The Future of Labor and the Global Justice Movement

by Bill Fletcher, Jr.

Good afternoon and let me begin by thanking Sean Sweeney and the staff of Cornell ILR for the invitation to address this conference on the topic of the future of labor and the global justice movement.

Organized labor in the USA has had difficulty interacting with the global justice movement not so much because these are different sectors with different traditions-though that is certainly a factor-but because there is no strategic agreement on the nature of the enemy. While there are many critical remarks I can make about the global justice movement, I would rather focus on the challenges facing organized labor in addressing not simply the global justice movement, but also the issue of global justice as such.

To the credit of organized labor in the USA, beginning with the Seattle WTO demonstrations, greater attention was paid to what can broadly be defined as global justice than had in the past. The specific focus, however, was on trade related issues and their impact on the USA. The growing interest in the global justice movement-by which I mean those forces united in their opposition to neo-liberal globalization-stumbled when the AFL-CIO chose to mount a campaign against China-s inclusion in the WTO. I believe that this campaign was a mistake in many ways, not the least of which is that the focus of the campaign was, by definition, on China being the problem. It is not the principal problem. The problem is the WTO; the trade regime of which it is a part; and the manner in which global capitalism is restructuring itself (and this latter point is actually the essence of what we call "globalization"), an issue with which US organized labor had difficulty grasping. In fact, earlier, in the days leading up to the Seattle demonstrations, the notion of challenging the existence and raison d-etre of the WTO was ridiculed internally within the AFL-CIO by some senior staff people who alleged that since the planet needs a mechanism for regulating trade, the WTO is what is on the table (and therefore, we must reform it). That the WTO was a Clinton-supported project presented apparent difficulties for many union leaders, fearing that open opposition to the WTO would mean undercutting our alleged friend in the White House. Few people wanted to acknowledge that the WTO was as rotten in its essence as raw meat sitting in the hot sun.

At the same time and in a more progressive direction, in 2000 the AFL-CIO and some of its affiliates became increasingly interested in educating their members to some of the issues of global justice. Elements of what had been called the -Common Sense Economics Education Program- (originated in 1997) were utilized in order to create a union member-oriented -global fairness- education effort. There were two problems that emerged: one, as with Common Sense Economics, there was and remains a faltering commitment both within the AFL-CIO and most of its affiliates to develop and fully operationalize a comprehensive educational effort. This is something that haunts the US trade union movement. The trade union movement often confuses education with information provision and does not realize what is necessary if we truly wish to interact with our members on the questions of ideas and analyses.

The second problem was that the conceptualization of global justice and global fairness by the trade union movement was somewhat restricted to concerning ourselves with the activities of multi-national corporations and trade agreements. While this is certainly part of neo-liberal globalization, it is not the whole story. This became much clearer in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks and the response of most of US organized labor to them.

In the wake of 11 September there was a tendency in the US trade union movement to revert to what I would call a World War II paradigm, i.e., to assume that national unity could be built in response to the crisis. There seemed to be the expectation that Bush would change his spots and recognize the importance of workers and unions and refrain from his war of annihilation against trade unions. Things did not work out that way. Instead he chose to wage a war on two fronts, so to speak.

What I believe to be the deeper problem, however, is that the US trade union movement is and has been caught in a ferocious bind. This movement, over the last 120 years, has developed within the context of a capitalist country which has imperial ambitions. Those imperial ambitions have translated into foreign policy adventures, most of which have either been justified by the US government in the name of patriotism, or justified as being in the defense of US lives and property. With certain exceptions, the official trade union movement, as opposed to, let-s say, the Industrial Workers of the World (Wobblies), tended to support US foreign policy almost without question as an expression of what it believed to be its patriotic duty. It also encouraged a disconnect between this foreign policy and the actions and plans of US corporations. Ironically, in some cases the officialdom of organized labor did not disconnect this linkage but saw that linkage as positive.

During the Cold War, support for US foreign policy was again seen as a patriotic step. Yet, with the various actions of the AFL-CIO in particular, but most of organized labor generally, the credibility of US organized labor came to be questioned. To the extent to which the AFL-CIO-and I am using this to reference the officialdom of US organized labor since most unions supported the policies of the institution known as the AFL-CIO-supported or assisted in coups and disruptions, such as British Guiana in 1964, Chile in 1973, and mischief in South Africa during the 1980s, it was seen around the world, not as an expression of the interests of the US working class, but rather an arm of the US state, thus the notion of the AFL-CIA (a reference often heard in the global South when speaking of the -old days-).

So, let me summarize at least part of the problem: organized labor in the USA has refused to acknowledge, or in the worst cases has supported, the imperial ambitions of the USA. This is now all coming home to haunt us, resulting in our inability to distinguish within our ranks and in the broad front against neo-liberal globalization, right-wing populism from progressive sentiment; our movement has a partial and inconsistent response to neo-liberal globalization itself; and we have witnessed a strategic paralysis within organized labor with regard to responding to the specifics of US foreign policy.

Let me specify this a bit more. Our movement has been unable to speak with our members about how to understand the connections between US foreign policy and the growth of the multi-national corporations. It is not just about treaties that Clinton, Bush or anyone else has signed. It is, as well, about wars that have been fought. It is about the steps that the US has taken to clear the ground, as if with a political Daisycutter, of all opposition to neo-liberal globalization.

In order for the union movement to understand the question of global justice, we have to understand the problem of empire, or if you prefer, imperial ambitions. There is simply no way to avoid it, particularly in today-s world. The reason? One, we are living in a world where the corporate/government connections are strengthening, and with them increased repression of progressive and democratic forces in the face of unfolding globalization. In the aftermath of the Cold War, the imperial ambitions of the USA have become more blatant as the US attempts to lead or direct the reorganization of global capitalism. That reorganization is linked not only to trade deals, but also to changes in the production process, wealth polarization on a global scale, and, as noted, repression in order to enforce neo-liberal globalization. It is in that light that we can better understand initiatives such as so-called USAPatriot Act, and other measures which infringe on our civil liberties and basic democratic rights.

Two, there was a period in time when sections of US capital saw in the official US trade union movement a possible partner, or at the least, an irritant that had to be mollified. The US trade union movement was, for instance, useful in opposing left-wing labor movements around the world. After all, it had credentials.

Social peace on the basis of some level of a modus vivendi between capital and organized labor was needed not only in the USA, but also around the world. There were also sections of capital that recognized that trade unions were useful in terms of keeping other sections of capital -honest,- so to speak, that is keeping wages out of capitalist competition.

That day is gone. We should have no illusions about that. We are as useless to capital and the US state as a bicycle is to a fish, to borrow from an old feminist expression.

But, here is the challenge: when one has built a movement on the basis of an incorrect assessment of reality, and based on the provision of incomplete and often inaccurate information to its members and supporters, it becomes problematic to shift gears. How does one do it? How does one explain new alliances, such as with the so-called -Turtles?- How does one explain that those we condemned overseas a decade or more ago, we now must embrace, whereas those we supported have often turned out to be our staunchest opponents? How do we explain the lack of patriotism, for lack of another term, of US capital in abandoning the US worker, and the policies of naked aggression and implied genocide that this same US capital encourages in US foreign policy? How do we reply to the questions that I constantly heard when we delivered the Common Sense Economics education program during the 1990s? Participants would respond very favorably to the train-the-trainers, and the workshops themselves, but they would inevitably ask the following: -Can we get more of this?- That is a great question, and one that an educator always wants to hear. They would also ask: -Why did we not know this before?- The answer to that latter question goes to the heart of the history and culture of organized labor in the USA.

What is needed within US organized labor is an understanding of how other trade union movements (and other social movements more generally) outside of the US understand the workings of US foreign policy and its implications. This is a very difficult discussion because it runs up against the assumptions upon which the US trade union movement has been built. It is an uncomfortable discussion because it additionally challenges the way we think of ourselves and how we think that we are viewed by the outside world. Nevertheless, it is a discussion that must take place otherwise there will be no international solidarity.

The second point is that we must fuse the discussion of global justice-as-anti-multi-national corporation, with global justice as anti-empire, and specifically, with a critical examination of US foreign policy. This will be especially difficult because it forces us to examine the manner in which the conception of patriotism has been manipulated by both capital and political elites in order to advance their unsavory business. It also forces us to examine how we have been played for chumps.

Let-s look, for instance, at the question of Iraq.

We were sold a bill of goods. The allegations of weapons of mass destruction and imminent threats were lies, pure and simple. The desire to invade Iraq dated back at least till 1992, and it has subsequently been revealed that prior to 9/11 planning was underway for an invasion of Iraq. The only thing that was lacking was the pretext. 9/11 was the pretext.

Although the AFL-CIO raised questions about the war, somewhat late in the game, once the war started the AFL-CIO felt compelled to issue a statement supporting the troops, and by implication, supporting the war. Yet, in the manner in which its statement read, the notion of supporting the troops was identified with our patriotic duty, thus, the AFL-CIO fell into the trap that supporting the troops means supporting the war.

For the Bush administration to suggest-and for the US trade union movement to implicitly accept-that those of us who opposed and continue to oppose the war are not supporting the troops is the height of insult. The notion that we should shut our mouths because the troops have been deployed is ludicrous. We who opposed the war support the troops; that-s why we want to have them brought home.

But a trade union activist broke this all down for me shortly before the war actually started. I had been explaining my position on the war and he said, -Bill, look at it this way. If you have a son or daughter who is in a gang and that gang engages in some sort of illegal activity, does your concern about your son or daughter mean that you support the illegal activity? Not at all! Instead, you want your son or daughter out of that illegal activity; out of harm-s way.-

The invasion of Iraq was as illegal as the day is long, and the US military is being used as a gang by the powers-at-be, to borrow from the terminology used by the former Marine Corp general and two time Medal of Honor winner, Smedley Butler. Yet the trade union movement has been all-too-cautious about calling things as they are. Can we look forward to the day when our movement will even entertain a discussion where the opinion you are about to hear-that of General Butler-is verbalized?

Let me quote of few of his words on his own experience and analysis:

– War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. . . .

There isn’t a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.-

Organized labor in the USA has been held in check by the manner in which it has interpreted patriotism and by its failure to critically evaluate US foreign policy. Thus, we have on the one hand the surprise and support that greeted AFL-CIO President John Sweeney at the 2000 ICFTU World Congress in Durban, South Africa with his strong denunciation of neo-liberal globalization, but our inability, on the other hand, to speak with our members about the nature of US foreign policy and the difference between patriotism vs. culpability in a crime.

Is there any hope? The answer is -yes,- but it depends entirely on the willingness and ability of the US trade union movement to cross a line into what has hitherto been a forbidden zone for US trade unionism. This forbidden zone is a political space where the US trade union movement begins to look at the interconnections between multi-national corporations, US capital and US foreign policy. It is a space that begins to question the motives and actions of the US government, and particularly the role of the US government in crushing progressive social movements around the world. It is a space that dares to ask whether there is a role the US trade union movement can play, not simply in being partners with unions in other countries, but where we can be a champion of consistent democracy, both in the USA, as well as globally. Consistent democracy, it should be said, is the real core of a genuine global justice movement. And that global justice movement desperately needs organized labor advancing a program of international solidarity against neo-liberal globalization.

Let me conclude with a word on a word: -solidarity.- I have been recently informed that there are some unions that no longer use this word. They apparently believe that it is antiquated and unrecognized by their members, and, therefore, it should be dropped from trade union lexicon in favor of the word -unity.- While I have no problem with the word -unity,- I believe that expunging the word -solidarity- is a major mistake, and interestingly enough, relates to today-s discussion.
– Solidarity- conveys something akin to -unity- but not necessarily the same thing. -Unity- often assumes a similar context or environment. The beauty of the word and concept of -solidarity- is that it suggests the active bridging of the gap between the unfamiliar. In that sense solidarity is in some respects a step toward a higher level of unity.

Some may think of solidarity as something rhetorical. I believe that the late leader of Mozambique, Samora Machel put it best: "Solidarity is not charity, but mutual aid in pursuit of shared objectives." Shared objectives.

Solidarity is addressing the process of bridging that gap between whatever the unfamiliar may be, whether geography, industry, race, ethnicity, or gender, just to use a few examples. It is a process of building a linkage where one does not currently exist; a linkage tied to a common project or opposition to a common enemy. In that sense I must respectfully disagree with some remarks offered earlier with regard to international unionism. Cross-border solidarity develops when there is mutual respect and there is no sense of one being dominated by outside forces. Solidarity means a coming together of partners-voluntarily-but with shared objectives, as suggested to us by Machel.

Thus, global unionism does not or should not be seen as resulting from the expansion of US-based so-called international unions, but rather through the creation of a new, international partnership.

When thinking about renewed trade unionism and global justice, the concept of solidarity must be at the core.

Thank you.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/billfletcher.htm