peoples. And it is not only that we have seen this disappearance, but that it has been a forced disappearance in some sense, driven by ageism, nihilism, anarchism, and liberalism on the Left.

What we know, or what we think we know, is that if you do not build activism into an organization from its first minutes you end up with inactivism, busyness (not organizing), or division. And we know, or we think we know, that if you do for people what they can do for themselves you diminish their ability to lead and limit their identification with the organization. We know that not all motion is forward motion, but it is questionable if we can identify backward motion when we see it and if we know how to stop it. We should know that learning history is a subversive act, and that we have a responsibility or right to insist that everyone take up the tools of theory and practice as they enter our organizations. We know, or we should know from the labor movement, that an organizer can spend all day preaching unity, but when one person says “Maybe we’ll get fired if we protest” the group falls apart. The Left has our equivalents: personal attacks, anti-communism, the “white fragility” line all set activity back. We know that people will enter a house with many wide-open doors, but we should also know that not everyone coming through the doors is someone you want planning your next party and deciding who is going to serve the punch at the party. We should know that we cannot tell people to bugger off and expect heir cooperation or open ears.

When these problems occur in the context of a “big tent” socialist organization like a chapter of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) the undemocratic underpinnings of the organization become more problematic. We should not expect a socialist organization in the U.S. right now to be fully democratic, fully participatory, and fully attuned to what the working-class and oppressed peoples are thinking and doing. And it is not that DSA is primarily undemocratic in its structure or decision-making, but that the “big tent” formulation is, in itself, undemocratic. “Big tent” means, on the one hand, that all “democratic socialists” are welcome---a good thing when “democratic” refers to democracy in motion but a bad thing when it refers to a specific social-democratic tradition or some form of Left liberalism. On the other hand, “big tent” also means that there will be problems with decision-making, focus, and attention to national projects. People will drop in and out. What we think of as “political line” and “mass work”---the two necessary aspects of activism that are in non-antagonistic opposition to one another---will not be taken up by the entire organization, or at least not in the same ways and at the same times.

A comrade who is not engaged in mass work but who has a long history of activism and leadership will be prone to take occasional swipes at other comrades, and especially those in leadership. His comments can be caustic and can be heard as blow-offs to the Chapter, although this is not his intention. This is what isolation accomplishes in many situations. The leadership is feeling burdened with the work that they do and the relatively low numbers of people involved; they are understandably defensive when attacked. Both the comrade who is attacking and those who are feeling the attack understand that there are openings for DSA and for socialism that are being missed. Both are aware that each meeting creates more work, and neither is completely confidant that they are moving in the right direction quickly enough. The former cannot hear the others asking for his participation (too often on their terms, and not on his), and the latter keeps on taking on work as if their energy is infinite and as if their methods of work are democratic.

Because we have a “big tent” organization we cannot find unity on questions of self-determination, defunding the police or putting police under community control, some of the basics of exploitation, and the role of the state. We do not have a commonly shared analysis of colonialism and imperialism. We have not discussed or come up with a shared analysis of the coup attempt in D.C. or the fascist threat here in Oregon. The people in the organization who have backgrounds in Marxism and organizing drop the ball when it comes to discussing these questions, engaging in education, and doing practical work in these areas---or we conciliate with liberalism or anarchism.

And because we all live in the U.S. and drink deeply from this culture, we see our failures in individual terms, we excuse them as matters of personal angst or exhaustion, we burn out, or we conciliate in less-than-principled ways---or we gather up our toys and go home angry and sulk. Political disagreements are taken as personal affronts, and this is sometimes inescapable when political line is distorted and expressed in caustic terms. Anyone active in the labor and Left movements meets a good number of alcoholics and dopers, burn outs, angry people, mansplainers, too-busy people, and droners. What they share in common are unhealthy relationships to power and individualism that negate collective work and power. We over-emphasize the role of negation in making change, if we think about how change happens at all. But for us, as socialists, the problem should be less about what is healthy or unhealthy and more about what it takes in terms of our relations to the masses to get on and stay on a path to working-class power.

These turns signify bourgeois or petty-bourgeois intrusions into our movement, or at least an absence of criticism and self-criticism and support for those of us who want to grow and do better. They have their complementary political positions in opposition to theory and intellectual development on the Left, political defeatism and indecisiveness, a distrust or rejection of paths to power, and an inability or unwillingness to think dialectically and work with the push and pull of political struggle. This is where we get Trotskyism and reflexive anti-communism and anti-Stalinism from. This is where unprincipled coalition activity (and not united fronts) comes from.

Go here for Part 3.

We say that struggle resolves all contradictions. What does that mean? Part 1 of 3

We say that struggle resolves all contradictions. What does that mean?

In the sense that we use the word, “contradiction” we are talking about opposition that occurs within and between people, and within and between contending forces and within and between things as well. Opposition and struggle---contradiction---are natural and universal. Opposition and struggle are the means by which things change, and since everything is in development and motion then change is also on-going and constant. Contradictions may be antagonistic or non-antagonistic, but they are ever-present.

It is not that unrelated people or forces or things come into contact and conflict with one another, but that there are interrelationships at work, and that people and forces and things have distinct stages of development and self-development. If we want to understand someone or something, we must look at a web of relations and relationships, the history of development that is at work, what is intrinsic and what is external, and what contradictions are present. You must enter and experience the environment of what it is that you are studying in order to know it.

Grasping contradiction is a way of understanding the mutually exclusive and opposing tendencies that develop within, and are present in, everything within us and around us, including our thoughts and thinking and even motion itself. The most common way that we have of talking about this in talking about water. When water is heated to certain point it becomes steam, and in so doing the quantity and quality of the water is changed. Motion (heat) creates changes in quantity and quality. Heat is itself the product of opposing forces. But even without heat water will undergo other changes as well, although it appears to be still: evaporation, or freezing to become slush or ice come readily to mind. The parallel for us is that the “motion” of social movements creates changes in the qualities of societies and changes in the numbers of people involved and in the qualities of their thinking, their work, and their cultures.

Since contradiction and change are universal and constant, then, something of the past, something of the present, and something of the future is always present. The quantities and qualities of what is around us are changing. What is new supersedes what is old. Old conditions (old forces, old quantities, old qualities, and old contradictions) may be defeated, but some part of the past goes into the new thing that has been created and new contradictions and struggles are born. Interdependence means that in the process of change the aspects that exist within something become their opposites. Think here about how the organisms that eventually made human life possible developed in stages over long periods of time.

Here we also often use the example of capitalists and capitalism: the capitalists were a subordinated force within feudalism, and capitalism existed in an embryonic state, but through a clash between rival means of producing and distributing commodities the capitalists and capitalism took power. This was “progressive” in the sense that productive powers were freed up and the mechanisms of production and distribution could acquire social characteristics---more people involved, triumphs for science, an end to a dying order that was being crushed under its own weight---but it was oppressive in the sense that the new order rested on the subjugation of working-classes and nationally oppressed peoples and new levels of environmental destruction and slavery continued and took new forms. Also, capitalism continued and deepened the contradiction between people and nature. The primary contradictions that quickly emerged were between capitalism and capitalists, on the one hand, and the working-classes and nationally oppressed peoples on the other hand.

Socialism must emerge as a new form of production and distribution and take on the task of restoring to us a place within nature. Socialism will not come as a clean slate, but will carry something from capitalism within it. It took changes in quantities and qualities---of people, of the means by which things were produced and distributed, of thinking and science, of class relations, of cultures---to give capitalism its victory. But in its victory capitalism created its opposing forces in the forms of workers and nationally oppressed peoples. Just so with socialism: something from capitalism will be present, the work of building socialism will; be present, and in this work are the seeds of communism.

The new most often replaces the old in a capitalist society when there is clarity among the working-class and oppressed masses around what the primary and secondary contradictions are and when antagonism defines the struggle between contending ideas and social forces. Antagonism is not always necessary or present, but it is a stage in contradiction and struggle. We have implied or said so far that contradiction and struggle are not the same, that as something is negated something else is created, that this is on-going and constant, that changes in quantities and qualities are most deeply imbedded in these processes, that the new supersedes the old and carries in it something of the old and the present and the new, that there is a unity in opposites in the sense that every thing is identified by the opposing forces within and around it and by its history of development, and that under certain conditions opposing forces with some thing can coexist and “become one another” by creating a new identity. Negation is of course a necessary step or stage, but negation is itself negated through development and the role of negation should not be over-emphasized.

Some of our critics object by saying that cooperation and mutual aid are responsible for development. We respond that even in situations where mutual aid is predominant, it is so because existence is itself a contradictory state (life opposing death or decay, motion as a contradictory state, apparent solidarity existing as necessity) and so it is a matter of struggle. Some of our critics object by emphasizing spontaneity and randomness, but we respond that these are limited factors in development and exist in relation to (as relative to) other forces. Some of our critics say that we should be agnostics, or “objective,” in our approach, but we say that (human) activity is primary in all things and that it is through action and understanding action that relative truth comes to be understood; there is no limit to (human) activity and understanding. Some of our critics say that we leave no room for idealism, and they are correct in the sense that we do not believe that ideas have power or meaning by themselves. Other critics say that we make no room for freedom or will, and we say that we understand freedom to be the recognition of necessity and that it is the people---and people alone---who make history. We add to that that history is the “space” in which human beings develop.

Go here for Part 2.  

Some Notes On Our Present Moment---Part Three Of Three

Salem, Oregon---our town---has been highlighted as a center of far-right terrorism and activism. Here is recurring fascist violence, and the right-wing won most of the local and state electoral contests in November and controls the County Commission and the School Board. Attending the counter-protests can be unsafe, and they are not organized on a united-front basis that builds and broadens our capacity to fight and win. A door opened for broad anti-fascist and anti-racist unity last spring and then closed and has remained closed. The pandemic has been disempowering---or our response to it has been. Radical forces have not consolidated and put forward an all-people’s political program while the right-wing has consolidated and put forward a program of sorts, or a warped explanation of what’s going on. Liberals have erred on the school reopenings and the matter of school district liability for the spread of COVID at work. Liberal faith in the system seems to have been strengthened even as the system falters. They continue to take a top-down approach in many areas, and they continue to write off the working-class except when our votes are needed.

Attempts were recently made by the far-right to intimidate staff from the Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Administration at their homes while the right-wing Freedom Foundation seeks to bust public employee unions, and now anti-maskers are attacking retail workers on their jobs in Salem. Intentionally or not, they are working hand-in-hand against working people. Where are our liberal and radical friends when it comes to attacks against workers and our unions? Where are our unions when it comes to leading an all-peoples front against our enemies? We return to the point that solidarity is not a two-way street in Salem, and we add that it sometimes feels that this is by design and intent by some people.

Our City Council appears to be progressive in much the same way that a few members of our School Board and the Superintendent once appeared to be progressive, but the people now have only two or three voices on the City Council (and none at the School Board). The real estate industry, the Chamber of Commerce, the banks, and the Salem Leadership Foundation are positioned to head off progressive change, and they are probably relieved that they have not taken heat for their roles over the past year. The police and the people who work behind the scenes at the County, City, and School Board levels work very hard to redirect that heat and deplete our progressive energy. Many non-profits help to soften the blow and redirect our energy and heat as well.

Politics here remains a matter of personalities---Paul Evans’ push for power, Shemia Fagan’s extended run for Governor, the short-lived Tina Kotek/Janelle Bynum controversy and deal, Bill Post on the radio, the right-wing focus on Kate Brown. Politics should be about political programs, struggle, and forward motion. It should not be about agreeing to disagree or conciliating or convincing people that we’re all on the same team; there is an “us” and a “them” that needs to be understood and used correctly. What force is there in Salem, or in Oregon, that can make politics all about a working-class and oppressed peoples’ struggle for forward movement?

Still, we must ask how is it that Rep. Nearman may have let the fascists into the State Capitol on December 21, that Rep. Cliff Bentz supports Trump and the right-wing terrorists and holds office, that Rep. Bill Post can waffle on the coup attempt and still hold office and be named as Assistant Deputy Leader of the Oregon House Republicans? Post’s case is instructive: he is no doubt getting support and protection from agribusiness for his effort to cut the agriculture minimum wage for workers under 21 years of age.

We have been through the fires, but rural Oregon continues to suffer. We are hitting a high point in new COVID cases, and Marion County’s infections and deaths are way out of line with our population numbers and our healthcare systems. Houselessness appears to be growing. These are systemic problems that are not going to be solved by individual effort, but saying this does not get individuals off the hook. If we dwell only on the bad news and our desperation, we disempower ourselves and one another. Radicals here are indeed surrounded. Breaking out of this encirclement can only be done by building relations with the working-class and oppressed peoples and through strategic united front (coalition) work.