Two things regarding the situation in Wisconsin

[Ocean Seal]

The first is the democrats. I'm sure that many of you have heard of the 14 Dems who are choosing to not vote on the union solidarity breaking bill, and have instead boycotted it. How is the left to address this? I know that the democrats are only looking to expand their poll numbers, but ultimately what position should the left take on this issue. I don't trust them, but up to this point they appear to be helping at the very least by buying the workers some time to protest. And at the same time, Obama won't even show up in Wisconsin to support the workers. Also the Democrats have a vested interest in unions surviving as many of the yellow unions contribute to their campaigns. So in reality my question is: How does the left capitalize on this, and can the left capitalize on this?

My second is the protests themselves. Scott Walker was speaking to his boss about placing in troublemakers and what he thought about it. So ahem... we're the troublemakers. He also stated that there was a problem with it, and that is that the workers might gain confidence that the governor would capitulate. Right now he shows no signs that he is wavering and he has even gotten Tea-Party support, so what would be the advantages and disadvantages to giving these protests a more revolutionary character. I feel as if violent protests would alienate some workers and give Glenn a preaching ground about how the left only wants chaos. But then again, violent protests could further a class identity and bring Walker into a position of compromise.

[ChrisK]

The first is the democrats. I'm sure that many of you have heard of the 14 Dems who are choosing to not vote on the union solidarity breaking bill, and have instead boycotted it. How is the left to address this? I know that the democrats are only looking to expand their poll numbers, but ultimately what position should the left take on this issue. I don't trust them, but up to this point they appear to be helping at the very least by buying the workers some time to protest. And at the same time, Obama won't even show up in Wisconsin to support the workers. Also the Democrats have a vested interest in unions surviving as many of the yellow unions contribute to their campaigns. So in reality my question is: How does the left capitalize on this, and can the left capitalize on this?

We should support their action while criticizing them for standing up only now. They did not help to pass legislation that would have made unionizing easier, they are opportunists.

This point ought to be made publicly so as to support the fact that democrats are not on the workers side, but are only looking for votes. Hopefully, this will help radicalize workers, while preventing the legislation from passing.


My second is the protests themselves. Scott Walker was speaking to his boss about placing in troublemakers and what he thought about it. So ahem... we're the troublemakers. He also stated that there was a problem with it, and that is that the workers might gain confidence that the governor would capitulate. Right now he shows no signs that he is wavering and he has even gotten Tea-Party support, so what would be the advantages and disadvantages to giving these protests a more revolutionary character. I feel as if violent protests would alienate some workers and give Glenn a preaching ground about how the left only wants chaos. But then again, violent protests could further a class identity and bring Walker into a position of compromise.

They shouldn't be violent unless violence is brought upon them. Being violent when you do not have control over the media is a bad idea, unless you are attacked first.

The best strategy I can think of would be solidarity strikes by other workers. This would put pressure on the governor through economic pressure.

[Victus Mortuum]

I think the most beneficial thing the left can do right now is DEMAND (and encourage the workers to demand) new labor protections RIGHT NOW as outlined in this thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/building-pan-left-t150572/index.html

[Ele'ill]

So in reality my question is: How does the left capitalize on this, and can the left capitalize on this?

Those workers for all intents and purposes are 'the left' in the sense that they have publicly started to realize the inadequacies of party politics in exchange for the power that they themselves have as people pulling together. Those people with a more radical view need to encourage and network with them- making as much noise as possible and furthering the radicalization of liberal elements.


My second is the protests themselves. Scott Walker was speaking to his boss about placing in troublemakers and what he thought about it. So ahem... we're the troublemakers. He also stated that there was a problem with it, and that is that the workers might gain confidence that the governor would capitulate. Right now he shows no signs that he is wavering and he has even gotten Tea-Party support, so what would be the advantages and disadvantages to giving these protests a more revolutionary character. I feel as if violent protests would alienate some workers and give Glenn a preaching ground about how the left only wants chaos. But then again, violent protests could further a class identity and bring Walker into a position of compromise.

The violence would have to serve a direct goal- generalized shenanigans will do nothing but hurt this movement.

[¿Que?]

I think the violence will happen when the national guard shows up.

As for the Democrats, we can only hope that when they go back to business as usual, workers (us) will demand more than business as usual. We demand a fundamental transformation of society.

[Ele'ill]

I think the violence will happen when the national guard shows up.

Aside from meaning that the national guard will engage in violence I have a hard time picturing people engaging in violent activity in this current situation. I'm not sure the national guard would be called in for crowd dispersal purposes at all- they're mainly there to take over state prison in the event of walkouts and there are plenty of state troopers/regular police that would be available for teargassing and beanbag shooting.

[neosyndic]

x

[Ocean Seal]

I hope that those workers start making demands. And the demands have to be simple but holistic. However, Scott Walker is sitting comfortably in his office stating that he is going to cut jobs just because he can't get his union beatdown across. The workers have children that they have to feed. They have rent and other bills to pay. They might have to capitulate out of necessity. I'm not so sure how these protests are working out, but the workers appear to be showing solidarity. They are not standing down, but they can stand strong for only so long. And yet at the same time Scott Walker needs to appease his boss: David Koch. If the corporations aren't happy he might have to reach a deal. Then again the bosses have unlimited wealth virtually and they can afford to lose a few days of work.

[HalPhilipWalker]

The workers need to do something in order to force the media to cover this. There apparently has been a near-media blackout on recent news from Wisconsin (with the exception of Fox, which has been overwhelmingly negative). Without proper news of the demonstrations taking place, the effect of all this will be extremely blunted. The rallies will eventually lose steam, and people will become disengaged once again. We cannot allow this to happen. We need to make every effort to publicize the demonstrations going on and force media to cover it.

I suggest we all start calling and writing into local media sources in order to maximize effect. Demand that stories of the most recent worker struggles (not just in Wisconsin, but in Ohio and Indiana as well) be covered and recieve prominent placement in newspapers and newscasts. Without propaganda, it will all be in vain.

[RED DAVE]

The workers need to do something in order to force the media to cover this.With al due respect, comrade, this is a fantasy. What can we do to force them to be fair towards labor when they have never been fair. That's not their job. Their job is to be unfair.


There apparently has been a near-media blackout on recent news from Wisconsin (with the exception of Fox, which has been overwhelmingly negative).True. Friday night on ABC News, there was no coverage at all but a longish piece on the problem of getting rid of incompetent teachers!


Without proper news of the demonstrations taking place, the effect of all this will be extremely blunted. The rallies will eventually lose steam, and people will become disengaged once again. We cannot allow this to happen. We need to make every effort to publicize the demonstrations going on and force media to cover it.This means developing our own media. The Internet is perfect for this. Last night, as the cops came into the Capitol building to unsuccessfully empty the place, there was a live feed from inside the building courtesy of a prolabor video guy.


I suggest we all start calling and writing into local media sources in order to maximize effect. Demand that stories of the most recent worker struggles (not just in Wisconsin, but in Ohio and Indiana as well) be covered and recieve prominent placement in newspapers and newscasts. Without propaganda, it will all be in vain.Waste of fucking time. Get a camera and learn how to use it for filming, stills, live feed, etc.

RED DAVE

[HalPhilipWalker]

Honestly, Red Dave, you're right. I was really just trying to throw out an idea and that was the first thing that came to mind. But generating our media is a far better idea.

The problem with our own media is then distributing it to a wide audience that will actively consume it. The internet is a limited help to this: how many blogs and webvideos are already out there right now? And how many people are we missing whose main news source comes from TV, radio, or print (I know, print is less of an issue). But just putting news up on the web is not enough, we also have to manufacture an audience.

[Mather]

I hope that those workers start making demands. And the demands have to be simple but holistic. However, Scott Walker is sitting comfortably in his office stating that he is going to cut jobs just because he can't get his union beatdown across. The workers have children that they have to feed. They have rent and other bills to pay. They might have to capitulate out of necessity. I'm not so sure how these protests are working out, but the workers appear to be showing solidarity. They are not standing down, but they can stand strong for only so long. And yet at the same time Scott Walker needs to appease his boss: David Koch. If the corporations aren't happy he might have to reach a deal. Then again the bosses have unlimited wealth virtually and they can afford to lose a few days of work.

If the protests in Wisconsin are to gain momentum and succeed, then they have to spread to the rest of the USA, including all the 'big' states like New York, California, Florida and Michigan.

Apart from Wisconsin and Ohio, is there anything like this starting to develop in other parts of the country?

[Amphictyonis]

We can capitalize on this by driving a wedge between workers and democrats/republicans.

[Fulanito de Tal]

Waste of fucking time. Get a camera and learn how to use it for filming, stills, live feed, etc.RED DAVE

Like Immortal Technique said, "Burn it off the internet and bump it outside!"

[Amphictyonis]

The first is the democrats. I'm sure that many of you have heard of the 14 Dems who are choosing to not vote on the union solidarity breaking bill, and have instead boycotted it. How is the left to address this? I know that the democrats are only looking to expand their poll numbers, but ultimately what position should the left take on this issue. I don't trust them, but up to this point they appear to be helping at the very least by buying the workers some time to protest. And at the same time, Obama won't even show up in Wisconsin to support the workers. Also the Democrats have a vested interest in unions surviving as many of the yellow unions contribute to their campaigns. So in reality my question is: How does the left capitalize on this, and can the left capitalize on this?

My second is the protests themselves. Scott Walker was speaking to his boss about placing in troublemakers and what he thought about it. So ahem... we're the troublemakers. He also stated that there was a problem with it, and that is that the workers might gain confidence that the governor would capitulate. Right now he shows no signs that he is wavering and he has even gotten Tea-Party support, so what would be the advantages and disadvantages to giving these protests a more revolutionary character. I feel as if violent protests would alienate some workers and give Glenn a preaching ground about how the left only wants chaos. But then again, violent protests could further a class identity and bring Walker into a position of compromise.

he real question is did democrats have the votes to stop it. If so why didn't they if not its all just political grandstanding.

[¿Que?]

he real question is did democrats have the votes to stop it. If so why didn't they if not its all just political grandstanding.
That's just it. I don't think they had the votes, obviously or else they wouldn't have jetted. It's not just political grandstanding because so long as the democrats are not there, they can't vote on the bill. So in a way, the Dems are playing nice with the left, if only because it serves their interests against the republicans. Unions are a major source of support for Democrats, and Democrats are helpful to unions too. Remember that court decision that let corporations donate directly to candidates, well they also let unions do that too. So the Dems and the unions in this country both have a vested interest in each other, and are both threatened by this bill. You are right, though, in suggesting that this isn't really about worker's rights at all. I mean, the unions pretty much gave in on every concession. The only question is, in light of this catastrophic capitulation, what really is their purpose. In other words, so they're collectively bargaining people out of their health care and pensions...is this the type of collective bargaining we're trying to protect?

[ckaihatsu]

We can capitalize on this by driving a wedge between workers and democrats/republicans.


The nature of politics is usually such that it's more a matter of what forward direction mass attention and efforts are pointed in, in realtime, rather than *directing* those attentions and efforts in an *aggressive* way against *other* segments of the political spectrum.

So -- if workers' attentions come around in large numbers to support a Wisconsin-wide (and, later, Midwest-wide, etc.) general strike, then the rest of society -- politically minded people -- will have to either "catch up" to that momentum or else they will effectively be sidelined by not orienting themselves to such a movement.

(If this is what you mean by "driving a wedge" then I'm in agreement.)

[Mather]

The real question is did democrats have the votes to stop it. If so why didn't they if not its all just political grandstanding.

The anti-union bill was inevitably passed in the lower chamber where the Republicans have a majority. The Democrats are blocking this bill through the upper chamber (the Seante) and 14 Democrat senators have fled to Illinois to avoid being compelled to attend the Senate in order to pass the bill through the upper chamber thus passing the bill into law. The Democrats do not have the votes to oppose this bill in either chamber of the Wisconsin legislature, but due to Senate protocol, by boycotting the Senate they can delay the passing of this bill.

What motivates the Democrats in all of this is very clear, money. In Wisconsin the local Democrat party is heavily reliant on union donations and support for the Democrats electoral campaigns. If this bill were to pass the unions would be destroyed and the Democrats would find themselves in disarray against their well funded and connected Republican opponents.

However the Democrats are not the central aspect of this struggle. What is promising is the level of anger, developing class consciousness (even if crude and incoherent at times), solidarity and militancy that has not been seen in a way like this for some time in the USA.

[MarxistMan]

My middle name is anger, violence an evil against abuses and oppressions. I don't understand how can people in USA and in other nations be so pacifists against all forms of oppression and pain. Revolutionary violence, is a natural human reaction to all pain. It's like babies who cry when they feel pain caused by hunger in their stomach.

But you know how dumb people, how dumb many progressive liberal reformist leftists of America are, because the role model of many progressive centrist liberal reformists like Green Party and progressive college leftists is Ghandi.

So i can't answer in a right way your question, because of the excess of anti-violence preaching in America, of the anti-anger, anti-rage and anti-fighting preaching in USA. In USA if you have a physical fight with somebody in a supermarket or public place all others around you will crush you, bash you and will label you as an evil criminal. When fighting and getting angry are natural human reaction to pain and stress

.

.


The first is the democrats. I'm sure that many of you have heard of the 14 Dems who are choosing to not vote on the union solidarity breaking bill, and have instead boycotted it. How is the left to address this? I know that the democrats are only looking to expand their poll numbers, but ultimately what position should the left take on this issue. I don't trust them, but up to this point they appear to be helping at the very least by buying the workers some time to protest. And at the same time, Obama won't even show up in Wisconsin to support the workers. Also the Democrats have a vested interest in unions surviving as many of the yellow unions contribute to their campaigns. So in reality my question is: How does the left capitalize on this, and can the left capitalize on this?

My second is the protests themselves. Scott Walker was speaking to his boss about placing in troublemakers and what he thought about it. So ahem... we're the troublemakers. He also stated that there was a problem with it, and that is that the workers might gain confidence that the governor would capitulate. Right now he shows no signs that he is wavering and he has even gotten Tea-Party support, so what would be the advantages and disadvantages to giving these protests a more revolutionary character. I feel as if violent protests would alienate some workers and give Glenn a preaching ground about how the left only wants chaos. But then again, violent protests could further a class identity and bring Walker into a position of compromise.

[Tim Finnegan]

But you know how dumb people, how dumb many progressive liberal reformist leftists of America are, because the role model of many progressive centrist liberal reformists like Green Party and progressive college leftists is Ghandi.
I've never really understood how vanguardists simultaneously lionise the working class while holding them in utter contempt. It would give me a headache...

[ckaihatsu]

I've never really understood how vanguardists simultaneously lionise the working class while holding them in utter contempt. It would give me a headache...


As a vanguardist myself I'll offer that any point in time can be seen as a "fork-in-the-road" between the past and the future -- certainly only the world's working class is capable of its own liberation from capital, but that potential is far from realized in the present day.

You're also exaggerating, for dramatic effect, but your point is well-taken.

[Luís Henrique]

I've never really understood how vanguardists simultaneously lionise the working class while holding them in utter contempt. It would give me a headache...

You would need to read Plato, to understand that the real-world working class is merely a distorted reflex of the Pure Idea of the Working Class. The latter is to be lionised, the former to be held in utter contempt.

What Marx has to do with any of that, well, this is another question.

Luís Henrique