#National Farmer Labor Organization

[mesetacadre]

In February, 1945, when the USSR agreed at Yalta to join the Allies in the war on Japan, it was decided to divide Korea into two zones for purposes of military action. The Russians took the north, the Americans the south. The following July, at Potsdam, the 38th parallel was chosen as the “great divide.” Korea was a victim of Japanese aggression, not an enemy. We would come as liberators, not as conquerors. The military occupation was to end within a year of victory, followed by about five years of civilian trusteeship in which all the Big Four Powers, America, the Soviet Union, Great Britain and China, should help Korea to her feet. That was the plan. The reality proved otherwise. The growing cold war against the Soviet Union made Korea also a base. The two zones solidified into two areas of military occupation. Friction continues to grow. When American troops landed in South Korea, September 7, 1945, thousands of Koreans danced and cheered and shouted: “Mansai,” or “Live a Thousand Years.” Within six months surly Koreans were demanding how soon the Americans would go home. Within a year great uprisings took place in eighty cities and in hundreds of farming villages against the “police state” that the American armed forces kept in power. When the Americans landed in Korea, the Koreans had already a de facto government. A “People’s Republic” had been declared a day earlier by a congress of Koreans themselves. General John R. Hodge, commander of the U. S. armed forces, dissolved this “People’s Republic,” and drove most of its members underground. Two days after landing, Hodge announced to the Koreans – who had waited a quarter of a century for liberation – that Japanese officials would temporarily continue to run Korea. Korean delegations waiting to greet Americans were fired on – by Japanese police! The Russians pursued an opposite policy. They recognized the “People’s Committees” that the Americans were suppressing. They encouraged Korean initiative when it took the form of ousting the Japanese-appointed puppets, dividing the landlords’ lands, and nationalizing the Japanese-owned industry as the “property of the Korean people.” They especially looked with favor on what they called “mass organizations,” – farmers’ unions, labor unions, women’s associations and unions of youth. The Russian zone in the north fairly blossomed with such organizations energetically building their country after their own desire. From time to time the Americans and Russians held conferences to determine Korea’s future. Nothing came of these talks but increasing bitterness for two years. The Americans insisted on including pro-Japanese quislings and returned exiles in the provisional government. The Russians refused. The Russians insisted on including representatives of the trade unions, the farmers’ union and other similar organizations. The USA would not hear of this.

In North Korea: First Eye-Witness Reports, Anna Louise Strong, 1949

[zvaigzdelasas]

AUUC('s Edmonton Branch) released a statement on the Volunteer Nazi given a standing ovation in Canadian Parliament, read it

[x]

transcription after the cut

The Edmonton Branch of the Association of United Ukrainian Canadians (AUUC) condemns the honoring of a nazi Ukrainian World War II veteran, a member of the notorious 14th Waffen SS Division "Halychyna", in the House of Commons during the visit of Ukrainian President Zelenskiy last Friday, 22 September, 2023.

Our Association, founded in 1918 in Winnipeg as the Ukrainian Labor Temple Association, has an unblemished record of opposing fascism, in word and deed, before and after WWII, in Canada, in the Ukrainian-Canadian community, and abroad. Our members fought heroically in the Spanish Civil War, on the side of the Republican government, against fascism. They fought for Canada, allied with the Soviet Union, against nazi Germany and fascist Italy in WWII.

It is therefore unbelievable to us, as to most other Canadians, that when the individual in question, Yaroslav Hunka, was introduced in parliament as a Ukrainian veteran of WWII who fought against Russia, no one in attendance, all of whom gave him two standing ovations, realized what this meant. We know exactly what it meant.

Now this shameful spectacle has been publicized to all Canadians, and throughout the world. We welcome this publicization. We hope it will lead to a reckoning. Some steps in this direction have already been taken. The speaker of the House of Commons has resigned. An endowment in the name of Yaroslav Hunka at the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, at the University of Alberta, has been returned. We welcome these steps. But they are only first steps. Much more must be done. The problem is greater than simply one nazi, one speaker, and one endowment.

It is estimated that two thousand members of the 14th Waffen SS Division "Halychyna" were allowed into Canada after WWII. Our Association, immediately at that time, publicized and opposed their entry, to our everlasting credit. This figure does not include other nazis and nazi-collaborators, of various nationalities. That means thousands of Yaroslav Hunkas. Several of them went on to occupy prominent and leading positions in certain other Ukrainian-Canadian organizations, in religious institutions, educational institutions, and state institutions. The Canadian state supports, with funding and semi-official recognition, Ukrainian-Canadian organizations that unapologetically honor these nazis. If honoring Yaroslav Hunka in the House of Commons was a shameful act that had to be corrected, then so must all these other cases be corrected.

We therefore call on the Canadian state at all three levels (federal, provincial, municipal) to halt all state funding to all Ukrainian-Canadian organizations which honor any Ukrainian nazis or nazi-collaborators, including especially veterans of the 14th Waffen SS Division "Halychyna", until such time as these organizations explicitly and unequivocally apologize for having done so, severing all connections with all these nazis and nazi-collaborators, in all forms whatsoever.

We call for the removal and dismantling of two monuments to nazi Ukrainians in Edmonton: the monument to the veterans of the 14th Waffen SS Division "Halychyna" located in St. Michael's Cemetery, and the bust of Roman Shukhevych located at the Ukrainian Youth Unity Complex, preferably by their respective property owners, and if not by them, then by state compulsion.

We call on the government of Canada, and on the Liberal Party of Canada which formed the government at the time, to issue official apologies to our Association (the AUUC), in consultation with our Association, for banning it (then named the Ukrainian Labor-Farmer Temple Association) by an order in council in June 1940, seizing its properties, our halls and their contents (furniture, musical instruments, dance costumes, books, etc., most of which were destroyed), and interning our leaders in internment camps, acknowledging this as a terrible miscarriage of justice and act of oppression.

We call on all Canadians, all progressive Canadians, all decent Canadians, all anti-fascist Canadians, individually and through their various organizations, to support us in these calls for justice, by publicizing this statement, and pressuring their political representatives.

[city-of-ladies]

Wu Shuqing and the revolutionary women's troops

Revolutionary women fighting at Nanjing

In 1911, revolutionaries in southern China rose up against the Manchu-led Qing Dynasty. Their successful uprising brought an end to the imperial system and ushered in the early republican era. Moved by both patriotism and feminist ideals, women joined the movement.

Wu Shuqing’s women’s troop

Wu Shuqing, a 19-year-old student from Hanyang, was one of these women. Alongside two others, she wrote to revolutionary leader Li Yuanhong, asking for permission to fight. He initially refused, arguing that integrating women into an all-male army would be too difficult.

But Wu Shuqing didn’t back down. She responded by asserting that there was no difference between men and women when it came to fighting a revolution:

“Were they to hear that the nation was conscripting troops, farmers would lay down their hoes and laborers would abandon their tools. In high spirit they would go off and become soldiers. Even teachers and students in school would all have to become troops. The people are the starting point for society, and society is the point at which the state begins. The people are thus of major importance in terms of victory and defeat of the state. If we do not now come to the aid of the great Han people and wipe out the Manchu bastards, we will assuredly earn the slander of foreigners. In the north sits powerful Russia and majestic Great Britain. Our country faces great dangers on that front. I seek no instant glory. I merely want to join the troops in fighting northward, giving my life in pursuit of the enemy, killing the Manchus. Only then will our Han race be avenged.”

Wu Shuqing’s request was granted, and a women’s troop was formed.

The women’s troop at the front

The exact number of women who joined is unclear, with reports suggesting several hundred. They underwent military training before being sent to the front lines.

Wu Shuqing led them into combat. She participated in a campaign against the Qing at Hankou. During the battle for Nanjing, she and her troops devised a plan to occupy the fort at Shizishan, opening a path for the revolutionary army.

Many women’s forces and organizations were formed in quick succession, though not all of them saw battle.

The sisters Yin Weijun and Yin Ruizhi became famous for their skill in bomb-making and explosives. They earned respect during the battles against the Qing for their daring bombing raids.

Though Yin Ruizhi was wounded, her sister went on to create another unit, the Zhejiang Women’s Nationalist Army, leading them into battle. Over 30 women from this unit fought to liberate Nanjing. They attacked three forts, occupied Yuhatai, scaled ladders over the city walls, and entered Nanjing on December 2. Eyewitnesses praised their bravery and combat effectiveness. However, the troop was later disbanded as the commander-in-chief did not believe women could handle a long-term expedition.

The Yin sisters in military attire.

A third women’s troop also participated in the battle for Nanjing, providing first-aid and logistical support.

A fourth women’s unit, the Guandong Women’s Northern Expedition Bombing Team, was led by Xu Mulan. A hundred female soldiers fought at Xu Zhou.

Though women made up only a small fraction of the revolutionary forces, they played a vital role in the overall movement. For some, their military involvement became a way to express their political ideals and ensure the possibility of an egalitarian society in the future republic. Some of these women also became outspoken advocates for women’s suffrage.

Aftermath

Most women’s armies were discharged in 1912 after a compromise was reached between the revolutionaries and the northern forces. Many female soldiers were left frustrated, feeling that their contributions were undervalued, especially as all positions in the provisional government were given to men.

Wu Shuqing’s whereabouts after the revolution remain unknown.

Here is the link to my Ko-Fi. Your support would be much appreciated!

Further reading:

Edwards Louise, Gender, Politics, and Democracy: Women's Suffrage in China

Ono Kazuko, Chinese Women in a Century of Revolution, 1850-1950

Li Xiaolin, Women in the Chinese Military 

[luminalunii97]

Some tankie bs detection

I saw this post on my dash. The user is blocked now. But just to educate people so that they won't fall for idiotic claims online, here are a couple of facts:

1. The Islamic Republic is not anti imperialist, they're anti USA. The regime is very much in love with Russian imperialism. At this point, Iran is an unofficial russian colony. And by the support of their imperialist father figure they have their small version of imperialism in middle east. Ask Iraq and Lebanon.

2. There's no "safety" when it comes to economy in Iran. The "national sovereignty" is called "those fvckin thieves in power" here. Iran's regime is one of the most corrupt regimes by international index. Rent, nepotism, embezzlement and money laundering are serious issues in Iran. Done only and only by the governors and people in power. Social class is not only a thing, there's a raging gap between rich people and those in poverty. And the gap is getting bigger and bigger by month. If you have connections in government or you are in the government, you'll get richer and richer. Other wise, soon enough you'll be in poverty too. Many families, including mine, who used to be considered middle class, have incomes lower than the poverty threshold now.

About 15% of Iran's economic failure including inflation is on the sanctions. The rest is on the corruption within the regime.

Iran's banking system is also a corrupted organ. The so called Islamic banking is anything but Islamic. The loan interest rate is one of the highest worldwide, 23%, so that often you have to pay back more than twice the money you've received. It's called Riba in Islam and it's Haram. According to the regime themselves, the banking system in European countries, even in the USA, is more Islamic than us. The fact that some of the biggest embezzlement in Iran has been done by bank managers should give you a picture of how they're drinking our blood.

None of this is on USA imperialism. It's all the Islamic Republic.

3. The Islamic Republic doesn't support Palestinians. The regime is extremely racist and anti Arab. I dare you talk about this with an actual Arab. IR don't give two shites about Palestinians lives. The regime is antisemitic. That's what they are. Palestine is just an excuse to attack Israel. In the past 20+ years of my life, living in Iran and dealing with these posers, not once we've been educated about Palestine and Palestinians lives. Everything I know, I've learned from online resources and documentaries make by Palestinians. The regime doesn't talk about Palestinians when they pose as supporters. I'm pretty sure they don't know or care to know anything noteworthy about Palestine, considering my knowledge of the human rights violations there is always more than basiji people of my country, and I don't even know that much. All the regime talks about is how Israel should be eliminated. IR supports a terrorist organization called Hamas, not Palestinians.

4. Let's forget about everything I said so far. I wonder if tankies like the op has any ounce of humanity in them! The regime has been oppressing women, violating every type of human rights and murdering lgbtq people and other-thinkers for the last 40 years. The spectacular environmental disaster in Iran is the direct result of regime's policies and neglect. This is a case of human rights violation since it's ruining people's lives, especially ethnic minorities, like Arab farmers in south.

No religious minority is safe in Iran, be it atheist, Baha'i, Jew, christian, or Sunni Muslim. They commit crime against children, through labor and through war. IRGC have little regards for human lives in general but it descent into no regards at all for ethnic minorities.

They have MASS EXECUTED 30,000 leftists (members of Marxist Communist parties and their supporters) within the first decade of their autocratic rule. It's unbelievably funny to me when foreign leftists support a regime that has executed many of their fellow thinkers and still arrest and torture any left activist in Iran.

To say the reason the 1979 revolution happened was to get rid of western influence and to establish a democratic free independent government is true. But the Islamic Republic is not that result. Don't be fooled.

[treethymes]

With the exceptions of North Korea and Cuba, the communist world has merged onto the capitalist highway in a couple different ways during the twenty-first century. As you’ve read, free-trade imperialism and its cheap agricultural imports pushed farmers into the cities and into factory work, lowering the global price of manufacturing labor and glutting the world market with stuff. Forward-thinking states such as China and Vietnam invested in high-value-added production capacity and managed labor organizing, luring links from the global electronics supply chain and jump-starting capital investment. Combined with capital’s hesitancy to invest in North Atlantic production facilities, as well as a disinclination toward state-led investment in the region, Asian top-down planning erased much of the West’s technological edge. If two workers can do a single job, and one worker costs less, both in wages and state support, why pick the expensive one? Foxconn’s 2017 plan to build a U.S. taxpayer–subsidized $10 billion flat-panel display factory in Wisconsin was trumpeted by the president, but it was a fiasco that produced zero screens. The future cost of labor looks to be capped somewhere below the wage levels many people have enjoyed, and not just in the West.

The left-wing economist Joan Robinson used to tell a joke about poverty and investment, something to the effect of: The only thing worse than being exploited by capitalists is not being exploited by capitalists. It’s a cruel truism about the unipolar world, but shouldn’t second place count for something? When the Soviet project came to an end, in the early 1990s, the country had completed world history’s biggest, fastest modernization project, and that didn’t just disappear. Recall that Cisco was hyped to announce its buyout of the Evil Empire’s supercomputer team. Why wasn’t capitalist Russia able to, well, capitalize? You’re already familiar with one of the reasons: The United States absorbed a lot of human capital originally financed by the Soviet people. American immigration policy was based on draining technical talent in particular from the Second World. Sergey Brin is the best-known person in the Moscow-to-Palo-Alto pipeline, but he’s not the only one.

Look at the economic composition of China and Russia in the wake of Soviet dissolution: Both were headed toward capitalist social relations, but they took two different routes. The Russian transition happened rapidly. The state sold off public assets right away, and the natural monopolies such as telecommunications and energy were divided among a small number of skilled and connected businessmen, a category of guys lacking in a country that frowned on such characters but that grew in Gorbachev’s liberalizing perestroika era. Within five years, the country sold off an incredible 35 percent of its national wealth. Russia’s richest ended the century with a full counterrevolutionary reversal of their fortunes, propelling their income share above what it was before the Bolsheviks took over. To accomplish this, the country’s new capitalists fleeced the most vulnerable half of their society. “Over the 1989–2016 period, the top 1 percent captured more than two-thirds of the total growth in Russia,” found an international group of scholars, “while the bottom 50 percent actually saw a decline in its income.” Increases in energy prices encouraged the growth of an extractionist petro-centered economy. Blood-covered, teary, and writhing, infant Russian capital crowded into the gas and oil sectors. The small circle of oligarchs privatized unemployed KGB-trained killers to run “security,” and gangsters dominated politics at the local and national levels. They installed a not particularly well-known functionary—a former head of the new intelligence service FSB who also worked on the privatization of government assets—as president in a surprise move on the first day of the year 2000. He became the gangster in chief.

Vladimir Putin’s first term coincided with the energy boom, and billionaires gobbled up a ludicrous share of growth. If any individual oligarch got too big for his britches, Putin was not beyond imposing serious consequences. He reinserted the state into the natural monopolies, this time in collaboration with loyal capitalists, and his stranglehold on power remains tight for now, despite the outstandingly uneven distribution of growth. Between 1980 and 2015, the Russian top 1 percent grew its income an impressive 6.2 percent per year, but the top .001 percent has maintained a growth rate of 17 percent over the same period. To invest these profits, the Russian billionaires parked their money in real estate, bidding up housing prices, and stashed a large amount of their wealth offshore. Reinvestment in Russian production was not a priority—why go through the hassle when there were easier ways to keep getting richer?

While Russia grew billionaires instead of output, China saw a path to have both. As in the case of Terry Gou, the Chinese Communist Party tempered its transition by incorporating steadily increasing amounts of foreign direct investment through Hong Kong and Taiwan, picking partners and expanding outward from the special economic zones. State support for education and infrastructure combined with low wages to make the mainland too attractive to resist. (Russia’s population is stagnant, while China’s has grown quickly.) China’s entry into the World Trade Organization, in 2001, gave investors more confidence. Meanwhile, strong capital controls kept the country out of the offshore trap, and state development priorities took precedence over extraction and get-rich-quick schemes. Chinese private wealth was rechanneled into domestic financial assets—equity and bonds or other loan instruments—at a much higher rate than it was in Russia. The result has been a sustained high level of annual output growth compared to the rest of the world, the type that involves putting up an iPhone City in a matter of months. As it has everywhere else, that growth has been skewed: only an average of 4.5 percent for the bottom half of earners in the 1978–2015 period compared to more than 10 percent for the top .001 percent. But this ratio of just over 2–1 is incomparable to Russia’s 17–.5 ration during the same period.

Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, certain trends have been more or less unavoidable. The rich have gotten richer relative to the poor and working class—in Russia, in China, in the United States, and pretty much anywhere else you want to look. Capital has piled into property markets, driving up the cost of housing everywhere people want to live, especially in higher-wage cities and especially in the world’s financial centers. Capitalist and communist countries alike have disgorged public assets into private pockets. But by maintaining a level of control over the process and slowing its tendencies, the People’s Republic of China has built a massive and expanding postindustrial manufacturing base.

It’s important to understand both of these patterns as part of the same global system rather than as two opposed regimes. One might imagine, based on what I’ve written so far, that the Chinese model is useful, albeit perhaps threatening, in the long term for American tech companies while the Russian model is irrelevant. Some commentators have phrased this as the dilemma of middle-wage countries on the global market: Wages in China are going to be higher than wages in Russia because wages in Russia used to be higher than wages in China. But Russia’s counterrevolutionary hyper-bifurcation has been useful for Silicon Valley as well; they are two sides of the same coin. Think about it this way: If you’re a Russian billionaire in the first decades of the twenty-first century looking to invest a bunch of money you pulled out of the ground, where’s the best place you could put it? The answer is Palo Alto.

Malcolm Harris, Palo Alto

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

September 1, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Sep 02, 2024

Almost one hundred and forty-two years ago, on September 5, 1882, workers in New York City celebrated the first Labor Day holiday with a parade. The parade almost didn’t happen: there was no band, and no one wanted to start marching without music. Once the Jewelers Union of Newark Two showed up with musicians, the rest of the marchers, eventually numbering between 10,000 and 20,000 men and women, fell in behind them to parade through lower Manhattan. At noon, when they reached the end of the route, the march broke up and the participants listened to speeches, drank beer, and had picnics. Other workers joined them.

Their goal was to emphasize the importance of workers in the industrializing economy and to warn politicians that they could not be ignored. 

Less than 20 years before, northern men had fought a war to defend a society based on free labor and had, they thought, put in place a government that would support the ability of all hardworking men to rise to prosperity. But for all that the war had seemed to be about defending men against the rise of an oligarchy that intended to reduce all men to a life of either enslavement or wage labor, the war and its aftermath had pushed workers’ rights backward.   

The drain of men to the battlefields and the western mines during the war resulted in a shortage of workers that kept unemployment low and wages high. Even when they weren’t, the intense nationalism of the war years tended to silence the voices of labor organizers. “It having been resolved to enlist with Uncle Sam for the war,” one organization declared when the war broke out, “this union stands adjourned until either the Union is safe, or we are whipped.” 

Another factor working against the establishment of labor unions during the war was the tendency of employers to claim that striking workers were deliberately undercutting the war effort. They turned to the government to protect production, and in industries like Pennsylvania's anthracite coal fields, government leaders sent soldiers to break budding unions and defend war production.

During the war, government contracting favored those companies that could produce big orders of the mule shoes, rifles, rain slickers, coffee, and all the other products that kept the troops supplied. The owners of the growing factories grew wealthy on government contracts, even as conditions in the busy factories deteriorated. While wages were high during the war, they were often paid in greenbacks, which were backed only by the government’s promise to pay. 

While farmers and some entrepreneurs thrived during the war, urban workers and miners had reason to believe that employers had taken advantage of the war to make money off them. After the war, they began to strike for better wages and safer conditions. In August 1866, 60,000 people met as the National Labor Union in Baltimore, Maryland, where they called for an eight-hour workday. Most of those workers calling for organization simply wanted a chance to rise to comfort, but the resolutions developed by the group’s leaders after the convention declared that workers must join unions to reform the abuses of the industrial system. 

To many of those who thought the war would create a country where hard work would mean success, the resolutions seemed to fly in the face of that harmony, echoing the southern enslavers by dividing the world into people of wealth and workers, and asking for government intervention, this time on the side of workers. Republicans began to redefine their older, broad concept of workers to mean urban unskilled or semi-skilled wage laborers specifically.

Then in 1867, a misstep by Senator Benjamin Wade of Ohio made the party step back from workers. Wade had been a cattle drover and worked on the Erie Canal before studying law and entering politics, and he was a leader among those who saw class activism as the next step in the party’s commitment to free labor. His fiery oratory lifted him to prominence, and in March 1867 the Senate chose him its president pro tempore, in effect making him the nation’s acting vice president in those days before there was a process for replacing a vice president who had stepped into the presidency.

Wade joined a number of senators on a trip to the West, and in Lawrence, Kansas, newspapers reported—possibly incorrectly—that Wade predicted a fight in America between labor and capital. “Property is not equally divided,” the reporter claimed Wade said, “and a more equal distribution of capital must be worked out.” Congress, which Wade now led, had done much for ex-slaves and must now address “the terrible distinction between the man that labors and him that does not.”

Republican newspapers were apoplectic. The New York Times��claimed that Wade was a demagogue. Every hard worker could succeed in America, it wrote. “Laborers here can make themselves sharers in the property of the country,—can become capitalists themselves,—just

as nine in ten of all the capitalists in the country have done so before them,—by industry, frugality, and intelligent enterprise.” Trying to get rich by force of law would undermine society.

Congress established an eight-hour day for federal employees in June 1868, but in that year’s election, voters turned Wade, and others like him, out of office. In 1869, Republican president Ulysses S. Grant issued a proclamation saying that the eight-hour workday of "laborers, workmen, and mechanics" would not mean cuts in wages.

Then, in spring 1871, in the wake of the Franco-Prussian War, workers took over the city of Paris and established the Paris Commune. The transatlantic cable had gone into operation in 1866, and American newspapers had featured stories of the European war. Now, hungry for dramatic stories, they plastered details of the Commune on their front pages, describing it as a propertied American’s worst nightmare. They highlighted the murder of priests, the burning of the Tuileries Palace, and the bombing of buildings by crazed women who lobbed burning bottles of newfangled petroleum through cellar windows. 

The Communards were a “wild, reckless, irresponsible, murderous mobocracy” who planned to confiscate all property and transfer all money, factories, and land to associations of workmen, American newspapers wrote. In their telling, the Paris Commune brought to life the chaotic world the elite enslavers foresaw when they said it was imperative to keep workers from politics. 

Scribner’s Monthly warned in italics: “the interference of ignorant labor with politics is dangerous to society.” Famous reformer Charles Loring Brace looked at the rising numbers of industrial workers and the conditions of city life, and warned Americans, “In the judgment of one who has been familiar with our ‘dangerous classes’ for twenty years, there are just the same explosive social elements beneath the surface of New York as of Paris.”

At the same time, it was also clear that wealthy industrialists were gaining more and more control over both state and local governments. In 1872 the Credit Mobilier scandal broke. This was a complicated affair, and what had actually happened was almost certainly misrepresented, but it seemed to show congressmen taking bribes from railroad barons, and Americans were ready to believe that they were doing so. Then, in July 1877, after the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad cut wages 20 percent and strikers shut down most of the nation’s railroads, President Rutherford B. Hayes sent U.S. soldiers to the cities immobilized by the strikes. It seemed industrialists had the Army at their beck and call.

By 1882, factories and the fortunes they created had swung the government so far toward men of capital that it seemed there was more room for workingmen to demand their rights. By the 1880s, even the staunchly Republican Chicago Tribune complained about the links between business and government: “Behind every one of half of the portly and well-dressed members of the Senate can be seen the outlines of some corporation interested in getting or preventing legislation,” it wrote. The Senate, Harper’s Weekly noted, was “a club of rich men.” 

The workers marching in New York City in the first Labor Day celebration in 1882 carried banners saying: “Labor Built This Republic and Labor Shall Rule it,” “Labor Creates All Wealth,” “No Land Monopoly,” “No Money Monopoly,” “Labor Pays All Taxes,” “The Laborer Must Receive and Enjoy the Full Fruit of His Labor,” ‘Eight Hours for a Legal Day’s Work,” and “The True Remedy is Organization and the Ballot.” 

Two years later, workers helped to elect Democrat Grover Cleveland to the White House. A number of Republicans crossed over to support the reformer, afraid that, as he said, “The gulf between employers and the employed is constantly widening, and classes are rapidly forming, one comprising the very rich and powerful, while in another are found the toiling poor…. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters.” 

In 1888, Cleveland won the popular vote by about 100,000 votes, but his Republican opponent, Benjamin Harrison, won in the Electoral College. Harrison promised that his would be “A BUSINESS MAN’S ADMINISTRATION” and said that “before the close of the present Administration business men will be thoroughly well content with it….” 

Businessmen mostly were, but the rest of the country wasn’t. In November 1892 a Democratic landslide put Cleveland back in office, along with the first Democratic Congress since before the Civil War. As soon as the results of the election became apparent, the Republicans declared that the economy would collapse. Harrison’s administration had been “beyond question the best business administration the country has ever seen,” one businessmen’s club insisted, so losing it could only be a calamity. “The Republicans will be passive spectators,” the Chicago Tribune noted. “It will not be their funeral.” People would be thrown out of work, but “[p]erhaps the working classes of the country need such a lesson….”

As investors rushed to take their money out of the U.S. stock market, the economy collapsed a few days before Cleveland took office in early March 1893. Trying to stabilize the economy by enacting the proposals capitalists wanted, Cleveland and the Democratic Congress had to abandon many of the pro-worker policies they had promised, and the Supreme Court struck down the rest (including the income tax).

They could, however, support Labor Day and its indication of workers’ political power. On June 28, 1894, Cleveland signed Congress’s bill making Labor Day a legal holiday. Each year, the first Monday in September would honor the country’s workers.  

In Chicago the chair of the House Labor Committee, Lawrence McGann (D-IL), told the crowd gathered for the first official observance: “Let us each Labor day, hold a congress and formulate propositions for the amelioration of the people. Send them to your Representatives with your earnest, intelligent indorsement [sic], and the laws will be changed.”

Happy Labor Day.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[dwellordream]

“At the end of the 19th century, when slightly more than half of all working people were still engaged in agriculture and the nation’s population was still concentrated mostly in the Eastern states, the statistically and geographically average American woman would have been a 38-to-40-year-old white farmer’s wife with four or five children, living in southwestern Ohio. Like 98 percent of married white women in 1890, this “average” American woman did not work for pay outside her home. In addition to housekeeping, cooking, and child care, though, she probably performed a great deal of farm labor and may have sold eggs and butter to make a little cash.

She may also have been involved in local church work, or a temperance (anti-alcohol) group, or a ladies’ auxiliary of the county Grange, an organization that encouraged farmer cooperatives and agitated for farmers’ political rights. Our typical mid-continent woman was probably not an immigrant, but she might well have been the offspring of German or Scandinavian immigrants, the groups that had dominated the settlement of the Midwest after the Civil War. Her own daughter, coming of age in the 1890s and educated in a local township school, might have more opportunities than her mother. Unless she married a farmer, or her parents needed her labor at home, she could move to Chicago or some other large city and take up work in a factory, shop, or office.

This picture of the statistically average American woman and her daughter does not tell the whole story. In fact, the typical, if not the average, white American woman in 1890 was just as likely to be a young working-class woman--a Russian-Jewish or Italian garment worker in New York City, a Polish meat packer in Chicago, or an Irish domestic servant in Boston--as she was to be a farmer’s wife in Ohio or Nebraska, because immigration was changing the population so rapidly in 1890. The waves of British, Irish, and German immigration had ended in the 1880s. Now the immigrants, who arrived each year in the hundreds of thousands, came mostly from eastern and southern Europe--Russia, Poland, Serbia, Hungary, Greece, and Italy.

…The picture of women’s lives in the South at the turn of the century differed in several significant ways from that of their Northern counterparts. Southern society had been all but destroyed in the Civil War, along with Southern cities and much of the Southern landscape. Recovery had been slow and incomplete, and the South did not share the industrial prosperity of the North. Society was sharply divided along racial lines, and white racism had become steadily worse after Reconstruction ended in the late 1870s. Confined largely to jobs in agriculture, African Americans worked as laborers on vast cotton or tobacco plantations, or as sharecroppers, paying for the fields that they leased from white landowners with a share of their crops. Few black families owned farms of their own.

Although many black women dreamed of a life in which they could devote full time to family cares and household responsibilities, most had to work full days for white landowners or toil in the fields alongside their husbands in order to maintain even a minimum family income. The few jobs available to black women outside agriculture were in domestic service--working for white families--or in laundries, or in segregated mills and cigarette factories. Black families made enormous sacrifices to keep their daughters in school, with the expectation that they might become teachers or small-business owners. African-American parents could hope that the next generation of black women might escape sharecropping or working in white men’s houses, where they were subject to insult and frequently in danger of sexual assault.

…Western coastal states were especially attractive to Asian immigrants, though the influx of Chinese laborers had slowed to a trickle after the Chinese Exclusion Act became law in 1882. Filipino immigration increased significantly after the Spanish-American War in 1898, and by the end of the 19th century, Japanese immigrants had established substantial communities in California. Although the Chinese and Filipino immigration was at first mostly male, Japanese immigration was more evenly balanced between men and women.

The Asian groups tended to remain isolated from the larger, white society, which regarded their different physical characteristics, as well as their languages and customs, with deep suspicion and contempt. Like women in other immigrant cultures, Asian women remained more isolated and less assimilated than men, remaining homebound or working in restaurants, laundries, or small industries run exclusively by members of their community. Many new brides went straight from the boat to the farms of central California, where they picked fruits and vegetables alongside their husbands by day and cooked meals and cared for their children and living quarters the rest of the time.”

- Karen Manners Smith, “Woman’s World in 1890.” in New Paths to Power: American Women, 1890-1920

[coochiequeens]

Currently, “national statistics tell us that over 60,000 Black women are missing, and Black women are twice as likely than they appear to be victims of homicide,” - Brittney Lewis

Minnesota state lawmakers are moving forward with a bill that would establish the nation’s first office to investigate cases of missing Black women and girls as tens of thousands of women of color remain missing in the U.S.

On Feb. 20, the Minnesota House voted 110-19 in favor of advancing House Bill HF55. “And it is on the fast track this year to be signed into law,” Rep. Ruth Richardson, DFL (Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party), the bill’s author, told Yahoo News. “This is part of the governor's budget, and it's one of his top priorities. So we are excited to be at a point where we can finally get this across the finish line.”

In previous years, similar bills passed in the Minnesota House but failed in the Senate. If the legislation is signed into law it would require the Bureau of Criminal Apprenticeship to operate a missing person alert program for Black women and girls.

The Office of Missing and Murdered Black Women and Girls would review missing persons and cold cases, and the first-of-its-kind project is expected to cost roughly $2.5 million.

In the United States, Black women only make up 13% of the female population but studies found that they make up 35% percent of missing women in the country. In 2020, during the pandemic, nearly 100,000 of the 250,000 women that went missing in the U.S were women of color.

Currently, “national statistics tell us that over 60,000 Black women are missing, and Black women are twice as likely than they appear to be victims of homicide,” Brittney Lewis, co-founder of Research in Action, told Yahoo News. “In the state of Minnesota, Black women are three times more likely to be murdered than white women in Minnesota.”

According to the state report completed by Minnesota’s Missing and Murdered Black Women and Girls Task Force, created in 2021, Black women are less likely to receive media attention when they go missing.

“What we’re finding is that people are disappearing for a number of reasons: sex trafficking of our young girls, increase in domestic violence, mental health reasons, and there are a lot of systemic reasons,” Natalie Wilson, co-founder of the Black and Missing Foundation, a nonprofit organization that brings awareness to missing people of color, told Yahoo News.

Wilson says she is working to bridge the gap so that all missing women have the same media attention and resources. “We’re trying to eliminate this barrier because what we’re finding oftentimes with our communities [is that] race, zip code, where you live, education, your economic status — all of these things are barriers,” Wilson said.

In 2016, when 21-year-old Keeshae Jacobs went missing in Richmond, Va., her mother said she faced barriers that made her feel like she was the only one searching for her child.

“Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one fighting here,” Toni Jacobs, Keeshae’s mother, told Yahoo News. “When I went to go file the police report that she was missing, it felt like the police officer didn’t believe me.”

“

People [said] ‘oh she had a boyfriend. She just ran out. She was pregnant and she was scared to tell me.’ I mean, these are the first things that come to my mind and I’m like this is not fair,” Jacobs said.

According to experts, cases that involve missing Black women and girls stay open four times as long compared to other cases involving white people.

“People are taking them because they know they’re not getting attention,” Jacobs said. “I shouldn't have to wait six years and I honestly believe I’m fighting by myself to bring my daughter home.”

In 2014, 8-year-old Relisha Rudd went missing in Washington, D.C, and still has not been found.

“If a white girl with blond hair and blue eyes goes missing every light comes on. [But] when a black girl or black woman goes missing you never hear about it,” Dr. Verna Price, founder of Girls Taking Action, a nonprofit organization in Minnesota that mentors young girls, told Yahoo News.

Experts say this is known as “‘missing white woman syndrome” — a term that refers to the unequal amount of coverage that white women receive compared to women of color.

In 2021, MSNBC host Joy Reid called the coverage of Gabby Petito a prime example of missing White woman syndrome. “Why not the same media attention when people of color go missing?” Reid asked.

According to Lynnette Grey Bull, founder of Not Our Native Daughters, “White people were more likely to have an article written while they were still missing,” she said on MSNBC.

Price says this is not just a problem in Minnesota as Black women and girls have been targeted nationwide.

“In this country, Black women since slavery have been dispensable and it is high time that we protect us,” Price said.

Richardson and supporters of the legislation said they are hopeful that the bill will pass and spur other states to take action on the issue.

“We believe that this is a blueprint for a national response,” Richardson said. “We are hoping that we can help to lead the way to ensure that Black women and girls are extended the same protection and the same support and the same energy that we see in coverage of other cases.”

By

Jayla Whitfield-Anderson

[mariacallous]

The surprise winner of last Wednesday’s election in the Netherlands is the longest-serving member of the Dutch House of Representatives: Geert Wilders. The far-right politician—known primarily for his anti-Islam radicalism, his pro-Putin views, and his hairdo—was first elected in 1998, but for years, he was shut out from the governing coalitions. Now, however, he holds the whip hand. His Party for Freedom (PVV) won 37 seats out of 150, up from 17 two years ago, dramatically outperforming the polls and placing well ahead of its closest competitor, the joint list of the Greens and the Labor Party (GL-PvdA).

But the path from there to becoming prime minister is a long and uncertain one.

In fact, the PVV had been subject to a cordon sanitaire ever since the fall of outgoing Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s first government in 2012, which it had supported (and which for that reason was colloquially referred to as Brown I, after the fascist brownshirts, instead of Rutte I). The PVV’s platform calls for bans on the Quran, on mosques, and on Islamic schools; a retraction of the Dutch king’s apology for slavery and the restoration of blackface at St. Nicholas celebrations; as well as an abolition of asylum and of free movement of workers within the European Union. Even by the standards of contemporary national conservatives, the platform is made up of a poisonous mix of heinous impulses.

Wilders maintained his presence in parliament, but his appeal and influence were limited while his caucus calcified, as it has now: Eight of the 10 longest-serving members in the new Dutch House are PVV members. But Wilders is the only member of the party as a legal entity, and its absolute ruler as a result, unbound by leadership elections or other concerns. The party does not organize conferences and such, and many of its incoming representatives do not know each other or their new colleagues. Combine that with the lack of outside options, thanks to the party’s reputation, for Wilders’s elected officials, and you end up with a predictable caucus of goons and misfits.

The explicit agreement among mainstream parties to exclude Wilders from governing coalitions came to an end this summer. Rutte brought down his own government over a minor disagreement with one of his coalition partners, the Christian Union, over family reunification rules for asylum recipients. Rutte’s successor as VVD party leader, Justice Minister Dilan Yesilgoz, then opened the door to cooperation with the PVV to rally voters who favor a right-wing government around her.

Wilders jumped at the opportunity and claimed that his priorities had shifted toward health care and economic anxiety. The Dutch media ecosystem complied and started referring to him as “Geert Milders.” As he started rising in the polls, especially after the conflict in Gaza broke out, Yesilgoz tried to walk back her earlier words.

Too little, too late: Voters preferred the original over the copy. In that sense, Wilders’s rise fits American political scientist Larry Bartels’s thesis—that democracy erodes from the top—almost perfectly.

While that is the immediate explanation for Wilders’s success, alarms bells about discontent among a large group of voters—and an openness to wild options—had been ringing for some time. Earlier this year, the agrarian-populist Farmer-Citizen Movement (BBB) became the largest party in the Dutch Senate after winning the provincial elections on its first try. In 2019, the radical-right conspiracy theorists of Forum for Democracy had similarly made their Senate debut as the largest party.

This impulse predates Wilders’s founding of the PVV in 2006: The right-populist Pim Fortuyn List broke through with 26 seats in 2002 after its eponymous founder was murdered by an animal rights activist. It also extends beyond voters open to Wilders’s message. On Wednesday, in addition to Wilders’s large gains, a new party (the New Social Contract) led by former Christian-Democrat Pieter Omtzigt, the second-most veteran member of the Dutch House, secured 20 seats mere months after its founding.

It is not obvious what the Dutch political class can or will plausibly do to address this discontent. It is not merely a thermostatic response to left-wing policy: Eternal prime minister Mark Rutte has mostly led fairly bland center-right governments since he entered office in 2010, while his predecessor was a Christian-Democrat.

In fact, there is a bloc of voters whose expressed wishes are so far out of line with majority opinion and with the domestic and international legal frameworks that the Netherlands has spent decades developing and promoting that they will not be satisfied by any realistic policy changes. These voters include the 50 percent of Wilders’s supporters who have been loyal to him for the past decade, and those who have stuck with the Forum for Democracy as even its own elected officials fled the party’s mix of antisemitism, anti-vaccine lunacy, racism, and love of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Like comparable voters in other countries, they are heavily male, lower-income, less likely to hold a college degree, and detached from social networks.

Disaffected voters outside of Wilders’ core supporters harbor a mix of concerns that include some where policy and governance could and should be improved—though that’s easier said than done. The nitrogen emission crisis that catapulted the BBB to its Senate victory requires difficult choices over land use—between agricultural activity, housing, infrastructure, and nature preservation—that simply need to be made instead of paralyzing the country for years.

Relatedly, housing policy in the Netherlands, as in the United States and elsewhere in the West, has been a disaster for decades. Limited construction in the face of ongoing urbanization, population growth, and ever decreasing household size has placed home ownership and even the ability to rent out of reach for far too many. Too many Dutch politicians, including mainstream ones, try to place the blame for these problems, which are of their own making, on migrants.

The Dutch system of capital income taxation is in flux after elements of it were struck down by the courts. Natural gas extraction in the northeast, suspended last month, caused earthquakes and significant damage: Many affected homeowners still await compensation. The child care benefit scandal that ended Rutte’s third government and made Omtzigt’s career ruined the lives of thousands of families, many of whom still await compensation as well.

But are these areas where a Wilders government would dramatically improve matters? Take the child care benefit scandal, the biggest political scandal in the Netherlands in recent years. The Dutch tax agency concluded it had targeted victimized families on the basis of national origin, donations to mosques, and “not looking Dutch.” It’s like putting U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez in charge of monitoring the Egyptian government’s human rights record.

On the international front, there are ways to reduce immigration at the margin: by forcing Dutch universities to offer more instruction in Dutch or by raising taxes on high-skilled immigrants. Such changes would be costly to institutions of higher learning, the Dutch knowledge economy, and industrial champions such as ASML, and I’m sure some of these same voters would complain about that in turn. The Netherlands could scale down its climate agenda somewhat, though significant aspects of it are managed at the EU level. And the country could return to its traditional position of budgetary hawkishness within the European Union after a brief excursion to Club Med—though Wilders’s platform, which calls for a lower pension age, reduced VAT, and more public health care spending, goes in the opposite direction.

But whether it’s immigration, EU membership, religious freedom, or Dutch support for Ukraine, there simply is no path forward for the dramatic policy shifts envisioned by Wilders and his ilk. There is no pro-Putin majority among Dutch MPs (or voters). The Netherlands is not going to leave the EU and reintroduce the guilder or convince NATO to expel Turkey. It is not going to abolish its representation in Ramallah because “it already has an embassy in Amman,” as the PVV stated in its election manifesto.

In fact, let’s not get ahead of ourselves: It is not at all obvious that there is a majority in the Dutch House that supports a government led by Wilders or one that his party participates in. The two indispensable parties for any majority are Omtzigt’s New Social Contract and, as has been the case for years now, the VVD.

During the campaign, Omtzigt suggested that he would not govern with Wilders; he predictably changed his tune this week. It would be somewhat ironic if partnerships with Wilders became the unifying thread of the political career of Omtzigt, a man who has long claimed to care deeply about religious freedom. Those who recall how American warriors for religious freedom responded to former U.S. President Donald Trump’s Muslim ban will not be shocked.

The VVD has adopted a trickier position. Despite triggering the election and opening the door to Wilders, it has now announced that it’s tuning out. It is unwilling to join any coalition—though it would be willing to support a minority right-wing government, presumably formed by PVV, the New Social Contract, and BBB. Such a government would effectively be Rutte I in reverse, with the VVD and the PVV swapping places and the New Social Contract and BBB taking the place of the Christian-Democratic party that Omtzigt was then a part of.

Variations will surely be considered, and I imagine that Yesilgoz would happily join a coalition if she gets to be prime minister. Wilders is responsible for selecting a so-called “scout” to explore the possibilities. His first choice was forced to resign when news broke that Utrecht University, the scout’s former employer, had filed charges of fraud and bribery against him. The new beacon of hope for concerned citizens is Ronald Plasterk, a former education and home affairs minister for the Labor Party who has drifted to the right in recent years.

The alternative to a right-wing coalition—off the table while Wilders has the initiative—would be a broad centrist coalition in which the VVD and New Social Contract are joined by the GL-PvdA and either the liberal Democrats 66 party or the BBB. But even consideration of that option is unlikely to happen before 2024.

This route would not be a very satisfying outcome to many New Social Contract and VVD voters. At the same time, it would avoid not just Wilders, but also a coalition featuring two entirely new parties, including many inexperienced and unvetted PVV MPs. For the outgoing prime minister, who has set his sights on a leadership role at NATO or the European Commission, it would surely constitute a more attractive legacy. And at a time of geopolitical upheaval, it might be the responsible choice.

Though the size of Wilders’ win came as a major surprise, these two coalition options were basically already on the table based on preelection polling. Ironically, a shift to the right may well be less likely now than if Wilders had won fewer seats. As the leader of the largest party, he would traditionally become prime minister. To his potential coalition partners, that may be a bridge too far in a way that a less dominant role might not have been.

But regardless of the eventual outcome and whatever else may motivate his voters, Wilders’s victory is first and foremost a message of intense hatred toward the Netherlands’ ethnic and religious minorities as well as its immigrant population. The legitimation of Wilders’s open bigotry and the willingness of millions of Dutch voters to tell their neighbors and co-workers that they find their mere existence odious are, well, not great.

[yourreddancer]

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

September 1, 2024 (Sunday)

Almost one hundred and forty-two years ago, on September 5, 1882, workers in New York City celebrated the first Labor Day holiday with a parade. The parade almost didn’t happen: there was no band, and no one wanted to start marching without music. Once the Jewelers Union of Newark Two showed up with musicians, the rest of the marchers, eventually numbering between 10,000 and 20,000 men and women, fell in behind them to parade through lower Manhattan. At noon, when they reached the end of the route, the march broke up and the participants listened to speeches, drank beer, and had picnics. Other workers joined them.

Their goal was to emphasize the importance of workers in the industrializing economy and to warn politicians that they could not be ignored.

Less than 20 years before, northern men had fought a war to defend a society based on free labor and had, they thought, put in place a government that would support the ability of all hardworking men to rise to prosperity. But for all that the war had seemed to be about defending men against the rise of an oligarchy that intended to reduce all men to a life of either enslavement or wage labor, the war and its aftermath had pushed workers’ rights backward.

The drain of men to the battlefields and the western mines during the war resulted in a shortage of workers that kept unemployment low and wages high. Even when they weren’t, the intense nationalism of the war years tended to silence the voices of labor organizers. “It having been resolved to enlist with Uncle Sam for the war,” one organization declared when the war broke out, “this union stands adjourned until either the Union is safe, or we are whipped.”

Another factor working against the establishment of labor unions during the war was the tendency of employers to claim that striking workers were deliberately undercutting the war effort. They turned to the government to protect production, and in industries like Pennsylvania's anthracite coal fields, government leaders sent soldiers to break budding unions and defend war production.

During the war, government contracting favored those companies that could produce big orders of the mule shoes, rifles, rain slickers, coffee, and all the other products that kept the troops supplied. The owners of the growing factories grew wealthy on government contracts, even as conditions in the busy factories deteriorated. While wages were high during the war, they were often paid in greenbacks, which were backed only by the government’s promise to pay.

While farmers and some entrepreneurs thrived during the war, urban workers and miners had reason to believe that employers had taken advantage of the war to make money off them. After the war, they began to strike for better wages and safer conditions. In August 1866, 60,000 people met as the National Labor Union in Baltimore, Maryland, where they called for an eight-hour workday. Most of those workers calling for organization simply wanted a chance to rise to comfort, but the resolutions developed by the group’s leaders after the convention declared that workers must join unions to reform the abuses of the industrial system.

To many of those who thought the war would create a country where hard work would mean success, the resolutions seemed to fly in the face of that harmony, echoing the southern enslavers by dividing the world into people of wealth and workers, and asking for government intervention, this time on the side of workers. Republicans began to redefine their older, broad concept of workers to mean urban unskilled or semi-skilled wage laborers specifically.

Then in 1867, a misstep by Senator Benjamin Wade of Ohio made the party step back from workers. Wade had been a cattle drover and worked on the Erie Canal before studying law and entering politics, and he was a leader among those who saw class activism as the next step in the party’s commitment to free labor. His fiery oratory lifted him to prominence, and in March 1867 the Senate chose him its president pro tempore, in effect making him the nation’s acting vice president in those days before there was a process for replacing a vice president who had stepped into the presidency.

Wade joined a number of senators on a trip to the West, and in Lawrence, Kansas, newspapers reported—possibly incorrectly—that Wade predicted a fight in America between labor and capital. “Property is not equally divided,” the reporter claimed Wade said, “and a more equal distribution of capital must be worked out.” Congress, which Wade now led, had done much for ex-slaves and must now address “the terrible distinction between the man that labors and him that does not.”

Republican newspapers were apoplectic. The New York Times claimed that Wade was a demagogue. Every hard worker could succeed in America, it wrote. “Laborers here can make themselves sharers in the property of the country,—can become capitalists themselves,—just as nine in ten of all the capitalists in the country have done so before them,—by industry, frugality, and intelligent enterprise.” Trying to get rich by force of law would undermine society.

Congress established an eight-hour day for federal employees in June 1868, but in that year’s election, voters turned Wade, and with others like him, out of office. In 1869, Republican president Ulysses S. Grant issued a proclamation saying that the eight-hour workday of "laborers, workmen, and mechanics" would not mean cuts in wages.

Then, in spring 1871, in the wake of the Franco-Prussian War, workers took over the city of Paris and established the Paris Commune. The transatlantic cable had gone into operation in 1866, and American newspapers had featured stories of the European war. Now, hungry for dramatic stories, they plastered details of the Commune on their front pages, describing it as a propertied American’s worst nightmare. They highlighted the murder of priests, the burning of the Tuileries Palace, and the bombing of buildings by crazed women who lobbed burning bottles of newfangled petroleum through cellar windows.

The Communards were a “wild, reckless, irresponsible, murderous mobocracy” who planned to confiscate all property and transfer all money, factories, and land to associations of workmen, American newspapers wrote. In their telling, the Paris Commune brought to life the chaotic world the elite enslavers foresaw when they said it was imperative to keep workers from politics.

Scribner’s Monthly warned in italics: “the interference of ignorant labor with politics is dangerous to society.” Famous reformer Charles Loring Brace looked at the rising numbers of industrial workers and the conditions of city life, and warned Americans, “In the judgment of one who has been familiar with our ‘dangerous classes’ for twenty years, there are just the same explosive social elements beneath the surface of New York as of Paris.”

At the same time, it was also clear that wealthy industrialists were gaining more and more control over both state and local governments. In 1872 the Credit Mobilier scandal broke. This was a complicated affair, and what had actually happened was almost certainly misrepresented, but it seemed to show congressmen taking bribes from railroad barons, and Americans were ready to believe that they were doing so. Then, in July 1877, after the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad cut wages 20 percent and strikers shut down most of the nation’s railroads, President Rutherford B. Hayes sent U.S. soldiers to the cities immobilized by the strikes. It seemed industrialists had the Army at their beck and call.

By 1882, factories and the fortunes they created had swung the government so far toward men of capital that it seemed there was more room for workingmen to demand their rights. By the 1880s, even the staunchly Republican Chicago Tribune complained about the links between business and government: “Behind every one of half of the portly and well-dressed members of the Senate can be seen the outlines of some corporation interested in getting or preventing legislation,” it wrote. The Senate, Harper’s Weekly noted, was “a club of rich men.”

(SOUND FAMILIAR????)

The workers marching in New York City in the first Labor Day celebration in 1882 carried banners saying: “Labor Built This Republic and Labor Shall Rule it,” “Labor Creates All Wealth,” “No Land Monopoly,” “No Money Monopoly,” “Labor Pays All Taxes,” “The Laborer Must Receive and Enjoy the Full Fruit of His Labor,” ‘Eight Hours for a Legal Day’s Work,” and “The True Remedy is Organization and the Ballot.”

Two years later, workers helped to elect Democrat Grover Cleveland to the White House. A number of Republicans crossed over to support the reformer, afraid that, as he said, “The gulf between employers and the employed is constantly widening, and classes are rapidly forming, one comprising the very rich and powerful, while in another are found the toiling poor…. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters.”

(AND REMAIN SO TODAY, THANKS TO THE RETHUGLIKKKONS!)

In 1888, Cleveland won the popular vote by about 100,000 votes, but his Republican opponent, Benjamin Harrison, won in the Electoral College. Harrison promised that his would be “A BUSINESS MAN’S ADMINISTRATION” and said that “before the close of the present Administration business men will be thoroughly well content with it….”

Businessmen mostly were, but the rest of the country wasn’t. In November 1892 a Democratic landslide put Cleveland back in office, along with the first Democratic Congress since before the Civil War. As soon as the results of the election became apparent, the Republicans declared that the economy would collapse. Harrison’s administration had been “beyond question the best business administration the country has ever seen,” one businessmen’s club insisted, so losing it could only be a calamity. “The Republicans will be passive spectators,” the Chicago Tribune noted. “It will not be their funeral.” People would be thrown out of work, but “[p]erhaps the working classes of the country need such a lesson….”

As investors rushed to take their money out of the U.S. stock market, the economy collapsed a few days before Cleveland took office in early March 1893. Trying to stabilize the economy by enacting the proposals capitalists wanted, Cleveland and the Democratic Congress had to abandon many of the pro-worker policies they had promised, and the Supreme Court struck down the rest (including the income tax).

They could, however, support Labor Day and its indication of workers’ political power. On June 28, 1894, Cleveland signed Congress’s bill making Labor Day a legal holiday. Each year, the first Monday in September would honor the country’s workers.

In Chicago the chair of the House Labor Committee, Lawrence McGann (D-IL), told the crowd gathered for the first official observance: “Let us each Labor day, hold a congress and formulate propositions for the amelioration of the people. Send them to your Representatives with your earnest, intelligent indorsement [sic], and the laws will be changed.”

Happy Labor Day.

[drapeau-rouge]

Message from the President of Mexico, Andrés Manuel López Obrador on the 85th anniversary of the expropriation of the country’s oil industry.

Rally held on Saturday, March 18, in Mexico City’s Zócalo square.

PRESIDENT ANDRÉS MANUEL LÓPEZ OBRADOR: Friends:

 This is a commemoration of the expropriation of the oil industry and it is a national event. Participating here today are residents of Aguascalientes, Baja California, Baja California Sur, Campeche, Chiapas, Chihuahua, Mexico City, Coahuila, Colima, Durango, State of Mexico, Guanajuato, Guerrero, Hidalgo, Jalisco, Jalisco, Chiapas, Chiapas, Chiapas, Chihuahua, Mexico City, Coahuila, Colima, Durango, State of Mexico, Guanajuato, Guerrero, Hidalgo, Jalisco, Michoacán, Morelos, Nayarit, Nuevo León, Oaxaca, Puebla, Querétaro, Quintana Roo, San Luis Potosí, Sinaloa, Sonora, Tabasco, Tamaulipas, Tlaxcala, Veracruz, Yucatán, and Zacatecas.

 Long live Mexico!

 Friends:

 Unlike Francisco I. Madero, who, in order to realize his beautiful democratic ideal could not or did not consider it indispensable to strengthen his ties with the people, especially with the Zapatista peasants, General Lázaro Cárdenas did not hesitate to rely on those from below to make his transformation a reality.

 The general's strategy can be summarized in three important and consecutive actions:

 First, he distributed land to the peasant farmers and helped the workers.

 Then, he helped them organize.

 And, finally, with this social base he was able to carry out the expropriation of the oil industry and other national assets that Porfirio Díaz had handed over to private interests, mainly foreigners.

 The top priority of the Cardenista strategy was to attend to the economic and social demands of peasant farmers and workers. The president knew that the only way to gain the backing of the people was to act decisively in favor of their demands. Consequently, from the beginning of his government, a program of land distribution was launched; the peasant farmers mobilized throughout the country requesting that they be given land through the expropriation of large estates or providing them with deeds for state land.

 In a short time, the distribution of land to peasant farmers transformed the structure of Mexican agriculture. The revolutionary importance of the Cardenista land distribution policies can be measured with a key piece of data. In the first three years of his administration, 9,764,000 hectares were given to 565,216 peasants, which vastly surpassed the amount of land that had been distributed since the Revolution.

 By the end of Cardenas’ administration, 10,651 ejidos (1) had been established, comprising a total of more than 18 million hectares and benefiting more than one million indigenous families, impoverished peasant farmers, and rural day laborers.

 The peasants unquestionably saw Cárdenas to be a faithful representative of the revolutionary cause. The agrarian reform ensured the loyalty of many people to the Cardenista government and from that point the alliance between peasant farmers and the State was established.

 At the same time, during the Cárdenas years, workers felt that their labor rights were guaranteed. With strict adherence to the law, Cárdenas respected the economic struggle of workers for better wages and working conditions. His measures in this field consisted of making the formal content of Constitutional Article 123 (2) a reality.

 From the beginning of his government, the labor movement began engaging in intense activity aimed at winning its demands; it was even able to freely exercise the right to strike.

 By the middle of the president’s six-year term in office, peasant farmers and workers identified Cárdenas as the defender of their interests. The first part of Cardenas' strategy had been successful; the President's approach and solidarity with the most vulnerable social groups resulted in the support and adhesion of the majority to the government's policies.

 The political organization of workers and peasant farmers as a second link in the Cardenista strategy also developed with intensity and enthusiasm.

 First, most of the national industrial unions were established. The Mexican Workers’ Confederation, the CTM, was founded on February 24, 1936. Although the organization's declaration of principles stated, and I quote, that 'the Mexican proletariat will fundamentally fight for the total abolition of the capitalist system,' its leaders accepted the president's proposal and agreed on the need to first achieve the country’s political and economic liberation. In accordance with these principles, the workers' movement resolutely supported the government in its struggle for national sovereignty.

 On July 9, 1935, President Cárdenas recommended that the organization of Mexico's peasant farmers take place. With this in mind, the agrarian community leagues were created in all states of the country and their integration with the unions of rural wage earners resulted in the establishment of the National Peasant Confederation, the CNC.

 The organization and political mobilization of the masses made it possible to advance in the aim of asserting our country’s economic independence, and thus with the expropriation of the oil companies, national assets and resources that had been in the hands of foreigners since the Porfiriato (3) began to be returned to the nation.

 This strategy could not have succeeded without the exceptional qualities of a noble and just man such as General Lázaro Cárdenas del Río.

 Politics is not only rationality, but also, like other activities in life, requires mystique and convictions. Political processes are more complex than what rationalist intellectuals assume; political processes also involve factors such as luck, the brilliance of leaders and the sentiments of the people.

 General Cárdenas, unlike careerist or elite politicians, professed a sincere and deep love for the people. Just as there is no one with the democratic aspiration of Madero, neither has there ever existed in Mexico a president as close to the downtrodden or as convinced of the cause of social justice as General Cárdenas.

For example, in 1935, when he was already president, already in power, Cárdenas wrote the following in his notes:

 'To put an end to the miseries experienced by the people is above all other interests'.

 And he maintained: 'Living amid the needs and anguish of the people, one will easily find the way to remedy them'.

 Although he also confessed that he had been able to see the true moral background of many public servants. 'When I observe in their faces the disgust sparked by the poor peoples’ demand for assistance or justice, then I think more,' he lamented, 'of the endless tragedy of our own people.’

 For young people who want to devote themselves to the noble profession of politics, what is most important is love for the people.

 In addition to being a true humanist and possessing other virtues, General Cárdenas knew how to navigate his times with precision. Politics, among other things, is time management, a question that is usually essential and defining.

 A few days before announcing the expropriation of the oil industry, he wrote in his notes that, on the highway near Cuernavaca, he’d walked and talked for more than an hour with his teacher, friend and compañero, General Francisco J. Múgica. I’d like to quote General Cárdenas when he says:

 'We considered the circumstances that could arise if governments such as those of England and the United States, interested in backing the oil companies, pressured the Mexican government with violent measures. But we also took into account that the threat of a new world war is already present due to the provocations of Nazi-fascist imperialism, and that this would stop them from attacking Mexico in the event that the expropriation was decreed.'

 Among other reasons, and taking advantage of this circumstance, on March 18, 1938, the oil industry expropriation was launched. At eight o'clock in the evening, General Cárdenas informed his cabinet of this historic decision and, two hours later, in a radio address to the nation he announced the step taken by the government in defense of Mexico’s sovereignty, returning to the nation the oil wealth that, as the General himself wrote, 'imperialist capital had been utilizing to keep the country humiliated.'

 In four articles, the expropriation decree establishes that the following assets would become assets of the nation: machinery, installations and other fixtures and property of the foreign oil companies, for which compensation would be paid in accordance with Article 27 of the Constitution and the corresponding law.

 The oil expropriation was supported by the majority of the people. Photos of the time show the presence of predominantly humble people, indigenous men and women, peasant farmers, workers, teachers, employees, and members of the lower middle class.

 It was the common people who supported and cooperated with the government to raise the compensation due to the foreign oil companies. How could we forget that so many poor women donated goats and turkeys for this purpose and even got rid of the meager jewelry they owned!

 In those days, from the city of Oakland, California, migrant worker Cástulo Prado composed the lyrics and music of the Corrido del Petróleo and sent it to the president with the instruction that the government allocate any royalties from the work to the compensation fund. One of its verses reads as follows:

 'Lázaro Cárdenas says, serene and carefree: in the course of 10 years, everything will be paid, I have the Mexican people of which I have no doubt. From the youngest to the oldest, they all offer me their help. In the Mexican woman there is patriotism and pride, she gives up her jewelry to offer them for coins.'

 In addition to this massive and overwhelming popular support, the Cárdenas government had another favorable circumstance. At that time Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a great statesman and one of the finest presidents that country has ever had in its history, was governing the United States. Let’s recall that when Roosevelt entered the White House on March 4, 1933, the United States was experiencing one of the worst crises in its history and that, as president, Roosevelt knew how to deal with that crisis successfully and very soon restored hope to his people, which made him one of the greatest politicians of the 20th century.

 As for his foreign policy, let’s recall that, in a memorable speech, which is the antecedent of the principles of the UN, on January 6, 1941, Roosevelt laid out four basic freedoms for the world: the right to freedom of speech, the right to freedom of worship, the right to live free from want, and the right to live free from fear.

 Roosevelt's presidency applied the ‘good neighbor policy’ with the countries of the Western Hemisphere. At that moment, the principles of economic and political cooperation were defined, the sovereignty of Cuba and Panama was recognized, and the U.S. military withdrawal from Nicaragua and Haiti was ordered. It is not by chance that the great poet Pablo Neruda called Roosevelt a titan of the struggles for freedoms, a tremendous president.

 The authenticity of his good neighbor policy was most clearly demonstrated in the respect for the sovereignty of our country. During Roosevelt's three presidential terms, relations between Mexico and the United States were exceptionally good.

 In the days following the oil industry expropriation, General Cárdenas acknowledged Roosevelt’s role in a letter:

 'My government’ -wrote the general- ‘feels that the attitude assumed by the United States of America, in the case of the expropriation of the oil companies, once again affirms the sovereignty of the peoples of this hemisphere that the statesman of the most powerful country in the Americas, the most esteemed President Roosevelt, has been supporting with such effort'.

 Cástulo Prado, the poet we have already quoted, a people’s poet, also left testimony of the upright attitude, the grandeur, and the respect shown by the president of the neighboring country. Cástulo's verses read:

 'The millionaires asked for intervention. They went to the United States to lodge their complaint  -it looks to us, it looks to us, it looks to us- they went to the United States to lodge their complaint so that from there they would move to protect their companies. Roosevelt told them: 'Gentlemen, I can do nothing about it, the Mexican government has fulfilled its duty.'

 The good results of this policy had much to do with the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, Joseph Daniels, who acted with wisdom and skill in the most difficult years of relations between the two countries. His position on the oil conflict is summarized when he maintained that President Cárdenas was right in promoting the policy that the wealth of the subsoil should become part of the Mexican economy and that the oil crisis was due to the systematic refusal of foreign companies to modify their vision, since, Daniels pointed out, they felt that Mexicans were born to enrich foreigners and that God placed important natural resources in Mexico to increase the fortunes found in the coffers of the exploiters and concession holders.

 But the companies were not as conscientious and respectful as U.S. politicians. The nationalization process had to confront the boycott, pressures, and acts of sabotage promoted and financed by the foreign oil companies.

 In Mexico, the oil industry expropriation caused deep uneasiness among a minority, especially among the wealthy of the time, in middle-class sectors, and in most of the media.

 It is interesting, and this is a lesson, to point out that historically the right wing always regroups when a democratic change is sought and becomes intolerant and even violent when it comes to social demands in favor of the people and the nation asserting its control.

 Let us remember that the overthrow of President Madero, our Apostle of Democracy, was backed by the intervention of the U.S. Ambassador, but was carried out by domestic right-wing groups which had previously promoted a campaign of hate and discredit consisting of ridiculing the President, President Madero, in the newspapers to the point of treating him as a madman and a spiritualist.

 The same thing happened when the expropriation, although it did not directly affect national private interests, served to bring together all the discontent of conservative groups opposed to the agrarian, labor, and educational policies of General Cárdenas.

 In this climate, on September 17, 1939, the National Action Party was founded. It was founded as a reaction to the oil industry expropriation. I say this here in the Zócalo because I am not lying, I am speaking the truth.

 In 1940, all these reactionary trends manifested themselves very strongly in the presidential election. The right-wing opposition was such that General Cárdenas had to act cautiously, and possibly that influenced him to support the candidacy of Manuel Ávila Camacho and not that of General Francisco J. Múgica, with whom he had more ideological affinity and who represented a greater certainty of continuity and deepening of the social and nationalist policy.

 It has always been said that the general did not choose Múgica because of the risk of foreign intervention. However, as we have seen, at that time Roosevelt, who had demonstrated his respect for national sovereignty, was governing and World War II was about to break out, a situation that contributed to dissipating the threat of a U.S. intervention.

 In my opinion, what most influenced the decision was the internal political circumstances, that is, the belligerence of the right-wing groups. Remember that, even though he’d decided in favor of the candidacy of Manuel Avila Camacho, who held moderate positions, the presidential election was complicated and violent.

 The opposition candidate, Juan Andreu Almazán, had the support of important right-wing groups and a sector of the Army. Even the PAN, which did not run a candidate for the presidency, openly supported him.

 At the end of the day, 30 dead and 127 wounded were reported. However, shortly after, Almazán gave in and his supporters, businessmen and right-wing politicians came to an understanding and made a pact for concessions and benefits with the new Ávila Camacho administration.

 From then on, the authentic revolutionary ideal and actions for the benefit of the people began to be abandoned, although it must be acknowledged that this alliance between political and economic power perhaps avoided civil war and maintained social peace.

 If under Porfirio Díaz, the peace of the graveyard prevailed, after President Cárdenas’ government, the peace of compromises and corruption was established.

 In this brief history there are major lessons, the main one being that only with the people, only with the support of the majority, can a popular transformation be carried out to enforce justice and confront the reactionaries who oppose the loss of privileges.

 For this reason, today we once again declare, we exclaim from the rooftops: no zigzagging, let us remain anchored in our principles, let us reaffirm the decision and the course we have taken since the administration began. No half measures: we in Mexico will never allow a minority to impose itself at the expense of the humiliation and impoverishment of the majority.

 That is why, in our government, corruption is being fought. There is an austere government, without luxuries, and all the savings are used to finance well-being programs, such as pensions for the elderly, support for people with disabilities, single mothers, peasant farmers and fishermen, scholarships for students from poor families, Internet for All, housing improvement and construction programs, collateral-free loans, fertilizer, and guaranteed prices for the country's small producers, the Bank of Well-Being, the promotion of education and universal and free public health care.

 This year more than 25 million people will receive direct support totaling 600 billion pesos (4). In other words, out of 35 million households in the country, 71 percent will receive the benefits of at least one of the social programs.

 With this policy of attention to the neediest, the most vulnerable, and especially to young people, we have also been able to reduce federal crimes by 33 percent, homicides by 10 percent, vehicle theft by 38 percent, general robberies by 20 percent, huachicol (5) by 92 percent, femicides by 28 percent, and kidnappings by 76 percent.

 By the same token, the savings from not allowing corruption or budgetary waste have enabled us to avoid contracting more debt. We have not requested additional debt since we have been in office.

 And at the same time, without increasing the public debt in real terms, taxes have not been increased, the price of gasoline, diesel, gas, and electricity have not risen. There has even been a decrease in the price of these energy resources.

 There has also been an increase in public investment, as has not occurred in many years. This year we will spend more than one trillion pesos (6) on public work projects. That is, we will continue building highways, bridges, trains, airports, hospitals, universities, markets, sports facilities, seawalls, and natural, recreational, and ecological parks.

 And we are carrying out something very important: an extensive project to recover and restore historical and archeological sites of our ancient and splendid cultures and civilizations.

 Public finances are strong, the national economy is booming. Last year the Mexican economy grew even more than the economies of China and the United States.

 There are an unprecedented 21,747,000 workers enrolled in the health system. This figure of 21,747,000 workers in the formal economy has never been reached before.

 In addition, an average wage of 525 pesos (7) per day has been achieved for these workers in the formal economy, something that had never occurred before.

 The unemployment rate last January was 2.9 percent, the lowest since 2005.

 We are carrying out public work projects. Right here we are refurbishing the Metro line that collapsed.

 We are, of course, building the Toluca-Mexico City train line, the Maya Train, the Transisthmic Train and many, many other public works projects.

 What is happening?

 After many years, we managed to get the United States to offer temporary work visas. Canada was already doing this and the United States did not accept it. Now with President Biden’s change of policy it was achieved, but they are taking skilled workers, ironworkers, welders, who are needed here for the works projects. We are going to make a small modification, because Mexico comes first and then foreign countries, but this shows how much demand there is for jobs in the country.

 During the time we have been in office, the minimum wage has increased by 90 percent in real terms, and on the border it has more than doubled.

 Do you remember what the lying technocrats used to say? That if wages were increased, there would be inflation. That's all a bunch of nonsense. That is not true. Of course, we have to improve wages responsibly, to strengthen the domestic market, as we are doing, and thus achieve well-being for our people.

 The stock market, corporate and bank profits are posting good numbers.

 The Banco de México’s reserves have increased by 15 percent, 200 billion dollars in bank reserves.

 Foreign investment has climbed to previously unseen figures.

 This has also occurred with remittances from our migrant countrymen and women. Thank you very much, fellow countrymen and women. Last year these remittances practically reached 60 billion dollars; this year they are going to exceed 60 billion dollars.

 This is very important, because this money gets to the most remote communities, to 10 million families who benefit from them, and with this money the regional economy, commerce and other economic activities are reactivated.

 It is also important to emphasize that the peso is the currency that has most appreciated in the world in relation to the dollar, something that has not occurred for more than 50 years.

 We have also directed our resources and efforts to achieve food self-sufficiency and energy self-sufficiency. In the latter, as reported here by the Ministry of Energy and the Director of Pemex, we can be certain that oil sovereignty is being guaranteed. Next year we will not be buying gasoline, diesel or other oil products abroad; we will be processing all of our raw materials.

 The Federal Electricity Commission, the public company in charge of managing the electricity industry, has been strengthened.

 And recently lithium, a strategic mineral used in manufacturing batteries for electric cars and storage systems for clean energy, was nationalized.

 It fills me with pride to be able to recall -I apologize for taking so long, but I am about to finish- it fills me with pride to be able to recall today, March 18, that, despite the policy of granting concessions that prevailed before we came into office, we were able to remove a long chapter from the Free Trade Agreement that compromised our oil and put in its place a small paragraph, which I am going to read to you.

 It says: 'The United States and Canada recognize that Mexico reserves its sovereign right to reform its Constitution and domestic legislation, and Mexico has the direct, inalienable, and imprescriptible ownership of all hydrocarbons in the subsoil of the national territory.'

 My friends:

 I am convinced that we will continue to receive the support of the people to consolidate the first stage in the transformation of our country.

 I am also convinced that whichever candidate wins the poll to become the candidate of our movement will apply the same policy in favor of the people and in favor of the nation.

 Continuity with change is assured. There is nothing to fear. Of course, we have to remain united, always looking towards the future and the happiness of our fellow men and women. This means working from below and with the people, and without neglecting the strategy that we rightly call the revolution of consciences to keep advancing in the change of mentality so as to continue politicizing our people and thus have an increasingly aware population. In this we have made considerable progress, as Mexico is one of the countries with the least political illiteracy in the world.

 With that awareness we will continue, with that collective consciousness we will continue to counteract the dirty war, the slander campaigns and the attempts at manipulation that will continue to be waged, because our adversaries and their media, sold out, rented or in the hands of the members of the conservative and corrupt block, have no other choice. But at the same time we must have faith in the wisdom and loyalty of the people, the people do not betray.

 Let’s recall that the victory of the reactionaries, as Juarez said, is morally impossible. We are finding that the idea and practice of exalting Mexican humanism is electrifying and is reaching the consciousness of millions of people. I base my optimism on this.

 And even though it is more dangerous to underestimate the strength of one’s adversaries than to overestimate it in politics, I maintain that no matter what they do, the oligarchs will not return to power; an authentic and true democracy will continue to prevail in our beloved Mexico.

Friends:

 I cannot fail to mention that in the past few days some U.S. legislators, accustomed to seeing the mote in their brother's eye, but not seeing the beam in their own, in a propaganda ploy -we would say here in colloquial language grilla or intrigue- and for electoral, politicking purposes, argued that, if we did not stop the trafficking of fentanyl to the northern border, that they were going to propose to the Congress of their country that U.S. soldiers occupy our territory to confront organized crime.

 First, I want to make it clear that this is no longer the time of Calderón or García Luna, that this is no longer the time of shady links between the Mexican government and U.S. government agencies. Now there is no simulation, organized and white-collar crime is truly being fought, because there is no corruption, no impunity, and there are no complicit relationships with anyone.

 But what is most important is that from here, from this Zócalo square, the political and cultural heart of Mexico, we remind those hypocritical and irresponsible politicians that Mexico is an independent and free country, not a colony or a protectorate of the United States, and that they can threaten to perpetrate any offense, but we will never, ever allow them to violate our sovereignty and trample on the dignity of our homeland.

 Cooperation yes, submission no; interventionism no.

 PRESIDENT ANDRÉS MANUEL LÓPEZ OBRADOR:   Oligarchy!

 Crowd response: No!

 PRESIDENT ANDRÉS MANUEL LÓPEZ OBRADOR: Corruption!

 Crowd response: No!

 PRESIDENT ANDRÉS MANUEL LÓPEZ OBRADOR: Racism!

 Crowd response: No!

 PRESIDENT ANDRÉS MANUEL LÓPEZ OBRADOR: Freedom!

 Crowd response: Yes!

 PRESIDENT ANDRÉS MANUEL LÓPEZ OBRADOR: Democracy!

 Crowd response: Yes!

 PRESIDENT ANDRÉS MANUEL LÓPEZ OBRADOR: Honesty!

 Crowd response: Yes!

 PRESIDENT ANDRÉS MANUEL LÓPEZ OBRADOR: Social justice!

 Crowd response: Yes!

 PRESIDENT ANDRÉS MANUEL LÓPEZ OBRADOR: Equality!

 Crowd response: Yes!

 PRESIDENT ANDRÉS MANUEL LÓPEZ OBRADOR: Sovereignty!

 Crowd response: Yes!

 PRESIDENT ANDRÉS MANUEL LÓPEZ OBRADOR: Long live the expropriation of the oil industry!

 Crowd response: Viva!

 PRESIDENT ANDRÉS MANUEL LÓPEZ OBRADOR: Long live the workers and technicians of the national oil industry of yesterday and today!

 Crowd response: Viva!

 PRESIDENT ANDRÉS MANUEL LÓPEZ OBRADOR: Long live General Lázaro Cárdenas del Río!

 Crowd response: Viva!

 PRESIDENT ANDRÉS MANUEL LÓPEZ OBRADOR: Viva Mexico!

 Crowd response: Viva!

 PRESIDENT ANDRÉS MANUEL LÓPEZ OBRADOR: Viva México!

 Crowd response: Viva!

 PRESIDENT ANDRÉS MANUEL LÓPEZ OBRADOR: Viva México!

 Crowd response: Viva!

 Translator’s Notes:

 1)     Ejidos  – semi-communal farmland

2)     Constitutional Article 123 enshrines labor rights

3)     Porfiriato -  The period of Porfirio Díaz's presidency of Mexico (1876–80; 1884–1911), an era of dictatorial rule

4)     US$31.89 billion

5)     Huachicol – the massive theft of fuel from pipelines and refineries

6)     US$53.16 billion

7)     US$27.91

 Translated by Pedro Gellert

México City, March 18, 2023

[mesetacadre]

When the Red Army entered Korea in early August, 1945, heavy battles took place in the north, but the Japanese rule remained tranquil in the south, for the Russians stopped by the Yalta agreement at the 38th parallel, while the Americans came several weeks after the surrender of Japan, and ruled at first through the Japanese and then through the Japanese-appointed Korean officials and police. So naturally all of the pro-Japanese Koreans – former police and officials, landlords and stockholders in Japanese companies – fled south to the American zone. The flight of all these right-wing elements amazingly simplified North Korean politics. The Russians did not have to set up any left-wing government, assuming that they wanted one. They merely set free some ten thousand political prisoners and said, by implication; “Go home, boys, you’re free to organize.” Under Japanese rule all natural political leaders either served Japan or went to jail. With the pro-Japanese gone, the ex-jailbirds became the vindicated heroes of their home towns. They were all radicals of sorts, including many Communists. Anyone who knows what a tremendous reception was given to Tom Mooney when he was released to come home to the workers of San Francisco, may imagine the effect on the small towns and villages when ten thousand of these political martyrs came home. North Korea just naturally took a great swing leftwards, and the Russians had only to recognize “the choice of the Korean people.” People’s Committees sprang up in villages, counties, and provinces and coalesced into a provisional government under the almost legendary guerrilla leader Kim Il Sung. Farmers organized, demanded the land from the landlords and got it in twenty-one days by a government decree. (Compared to the land reforms of other countries, this sounds like a tale of Aladdin’s lamp!) Ninety per cent of all big industry – it had belonged to Japanese concerns – was handed over by the Russians “to the Korean people” and nationalized by one more decree. Trade unions organized, demanded a modern labor code, and got it without any trouble from their new government, with the eight-hour day, abolition of child labor, and social insurance all complete. Another decree made women equal with men in all spheres of activity and another expanded schools. Then general elections were held and a “democratic front” of three parties swept unopposed to power. The natural opposition had all gone south, to be sheltered – and put in power – by the Americans. This is the, reason, I think, for the almost exaggerated sense of “people’s power” that the North Koreans express. Their real class struggle is coming; it hasn’t fully hit them yet. The reactionaries all fled south, where they are bloodily suppressing strikes. In North Korea the farmers are building new houses and buying radios because they no longer pay land rent, while the workers are taking vacations in former Japanese villas. The North Koreans assume that this is just what naturally happens when once you are a “liberated land.” “They aren’t yet liberated down south,” they told me. “The Americans let those pro-Japanese traitors stay in power.”

In North Korea: First Eye-Witness Reports, Anna Louise Strong, 1949

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Campaigners who have long pushed cities and states to adopt bans on foreign corporate interference in elections applauded Friday after the Minnesota House of Representatives passed legislation that would make the state the first to prohibit foreign-influenced corporations from spending money on electoral campaigns.

The provision is part of the Democracy for the People Act, which passed 70-57 along party lines late Thursday night after several hours of debate.

The national nonprofit organization Free Speech for People successfully advocated for Democrats in the state House to include the new rule, which would prohibit companies with at least a 5% ownership stake by multiple foreign owners or a 1% stake by a single foreign owner from spending money in Minnesota state and local elections. The companies would also be barred from donating to super PACs.

"Multinational corporations are corrupting representative democracy by drowning out the voices of the people," said Alexandra Flores-Quilty, campaign director at Free Speech For People. "The Democracy for the People Act will help put power back in the hands of citizens."

The organization pushed lawmakers in Seattle to pass similar legislation in 2020, and Hawaii, California, Washington, New York, and Massachusetts are all considering state-level bans modeled on a proposal developed by Free Speech for People.

The group worked closely with state Rep. Emma Greenman (DFL-63B) to pass the legislation.

"This package of commonsense solutions rests on a simple premise," said Greenman during the debate over the bill, "that our state works best when Minnesota voices are at the center of our democracy."

The legislation now heads to the state Senate, where the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL)—the state's affiliate of the Democratic Party—has a majority of seats. Gov. Tim Walz (DFL) has said he supports the bill.

We Choose Us, a statewide grassroots coalition of advocacy groups and unions, conducted polling last November and found that 80% of Minnesota voters back the provision barring election interference by multinational companies.

"Minnesota has long been a leader in democracy and so it's no surprise that the House voted today to put Minnesota on the path to becoming the first state to prohibit foreign-influenced corporations from spending in our elections," said Lilly Sasse, campaign director for We Choose Us. "It's clear to the people of Minnesota that prohibiting foreign-influenced corporations from spending in our elections is good for our democracy. And after today, it's clear that we're on the path to signing it into law."

The group also found broad support for other provisions in the Democracy for the People Act, including automatic voter registration, backed by 73% of Minnesota voters.

The legislation would also permit 16- and 17-year-olds to preregister to vote, establish a statewide vote-by-mail system, protect election workers and voters from harassment, and require voting instructions and ballots to be provided in non-English languages.

"Minnesotans want to ensure that voters always will have the biggest say in the decisions that will impact their lives," state House Speaker Melissa Hortman (DFL-34B) told the ABC affiliate KSTP. "Our legislation will strengthen the freedom to vote, protect our democratic institutions and Minnesota voters, and empower voters, not corporations or wealthy special interests in our elections.”

Free Speech for People is also backing a federal proposal by U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) to bar multinational corporations from interfering in elections.

"By banning multinational corporations spending unlimited sums of money to influence our elections," said the group, "we are upholding the letter of the law and getting us one step closer to a democracy that is truly by and for the people."

[onancientpaths]

"Money is the medium through which capitalism operates, a source of power for those able to control it. That control isn't just about people and wealth...such control entwines with nature. Consider how tightly linked are American dollars and barrels of Saudi Arabian oil or, in an earlier era, Dutch rix-dollars and New World ingots of silver. If modernity is an ecology of power, money binds the ecosystem, and that ecosystem shapes money. Money depends on culture and force to become capital. It divides and connects worker and capitalist, rich and poor regions. It fosters nation-states and empires; it disciplines and depends upon them. To look at history this way moves away from seeing the modern world as a collection of states and toward seeing it as a world-system of capital, power, and nature. And it compels us to consider these processes over the span of centuries-not decades....

The processes of exchange and circulation turn money into capital. At the heart of Marx's Capital is a simple, powerful model: in production and exchange, capitalists combine labor power, machines, and raw material. The resulting commodities are then sold for money. If all goes well, there is a profit, which needs then to be reinvested into yet more labor power, machines, and raw materials. Neither commodities nor money is capital. This circuit becomes capital when money is sunk into commodity production, in an ever-expanding cycle. Capital is a process in which money flows through nature. The trouble here is that capital supposes infinite expansion within a finite web of life. Marx chides economists who believe that their profession explains markets through supply and demand, when those are precisely what need to be explained. To understand those forces requires an examination of markets through the "organic whole" of production and exchange. That organic whole robs life from the worker just as it exhausts the soil of the capitalist farmer." - Raj Patel and Jason Moore

[beguines]

With increasing political repression in the 1930s, anticolonial struggles moved underground, making coordination difficult, but elements of resistance in the northern regions of the peninsula bordering Manchuria had never been entirely stamped out due to its remoteness. Traditionally, the north had been isolated from the centralized bureaucracy in Seoul with the majority of landed elites based in southern Korea. Furthermore, people in the northern regions had a transnational history of intermingling with Mongolian and Jurchen tribes along the northern border. As a result, the north was much less attached to traditional Confucian hierarchies based on status and wealth. Mobile slash-and-burn farmers in these areas were radicalized through Red Peasant Unions as the region became the geographical base for radical movements among peasants and workers. Anticolonial resentment created fertile ground for both professional revolutionaries and newly politicized peasants, who almost immediately filled the power vacuum left in the wake of Japan's surrender in World War II on August 15, 1945. Peasant unions throughout Korea served as a prelude to the people’s committees as those who had been active in the unions were often elected to head the PCs. As Japanese troops retreated to their barracks and colonial officials nervously awaited the occupation forces, villagers banded together to preserve peace and organize local self-governing committees throughout the country.

By the end of 1945, the entire peninsula was covered with people's committees at all levels down to the villages. Showing a variety of forms and political leanings across different regions, they were spontaneously organized to carry out revolutionary justice. They set up people's courts to punish those who had collaborated with the Japanese as "national traitors," and took over local government offices to distribute land and preserve local security. They showed enormous capacity for organization. Most of them had sections for propaganda, peacekeeping and security, food, finances, welfare relief, consumer affairs, labor relations, and tenancy rates, among others. An American official in Korea at the time observed that "all [colonial] government agencies became powerless" and that people's committees "preserved the peace and collected necessary taxes," preventing "looting, bloodshed, and rioting." People's committees were supplemented by peasant unions, worker unions, peacekeeping groups, and organizations of students, youth, and women.

Suzy Kim, Everyday Life in the North Korean Revolution, 1945–1950

[rebgarof]

The stability and resilience of the U.S. food system depends on the 21.5 million people who plant, harvest, process, transport, sell and serve our food. In a new letter to members of congress responsible for negotiating the next Food and Farm Bill, more than 100 organizations called for a bill that protects food and farmworkers, making the point that attention to their wellbeing would help ensure the safety and resilience of the nation’s food system. The signers included groups representing farmers, food and farmworkers, labor, rural interests, agriculture and environmental organizations.

The letter, sent today to Senate and House Agriculture Committee Leadership Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Ranking Member John Boozman (R-Ark.), Chairman Glenn “G.T.” Thompson (R-Pa) and Ranking Member David Scott (D-Ga.), called on the committee leaders to include the following provisions in the next Food and Farm Bill:

establishment of a Farmworker and Food Chain Worker Office within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to ensure USDA prioritizes farmworkers and food chain workers as a core constituency

funding to help farmworkers prepare for and recover from disruptions to the food and farm economy, such as pandemics and extreme weather

increased federal investment in public research programs to better understand and reduce risks to farmworker health and safety

increased protections for meatpacking workers, whose jobs were among the nation’s most dangerous even before the COVID-19 pandemic hit meat and poultry plants hard

improved access to federal food assistance programs for food and farmworkers, who consistently have some of the highest rates of food insecurity

new standards for USDA food procurement contracts that ensure a living wage for workers

policies that create new pathways for farmworkers to become farm owners.

Farmworkers in particular are exposed to health and safety risks from toxic pesticides, extreme heat and dangerous work environments in the course of their work underpinning a U.S. food and agriculture industry that was valued at $1.264 trillion in 2021. Agriculture has one of the highest fatal occupational injury rates in the nation, and farmworkers die of heat-related causes at roughly 20 times the rate of workers in other civilian jobs. Risks facing farmworkers are growing under climate change, as hotter and more extreme weather increases the risk of heat stress, exposure to wildfire smoke, toxic pesticides and economic insecurity. Low wages, lack of legal protections and insufficient access to health care leave farmworkers uniquely vulnerable to food insecurity, violence, exploitation, and poor health.