soc. scholars talk

[Michael Yates <mikey+@xxxxxxxx>]

I have attached remarks I made at the recent socialist scholars
conference.  I was on a panel sponsored by Monthly Review titled "Is the
US Bubble going to Burst?" Doug Henwood gave a fine presentation of the
economic situation, givng us both pessimistic and optimistic scenarios.
We are clearly in uncharted territory in financial markets, as Doug made
clear for us. John Bellamy Foster gave an interesting discussion of
consumer debt, especially that of the working class, which is deeply in
hock. His comments will appear as the Review of the Month in the May
issue of Monthly Review. Cheryl Payer made remarks on the Third World.
My presentation focuses on the economic situation and the labor
movement.  The room was absolutely packed with people actually sitting
on the floor all around the panelists' table. The audience seemed to
like my remarks, so I thought some of you might find them of interest.
comments and criticisms welcome.  Feel free to circulate. I haven't
fixed all the typos yet.

	Whither the Boom, Whither the Labor Movement?

	By

	Michael D. Yates
	University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown
	Johnstown, PA 15904
	mikey@xxxxxxxx


	I.

	While economic booms come and go, one thing remains the same.
Capitalism is, in boom and bust, in period of long-term stagnation or
steady growth, a system in which the accumulation of capital rests upon
the ability of capital to exploit wage labor.  That is why the
relationship between capital and labor is central to the Marxist
analysis of capitalism.  I do not want to enter into the sometimes
contentious discussion concerning the connection between the
capital-labor relationship and the trend in the general level of
economic activity.  It has been argued recently that what really matters
here is the competition among the various capitals.  This is a position
which I find difficult to accept, but I have not given the matter the
kind of sustained attention required to offer a strong critique of it.
Therefore, in my remarks today, I am going to focus on the reverse
relationship: what is the connection between the trend in the general
level of economic activity here in the United States and the likelihood
that the labor movement will become more militant and class conscious.
Does it matter, in terms of the development of the labor movement,
whether we are now in the midst of a long-term period of economic
growth, akin to that which commenced at the end of the Second World War
or in a short-term and unsustainable boom that will soon give way to a
continuation of the economic stagnation which took hold as the long
post-war growth ended, in the early 1970s?


	II.

	There are several things which I think are now pretty clear in light of
our experience during the past 50 years.  First, a period of sustained
growth creates an empowering climate for workers.  A growing economy
depresses the rate of unemployment, tightening labor markets and putting
upward pressure on wages.  A declining unemployment rate increases the
security of working people, and this increases the likelihood of their
aggressiveness vis-a-vis employers.  A falling unemployment rate narrows
the unemployment differential between black and white workers, and this
can facilitate cooperation between them.  Rising incomes generate higher
revenues for the government without higher tax rates, and this might
make it easier to argue in favor of progressive social spending.

	Yet, it would be foolish to believe that these things happen
automatically as per the dogmas of neoclassical economics.  During the
early 1990s when the current boom got going, real wages fell even as
output and productivity grew.  And real wages have not rebounded all
that vigorously as the economy has boomed in the last couple of years
and official unemployment rates have been very low (Remember, it was not
so long ago that economists were saying, as an article of faith, that
unemployment rates below 5.5% were possible only with rampant inflation
and runaway wage rates).  By contrast, real wages grew steadily, apace
with economic growth, during the long post-war boom.  Today, employers
have resisted real wage increases with considerable tenacity.  They have
dug deep down into the pool of people not usually in the labor force to
staff their workplaces and avoid paying higher wages.  Daycare centers,
notoriously cheapskate employers, have hired grandmothers and persons
who are mentally challenged.  The quality of the care diminishes, but
the wages don't rise.  In a Midwestern town with very low unemployment,
grocery stores have used children under ten years of age to bag
groceries. The wages of migrant farm workers, workers in meat-processing
plants, workers in the restaurants and  sweatshops of New York's
Chinatown are not accelerating because our borders are porous, and
employers have an automatic club hanging over the head of illegal
immigrants. Many employers just let turnover rates rise, filling jobs as
best they can and forcing the existing employees to work overtime.   My
college pays rock-bottom wages, but it has stayed afloat with
part-timers and high turnover, even in disciplines with labor shortages.
Private prisons hire guards with criminal records or other serious
problem, and when these cannot do the job, they just search for more
like them.  In addition, a not insignificant amount of production is
taking place in prisons, where wages need not ever rise, even if the
unemployment rate is zero. (By the way, prisoners are now being
allocated to prisons according to a matching process between the labor
needs of prisons and the skills of the convicts).

	A booming economy might not lower worker insecurity in proportion to
economic growth.  Employers are always seeking new ways to economize on
the use of labor, by reorganizing the labor process and introducing
machinery, and this might keep worker insecurity high even in a period
of growth.  So many workers and working class towns and cities took such
an extended beating after the early 1970s that the lingering memory of
this might make workers less aggressive than they would otherwise be.
And even if we do not accept the position of those who tell us that
capital is now so mobile that the least sign of worker insubordination
will drive an employer to move elsewhere, enough employees have seen
their jobs exported that an employer's bluff to move might have the same
effect as a real threat.  What is more, economic growth or not, the
labor laws are so stacked against labor and employers are so willing to
use the law's loopholes and to violate the law, that it takes great
courage for workers to consider taking on the boss.  Tight labor markets
don't seem to matter much here.

	Similar arguments can be made with respect to the positive effects of
growth on black-white unemployment and income differentials and on the
actions of the state.  White racism does not depend on interracial
competition for jobs.  It is embedded into the very fabric of this
society, and no amount of economic growth will by itself eradicate it or
soften it, for that matter.  It never has in he past, that's for sure.
A government might take the larger flow of tax revenues and use them for
defense or war or to justify large tax cuts.




	III.

	At best, then, economic growth and low unemployment merely create the
possibility that workers will see their life circumstances improve and
that workers will become more powerful as a class.  For these things to
be realized, workers have to effectively organize themselves.  At the
beginning of the long post-war boom, workers were much more organized
than today.  Union density was much higher; there were many more
strikes; and most important, there was a strong left wing in the labor
movement.  The left unions and their political allies were in the
forefront of the fight against racism; they were strong foes of U.S.
imperialism; and they were not tied to the apron strings of the
Democratic Party.  The fighting spirt of the left cast a shadow over
more conservative unions and forced them to be more militant than they
would otherwise be.

	The strength of labor in this period translated into rising living
standards for working people.  The UAW was able to negotiate contracts
with the big three auto companies that forced the corporations not only
to keep wages apace with inflation but also guaranteed an "annual
improvement factor" of 3 percent wage increases each year on top of
this.  This meant that auto workers were assured steadily rising real
wages.  The big industrial unions pioneered in winning a wide array of
benefits for workers, from vacations to health care to pensions to
long-term paid leaves.  I can say without a doubt that the power of the
unions literally changed my life and gave me opportunities I never would
have had otherwise.

	Today, labor has considerably less power.  Union density in the private
sector is at levels not seen since the Great Depression.  Even with all
of the laudable efforts of the revived AFL-CIO and many member unions,
it is still extremely difficult to organize workers, to get a first
contract, and to make significant gains in well-established collective
bargaining relationships.  The notion that workers can expect steady
increases in real wages and benefits is dead and gone; unions consider
themselves successful if they can prevent give backs and win modest wage
increases.  COLAs are extremely rare, and health care is seldom paid for
entirely by the employer.  Today, there is no left wing in the labor
movement, to both put fear into the hearts of employers and keep the
feet of more conservative leaders to the fire.  And the long period of
union decline has meant that there has been no counter at all to the
spread of capitalist ideology.  Too many workers are lost in a swamp of
consumerism and meaningless leisure.  Their dissatisfactions lead them
into the arms of the purveyors of the snake oils of religious
fundamentalism, white supremacy, talk show punditry, and militias.
Unions are so invisible in our culture that all too many workers do not
think of them as a real possibility.

	We might argue that the revitalization of the labor movement is bound
to take time and if the economic expansion continues, labor will regain
its old glory.  Unfortunately the problem is much deeper than just
thinned ranks.  The tragedy is that organized labor squandered its
potential during the long boom, entering into a deal with employers and
the state.  In return for employer recognition and regular wage and
benefit increases, labor's leaders agreed to cede control of the
workplace to management.  Employers then were free to make changes in
work rules, introduce technology, and open plants in areas in which
unions were absent.  In return for legitimacy in the eyes of the
corporations and the government, labor's leaders expelled the left-led
unions and thousands of individual leftists.  Given that the left was
the driving force of the CIO, pushing it to fight against racism, to
organized the unorganized, to condemn imperialism, and to champion union
democracy, its expulsion allowed control of the unions and the AFL-CIO
itself to be seized by conservative (and liberal) anti-communists
without much interest in any of these things.  And as these issues were
ignored, organized labor was completely coopted into a nationalist and
imperialist ideology.  Unions came to stand for very little, other than
protecting the privileges of the bureaucrats and their white, male base.

	As long as prosperity continued and the United States completely
dominated so many major markets, the underside of the
labor-management-government "accord" remained hidden.  But all hell
broke loose when the long economic stagnation began in the early 1970s.
Organized labor found itself on the defensive but without the vision and
the tactics to fight back.  Meany and then Kirkland (whose praises by
the way, were sung by John Sweeney when Kirkland died) kept hoping that
their "friends" would bail them out and things would get back to
"normal."  Needless to say they did not, and the labor movement teetered
on the verge of collapse.

	The trouble today is that, while the current AFL-CIO leadership is
doing many good things, deserving of our support, to increase
membership, it shows few signs of seeing the need to abandon the old
nationalist, imperialist ideology and develop a class ideology and
practice.  The notions that members should actually control their own
unions, that labor education ought to focus upon the ways in which this
economic system destroys the capacities of working people, that
competition in whatever form is antithetical to the practices of a labor
movement, that a labor movement cannot thrive unless other progressive
social movements thrive as well, that the South and Southwest in this
country cannot be organized without a commitment to the empowerment of
Blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans in these regions, that solidarity
with workers in the rest of the world requires an admission that much of
what the AFL-CIO condemns overseas exists here and that U.S. military
power is the root cause of the difficulties facing workers in much of
the world, and that both political parties in the United States stand
for all that is bad for working people?these are not the notions that
dominate the thinking of today's labor leaders.  So, if the boom
continues, here is no guarantee that we will see a rebirth of the labor
movement. And even if union membership increases, this does not mean
that organized labor will not repeat the mistakes of the last period of
extended prosperity.

	If the difficulties facing organized labor are daunting even if the
present economic boom turns into a long steady economic expansion, these
problems might be multiplied a hundred-fold if the boom ends in a
serious recession and the continuation of stagnation.  The desperation
that will then face millions of workers will provide fertile grounds for
a resurgence of racism, sexism, jingoistic nationalism, and disdain for
foreigners.  Employers will be in position to continue the tightening of
the screws which have been loosened only slightly during the past two
years of expansion. There will be nothing like the ferment of the Great
Depression because there will be no left wing to guide it.

	The best hope that, come what may economically, working people will
advance themselves both in terms of compensation and political power is
if the labor movement moves in the direction of what has been called
"social movement unionism."  Such a unionism sees organizing not as the
ultimate goal of the labor movement but as a necessary component of
something much broader and deeper.  Social movement unionism has as its
principles inclusion of all workers, worker control of their unions,
anti-imperialism, building inter-movement solidarity, and the creation
of a system of production and distribution based up helping each person
to fully develop his or her capabilities.

	To build such a movement, one capable of growing in any economic
climate, it will be necessary for leftists within the labor movement to
unify around a common program and push this program inside of every
union and in the AFL-CIO.  Such a movement cannot and will not come out
of the New Voices leadership.  Leftists should support the current
leadership when it can, but it should support from a position of firmly
held principles and it should always push organized labor as hard as it
an to move in the direction of these principles.

	The main question facing the labor movement, then, is not whether the
economic boom continues.  This is a question secondary to the question
of whether, come what may economically, organized labor is prepared to
build a social movement capable of challenging capital.