People Before Profit blog

Whither the Socialist Left? Thinking the “Unthinkable”

Wed, 20 Mar 2013 14:54:00 +0000

Published by Portside

March 6, 2013

On February 4, 2010 The Gallop Poll released its latest data on the public’s political attitudes. The headline read: “Socialism Viewed Positively by 36% of Americans.” While the poll did not attempt the daunting task of exploring what a diverse public understood socialism to mean, it nevertheless revealed an unmistakably sympathetic image of a system that had been pilloried for generations by all of capitalism’s dominant instruments of learning and information as well as by its power to suppress and slander socialist ideas and organization.

In sheer numbers, that means a population at the teen-age level and above of tens of millions with a favorable view of socialism.

Why then is the organized socialist movement in the United States so small and so clearly wanting in light of the potential for building its numbers and influence?

That is a crucial question. At every major juncture in the history of the country, radical individuals and organizations in advance of the mainstream have played essential roles in influencing, guiding and consolidating broad currents for social change. In the revolution that birthed this country, radical activists articulated demands from the grass roots for an uncompromising and transforming revolution to crush colonial oppression. Black and white abolitionists fought to make the erasure of slavery the core objective of the Civil War while also linking that struggle to women’s suffrage and trade unionism. A mass Socialist Party in the early 20th century fought for state intervention to combat the ravages of an increasingly exploitative economic system while advancing the vision of a socialist commonwealth. In the Great Depression, the Communist Party and its allies fought the devastations of the crisis – helping to build popular movements to expand democracy, grow industrial unions and defend protections for labor embodied in the historic New Deal.

Small left and socialist organizations in the sixties supported a range of progressive struggles from peace to civil rights to women’s liberation to gay rights and beyond. The limited resources of those groups were effective in galvanizing massive peace demonstrations and in campaigns against racist and sexist oppression.
But the Cold War and McCarthyism had eviscerated any hope for a major influential socialist current. Consequently, no large and impacting force existed to extend to the peace movement a coherent anti-imperial analysis that might have contributed to its continuity and readiness to confront the wars of the nineties and the new century. Nor was there a strong socialist organization to contribute to the civil rights struggle by advocating for reform joined to a commitment to deeper social transformation. Had such a current existed, it might have contributed to building a broad protective barrier against the devastating FBI and local police violence against sectors of the movement like the Black Panthers.

There should be little debate today on the left over the need for a strong socialist voice and movement in light of festering economic stagnation, war on the working class, looming environmental catastrophe, a widening chasm between the super-rich and the rest of us, massive joblessness and incarceration savaging African Americans and other oppressed nationalities, crises in health care, housing and education. Such a strong socialist presence could offer a searching analysis of the present situation, help stimulate a broad public debate on short term solutions and formulate a vision of a socialist future that could begin to reach the minds and hearts of the 36 percent who claim to be sympathetic to that vision.

Back to the question: why is there no large respected socialist organization today? The answer is complex and not readily subject to a consensus. The failures of the first socialist wave in the 20th century, the unrelenting demonization of socialism by the dominant political apparatus, internal sectarian cultures and narrow social composition that inhibit outreach to youth and oppressed nationalities – have all contributed to a weak socialist presence.

Doubtless, some if not all, existing socialist organizations would insist that they are growing, respected and effective. That can be argued, but it is valid to acknowledge that existing socialist groups, to one degree or another, have made and continue to make important contributions to the struggle for a just present and better future. This is especially true of the work of individual socialists in various unions and mass organizations.

However, the small size and inadequate resources or socialist organization nearly fatally inhibit their impact and influence. No matter how hard working and principled, small socialist groups are drowned out by the power and pervasiveness of the dominant tools of information and education. The Internet has opened a
window to reaching mass audiences. But socialist websites (if one is successful in locating them) cannot substitute for the indispensable task of organizational outreach, of human beings making direct contact with other human beings, of physical debate and discussion, of well-orchestrated, highly visible mass actions.

The time has come to work for the convergence of socialist organizations committed to non-sectarian democratic struggle, engagement with mass movements, and open debate in search of effective responses to present crises and to projecting a socialist future.

There are socialist organizations already airing divergent views within their ranks – reflecting positions that overlap with other socialist organizations committed to democratic struggle and socialist education. The Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, the Communist Party USA, Democratic Socialists of America and the Freedom Road Socialist Organization have been meeting to explore areas for cooperation in advancing the fight to defend the needs and interests of all working people. With involvement of their members, and with all who honestly wish a unity project to succeed, those organizations could constitute a starting point for other left and socialist groups and individuals to join as equal participants in building an imaginative, revitalized socialist presence.

A conversation with a veteran socialist historian about merger brought a nearly apoplectic response: that will never happen; too much history of mutual antagonism; too much institutional self-aggrandizement; too much belief within each organization of their ideological and strategic “certainties,” etc.

His bleak assessment may well be valid. One could list even more problems: the comfort of organizational silos, the complexity of sorting out and merging the physical resources of each organization, selecting a conjoined leadership, lingering political and ideological differences.

It can also be argued that a merger of organizations with a combined membership of a few thousand would still not be large or vibrant enough to make an impact on a country of over 300 million; nor would its combined membership include a sufficient component of youth, African Americans, Latinos, Asians, etc., commensurate with the country’s changing demographics.

That perhaps misses a crucial point. While growth and dynamism are not guaranteed, the open-minded and comradely spirit embodied in a merger could excite and inspire thousands of former members of those organizations to join a new, collaborative entity. Many others impressed by a revitalized commitment by socialists to put aside narrow interests and seek common ground could also be moved to join. The simple declaration of unity and amalgamation by old ideological foes will stir an energized, hopeful response on the left.

Among socialist organizations there is a long tradition of opposition to racism, sexism and homophobia; a concrete record of unwavering struggle for racial and gender justice as indispensable to all working class aspirations. With that experience and consciousness a renewed socialist organization with augmented resources would have the potential to speak directly to young people of color, to the jailed and formerly jailed, to a new generation of students, to teen aged youth, to the large numbers who joined the Occupy movement, the unaffiliated leftists and socialists who have joined the rapidly growing Jacobin journal, Labor Notes, the large Left Forums, the Left Labor Project, etc. Whatever its initial form, an alliance of socialists offers the promise of a continuous, enduring framework for democratic struggle, for discussion, for debate, for learning, for growing – all within a stable, political and organizational environment.

With a visible presence for outreach to emerging but undefined left forces, a merged socialist movement could presumably generate the financial resources to hire and train young organizers. With stronger organization derived from convergence, it could tap latent left and socialist sentiment in “red states,” especially the South and Midwest that would reawaken the truly national presence of socialism that characterized the Socialist Party in the early 20th century.

Those augmented resources could open up space for expanded socialist education through debate and discussion, through a combination of new publications and continuing publications of the merged organizations, through classes, think tanks and through utilization of the Internet. The present Online University of the Left is an excellent example of the potential for utilization on a large scale of new technology for socialist education.

Despite the enormous challenges inherent in convergence, there are a number of reasons to anticipate readiness for unified socialist organizing:

First and foremost, the present crisis of world capitalism is systemic. While there will continue to be economic peaks and valleys, the overall prognosis is for enervation and stagnation that will increasingly demonstrate capitalism’s declining ability to provide decent lives for present and future generations.
There is likely agreement among various organizations on the need for a long-range socialist transformation. There is a likely consensus on the validity of Marx’s basic critique of the contradictions inherent in capitalism: increasingly socialized production colliding with private appropriation of the fruits of that production – constituting the key source of the system’s inherent instability. Historically, the relations of production (manifested in social classes) become fetters upon the productive forces (human beings and machinery) – thus requiring the overturning of the old system – socializing the relations of production in order to bring them into harmony with highly socialized productive forces. With globalization of capital that contradiction between social production and private appropriation has itself become global – resulting in the accumulation of unimaginable wealth by a small minority while masses languish in deepening poverty and social misery.
There is likely agreement that both the path to socialism and its essential character are subjects for study, debate and experimentation. There is much to study: the “solidarity economy” posits 21st century socialism with workers’ control of all essential institutions, a market function and imperative ecological concern. There are a growing number of experiments in cooperatives, workers’ self-management, and local public ownership of energy. Other approaches stress confrontation with corporate power through mass struggle for control of state policy – aiming to expand the public sphere while reducing and eventually eliminating corporate control of the economy and society. In sum, a new socialist organization will open avenues to fresh, challenging exploration of social transformation.
There is a likely consensus among socialists that “vanguard” organizations and sectarian “cadre” groups have been negated by the existence of a broadly heterogeneous multiracial working class of women and men. The present-day working class and its allies are too diverse to be led by a single, narrowly conceived political current. A renewed socialist organization must reflect that heterogeneity as well as the determination of members to be full, controlling participants in present struggles and in charting a socialist future. The new organization’s structure would likely be neither fully “vertical” nor fully “horizontal.” In the past the former has often undermined democratic participation and the latter (illustrated by the experience of the Occupy movement) has often led to organizational incoherence and stasis.
There is likely agreement that there should be no preexisting, standard for socialist organizing that mandates a “take it or leave it” rigidity. The door should be open to experimentation in exploring both organizational and theoretical issues. There is also likely agreement for the short-and-medium-term at least that a converged organization should not be formed as party or electoral organization. The electoral issue, a major point of contention on the left, could be a major topic of exploration and debate. There should be no obstacles for those who sincerely wish to join the struggle against the ravages of the system and who seek a socialist alternative. In that regard it is important to note the variety of left and socialist movements around the world worthy of study. Clearly, there is no single “correct” path to 21st century socialism.

Greece, in the midst of existential crisis, has given rise to Syriza, merging a remarkable range of organizations despite sharply different ideological and historical roots into a unified party whose platform rejects austerity, demands the cancellation of Greece’s debt and reform of the European Central Bank. Syriza emerged in 2001 from a group called “Space for Dialogue for the Unity and Common Action of the Left.” In June 2012, Syriza received almost27% of the vote in parliamentary elections, making it the main opposition party and positioning it as the potential future governing party.

In France, a coalition of left and socialist parties has formed a Left-Front coalition that ran a unified campaign in the last national elections. Germany has “Die Linke,” the Left Party formed from a coalition of the successors to the old ruling party in the German Democratic Republic and a militant West German labor organization. An all-European Left Party is a continental formation of an impressive array of left and socialist parties and organizations. Latin America is perhaps the region with the greatest left and socialist experimentation that generally stresses democratic and participatory engagement at the grass roots in building alternatives to capitalism. The Latin American left in particular has advanced some of the most compelling interpretations of Marx’s thinking concerning the crucial issues of ecological preservation and survival. It has also engendered, country-by-country a variety of social experiments based upon distinct national conditions involving various degrees of mixed, transitional economies on the road to socialism.

Speaking only for myself, I would like to see the creation of an entirely new organization. However, a total merger of organizations at this time can justly be viewed as utopian at best and naïve at worst. One must acknowledge the need for a patient process – for ongoing consultation, for gradual building of mutual comfort and mutual confidence, for a possible stage of confederation or alliance. Crucially, joint activities to defeat austerity and the right wing offensive constitute a sound basis at this juncture on the road to convergence. In the long term, the next generation and generations beyond will determine the form and content of the struggle for social transformation based on changed circumstances that cannot now be fully envisioned.

That does not negate the need for “all deliberate speed” in building an advanced, effective political instrument to help forge the linkages between the economic crisis, the environmental crisis and the crisis of militarism and war. That instrument is needed to help provide political depth and interconnectedness to burgeoning movements on the environment, immigration, gun control, women’s rights, the prison-industrial complex, voting rights, student debt, protection of Social Security and Medicare, jobs and union rights, and the struggle against interventionism and the national security state. Above all, the urgency of the deepening crisis of capitalism demands the political will of socialist organizations to take those bold and resolute steps to forming a strong new alliance capable of having a powerful and lasting impact on the struggle for justice, peace and a socialist future.

[Mark Solomon is past national co-chair of the United States Peace Council and the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. He is author of The Cry Was Unity: Communists and African Americans, 1917-1936 and is currently working on a memoir/narrative at the Du Bois Institute at Harvard University on the freedom and peace movements in the 1940s and 1950s.]

Posted by Portside on March 6, 2013

Is full employment possible under capitalism?

Wed, 20 Mar 2013 14:35:00 +0000

Editor's note: The following are remarks given by Communist Party USA chair Sam Webb at a Feb. 25 University of Georgia debate sponsored by Phi Kappa Literary Society. The debate topic was "Is full employment possible under capitalism?" Webb debated Greg Morin from the Libertarian Party of Georgia. See video at end of article.

Billed as "The Debate That Never Happened," UGA's Phi Kappa Literary Society decided to recreate an attempted 1963 debate between CPUSA's Arnold Johnson and UGA economist David Wright. That attempt had been squelched by a unanimous vote of the Faculty Committee on Student Affairs. The society was accused of attempting to "incite riot." In the spirit of free speech, the society hosted this debate during its 50^th anniversary.

Thank you, and thanks to Phi Kappa Literary Society for the invitation to participate in this debate on this beautiful campus and in this historic chapel. Thanks also to Speak Progress.

The debate question - "Is full employment possible under capitalism" - is by no means an academic one.

By last count, approximately 12 million Americans were officially unemployed. Of those, 4.7 million have been jobless for 27 weeks or longer.

If we include in our calculations discouraged workers who have stopped looking, and part-time workers who would prefer full-time work, the number is much higher - roughly 20 million people.

If you are African American, Latino, Native American Indian, and/or young, you are going to be overrepresented in those figures.

Here in Georgia the unemployment rate stands at 8.6 per cent. Without fundamental changes in public policies, it is hard to see how this awful situation will change.

Which prompts the question: Is persistent and high joblessness - not to mention stagnant and falling living standards - U.S. capitalism's "new normal?"

If it were, it would contrast with the world that I grew up in. That era, stretching from the end of World War II to the early 1970s, is sometimes referred to as the "Golden Age" of capitalism.

This phrase doesn't capture the full complexities of that period, but it does capture some of its most salient features, namely, that it was an era of sustained growth, diminishing inequality, and low unemployment - the likes of which we hadn't seen before or since.

My father, for example, who was a lineman in the backwoods of Maine, never experienced a layoff, even a short one, in a work life that began during the Depression and ended in the late 1960s.

At the time, economists thought that the cyclical ups and downs of the economy had been tamed and that full or near-full employment was the normal condition of capitalism, not only here but also in Western Europe and Japan.

But looking back a half-century later, one has to think that this period might well be the exception rather than the rule of capitalist development.

Now it's true that during the Clinton and Bush years rates of unemployment were relatively low and the recessions were relatively mild, but I would add four caveats.

First of all, the expansion of employment during this period took place mainly in low-wage, non-union and service sector jobs. The growth of Walmart into the nation's largest employer is emblematic of this phenomenon.

The second caveat is that under the weight of chronic overproduction in global commodity markets, a new phase of the technological revolution, and the relocation of production to low wage economies, tens of millions of jobs, especially in manufacturing, were permanently lost. Many of these jobs provided livable wages and modest health and retirement benefits to "middle class families."

Another caveat is the Clinton-Bush years were marked by growing income inequality and downward social mobility. The gap between the top income layers of our society - the one per cent - and the vast majority of wage and salary workers grew enormously to an historic high.

A final, and especially damning, caveat is economic growth and employment levels rested on enormous stock, housing, and financial bubbles, massive deregulation of markets, and the production of unending amounts of business and consumer debt.

While providing a lift to an otherwise sluggish economy, this financial frenzy engineered on Wall Street and in Washington and driven by corporate capital's drive for maximum profits wasn't sustainable, and eventually came to an end in an economic crisis, the likes of which we haven't seen since the Great Depression.

To sum up, the Clinton-Bush years are not cracked up to what conventional wisdom would like us to believe.

Since 2008, some pickup in economic activity has occurred, but overall employment gains and economic growth have been fitful and meager.

Moreover, it's hard to see where the economic dynamism and jobs are going to come from without action by the federal government, and the restructuring of the economy on a scale that only a few in Washington are ready to embrace.

After all, debt and bubble-driven growth that greased the wheels of the economy during the Clinton and Bush years is not an option.

Nor should any help be expected from our global partners. Europe is stuck in an economic quagmire and its austerity policies are only making it worse. China isn't positioned to carry the rest of the world on its shoulders. In fact, the Chinese economy's growth has also slowed, and it is feeling the contradictions that come from its deep integration into the capitalist global economy.

Furthermore, the longer-term processes that I mentioned earlier - overproduction in global commodity markets, job-displacing technologies, and global supply lines that fan out to distant lands - will only become more pronounced in the years ahead.

Economic crises are supposed to be how capitalism clears away the debris that impedes a revival of production, profits, employment and growth, but that scenario doesn't appear to be the case today.

So I'm guessing you know how I'm going to answer the question of this debate: is full employment possible under capitalism in today's conditions?

My answer, in case there is any doubt, is NO!

Transnational corporate capitalism, in its endless quest to accumulate capital and wealth, has morphed from a generator of jobs and rising income to a generator of unemployment, inequality, and insecurity.

I would quickly add that there are ways to ameliorate the jobs crisis. But only if the American people bring the power of their numbers and unity to bear on government at all levels, much like Americans did in the 1930s.

In his first four years, President Obama enacted policies that prevented the floor from falling out of the economy - an economy, by the way, that was stalled primarily due to insufficient demand for goods and services.

In his recent State of the Union address, President Obama proposed a higher minimum wage, stronger educational opportunities, rebuilding the deteriorating infrastructure, immigration reform, and investment in green technologies and jobs.

He also resisted calls for sweeping austerity measures from his Republican counterparts, since if enacted, they would reduce aggregate demand and in turn exacerbate the economic and jobs crises.

All of which are welcome.

Nevertheless, the president's package of proposals addresses only the edges of the deep and long-term jobs crisis that faces our country.

Indeed, he missed an opportunity to project a bold, transformative "new jobs" agenda. For the sake of our fragile planet and ourselves, such an agenda would transform our economy from one dominated by Wall Street, Lockheed Martin, Peabody Coal, Exxon and Walmart to a Main Street economy rooted in a green, demilitarized production, clean and renewable energy, livable wages and union protections, publicly-owned banks, public controls over the investment policies of the Fortune 500, affirmative action and equality, the modernization of mass transit, aid for small and medium-sized businesses, renewal of both urban and rural communities, democratic forms of worker ownership, and a progressive tax structure.

This reorientation of our economy would create millions of jobs, raise living standards, promote fairness and equality, and give us a fighting chance of mitigating the worst effects of climate change.

Of course, if I had my druthers, I would prefer socialism - democratic, working people driven, and people not profit centered.

But that debate is for another time.

The Debate That Never Happened from Phi Kappa Literary Society on Vimeo.

Photo: Hundreds of job seekers gather at the Los Angeles Mission for the ninth annual Skid Row Career Fair last month. (AP/Adam Lau)

Hugo Chavez empowered and united

Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:31:00 +0000

The powerful voice of Hugo Chavez - a voice for economic justice, democracy, empowerment, national independence, continental solidarity, peace, anti-imperialism, and socialism - has been stilled.

While local and global elites sigh in relief and belittle his life in the major media, the untimely death of Chavez is also evoking a heartfelt cry from millions of abused, marginalized, and exploited people across the globe - none more so than in Venezuela and throughout Latin America.

In that cry one doesn't hear a note of despair and defeat, but rather an unmistakable affirmation that the irrepressible spirit, intellectual curiosity, and disposition to action that defined this man's life will find reflection in the lives of struggling humanity in the years to come.

The celebrations in the seats of power of the global elite over Chavez's death are very premature. The "masters of the universe" make the mistake of underestimating the consciousness and capacity of people in Venezuela and elsewhere to carry forward Chavez's legacy of challenging entrenched capitalist power and injustice. This misunderstanding is not unusual for a class that is steeped in notions of racial superiority, patriarchy, and class entitlement, and tucked away in bubbles of privilege and opulence.

Few of us leave an individual imprint on history. For most of us, our ability to affect history lies in joining with others in collective action.

But some individuals do play an outsized role shaping historical events - as part of the wider struggles taking place in society.

Hugo Chavez Frias falls into this category.

He was an early and unyielding opponent of neoliberal globalization - a system of political and economic capitalist domination that grew out of the dynamics and contradictions of capitalism in its current stage of development. This system of governance broke up traditional farming in the countryside and forced vast numbers of peasants off the land. It created massive slums rimming South America's major cities, rolled back social provisioning by the state, degraded the environment, generated ever wider inequalities, tore down trade and financial barriers protecting local economies, decimated and de-nationalized industry, and condemned millions to impoverishment and spiritual hopelessness.

Drawing inspiration from Simon Bolivar, Fidel Castro and other revolutionaries of Latin America, Chavez challenged in words and deeds this system of exploitation and oppression.

But his fight was not a lonely one. This great leader of indigenous and African descent (a fact that fueled the hatred of the elites even more) not only gave voice to the impoverished and rootless, but also inspired them to become political actors in their own right. Indeed, Chavez played a singular role in transforming a fragmented mass of people in Venezuela into an organized force challenging the profits and prerogatives of local and global capital.

If we left it here however, we would miss the other side of the dialectic. Chavez, like other great leaders, was as much a product of his times and the people he sought to influence as they were of him. Changing circumstances and an aroused people remade him as much as he remade them.

Chavez was a socialist, and one whose feet were very much in this century. While he was inspired by struggles of the past, he wasn't a prisoner of the received wisdom of earlier times. His socialism - its sensibilities, goals, theory, program, and path - were conditioned by the particular, novel circumstances of the 21st century.

At the core of his worldview and political practice were people's needs, people's empowerment, and people's unity at the national, regional, and global level. His politics grew out of the real movement of people and a sober estimation of the actual balance of class and social forces.

At times, his views raised the eyebrows of those on the left who considered problematic any deviation from what I would call their undialectical and rigid reading of Marxism.

In an interview with Tariq Ali, Chavez said,

"I don't believe in the dogmatic postulates of Marxist revolution. I don't accept that we are living in a period of proletarian revolutions. All that must be revised. Reality is telling us that every day. Are we aiming in Venezuela today for the abolition of private property or a classless society? I don't think so. But if I'm told that because of that reality you can't do anything to help the poor, the people who have made this country rich through their labor - and never forget that some of it was slave labor - then I say: 'We part company.' I will never accept that there can be no redistribution of wealth in society.

"Our upper classes don't even like paying taxes. That's one reason they hate me. We said: 'You must pay your taxes.' I believe it's better to die in battle, rather than hold aloft a very revolutionary and very pure banner, and do nothing ... That position often strikes me as very convenient, a good excuse ... Try and make your revolution, go into combat, advance a little, even if it's only a millimetre, in the right direction, instead of dreaming about utopias."

As you can see, Chavez's theory and practice included intermediate steps and stages of struggle. It embraced the struggle for reforms, even minor ones that would meet in some, even small, ways people's needs, and at the same time act as a matrix for mass political participation, anti-capitalist education, and deeper and broader unity. And it rested on a creative and flexible application of theory to changing reality.

Hugo Chavez will be greatly missed in his home country and worldwide, but the way to honor him isn't to turn him into an icon and his words into sacred texts. We honor Hugo Chavez by embracing his passion and courage, his curiosity about the world, his tireless struggle for unity of diverse forces, his readiness to think independently and develop Marxism in fresh and creative ways, and his belief in the intelligence and power of an engaged people.

Building International Labor Alliances in This Fiercely Competitive Global Economy

Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:05:00 +0000

There is no question that corporations will go global whether or not unions will. Union members realize that jobs, decisions that may shape their lives and bargaining power are increasingly made in the boardrooms of multinational corporations that compete in the global economy. As the result of globalization the labor movement will be forced to organize on a very complex level. One of the most important levels is learning how to interact with others from different backgrounds and cultures. Labor as well as corporate managers/CEO understand that intercultural aspects and perspectives on International trade are now more important than ever in this era of globalization.

The idea that past organizing models or any one influential person can determine decisions in a global environment is not realistic. Organizing theories of the past such as the "industrial-based organizing" model or a sole charismatic leader do not fix the current needs in a global world. A more inclusive and informal understanding of organizing across borders and on international level with a shared social process where union members are influential is a far better perspective.

The union movement comprising rank and file members within the United States remains a widely multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural, multigenerational and a gender-integrated movement, each with some different views of the world. These labor movement trends along with globalization changes are challenging the adaptability of traditional structures and organizing patterns within the labor movement. Labor leaders and the U.S. trade union movement because of globalization are developing a different mindset as they move forward in this era of globalization.

Thus, the ability to organize effectively for labor to combat negative globalization policies means developing strategies between unions here in the United States and unions around the world.

A laid-off steelworker now realizes that foreign imports made by U.S. corporations abroad and exported to the U.S. are due to the fact that it creates more profits. Union members from the Communications of America (CWA), the United Auto Workers (UAW), United Steel Workers (USW) and numerous other unions have seen thousands of good paying jobs move overseas. All this movement of capital resources overseas is due to the constant need to expand markets and find new ways of making more profits. It is in this global environment that the labor movement has made an issue of 'globalization' and the need to participate in developing cross border alliances their major issues.

Unions in the U.S. are aware that multinational corporations, in order to increase their profits, will attempt to restrict Labor's right to organize. They will aggressively push to stop any efforts to negotiate collective labor agreements. The only pro-active response for labor is to organize solidarity efforts between workers of all nations. The question for labor is how to activate and maximize the unity of a very diverse multi-cultural base and continue a fluid coalition in the course of globalization struggles.

In order for labor to remain strong, every union and its leadership must bring an unprecedented range of skills and experience to the union movement mission while assuming leadership responsibility. This includes all aspects of national organizing and global union coalition building. The Trade union movement must create new alliances with other unions, creating global unions, in key industries and key companies if labor is serious about confronting globalization.

One important major challenge for labor is to better prepare union leaders who can effectively create this change and navigate worldwide efforts to build collective coalition union building. One such example of preparing union leaders is the UCLA Labor Center in Los Angeles. Kent Wong, Director of the Labor Center has facilitated exchanges between the United States and Pacific Rim Countries, such as China and Vietnam. Recently the Labor Center participated in a binational US-China conference hosted by the All China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU). Other examples include cross-border organizing between the Unions in the U. S. and Mexico/Latin American countries. The world is rapidly changing and in this global environment such exchanges and information sharing will be critical.

The Union movement has never faced such extreme global movement of finance and corporate restructuring as it must face today. In this world of corporate globalization, multinational corporations have merged, reinvested, refinanced, and restructured their organizations to compete in a new-world market. Unions now face the difficult task of organizing in this competitive global environment, where goods and capital cross borders freely. In addition, Unions must face the reality that the current U.S. trade policies are constantly moving toward in fast track legislation which will give authority to the President to sign trade agreements without any Congressional debate, public input or added amendments.

Needless to say, these trade agreements are developed to make it easier for corporations to have foreign ownership, affecting everything from factories to real estate. In addition, economic reforms that are promised by these trade policies are no guarantee that conditions in these countries will improve. These so-called reforms will restrict labor's influence on wages and workplace environment standards and in the process allow corporate multinationals to maximize profits at the expense of workers. One thing is sure to remain constant during these times is the need for Unions be forward looking. The only question is can the Union movement take past events and current experiences and translate this experience into a dramatic new approach to organizing worldwide?

In summary, it is no secret that the globalization of the economy has led to record high profits for corporations, but also the stagnation of living standards and unprecedented job insecurity for working people. Over the past two decades, American businesses responded to this international competition by outsourcing, shipping jobs to foreign countries, cutting the work force and driving down wages. Today, multinational corporations freely cross national boundaries in search of the cheapest labor possible and the highest profit margins.

The possibilities for continuing cross border alliances and global unionism are increasing on a daily bases. As multinational corporations globalize their operations, unions and their allies will have to continue to develop structures and alliances that will ensure the total workforce is afforded strong representation.

Conclusion

Globalization is a new movement in the development of capitalism. This development is characterized by economic concentration in the hands of multinational corporations. For Unions, this concentration and globalization of capital are the main cause of the worsening unemployment, poverty and social disintegration in the world today. In order for the multinationals to maintain control they must continue to increase their profits, restrict labor's right to organize and negotiate favorable collective labor agreements. In the mean time, multinational corporations will also continue to rely on U.S. trade policies to relax regulations that govern social, environmental and labor conditions.

For now, Unions will need in to continue to provide beyond information sharing by coordinating actions including strikers for worker rights and labor struggles with rank-and-file union members in other countries. U.S. Unions will have to increase signing solidarity agreements and alliances with other countries. In addition, labor needs to build day-to-day ties with global leaders and continue global conferences.

There has been some progress by the union movement recently to influence globalization policies. In one aspect, union leaders are increasingly more educated and informed. Union leaders understand that increasing diversity, advancing technology and globalization require new approaches to organizing.

Today Unions must have the ability to meet global problems that are unanticipated, and focus on developing organizing models that are inactive and one that achieve shared vision, mutual trust and respect for workers around the world.

"International solidarity is not just in our blood in the trade union movement, it's also in our interest. The lessons that we have to learn from the economic catastrophe of the last year are that it's just not safe to leave the globalized economy in the hands of rampant global capitalism. The lesson is that labor has to forge its links of solidarity across the world in steel so that they will not break down when those who try to pit workers of nation against those of all other nations because if we let them, they'll do it." (AFL-CIO)

Finally, in examining 'globalization' the issue is not the expansion of production and trade to the entire world. That seems inevitable. The real issue is that capitalism is the driving force behind this globalization of economic activity. The answer, as we have suggested, as well as many others, is in the solidarity of workers of all nations. The fight is ultimately for the elimination of private ownership in industry, finance and trade and for the enormous wealth that working people everywhere have created to be used for the benefit of working people.

While there are union leaders who practice and promote a progressive leadership there still is a view that there is lack of uniformity among labor unions on how to best develop global unionism to combat against Multinational efforts globalization. However to the union movement's credit they continue to research and use best practice approach to globalize organizing.

Only by building the broadest trade union solidarity and forming strategic global, national and labor-community coalitions will the trade union movement have a chance to stop multinational global campaigns from attempting to destroy the labor movement worldwide.