Report to National Board on Labor October 18, 2003

If you’ll bear with me, I want to start this report with a somewhat long quote from the October issue of the IBEW Journal. Speaking of ‘a small group of multinational corporations, using unlimited funds, [that] bankrolled politicians who would do their bidding,’ Jerry O’Connor, the secretary treasurer of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, writes in his regular column:

‘They have convinced us that if all is not well it is because some among us are the problem, and thus the enemy. If the government wasn’t coddling the people not working, the market could do its miracles, so the poor and unemployed are the enemy. If companies didn’t have to hire minorities, the markets could do its miracles, so minorities were the enemy. If you have a gun, those who want to ‘take away my gun’ are the enemy. If you’re deeply religious, those who don’t believe as you do are the enemy. And if you are stuck in a low-paying dead end nonunion job, those people in unions making more money are the enemy. It was classic divide and conquer.’

‘So now too many in North America waste our energies on hating and fighting each other while the creators (and owners) of wealth ship good jobs overseas, lower all of our wages, and bombard us with their party line. And because we are so busy hating each other, we pay no attention.’

‘And so the creators of wealth control more of the wealth and more and more of our lives. Well, I serve only one Creator, not the corporate masters. And I believe that if the American people would just pay attention, and realize that we are all one people and all in this together, then we might change things. If we would just wake up and see that 5 percent of the American people own 95 percent of the wealth, in this country, and the top 1 percent owns 95 percent of that, then maybe we could change things.’

I wanted to start with that quote because we’re going to wrestle with some difficult questions facing the labor movement in this report. Some of the questions are contentious, just in the asking. And it is all too easy to slip into one-sidedness when raising problems. But this quote, from a building trades union leader helps keep things in perspective. This kind of advanced, even potentially revolutionary thinking in labor is much more the norm these days. Once O’Connor figures out who really creates the wealth – look out.

Context for this report and discussion

By many yardsticks labor continues to move in a progressive even radical direction. From the rank and file to the top leaderships, unions continue to break new ground: on social issues, on political action, and on coalition building. More new ideas on organizing are being debated in labor circles today than at any time since the founding of the CIO.

This discussion must also take place with the full realization that labor is under the most sustained and intensive attack since the McCarthy era of witch-hunters and union busters. In essence organized labor has been under attack since the Reagan/Bush years — over twenty years now. There was some pause during the Clinton years, but not much. Capitalist globalization, the introduction of vast new automations, and computerization, have decimated union ranks. While outright corporate and government attacks on union rights and labor law have been unrelenting. Right now the threat of major bad changes to overtime law still hang over our head.

This is compounded by a terrible economic crisis that is particularly laying waste to the industrial sector of the economy. We all know that close to 3 million jobs have been lost since Bush assumed office. This is the worst job loss in over 20 years and the longest job-losing streak since the Great Depression of the 1930’s. A very high percentage of the job loss has been in the mass production industries.

By all indicators much of the working class is in deep crisis – wages, healthcare, pensions, housing, education, – all are in major decline not only for unorganized workers but for union workers as well.

As always in our country the racially and nationally oppressed communities are hardest hit by economic crisis. Wage gaps are increasing. Poverty gaps are increasing. Unemployment gaps are growing and discrimination and inequality is increasing.

The economic crisis also disproportionately hurts women workers. Wage gaps here, too, are once again widening. As are unemployment rates. Women too are confronted with greater discrimination and inequality.

Many young people are really feeling the crisis. In jobs, education, recreation and healthcare young workers and young people in general are facing a bleak future.

Some ‘Givens’

Having set some context lets also look at some ‘givens’ for this report and discussion. There is tremendous unity and agreement in our party, in our commission and among our trade union comrades with the party’s strategic outlook on the 2004 elections and the critical fight to defeat the ultra-right. None of the problems discussed in this report should be considered outside of this strategic outlook. In raising problems and asking the party to probe more long range questions we are in no way asking for a moment of navel gazing or of abstract empty theorizing. None of the problems or issues raised can be solved outside of the full mobilization of the party and our trade union comrades in the overall task of defeating Bush. Nor, the dialectical other side, can we fully engage and mobilize for our agreed upon strategic tasks without taking full part in the discussions and debates swirling in labor. Nor can we bypass thinking more about our positions and ideas on where our work is headed in the long run.

Besides all out to defeat Bush, there are also other definite action goals of our trade union work that we must stress. For example we want to fully participate and mobilize in ongoing critical struggles including, for example: the anti-FTAA week of action in Miami, and full support and mobilization for the AFL-CIO’s December 10th demonstrations around the country in support of the right to organize and for labor rights. But this meeting has to do more than just affirm and agitate for the ongoing trade union work of the party. We believe we must also critically examine some of the long-range significant issues now being debated in many parts of labor. And, we believe, we must self-critically examine our labor work and policies in light of these long-range problems and in light of our party’s size and location in the working class and unions.

Contradictory signs

To say the least there are many contradictory trends and developments in labor today.

On the plus side, for example, it is hard to overstate the important impact of the just concluded Immigrants Rights Freedom Ride. It consolidates and extends many important changes in attitude and policy in labor on many fronts – Black, Brown, Asian and white unity, labor/community coalition building, militancy, organizing, political action. The Freedom Ride was a giant stride towards cementing and energizing the all people’s coalition that can beat George Bush in ’04.

Then there is the victory at Yale University. What a victory for rank and file militancy and mass action, for labor/community support and mobilization. Talk about persistence – over two years without a contract up against a bitterly anti-union administration. This was in the mold of the victory at AK Steel where also the workers were creative, militant, dogged and determined that they would last one day longer.

There is also the growing peace sentiment in labor. Next week right here in Chicago there will be an important national Labor Assembly for Peace. Along with questions about the war in Iraq and the continued occupation, many in labor are also now asking basic questions about labor’s role in foreign policy. We should note that the South Bay Labor Councils first demanded and now just hosted a critical examination, with top AFL-CIO officials, of the AFL-CIO’s foreign policies, both past and present. This initiative is sure to open up a wide discussion. This not only strengthens labor but opens up new possibilities for genuine internationalism and solidarity. Many unions are also doing great work to express their concern about attacks on civil liberties and the Patriot Act.

At the same time workers are being forced to accept concessions and set-backs in auto and steel. Let us never lose sight of the fact that these workers are up against the most powerful transnational corporations in the world. Still, while the auto negotiations succeeded mostly in preserving health care and pensions for now – there will be a terrible price to pay in job loss and plant closings. Business Week, in an article entitled ‘A Contract the Big Three Can Take to the Bank’ estimates, based on interviews with industry sources, that under the new contract the big three will trim well over 40,000 jobs in the next four years. And two tier wage and benefit scales have been introduced for the first time into the organized auto parts industry.

The shake out and ‘consolidation’ of the steel industry has meant the loss of thousands of jobs and the destruction of pension and health benefits for hundreds of thousands of union steelworkers. This has been accompanied by longer hours and major revamping of job classifications and work rules. Unfortunately it has also re-raised questions that the left in labor had long since thought settled – like union consideration of twelve hour day schedules as ‘innovative’ alternatives to the eight hour day. ‘Buy American’ jingoism is once again on the rise in some quarters. A real potential danger here is also a big revival of racist and anti-communist China bashing.

A lively debate

So there are a lot of mixed and contradictory trends out there right now. At the same time there is a lot of ferment, frustration and debate at many levels of labor about what is to be done. Debates in labor rage on de-industrialization, on trade and international solidarity, on the very structure of the labor movement, on labor law reform, on independent political action, on strikes and boycotts and militant mass tactics and much more.

It has become popular in some labor studies circles and among some left labor activists to compare today’s situation with that of US labor in the 1920’s. And there is some truth to that. Like today the labor movement was too small and diffuse. Like today, corporate and government attack on labor was intense. And learning some lessons from that period is fine as long as we also realize how different things are now. Labor leadership and organization is much different today and there are vast differences between the rising monopoly capitalism of the 1920’s and the global transnational monopoly capitalism of today.

But here is something that William Z. Foster wrote in 1925 from his famous American Trade Unionism that does really ring true today:

‘The question of organizing the many millions of unorganized workers is the most vital matter now before the American labor movement. The future progress of the working class depends upon the solution to this great problem.’

‘The organization of the unorganized is a life and death question for the labor movement. To bring the millions into the unions is necessary not only for the protection of the unorganized workers, and to further class ends in general, but also to safeguard the life of the existing organizations. Many of the trade unions are now under such heavy attacks from the employers the their very existence is threatened. These struggles can be resolved favorably to the workers only by drawing to their support the great mass of unorganized’

Since the beginning of the new Sweeney administration there has been a sharp debate on organizing. The Sweeney, Chavez-Thompson, Trumka team was elected in the first place on the issue of building a larger labor movement. There were many valiant efforts, many dynamic and creative programs to enhance organizing – but mostly with mixed results. A handful of unions have made impressive to modest strides including SEIU, HERE, UAW, UNITE, CWA, Laborers, and a few others. Other unions made efforts and experimented with organizing projects, but let them fizzle out. Some did nothing at all.

Almost from the beginning a debate broke out in leadership and staff levels about the relationship of political action to organizing. To oversimplify the debate some argued that without changing the political climate in Congress, without major labor law reform there could be no real breakthrough in organizing. While others felt there was no way to change the political equation without a much bigger labor movement. Our position is that organizing and political action are two sides of the same coin for labor. We’ve said that all the way back to Foster.

The debate got even sharper when George Bush stole the White House. Indeed such an ultra right, anti-labor presidency gave great credence to the argument that political action should be the main concern of labor. Still we, correctly in my opinion, argued that it was wrong to try and separate political action from organizing. How could we beat the ultra-right without greater numbers.

The Schwarzenegger victory in California kind of illustrates the point. A fact sheet developed by the political action department of the AFL-CIO outlines the tremendous, even heroic, effort all of labor undertook to defeat the California recall. It was massive with 30 full time organizers sent in and coordinated by Ron Judd the West Coast regional director of the AFL-CIO. The fact sheet shows that it was a massive grassroots campaign that built upon all the tremendous experience that labor has accumulated in the last five election cycles. Phone banks, get out the vote, workplace contacts, union blitzes and precinct work, etc etc. At all levels of labor: CLC’s, national and local unions, shop stewards, rank and file – great mobilization and heroic effort. Union members rejected the recall 55% to 45%. But union members were just 20% of the voters.

Still the debate rages and is even getting sharper in labor. Now comes the New Unity Partnership, a kind of leadership caucus for some top union leaders. It is lead by SEIU, HERE, Laborer’s, Unite and the Carpenters. These folks are not only frustrated with the lack of progress on organizing, they are frustrated with the whole federated structure of the AFL-CIO – they see it as antiquated and inefficient for a modern labor movement. They want more accountability from top to bottom. They want to merge unions in to just a handful of industrial sectoral unions that can fully bring their organized might to bear on an industry by industry basis. In dreamier moments some see them as the new ‘CIO’ ready to fundamentally change the structure of the labor movement.

Their critics, including many in the AFL-CIO, though not necessarily John Sweeney, argue this is not possible given the state of unions today. That it is too radical. That the structural proposals can’t be done in a democratic fashion. That they are trying to split the labor movement. NUP denies that and has stated publicly that unity to defeat George Bush in ’04 prevents them from fully arguing for their position and presenting it to the AFL-CIO executive board until after the ’04 elections. And let’s be clear about who these folks are, some of the most progressive and innovative elements in labor leadership. Look at their leadership in movements like the Freedom Ride, Justice for Janitors, and the Cintas campaign. Nor should we forget that several of these unions were the backbone of the movement to oust the Kirkland leadership and bring in the reformers.

Just an aside on the question of splitting. Both Business Week and the ultra left (strange bedfellows) have attacked the NUP for being splitters. Others have accused various public worker unions of being splitters and some have accused the newly created Industrial Union Council of being splitters. To be sure there are tensions and rivalries aplenty in labor. But even sharp differences don’t have to mean splits. John Sweeney took the unprecedented step of announcing this early in his term that he will run again for president of the AFL-CIO in ’05. Many think he really doesn’t want to run but feels compelled to in order to avoid speculation and maneuvering and preserve unity in the face of the ’04 elections.

We should not join those who loosely throw around ideas about splits. Despite the strains and the fact that the Carpenters have indeed quit the AFL-CIO, though they are now back in the Building Trades Council, there is an overriding unity in labor, especially on the need to defeat George Bush. Even the Teamsters have endorsed Dick Gephardt. And even in the situation that 18 unions broke ranks with official AFL-CIO policy and endorsed Gephardt, there is no basic let up in united efforts to make the ’04 elections labor’s best political action effort yet.

I don’t think the trends in labor can be easily categorized into neatly titled packages. The debates now taking place in labor cut across all labor entities, and are far reaching. All the industrial unions don’t take one position versus all the public sector unions. Many of the ideas being raised by the New Unity Partnership are also being raised by folks in the new Industrial Union Council. Building trades unions are found on completely different sides of all the debates. And I really want to underline that I don’t think our role at this juncture is to take hard and fast positions on many of these questions. BUT we should be in all these debates fighting for unity and seriously looking at all honest new proposals for progress and change.

Lastly on organizing. The launching of a new union called Working America by the AFL-CIO may end up being one of the most important innovations since Sweeney took office. I say ‘new union’ because that is exactly how Sweeney described it in the press conference where it was launched a few weeks ago. Sweeney said it would be a union directly chartered by the AFL-CIO. Already the staff is scouring the countryside looking for more organizers to hire. Several cities, including Cleveland have pilot projects already working.

Right now much of their efforts seem focused on the ’04 elections and building a political action organization in the neighborhoods of folks who would like to be in unions but are not in organized workplaces. But my understanding is that it will be a membership organization with full representation on the AFL-CIO executive council and is also seen as a center for organizing the unorganized into more traditional union forms.

This kind of thrust of organizing anyone regardless of the immediate possibility of a contract or bargaining rights is bold and promising. In my opinion it opens up so many doors for the working class. I think we should discuss everywhere in the party how we can help build and develop this effort. In the long run it can greatly influence not only organizing and political action, but it can lead to a more popular understanding of unions as critical mass organizations of the working class. We have to be in the middle of this exciting new project. And one last point -organizing campaigns, strikes and job actions, and even a lively discussion and debate of these issues all serve to energize and draw labor folks into the efforts to defeat the ultra right – these are not diversions.

Economic fightback

Another huge question facing labor is the economic struggle. No one can dispute the tremendous advances in labor on social and political issues. Again the Immigrant’s Rights Freedom Ride and labor for peace are great illustrations. And again independent political action by labor has moved in leaps and bounds. But on the economic front things are not so bright. The current strikes by grocery workers around the country and the transit workers in LA are exciting exceptions, that may well mark a rising tide of economic fightback. Lets hope so.

Still, overall strikes and shop floor actions are at close to historic lows. Most negotiations are characterized by concessions, cuts and much longer contracts. Here is where we still see class collaborationist ideas about ‘beating the foreign competition’ and worrying about the business climate. Here we still see renewed labor management partnership ideas used to justify job loss, concessions and ‘joint’ labor management political campaigns.

Lets be clear. We’re Marxist. The economic crisis for working people is not a natural phenomenon like the weather. It doesn’t have to be this way. Profits are gargantuan. There is more than enough money and wealth available to solve all the human needs of our country. There is plenty of useful, necessary work that needs to be done to fully employ everyone at union wages and benefits. But, for now, the other side is winning the economic class struggle and shifting the capitalist crisis onto the backs of the working class.

We don’t accept that the working class and the unions have to lose just to bolster the corporate bottom line or save ‘their’ industries. And we surely don’t accept so-called win-win solutions. Labor only make gains at corporate capitalist expense, just as the capitalists only make gains at working class expense. We Communists don’t accept a one-sided class struggle. We even know what some of the real answers are – shorter hours, public ownership, new priorities of people’s needs not military spending and conquest. Universal free healthcare, more housing, more education, and saving the environment are problems that can be solved with adequate public spending. And these solutions create jobs.

Unfortunately, too often our conventional wisdom is that these issues are too difficult to raise in the midst of sharp attack. Not realistic. Will isolate us. But comrades, that was not the conventional wisdom when we championed industrial unionism. It was not the conventional wisdom when we fought for Social Security and Unemployment compensation. It was not the conventional wisdom when we fought Jim Crow in hiring and promotions and to integrate the unions. It was not the conventional wisdom when we championed quotas and affirmative action in hiring and promotions. And it was not the conventional wisdom when we built rank and file movements that helped changed the face of labor and defeated the domination of cold war business unionism. The question is not whether we should raise these issues and the basics of the class struggle in our labor work, we must. The question is how to do it. And I don’t think we wrestle enough with these basic questions in the party.

We’re all concerned that we not isolate ourselves. That we continue to view left/center unity as the core of our policy. That we fully immerse ourselves in the day-to-day ongoing struggles of labor. But we cannot let the lack of drive to find answers to tough questions fence us into just going with the flow or not taking initiatives.

Unity

Working class unity is the lifeblood of our movement and of labor. It’s our great class strength. Another critical debate has emerged in labor on how to guarantee full equality and participation for all sections of the class and labor. This issued erupted around the launching of a labor backed new political action organization, the Partnership for Working Families. The idea was and still is an exciting innovation for labor’s independent political action. Due to changes in the campaign finance law that undemocratically limited unions from directly using funds to support political campaigns, the AFL-CIO executive board mandated the establishment of a new organization that could help build political partnerships between labor and grassroots efforts to defeat the ultra right in working class communities including racially and nationally oppressed communities.

The problem was that those in charge of this project, initially, completely ignored and even disrespected the existing constituency organizations in the house of labor like CBTU, CLUW, LACLA, APALA and Pride@Work. It even had the edge of overt racism when an organizer basically maintained that organizations like CBTU were ineffective in political action work in oppressed communities and that they, the white organizers, could do a better job without the help of the constituency groups.

I won’t go into all the details but this incident has provoked a wide ranging debate in labor on unity issues. While discussions of this specific problem are ongoing, concrete steps were taken by some more advanced labor leaders to bring the constituency groups in on the ground floor of creating a new AFL-CIO supported political action organization, called the Voices for Working People Coalition. And it’s important to note that both the presidents of the steelworkers and the autoworkers joined the leaderships of the constituency groups in fighting through a new approach and a new organization. It’s also important that both groups are now working together and things seem to have been resolved in a unified way.

Still this incident reveals the constant nature of the fight for full equality in labor. All are united in the need to defeat the right, but will labor’s political action efforts fully reflect the special problems and discrimination faced by minority workers and their communities. We have to consciously join this debate with proposals to raise the issues of inequality: like higher unemployment rates, the need for affirmative action, unequal access to healthcare and housing, and an end to police brutality.

There is a big hole in the debate

I want to draw attention to what I think is one of the biggest weaknesses in the current debates in the labor movement. That is that on all sides the rank and file are by and large being left out. Too much of the debate is taking place in the top leadership levels and not in the union halls. In the economic struggles, in contract negotiations, with some notable exceptions, the rank and file are not being fully brought into the discussions. Rank and file preparation, debate and full participation like we saw in the ILWU contract negotiations and in the Yale strike are all too rare.

Of course union members are bombarded with materials and information. But that’s not debate. That’s not fully drawing on the creativity and militancy of the membership. There is just too much ‘build it and they will come’ and not enough reliance on the rank and file to say what we ought to be building in the first place.

And this is a weakness for our party work also. Our party history has been tied to the rank and file. Not just in the 60’s and 70’s, but in the 30’s and 40’s also. Even when we had Communists elected to top union positions we fought to keep our base in the shops and workplace. Go back and read some of the articles – when we were leading whole national unions we were still constantly debating how best to draw the broadest cross section of workers into the debates and struggles of the day. We have to re-establish that as our predominate style of work. We have to once again become a party rooted in the workplace, be it factory, office, computer room, school room, campus, hospital, construction site or field.

This question of the rank and file also gets into serious problems of union democracy. Given our experiences in the 60’s and 70’s in rank and file movements, we have been somewhat hesitant, to address this issue. After all much of the labor leadership is basically going in a much better direction. We don’t want to be confused with the ultra left who are anti-leadership on principal. But the truth is that even some of the best, most progressive, most innovative unions are very undemocratic in their internal operations and structures. Labor cannot win the full participation of the rank and file members without basic union democracy. There is, even in some of the best of unions, still too much top down. The real strength of the rank and file can only be fully brought to bear with the fullest possible union democracy and rank and file rights.

Party work

Let me suggest some other problems in our party’s labor work that need discussion and debate.

I think we have to reconsider left led forms and initiatives in our work. Forms for trade unionists that can advance more long range demands and solutions within labor, while still building left/center unity. With the greatest flexibility – maybe newsletters, maybe specific rank and file committees on issues or on industry questions, maybe study groups and schools. One size does not fit all – The Salt of the Earth Labor college comes to mind. The Marxist classes in Ohio for trade unionists is another – but also forms for struggle like union committees for shorter hours or labor committees for national health care.

The PWW and Political Affairs can obviously play a big role in this direction nationally. It occurs to me that if others can host conferences on labor issues that attract 900 to a 1000 trade unionists eager to discuss all kinds of questions, why can’t the PWW and PA also host conferences on labor issues, perhaps with others? And at the same time maybe we need to think about a left form made up of left trade unionists that, in coalition with others including center forces, can promote labor conferences to feed the growing rank and file hunger for more long range discussion, thinking and initiative.

Concentration

We need to continue to consider our concentration policy. How is that policy viewed and implemented in our clubs and districts. I think only a very few districts or clubs have had discussions since we last talked about concentration at last January’s national board meeting on labor. I think that for many our concentration policy seems too general and too distant. We still tend to think of concentration as handing out papers at steel mills and auto shops. Very few clubs have any such opportunity. Instead we have to re-discuss concentration in more bite size realistic terms.

I think for this moment we have to say that concentration is mostly a matter of trying to build ties with rank and file trade unionists and workers where we work, where we live and in the mass movements our clubs participate in. Concentration is recruiting workers and bringing them closer to the party. It is also bringing the voices of rank and file workers into the party. Concentration is tuning our ears to the views and concerns of those in shops and work places and making sure those voices inform our discussions and initiatives. Let me be clear, this is in no way to diminish the role of industrial and mass production workers. Overall, building the party in those sectors is still a strategic concept of our party. Look at all the bourgeois economist worried about the lack of pick up in factory orders and manufacturing as a big weakness of the ‘recovery.’ Consider the fact that less than half the steelworkers in America are organized. No, industrial concentration remains valid.

On the question of influence. Concentration is certainly about getting our views out in labor and extending our influence. That is part of bringing folks closer to us. In particular this means being in the thick of labor struggles and mobilizing the party for these fights. I think our work around the Freedom Ride with the PWW is a great example. I think we have to share our ‘best case scenarios,’ our best most successful work with the whole party to spread around the experiences that have worked. I’m thinking of our work in the longshore contract negotiations, or our work in the Yale strike and with the Salt miners strike.

But here too we have to avoid one size fits all. Every club and every district faces different situations, has different levels of contacts and possibilities and forms for getting involved. Not every club has great struggles like these taking place in their area of responsibility. We have to make sure we don’t inadvertently give comrades the impression that if you don’t have a big struggle to report on, or if you haven’t consulted with the head of your central labor council recently, then you have nothing to say on labor or concentration.

Concentration is not a competition to see who goes to the most labor rallies and conventions or who knows the most labor leaders. These are very important things, but we have to guard against making our best case scenarios ‘models’ with an edge that seems to say, ‘We’re the best. If you would only copy our approach your concentration problems would be solved and we would grow.’ We all know it isn’t that simple. Our emphasis should be on drawing the lessons for sure. But more important our emphasis should also be on helping clubs and districts examine their concrete situations.

We will soon be having club conferences to plan for next year. Shouldn’t concentration be a topic on every club conference agenda? And the big question for most clubs is probably not what is our concentration industry, but rather how will our club engage with rank and file workers, and with unions in our area? For our districts, especially those centered in cities, maybe the most important question is what are the key unions that influence and set the pace for labor locally? How can our clubs build ties and bring around rank and file members from these key unions? Can our club play a role in the new Working America union? How will we work in our neighborhood or workplace on the ’04 elections that taps into the work that labor is doing in our area?

These discussions won’t happen spontaneously in our clubs and districts. It is the responsibility of the whole party and of ourselves as the national board to help make sure concentration plays a role in our planning for next year and in our club conferences. Preparations for the National Committee meeting next year should also include a progress report on bringing this discussion to the clubs.

Another issue we haven’t dealt with much lately is encouraging comrades to go into the workplace to help build the party and the labor movement. As I mentioned in the last report – and I’ve seen no evidence to the contrary – we have more union organizers than we have active workplace based active trade unionists. In working on this report a YCL comrade asked me, ‘Why don’t we work with the YCL to identify comrades who might go into the key unions to build a rank and file left base?’ He continued, ‘We have lots of folks go through union summer, and folks getting offered union organizing jobs, but why not talk to them about the importance of rank and file activists in the workplace.’

And I think he has a point. I remember these discussions with both Gus Hall and George Meyers in the past. The feeling I got then was that convincing people to go into industry didn’t always work too well. Kind of the unstated idea, I’m sure born out by experience in earlier times, was that some folks just aren’t ready to take on manual labor when they have skills and education for ‘better’ things. But so much has changed and as one leading comrade said to me, ‘Look at the number of trade union comrades we have today that the party convinced to go into industry in the 60’s and 70’s. Most of them stuck with the party and the shops.’ She’s right. I think we should begin such a discussion with the YCL and also look around the party.

Lenin somewhere said that the communist ideal is not the shop steward, but a tribune of the people. I know what he meant. And I’m not one of those who thinks we should downplay Lenin. He made an historic, still relevant contribution to Marxism and to the working class. But in this time, place and circumstance, I think we could use a lot more communist shop stewards.

How to discuss

Finally. I think most of us kind of sense a big turn taking shape in the working class, in labor and in the country. I don’t know about you, but it’s only been in the last few months that I’ve, deep down, really begun to feel like we could beat George Bush. Look at the remarkable success of the Immigrants Rights Freedom Ride – not only were tens of thousands energized and set into motion, not only was a sea change in working class unity and solidarity consolidated, but look at the remarkable concrete results. Congress has been forced to consider new legislation – not everything we would want – but never-the-less remarkable legislation that could begin to turn the tide towards full legalization and important progressive reform.

Dynamic tensions usually mark turning point moments. The CIO didn’t one day spring on the scene with thousands, in leather jackets, led by Communists and left-wingers, marching out to heroic songs to organize the unorganized masses. That kind of stuff is wonderful for musicals. But in truth turning points require great political skill, lots of give and take, lots of patience and lots of willingness to listen.

I think we have to regard this meeting as the opening for a wider discussion in the party. We should be wary of quick, or glib, or pat answers to the problems and questions raised. We should avoid formulas and schematics. These are questions that really require keeping our ears in the working class wind and our deepest most collective habits of analysis and action. I think that by and large, with the resources we have, the party is doing remarkably well immersing ourselves in struggle. The PWW and PA, with great freshness and openness are jewels. They do so much with so little, while constantly striving to improve and be useful to our common work.

We should remind ourselves that this is not just a discussion for our union comrades or labor commissions. This is for the whole party and judging from the responses we got to the questionnaire we sent out in advance many comrades are eager to discuss.

Maybe 15 years ago. I’m getting older so time kind of telescopes and I don’t really remember how long ago. Anyway we were having a pretty rough discussion in the Illinois Board about some problems in our work. I don’t even remember what the issues were – but we were feeling a little overwhelmed with our tasks and with our inability to solve some problems and figure everything out. We all know that kind of frustration. But something Frank Lumpkin, a life long communist, steelworker and party leader, said at that meeting has been with me every since. He kind of looked around the table at all the tensions and frustrations, smiled and said, ‘Comrades, there are no problems we can’t solve, no questions we can’t answer if we just bring ten or twenty more workers into the party.’

That’s profound and that applies to the problems and questions we’re tackling today. In that spirit, lets get on with it.

Comments