It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Monday, March 13, 2023
Futurists predict point where humans, machines become one. But will we see it coming?
Most people are familiar with the deluge of artificial intelligence (AI) apps that seem designed to make us more efficient and creative. We’ve got apps that take text prompts and generate art, and the controversial ChatGPT, which raises serious questions about originality, misinformation and plagiarism.
Despite these concerns, AI is becoming ever more pervasive and intrusive. It’s the latest technology that will irreversibly changeour lives.
The internet and smartphones were other examples. But unlike those technologies, many philosophers and scientists think AI could one day reach (or even go beyond) human-style “thinking.” This possibility, coupled with our increasing dependence on AI, is at the root of a concept in futurism called “technological singularity.”
This term has been around for a while, having been popularized by science fiction writer Vernor Vinge a few decades ago.
Today, the “singularity” refers to a hypothetical point in time at which the development of artificial general intelligence (AGI) – that is, AI with human-level abilities – becomes so advanced that it will irreversibly change human civilization.
It would mark the dawn of our inseparability from machines. From that moment on, we won’t be able to live without them without ceasing to function as human beings. But if the singularity comes, will we even notice it?
Brain implants as the first stage
To understand why this isn’t the stuff of fairy tales, we need only look as far as recent developments in brain-computer interfaces (BCIs). BCIs are a natural beginning to the singularity in the eyes of many futurists, because they meld mind and machine in a way no other technology so far can.
Elon Musk’s company Neuralink is seeking permission from the Food and Drug Administration to begin human trials for its BCI technology. This would involve implanting neural connectors into volunteers’ brains so they can communicate instructions by thinking them.
Neuralink hopes to help paraplegic people walk and blind people see again. But beyond these goals are other ambitions.
Musk has long said he believes brain implants will allow telepathic communication, and lead to the co-evolution of humans and machines. He argues that unless we use such technology to augment our intellects, we risk being wiped out by super-intelligent AI.
Musk is understandably not everyone’s go-to for tech expertise. But he’s not alone in predicting a massive growth in AI’s capabilities. Surveys show AI researchers overwhelmingly agree AI will achieve human-level “thinking” within this century. What they don’t agree on is whether this implies consciousness or not, or whether this necessarily means AI will do us harm once it reaches this level.
Another BCI technology company, Synchron, has created a minimally invasive implant that allowed a patient with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) to send emails and browse the internet using his thoughts.
Synchron chief executive Tom Oxley believes brain implants could ultimately go beyond prosthetic rehabilitation and completely transform how humans communicate. Speaking to a TED audience, he said they may one day allow users to “throw” their emotions so others can feel what they’re feeling, and “the full potential of the brain would then be unlocked.”
Early achievements in BCIs could arguably be considered the first stages of a tumbling towards the postulated singularity, in which human and machine become one. This need not imply machines will become “sentient” or control us. But the integration itself, and our ensuing dependency on it, could change us irrevocably.
It’s also worth mentioning that the start-up funding for Synchron partly came from DARPA, the research and development arm of the US Department of Defense that helped gift the world the internet. It’s probably wise to be concerned about where DARPA places its investment monies.
Would AGI be friend or foe?
According to Ray Kurzweil, a futurist and former Google innovations engineer, humans with AI-augmented minds could be thrown onto the autobahn of evolution – hurtling forward without speed limits.
In his 2012 book How to Create a Mind, Kurzweil theorises the neocortex – the part of the brain thought to be responsible for “higher functions” such as sensory perception, emotion and cognition – is a hierarchical system of pattern recognizers which, if emulated in a machine, could lead to artificial super-intelligence.
He predicts the singularity will be with us by 2045, and thinks it might bring about a world of super-intelligent humans, perhaps even the Nietzschean “Übermensch”: someone who surpasses all worldly constraints to realise their full potential.
But not everyone sees AGI as a good thing. The late, great theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking warned super-intelligent AI could result in the apocalypse. In 2014, Hawking told the BBC: “The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race. […] It would take off on its own and redesign itself at an ever-increasing rate. Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn’t compete, and would be superseded.”
Another idea that relates to the singularity is that of the AI-enabled “hive mind”. Merriam-Webster defines a hive mind as “the collective mental activity expressed in the complex, coordinated behavior of a colony of social insects (such as bees or ants) regarded as comparable to a single mind controlling the behavior of an individual organism.”
A theory has been developed by neuroscientist Giulio Tononi around this phenomenon, called Integrated Information Theory (IIT). It suggests we are all heading toward a merger of all minds and all data.
Philosopher Philip Goff does a good job of explaining the implications of Tononi’s concept in his book Galileo’s Error: “IIT predicts that if the growth of internet-based connectivity ever resulted in the amount of integrated information in society surpassing the amount of integrated information in a human brain, then not only would society become conscious but human brains would be ‘absorbed’ into that higher form of consciousness. Brains would cease to be conscious in their own right and would instead become mere cogs in the mega-conscious entity that is the society including its internet-based connectivity.”
It’s worth noting there’s little evidence such a thing could ever come to fruition. But the theory raises important ideas about not only the rapid acceleration of technology (not to mention how quantum computing might propel this) – but about the nature of consciousness itself.
Hypothetically, if a hive mind were to emerge, one could imagine it would mark the end of individuality and the institutions that rely on it, including democracy.
The final frontier is between our ears
Recently OpenAI (the company that developed ChatGPT) released a blog post reaffirming its commitment to achieving AGI. Others will doubtless follow.
Our lives are becoming algorithmically driven in ways we often can’t discern, and therefore can’t avoid. Many features of a technological singularity promise amazing enhancements to our lives, but it’s a worry these AIs are the products of private industry.
They are virtually unregulated, and largely at the whims of impulsive “technopreneurs” with more money than than most of us combined. Regardless of whether we consider them crazy, naïve, or visionaries, we have a right to know their plans (and be able to rebut them).
If the past few decades are anything to go by, where new technologies are concerned, all of us will be affected.
Source: Other News Trade union building facing Maidan square is burning into flames.
Clashes in Ukraine, Kyiv. Events of February 20, 2014.
We are not at the 1-year anniversary of the war, as the Western governments and media claim. This is the 9-year anniversary of the war. And that makes a big difference.
The war began with the violent overthrow of Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, a coup that was overtly and covertly backed by the United States government (see also here). From 2008 onward, the United States pushed NATO enlargement to Ukraine and Georgia. The 2014 coup of Yanukovych was in the service of NATO expansion.
We must keep this relentless drive towards NATO expansion in context. The US and Germany explicitly and repeatedly promised Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not enlarge “one inch eastward” after Gorbachev disbanded the Soviet military alliance known as the Warsaw Pact. The entire premise of NATO enlargement was a violation of agreements reached with Soviet Union, and therefore with the continuation state of Russia.
The neocons have pushed NATO enlargement because they seek to surround Russia in the Black Sea region, akin to the aims of Britain and France in the Crimean War (1853-56). US strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski described Ukraine as the “geographical pivot” of Eurasia. If the US could surround Russia in the Black Sea region, and incorporate Ukraine into the US military alliance, Russia’s ability to project power in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Middle East, and globally would disappear, or so goes the theory.
Of course, Russia saw this not only as a general threat, but as a specific threat of putting advanced armaments right up to Russia’s border. This was especially ominous after the US unilaterally abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, which according to Russia posed a direct threat to Russian national security.
During his presidency (2010-2014), Yanukovych sought military neutrality, precisely to avoid a civil war or proxy war in Ukraine. This was a very wise and prudent choice for Ukraine, but it stood in the way of the U.S. neoconservative obsession with NATO enlargement. When protests broke out against Yanukovych at the end of 2013 upon the delay of the signing of an accession roadmap with the EU, the United States took the opportunity to escalate the protests into a coup, which culminated in Yanukovych’s overthrow in February 2014.
The US meddled relentlessly and covertly in the protests, urging them onward even as right-wing Ukrainian nationalist paramilitaries entered the scene. US NGO spent vast sums to finance the protests and the eventual overthrow. This NGO financing has never come to light.
Three people intimately involved in the US effort to overthrow Yanukovych were Victoria Nuland, then the Assistant Secretary of State, now Under-Secretary of State; Jack Sullivan, then the security advisor to VP Joe Biden, and now the US National Security Advisor to President Biden; and VP Biden, now President. Nuland was famously caught on the phone with the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, planning the next government in Ukraine, and without allowing any second thoughts by the Europeans (“Fuck the EU,” in Nuland’s crude phrase caught on tape).
The intercepted conversation reveals the depth of the Biden-Nuland-Sullivan planning. Nuland says, “So on that piece Geoff, when I wrote the note Sullivan’s come back to me VFR [direct to me], saying you need Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the deets [details] to stick. So, Biden’s willing.”
US Film director Oliver Stone helps us to understand the US involvement in the coup in his 2016 documentary movie, Ukraine on Fire. I urge all people to watch it, and to learn what a US-regime change operation looks like. I also urge all people to read the powerful academic studies by Prof. Ivan Katchanovski of the University of Ottawa (for example, here and here), who has laboriously reviewed all of the evidence of the Maidan and found that most of the violence and killing originated not from Yanukovych’s security detail, as alleged, but from the coup leaders themselves, who fired into the crowds, killing both policemen and demonstrators.
These truths remain obscured by US secrecy and European obsequiousness to US power. A US-orchestrated coup occurred in the heart of Europe, and no European leader dared to speak the truth. Brutal consequences have followed, but still no European leader honestly tells the facts.
The coup was the start of the war nine years ago. An extra-constitutional, right-wing, anti-Russian and ultra-nationalist government came to power in Kiev. After the coup, Russia quickly retook Crimea following a quick referendum, and war broke out in the Donbass as Russians in the Ukraine army switched sides to opposed the post-coup government in Kiev.
NATO almost immediately began to pour in billions of dollars of weaponry to Ukraine. And the war escalated. The Minsk-1 and Minsk-2 peace agreements, in which France and Germany were to be co-guarantors, did not function, first, because the nationalist Ukrainian government in Kiev refused to implement them, and second, because Germany and France did not press for their implementation, as recently admitted by former Chancellor Angela Merkel.
At the end of 2021, President Putin made very clear that the three red lines for Russia were: (1) NATO enlargement to Ukraine as unacceptable; (2) Russia would maintain control of Crimea; and (3) the war in the Donbass needed to be settled by implementation of Minsk-2. The Biden White House refused to negotiate on the issue of NATO enlargement.
The Russian invasion tragically and wrongly took place in February 2022, eight years after the Yanukovych coup. The United States has poured in tens of billions of dollars of armaments and budget support since then, doubling down on the US attempt to expand its military alliance into Ukraine and Georgia. The deaths and destruction in this escalating battlefield are horrific.
In March 2022, Ukraine said that it would negotiate on the basis of neutrality. The war indeed seemed close to an end. Positive statements were made by both Ukrainian and Russian officials, as well as the Turkish mediators. We now know from former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett that the United States blocked those negotiations, instead favoring an escalation of war to “weaken Russia.”
In September 2022, the Nord Stream pipelines were blown up. The overwhelming evidence at this date is that the United States led that destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines. Seymour Hersh’s account is highly credible and has not been refuted on a single major point (though it has been heatedly denied by the US Government). It points to the Biden-Nuland-Sullivan team as leading the Nord Stream destruction.
We are on a path of dire escalation and lies or silence in much of the mainstream US and European media. The entire narrative that this is the first anniversary of war is a falsehood that hides the reasons of this war and the way to end it. This is a war that began because of the reckless US neoconservative push for NATO enlargement, followed by the US neoconservative participation in the 2014 regime-change operation. Since then, there has been massive escalation of armaments, death, and destruction.
This is a war that needs to stop before it engulfs all of us in nuclear Armageddon. I praise the peace movement for its valiant efforts, especially in the face of brazen lies and propaganda by the US Government and craven silence by the European governments, which act as wholly subservient to the US neoconservatives.
We must speak truth. Both sides have lied and cheated and committed violence. Both sides need to back off. NATO must stop the attempt to enlarge to Ukraine and to Georgia. Russia must withdraw from Ukraine. We must listen to the red lines of both sides so that the world will survive.
February 26, 2023
China’s Middle East Deal: Iran & Saudi Arabia Reestablish Relations as U.S. Watches from Sidelines
Iran and Saudi Arabia have agreed to reestablish diplomatic relations after seven years and reopen their respective embassies within months, in a deal brokered Friday by China and signed in Beijing. The rapprochement between the two rivals is the latest sign of China’s growing presence in world affairs and waning U.S. influence in the Middle East amid a shift in focus to Ukraine and the Pacific region.
“If we have a more stable Middle East, even if it’s mediated by the Chinese, that ultimately is good for the United States, as well,” says author and analyst Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. He adds that the U.S. focus in the Middle East is mainly on helping Israel normalize relations with Arab states while “all of the pressure is taken off of Israel to end its occupation” of Palestinian territory.
Transcript This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We begin today’s show looking at a new agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia to reestablish diplomatic relations after a seven-year rift. The deal was reached after four days of secret talks in Beijing in a sign of China’s growing diplomatic power in the Middle East. As part of the deal, Iran and Saudi Arabia have agreed to reopen their embassies within two months. China’s top diplomat, Wang Yi, called the agreement a victory for peace.
WANG YI: [translated] I think this is a victory for dialogue, a victory for peace, offering significant good news for today’s turbulent world.
AMY GOODMAN: U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres praised the deal, saying, quote, “Good neighborly relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia are essential for the stability of the Gulf region.”
The response in Washington was more muted. White House National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said the Biden administration supports any effort to deescalate tensions in the region, but he questioned if Iran is going to, quote, “meet their obligations.”
Ali Shamkhani, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, spoke Friday in Beijing.
ALI SHAMKHANI: [translated] At the end of the talks, we reached a conclusion, to start a new chapter after seven years of breaking off relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Saudi Arabia, while considering the matters of the two countries and the security and future of the region, to prevent meddling from extraregional and Western states and consistent meddling of the Zionist regime in the region. … We hope that this new chapter will compensate for the stagnation of relations that took place these last seven years, and also leads to stability and security in the region, as well as the development and welfare of all its peoples.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined right now by Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, author of several books, including Losing an Enemy: Obama, Iran, and the Triumph of Diplomacy.
Trita, welcome back to Democracy Now! Start off by your response to this thawing of relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and where it took place, these secret talks in Beijing.
TRITA PARSI: [inaudible] really significant development in the region, not only because the Saudis and the Iranians have come to terms on their normalization, which hopefully will be used to reduce their tensions and, as a result, bring down tensions in other countries in which the Saudis and the Iranians are fighting each other, but also because of the fact that China stepped in and brought this deal over the goal line. It had already been prepared for more than two years by the Iraqis and the Omanis, but they had not managed to get it over the goal line the Chinese did. This is a major development, because China has so far not shown any interest or ability to be able to play that type of a diplomatic role in the region. Now it has. It has been successful, and it is sending shockwaves throughout the region and beyond.
AMY GOODMAN: So, talk about the role of China in negotiating the secret deal, or at least the secret talks, not secret deal anymore.
TRITA PARSI: Well, the Chinese were able to play this role for a couple of very simple reasons. First of all, they actually have excellent relations with both the Iranians and the Saudis. Unlike the United States, the Chinese have retained a neutral position on their conflicts. They worked very hard and with great discipline to not get themselves entangled into the conflicts that the various regional powers have with each other, and, as a result, have been in this position to be able to play this role.
It’s also noteworthy that China had this diplomatic influence without having a single military base in the region, without being the main arms provider of any of these countries or without providing any security guarantees to any of these countries, which is usually the American model for mediation, which we’re seeing less and less of.
If this, then, now means that the Chinese are going to play a greater role beyond this issue, then that would, without a doubt, be a very, very important development. And there are signs that that is the Chinese ambition. It is not just a normalization deal. The Chinese want to hold a summit between Iran and the GCC countries, or the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, in Beijing later this year. This could be the first steps towards a fundamental, different security architecture in the region.
AMY GOODMAN: President Biden was asked about the deal on Friday as he was leaving a press briefing.
REPORTER: What are your thoughts on Saudi Arabia and Iran reestablishing diplomatic relations, sir?
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: The better the relations between Israel and their Arab neighbors, the better for everybody.
AMY GOODMAN: National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby also commented on the deal in an interview with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press.
JOHN KIRBY: Anything that can bring tensions down in the region is welcome, Chuck. And if this can help us end that war in Yemen, if it can help the Saudi people feel more comfortable, that they’re not going to be attacked from the Houthi rebels that are supported by Iran, then we welcome that. … It remains to be seen how sustainable this is going to be. We’ve seen Iran enter into agreements before, make commitments that they actually don’t follow through on. We actually hope they do. We hope this does work to deescalate tensions.
CHUCK TODD: Do you think you’re going to close this deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia? And do you think this deal with Iran makes it harder or easier for the Israelis to do that?
JOHN KIRBY: We certainly want to see Israel more integrated into the Middle East. We support the Abraham Accords, Chuck, and we want to see that integration continue. One of the reasons why the president went to the Middle East last summer was to help move that process along. You saw just recently Oman opened up their airspace to flights to and from Israel. That’s an outgrowth of that trip that the president made. Of course, we got the Red Sea islands deal done. So, we’ve made a lot of progress on that. We want to see that integration deepen and broaden. Now, whether or not this Iran-Saudi Arabia deal, how that affects that, I think, remains to be seen. But it doesn’t change our focus on trying to see Israel more integrated into the region.
AMY GOODMAN: Your response, Trita Parsi, to all that, both what John Kirby said and President Biden?
TRITA PARSI: I’m not sure if the president heard the question right, because answering about the U.S.’s effort on the Abraham Accords and Israel’s integration in response to that question, obviously, seems to suggest a dismissive notion. But as we saw John say on TV later on, the U.S. welcomes this development because it ultimately can bring down tensions in the region. And I think that is truly an important point, because even though there’s a lot of nervousness right now in Washington about China stepping in to the diplomatic vacuum that the United States itself has left by disabling itself from being able to play the role of a mediator in many of these different conflicts, the reality nevertheless is that if we have a more stable Middle East, even if it’s mediated by the Chinese, that ultimately is good for the United States, as well.
The U.S.’s focus has almost singularly been on the Abraham Accord. And the Abraham Accord does bring about better relations between some of the GCC states and Saudi Arabia — and Israel, but does absolutely nothing to bring about a resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which is the actual real problem that needs to be resolved. It signals that the United States has essentially moved beyond even having the ambition to be able to help. And that would be one thing, but reality is that the Abraham Accord actually is helping cement that conflict and making sure that it cannot make any progress, because all of the pressure is taken off of Israel to end its occupation of the Palestinian territories, by moving forward on normalization with other countries. So, the incentives for the Israelis to move in the direction which actually would resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is removed by the Abraham Accord. And for what? For, you know, direct flights between various countries, etc. It seems to me a very odd trade-off. And it’s, again, part of the reason why I think more and more countries are no longer looking towards Washington to help resolve some of these disputes, but potentially now we’re going to see a trend in which the eyes are going to be turned towards Beijing.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the Iran-GCC summit that’s going to be held in China, scheduled for China later this year, the significance of the meeting being held there? What are the key issues expected? And also, China’s role as, well, major trader with both countries — that’s T-R-A-D-E-R — but the biggest consumer of Gulf oil, the largest purchaser of Iran’s oil?
TRITA PARSI: Well, again, we have to be very clear. This is what the Chinese are proposing. We don’t know yet if the Iranians and the GCC states all have accepted. I suspect they will. We don’t know how ambitious the agenda is going to be. So, there’s a lot of unknowns. But the mere fact that it’s been suggested, the mere fact that there’s a high likelihood that these countries will accept, is, in and of itself, very significant.
The Persian Gulf is one of the few areas in the world that does not have any security architecture at all. And to have China step in and move towards building something along those lines is going to be a very significant development, particularly if it does not bring about arms sales, does not bring about security guarantees, but is actually helping the region build its own security architecture and be its own guarantors of that. That would be a very different approach from what we’ve seen so far. It would fill a vacuum that can bring about far greater stability in the region.
And from the Chinese perspective, the key reason why this is important to them is because they are in dire need of the energy in the Persian Gulf. And they need stability in the Persian Gulf. It is also important for them, it appears, that as U.S.-China tensions are increasing, and the United States is increasingly moving towards trying to contain China, by China playing this type of a diplomatic role elsewhere in the world and showing itself to be constructive, perhaps indispensable, that will make it all the more difficult for the United States to contain China.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Talk about how this decision and the deal has been received in South Asia, in the Middle East.
TRITA PARSI: Well, throughout the Middle East, it’s been welcome from countries such as Lebanon to Yemen to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, of course, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain. The only country that really has stood out in opposition to this has been Israel in the region. And we’ve seen statements by Yair Lapid, for instance, the opposition leader, who blames this on Netanyahu, calls this a very dangerous development, and others. And I think this is because of their fear that this normalization between Iran and Saudi Arabia will now mean that the Saudis will be far less interested or drive a harder bargain for it to normalize relations with Israel and join the Abraham Accord. The issue, though, is that this doesn’t need to be an either/or. Saudi Arabia can have normal relations with Iran and later on also move towards normalizing relations with Israel.
What is the main obstacle there, I think, ultimately, is that unless the Israelis move towards a real peace and a two-state solution, it will always be a difficult position and decision for the Saudis to move towards normalization. Polls have shown that even though the Saudi population are open to having trade with Israel, they’re not open to normalization unless there is a two-state solution and a Palestinian state. And this is not a minor issue for the Saudi population. This is not a public transportation issue. This is an issue that carries a tremendous amount of emotional potential. So, even though I think the Saudi crown prince is eager to normalize and has been indicating that, this is an issue that he has to be very careful about, because having the Saudi population completely be against it will be a problem for him if he goes forward without any movement on the Israeli side towards peace.
AMY GOODMAN: And what does this mean for Yemen, Trita?
TRITA PARSI: Well, that’s where I think the hopes are high, that as a result of Saudi Arabia and Iran normalizing, agreeing to not interfere in each other’s internal affairs, which from the Saudi perspective means that the Iranians stop supporting the Houthis, and that it will bring pressure onto the Houthis, that there will be a higher likelihood now that the truce that is in place — has expired but is still abided by, largely, by both sides — will now be able to be extended and potentially move towards a more permanent settlement between the two sides. Whether the Iranians have that influence over the Houthis or not remains to be seen. I think it’s largely been exaggerated. So now the Iranians need to deliver on that front. But people I’ve spoken to are very hopeful about this, because even though the conflict in Yemen has its internal roots, it has been fueled significantly by the complication and rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
AMY GOODMAN: And finally, what do you think this means, China negotiating this deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia? Could China play a similar role between Russia and Ukraine?
TRITA PARSI: Well, it’s very interesting that you mention that, because the Chinese, of course, first, a couple of weeks ago, launched this idea of them mediating between Russia and Ukraine, and it was not perceived particularly well in the West. Even before it came out, the proposal was essentially poopooed. And then, when it came out, it didn’t appear to contain that much.
Reality is that I think down the road the Chinese very well could play that role, because they do have leverage over Russia, which is something the United States does not in the same way. Again, we’re talking about a conflict in which the U.S. is clearly on one side. The Chinese, from the U.S. perspective, are on the Russian side because they have not taken the Ukrainian side, but I don’t think that’s necessarily the Russian view.
More than anything else, I think what’s important here to realize, we are now in a multipolar world. And in that multipolar world, powers such as China — down the road, India — are going to play a more important role, perhaps a leading role, when it comes to diplomacy and conflict resolution. Our approach from the American side, I think, should be to flexibly adjust to this and welcome the positives that come with that, rather than seeing that as a negative and dangerous development, that it would be a threat to us. I think the threat would come if we continue to pursue approach, particularly in the Middle East, in which we’re constantly taking sides and, as a result, become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. If the new normal is that other countries look towards China for peacemaking and America for warmaking, that would be a threat. But it doesn’t have to be that way. It’s in our hands to be able to change that.
AMY GOODMAN: Trita Parsi, we want to thank you for being with us, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and author of a number of books, including Losing an Enemy: Obama, Iran, and the Triumph of Diplomacy.
Kshama Sawant’s New ‘Workers Strike Back’ Coalition Will Fight for $25 Minimum Wage And More
Socialist Seattle City Council member Kshama Sawant is launching a national coalition called Workers Strike Back to fight for wages, universal healthcare, LGBTQ rights, a clean energy transition, and more.
After a decade on Seattle City Council, socialist Kshama Sawant is declining to seek reelection and will instead launch a new national coalition called Workers Strike Back this March in cities around the US. The goal of Workers Strike Back is to build an independent workers’ movement that fights for the interests of the working class, rather than the agenda of either corporate party. This coalition will organize for a $ 25 an hour minimum wage, build grassroots labor unions, fight for a clean energy transition, battle anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ legislation, and more. Kshama Sawant joins The Chris Hedges Report to discuss the launch of Workers Strike Back. Kshama Sawant has spent 10 years on the Seattle City Council, during which time she accepted only workers’ wages, increased the minimum wage to $15, and fought to increase taxes on Amazon. Sawant is a member of Socialist Alternative.
TRANSCRIPT
Chris Hedges: Kshama Sawant, a socialist who served for over a decade on the Seattle City Council, has announced she will not seek reelection. Instead, she will launch a national coalition called Workers Strike Back this March in cities around the country. This coalition will organize for a $25 an hour minimum wage, build grassroots labor unions in corporations such as Amazon, and advocate for a shorter work week without a cut in benefits and pay. It will also employ strikes when its demands are not met. It will work to build a massive green jobs program that can employ millions of workers in clean energy and prevent climate catastrophe, along with public ownership of the big energy corporations.
“Only the bosses profit from divisions among the working class,” she notes. Workers Strike Back will be a united, multi-racial, multi-gendered movement of working people. It will battle anti-trans legislation, and stand against all right-wing attacks on LGBTQ+ people. It will organize to win legal, safe, free abortions for all who need them. It will campaign to end racist policing, putting police under the control of democratically elected community boards with full power over department policy, hiring, and firing.
Her new labor organization calls for rent control, with no rent increases above inflation, as well as a massive expansion of publicly owned, high quality affordable housing, by taxing the rich. “We’re dying from unaffordable healthcare,” she notes, “As the pharma bosses and for-profit health insurance industry makes money from our sicknesses.” She and Workers Strike Back will call for free, state of the art Medicare for all, owned and democratically run by working people.
“The Democrats and Republicans both answer to the billionaire class. That’s why working people,” she writes, “keep getting screwed. Even so-called progressives in Congress,” she notes, “have completely failed to fight against the establishment, and offer no solutions.” The elected leadership of Workers Strike Back will accept only the average worker’s wage, as she did when she was a member of the city council.
Sawant, in her decade as a member of the Seattle City Council, has had an impressive track record. She helped win a $15 minimum wage for Seattle workers, pushed the council to tax Amazon, and championed renter protection as the chair of the Renters and Sustainability Committee. She joined the Socialist Alternative Party in 2006, and since then has helped organize demonstrations for marriage equality, participated in the movement to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and was involved in the Occupy movement. She’s an active member in the American Federation of Teachers Local 1789, fighting against budget cuts and tuition hikes.
Joining me to discuss the launch of Workers Strike Back is Kshama Sawant. So let’s begin with your tenure at the city council. I listed some of the achievements you and Socialist Alternative managed against fierce opposition, including a recall attempt to remove you from the council. What you managed to achieve. Why this break with local politics? Why this shift?
Kshama Sawant: As you recounted yourself, Chris, we have, in the near decade that I’ve been on the City Council, we meaning Socialist Alternative and I, have demonstrated a phenomenal example of what can be achieved when you have an elected representative in office that is unflinchingly tied to building movements of working people, and the marginalized, and the oppressed, and understands that, as a representative of working people, your job is not to make deals with the Democratic or Republican establishments. Not to make friends with your supposed colleagues in the halls of power. But instead, your loyalty lies with the people who suffer under the system of capitalism and through the policies of the parties of big business.
We have won numerous victories, as you were also talking about. We feel that, at this point, after a decade on the city council, it is important for us to share the lessons of how we won this, and what it took to win these, what it took to overcome the dogged opposition of the ruling class, of the wealthy, of corporate landlords, of billionaires like Jeff Bezos. To take this message of a fighting strategy. How to build fighting movements to win victories for working people. We believe that it’s time to take this message national.
As you also importantly noted, we don’t have this kind of fighting politics virtually anywhere in the United States, and it’s unfortunate. Especially what’s striking is the absence of any fighting left politics in the US Congress. That’s happening in the midst of an historic cost of living crisis. Many young people have only known economic insecurity, and low wages, unaffordable housing that gets more unaffordable every time the landlord jacks up rent. The statistics are just damning. To see how the bottom has fallen from under working people’s lives.
Throughout the pandemic and its aftermath, working people have lost trillions of dollars worth of what was with them. Not only in terms of the recessionary effects of loss of jobs, but the overall cost that they’re going to pay. But it’s not happening in a neutral world. At the same time, billionaires have added trillions of dollars to their fortunes during that same period of the pandemic.
So it really reveals how capitalism is a zero sum game. The wealthy are becoming wealthier, not because they have high IQs or because they’re creative, but because they’re siphoning off wealth from the vast majority of workers. Workers, that’s why, are falling further and further behind. This has resulted in huge anger among workers.
At the same time, what is conspicuously missing by its absence is genuine left leadership, as I was saying before, and as you were saying as well. That’s why we are launching this nationwide movement, Workers Strike Back. Really it should be the labor leadership, leadership of the labor movement, that’s launching this, just like Enough Is Enough in the UK. However, that’s not happened, and we can’t hold our breath that they’re going to do it. That’s why Workers Strike Back is being launched.
As you correctly said, we are raising the demands of a real raise for workers, like $25 an hour. Good union jobs for all. We are also continuing to fight racism, sexism, and all oppression. Again, as you said, free healthcare for all, and quality affordable housing. Bottom line, this is very important, if we are to build a real force on the left for the working class whose leadership does not sell out, we need a new party for the working class where the rank and file of the party can hold its leadership accountable.
Chris Hedges: Is the idea to build a militant labor movement, and out of that build a political party?
Kshama Sawant: I think that that has to… I don’t know if we can lay out a blueprint schematic of the chronology of how it will happen. But absolutely, what you’re indicating is very true, which is that the two things are going to go together. In other words, we are not going to get a new party of a working class outside of building rank and file militancy in the labor movement as well. Those two things are going to go hand in hand.
At the same time, it’s not only about the labor movement as it is today. Because we also have to remember that the vast majority of young people, young workers, where there’s the strongest support for the politics we are bringing forward, most of them are not unionized. Workers Strike Back understands that. We obviously want to specifically and consciously orient towards the rank and file today, who are already within the labor movement. But at the same time, also begin helping to mobilize and organize the unorganized.
You mentioned Amazon. Absolutely, Amazon is a crucial, crucial battle. Right now, actually, Socialist Alternative, my organization, and also Workers Strike Back, the national movement we are launching, we’re already in solidarity with a campaign that Socialist Alternative is leading in Kentucky. The largest Air Hub of Amazon in the world, which is located in Kentucky near Cincinnati Airport, we are carrying out a union drive there. This is extremely important, because this is one of the choke points of the capitalist class. So all of this has to go hand in hand with building the efforts to build a new party.
One other thing I’ll add here is, and then the reason also why these two things are so deeply interconnected, is that one of the key obstacles to building a new party for the working class, to actually have fighting politics that represent the interests of the working class, as opposed to those of the billionaires, is that the majority of the labor leadership has been, and continues to be, tied at the hip to the Democratic establishment. That is not coincidentally existing on its own. That goes hand in hand with the primary strategy of the same labor leadership being business unionism, which is trying to make peace with the bosses.
Trying to make peace with the bosses goes hand in hand with trying to keep the peace with the Democratic and Republican establishment as well. So we need a real break from all of this towards rank and file militancy, whether it’s unionized or not.
Chris Hedges: When you look at the rise of the Swedish socialist state, which the capitalist class managed finally to dismantle, but it was built through strikes. A series of strikes. Very high, I think over 70% of the Swedish workforce was unionized. They used that power to paralyze the country and get what they wanted. I’m looking at your movement, essentially, as embracing that tactic. That understanding that the only real weapon we have is no longer at the ballot box, with the two-party corporate duopoly, which blocks – I worked for Nader, as you know – Blocks any attempt by third parties to build a viable movement. But by mobilizing the working class to cripple the billionaire class through strikes. Is that essentially where you would like us to go?
Kshama Sawant: Absolutely correct. I could not agree more with what you said. In fact, for Workers Strike Back and for building any kind of movement towards concrete victories for the working class, for any of that agenda, using the working class weapon of going on strike has to be an integral component. Without that, it’s not going to work. In fact, this very much goes into the heart of the problem with business unionism as well, and why these ideas are ultimately not only problematic, but actually rotten, in the sense that they negate a very basic reality under capitalism, which is that the interests of the billionaire class, the bosses, the major shareholders, the corporate executives, their interests are diametrically opposed to the interests of workers.
So when you have a majority of labor leadership that is married to the idea of business unionism, then you have a leadership that, for the most part, they consciously refuse to mobilize, activate their rank and file members, because the whole idea of business unionism is that the tops of the labor leadership will quietly negotiate contracts with the bosses. Unfortunately, we’ve seen the history. Often these are filled with defeats for workers, setbacks for workers, rather than what we feel should be class struggle unionism, which is actively organizing the rank and file. Not only organizing them in general, but organizing for powerful and successful strike actions.
Because class struggle unionism recognizes that the bosses will never concede anything unless they’re forced to, because their profits and their position of power and the system of capitalism itself, all of this is directly derived from underpaying workers. From stealing the value of the labor that workers produce.
One of the hallmarks of business unionism is preventing strike actions at all costs. Business unionists put their stress on the so-called bargaining process because they fear antagonizing management by any real mobilization of workers, much less going on strike. In fact, often what you see is the majority of the labor leadership even refusing to carry out militant protest actions, much less go on strike. In fact, not only is it going to be important in general, going on strike. But already, as The Guardian newspaper reported just this past Sunday, that the bosses at corporations like Amazon, it’s not like they’re asleep at the wheel. They know the anger in society. They know that unionizing drives are starting to pick up. They know that young workers are especially angry. So what they are doing is they’re beginning to counter all of that with fierce, old school anti-union or union busting measures.
So how will we push back against any of this successfully? It will not happen through business unionist strategy. It will require a class struggle approach, which is, as I said, rooted in the recognition that workers have to fight against the capitalist class’s interests, not engage in the futile idea of wanting to morally persuade the boss, because they’re not going to be persuaded.
The reason we want the Amazon tax, or the $15 minimum wage, or the series of renters’ rights that we want is not because we made moral arguments to the ruling class, the Chamber of Commerce, or Jeff Bezos. No, they fought tooth and nail against each such movement. Corporate landlords were absolutely against what we were calling for. But we won because we organized rank and file workers, renters, to go up against the might of the billionaire class.
Class struggle unionism recognizes that worker power does not reside in the bargaining room, but outside it. In the workplaces and on the streets. As you said, throughout history, not only Europe, obviously in Europe the labor movement trajectory was much stronger historically than in the United States. But even in the United States, there was a powerful American made worker tradition of militant strike action.
In fact, the New Deal and the creation of the measure of material standards of living that the middle class did get, that came not because of FDR’s beneficence, but because of militant strikes. General strikes, including in Minneapolis. These are historic, earth shattering events that changed the course of history. But that happened because there were Marxist socialists and other courageous leaders of the left who understood that we have to have this fighting strategy.
Today, concretely, we need this strategy to unionize Amazon and other prominent workplaces like that. Also coming up, the UPS contract is up for renewal. The contract of the longshore workers on the West Coast, all the way from Washington to Southern California, they are up for renewal. These are, alongside the Amazon Air Hub, these are strategic choke points for the capitalist class. So it is really crucial that we start educating. Have active discussions and debates inside the labor movement, and outside it, to discuss how do we shut down the corporate money making machine of capitalism, and win over the wider working class for the strike actions, and really win some real victories, and raise the consciousness, the political education of the working class?
Chris Hedges: Let’s talk about the Democratic Party. Biden calls himself a pro labor president. Maybe you can mention what happened to the freight rail workers. But the Democratic Party essentially works hand in glove with the corporate community to prevent labor unions, and most of all to prevent strikes. That’s what they did with the freight rail unions, which actually, that’s one of the few groups of workers that retained the right to collective bargaining. The Biden administration took it away.
Kshama Sawant: Yes, it was a deeply shameful moment for president Biden, and all the Democrats in Congress who went along with it to carry out, as you said, historically shameful strike breaking action by breaking the railroad worker strike. In fact, to keep in mind how it’s almost Dickensian, this situation they were facing. On the one hand, you have billionaires like Warren Buffett who are the main owners of the freight railroads. You’ve got the railroad bosses. On the other hand, you have railroad workers who are facing very dangerous working conditions. Even facing loss of life, injury, repeated cases of injury. What were they demanding? Just basic paid sick leave. Here, in the 21st century, in the wealthiest country in the history of humanity, these workers are having to fight for these basic needs. What you saw was the complete betrayal by this so-called pro labor president.
But we have to be clear. If we are going to be clear about the Democratic Party, then we also have to call out the role played by the so-called progressives. The Congressional Progressive Caucus – So-called progressive as I called them – The Congressional Progressive Caucus of the Democratic Party in the US Congress is 100 strong. The chair of that caucus is Pramila Jayapal, again, another so-called progressive. Then you have all these members of the so-called Squad, who were elected with these high expectations that they will show courage in the face of Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer, and all the power brokers on behalf of Wall Street. What you have seen again and again is repeated betrayals of working people. The betrayal of the railroad workers and the breaking of their strike, obviously, was one of the starkest moments, and I think really crystallized for millions of people.
Obviously I am aware that there are many well meaning people who still may have illusions. But it’s our duty to clarify to them that, “Look, this is what happened.” We cannot just keep thinking that at some point, somewhere, something is going to change, and finally the progressives in the Democratic Party will do something for working people, because they are not. We are seeing repeated betrayals from them.
Now we are seeing the brutal consequences from the Democrats siding with the railroad tycoons. We’re seeing this apocalyptic scenario unfolding in East Palestine, Ohio. So the only way we can come out of this really tragic situation, not only in East Palestine, but all the living standards that have stagnated and slipped back for the majority of the American working class. A non-starter for us to change anything is if we continue putting our faith in the Democratic Party.
That’s another very dangerous component for the left, failing to build a new party for the working class and the Democrats continuing to sell out working people, as the threat of the growth of right populism is still hanging in the air. Because workers are angry. They’re going to be looking for alternatives. In the absence of a genuine left alternative, they are going to end up getting scapegoated by right populism.
In fact, in the wake of the sellout by Biden, some railroad workers feel like, well you know what? I’m going to just maybe end up voting for Trump next time. Because what else is there for me to do? Trump came to power in the first place because there was such massive anger against the betrayals by both the Democratic and Republican parties. Unfortunately Trump ran, he was a con man through and through. He’s a member of the billionaire class. But he ran with this idea, the false idea that he was going to represent ordinary people. Obviously he didn’t. But the threat of Trumpism and right populism, far from gone, is actually growing.
Then the other thing I think to note is, when we were calling, when sections of the left, and Socialist Alternative, and you, and others were calling for Force the Vote, the Squad members like AOC said, you can’t do that. Now we are seeing the rightmost, and some of the most dangerous right-wing Republicans, like the Freedom Caucus, not to mention the MAGA squad within the Freedom Caucus, they showed that Force the Vote can be done, except they showed it from the right.
I have to say, it’s really just terrible that in response to the left asking, ordinary people asking, well the right wing showed how to do Force the Vote. What stopped you from doing Force the Vote for Medicare For All? Unfortunately, AOC’s response was, we can’t do that because it will cause relational harm. Actually, I think that was a rare moment of political honesty. Because what she really means – And this is true – What she means is that it is relational harm. Meaning if your priority is to keep cozy relationships with Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, then you’re not going to fight for working people, because that will cause conflict between you and people like Pelosi and Biden. You will become public enemy number one to them. But that is what is needed.
We need leaders on the left for working people who have the courage to become public enemy number one of the ruling class, and understand that, actually, that is necessary in order to fight for working people.
Chris Hedges: I just want to throw in that part of the contract negotiations for the freight railroad workers was addressing the lack of safety. They warned precisely that because they had downsized or fired so many workers and reduced crews to skeletal levels, and then were also not instituting even basic safety reforms, they completely predicted this horrific chemical spill we’ve seen in Ohio.
Kshama Sawant: Oh, absolutely. You’re totally right, Chris, that the demands of the railroad workers were connected with the actual conditions. This was a completely predictable and avoidable catastrophe that has happened in East Palestine, Ohio. In fact, many of your viewers might know already that these freight magnates, the billionaires, their agenda is to expand profits, obviously. So they introduced a concept that they call Precision Scheduled Railroading. It sounds like something sophisticated. But that’s just, Precision Scheduled Railroading, or PSR, is just corporate speak for, let’s make everything as crappy as we can get away with for railroad workers and working class people as a whole, and take the maximum loot for the billionaires, the major shareholders, and the top executives. Basically what it meant was making the trains longer, reducing the staff, scrapping safety inspections, and lobbying the government to whittle down regulations. This is what’s happening.
In fact, that’s why it’s important also to highlight how we want to use Workers Strike Back as a nationwide movement to raise the consciousness of working people and also start building an alternative to the corporate parties. We are now launching a new petition, hopefully in collaboration with left railroad union leaders and other progressive labor unions, which is a petition, where the demands are that we need to bring railroads into democratic public ownership. Because the East Palestine derailment, and also what happened with the strike breaking shows that we need to eliminate the profit motive from the railroads altogether. Because it’s only when it is owned publicly, by workers, that we will be able to ensure safety measures and stop these preventable tragedies, and not further enrich the billionaires through stock buy-backs.
This petition, in response to the railroad crisis, is also calling for free healthcare for all. Obviously this is an overall demand that rank and file Democrat and Republican voters agree with. But most immediately, obviously we know that East Palestine residents will likely suffer serious, and even deadly health conditions, from this toxic disaster. We know that the railroad tycoons are attempting to evade any liability. So we need, as you said before, free state of the art Medicare for all, publicly owned and democratically run by working people. Of course, again, fundamentally all of this is also still tied to the need for a new working class party.
Chris Hedges: Well let’s talk about strategy. Only about 11% of the US workforce is unionized. I think it’s about 6% are in the public sector. Like the freight railroad workers by law, essentially, can be blocked from carrying out strikes. The billionaire class itself has pushed through a series of measures going all the way back to the 1947 Taft-Hartley act that makes it difficult to strike. But right-to-work laws, very sophisticated union busting, units in large corporations like Amazon, Starbucks, Walmart. So let’s talk about where we’re starting from and what has to be done.
Kshama Sawant: Yes, your point is very well taken. If you look at the proportion of workers who are unionized, it’s abysmally small. These are both historical failures by labor leadership, and also the fact that there has been a real concerted attack against the labor movement in the last 50 years, starting from the neoliberal era. So the reality is that the majority of young people are not in unions. At the same time, the popularity of unions among young people is historically high.
We have to be very clear. If we are going to be building a national movement like Workers Strike Back, then it’s not only for people who are today members of the labor movement. It is also for young people and other workers who are trying to organize a union in the workplace, but they don’t have a union. It is for all working people who want to get organized to fight back. Not just on workplace issues. It’s also, whether it is a housing struggle for rent control,or it is a struggle against oppression.
You mentioned trans rights. In fact, just last week, actually last Tuesday, our office, alongside Socialist Alternative and many South Asian activists, and also union members, we were able to win the nation’s, and in fact, outside South Asia, the world’s first ban on caste discrimination. Caste oppression is one type of oppression. We have to tie the struggles of workers related to workplace issues to these other struggles as well, because the cost of living crisis and the crisis around discrimination and oppression affects all of us in the working class. So we need to build a united movement of that kind.
At the same time, we also want to keep in mind that the struggles inside the labor movement also, even though at this moment encompass a minority of workers, if we can build rank and file militancy within some crucial unions, sectors of unions and sectors of industry, and win some outsized victories through powerful strike action – And I don’t mean to in any way inadvertently suggest that it’s going to be easy. This is going to be a real struggle, and we’re going to have to go head to head against the rotten business unionist ideas inside the labor movement.
There will need to be very patient political education also being carried out. Because many workers are not familiar with labor history, so we have to have respectful debate and discussion inside labor. This is going to be a difficult process, but a necessary process.
But the point I’m getting at is that, if we can get to a point where we can build major strike action in some crucial sectors of industry and win outsized victories through that process, then that will have, again, as you would say, it will punch above its weight. The effect it will have will boomerang throughout the working class, and especially young people will pay attention to it. That is why it’s important for us to both keep in mind that there are non-workplace issues where struggles will break out, like Black Lives Matter. At the same time, there are very strategic workplace situations that we have to pay attention to. That’s why I was also mentioning UPS. I think that is upcoming. That’s the most urgent dialog that we need, with UPS rank and file.
Chris Hedges: So talk a little bit about how it’s going to work. Are you going to try and build chapters in various cities? What are you going to do?
Kshama Sawant: Yeah, we do want to build chapters in various cities. Undoubtedly, we’ll need to have people who are watching shows like this one to contact us and let us know that they would like to do it for the beginning process. In Socialist Alternative, we are launching Workers Strike Back in various cities. In Seattle for example, on Saturday, March 4 will be our official launch. You are going to be part of that obviously, Chris, and some other leaders, including leaders in left labor.
So the launch is going to be on, as I said, Saturday, March 4 at 12:00 Noon Pacific Time at the University of Washington. If you are watching this, and you are in Seattle, you should definitely join us. Regardless of where you are, if you find this message exciting, please look us up on workersstrikeback.org, and get in touch with us.
Just to give you a sense of what we’ve already done, as I said, we fought for this past legislation. We also are launching, as I said, this petition in solidarity with railroad workers and with the people in East Palestine. But aside from that, we are also helping build this union drive at the largest Amazon Air Hub, which I mentioned before. Then we are also helping to organize a network of undergraduate support for unionized graduate students at Temple University in Philadelphia, who are fighting for a living wage.
We picketed alongside American Airlines employees demanding a fair contract. We’ve stood with nurses calling for safe staffing. We joined over 200 union journalists in a walkout against retaliatory firings at NBC. So all of this shows, these early initiatives show that we can build real solidarity in action and class struggle. So I really hope that thousands, tens of thousands of workers and young people take up the mantle of Workers Strike Back, and build branches in various cities across the country.
Chris Hedges: That was Kshama Sawant on her new organization Workers Strike Back. I want to thank The Real News Network and its production team: Cameron Granadino, Adam Coley, David Hebden, and Kayla Rivara. You can find me at chrishedges.substack.com.
Kshama Sawant Kshama Sawant (born October 17, 1973) is an Indian-American politician and economist who has served on the Seattle City Council since 2014. She is a member of Socialist Alternative, the first and only member of the party to date to be elected to public office. A former software engineer, Sawant became an economics instructor in Seattle after immigrating to the United States from her native India. She ran unsuccessfully for the Washington House of Representatives in 2012 before winning her seat on the Seattle City Council in 2013. She was the first socialist to win a citywide election in Seattle since Anna Louise Strong was elected to the school board in 1916.
The Unconscionable Push To Bring Back Child Labor
Rather than offering wages attractive to adults, employers want lawmakers to push teens into some of the most dangerous jobs in the country.
Brad Greve has been a Scout leader for more than 20 years. The Davenport, Iowa retiree leads 50-mile canoe trips on Minnesota’s Boundary Waters that test teens’ mettle while teaching them essential skills.
Greve told a story recently where two boys, despite being warned repeatedly, let their canoe drift perilously close to a section of stream that swept over rapids into a lake below. They just barely recovered and made it to streambank.
That near-accident a few years ago, Greve said, underscores the vulnerability of young teens. And it fuels Greve’s anger at Republicans across the country who want to gut child labor laws and fill dangerous jobs with still-maturing high schoolers.
A GOP bill in Iowa, for example, would allow 14-year-olds to work in industrial freezers, meatpacking plants, and industrial laundry operations. The legislation would also put 15-year-olds to work on certain kinds of assembly lines, allow them to hoist up to 50 pounds, and allow employers to force kids into significantly longer work days.
Make no mistake, this is dangerous work. Just three years ago, a 16-year-old in Tennessee fell more than 11 stories to his death while working construction on a hotel roof. Another 16-year-old lost an arm that same year while cleaning a meat grinder at a Tennessee supermarket.
But these preventable tragedies mean nothing to legislators bent on helping employers pad their bottom lines at kids’ expense. “It’s about businesses wanting cheap labor or more labor than they can currently get because they don’t want to pay reasonable wages or give any benefits,” Greve said.
Now, rather than provide the quality jobs needed to attract adults, Greve observed, companies want their cronies to “throw them a bone” and widen access to child labor.
Minnesota Republicans want to let 16- and 17-year-olds work construction. GOP legislators in Ohio are pushing legislation to expand teens’ work hours. In 2022, labor unions and Democratic officials in Wisconsin beat back a Republican proposal to lengthen work days for teens there.
The Iowa legislation is particularly dangerous because it would exempt employers from civil liability in the event of a youth’s injury or death on the job — even in cases of employer negligence — if the teen was participating in a school-approved “work-based learning program.”
Employers already flout child labor laws at record rates, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.
After the 16-year-old fell off the hotel roof, for example, Tennessee officials determined that the company not only illegally put the teen in harm’s way but also worked him more hours than allowed and cheated dozens of other workers out of overtime pay. Adding insult to injury, the company vowed to appeal the $122,000 fine it received for the teen’s death.
The poor, migrants, victims of trafficking, and other at-risk youths will be especially impacted. Last year, the news agency Reuters found migrant youths and other children as young as 12 working at Alabama companies supplying the auto industry.
The New York Times reported more recently that the illegal employment of minors from poor and migrant families had reached epidemic proportions, reflecting a “new economy of exploitation.” The paper found employers subjecting thousands of kids to some of the deadliest jobs in the country, including work in slaughterhouses and sawmills.
“Why would you want to weaken the law when you can see companies already taking advantage?” asked Greve. “The law should be strengthened.”
Related Posts
Socialism Is All About Expanding Freedom
Libertarians and conservatives talk a lot about freedom, but the most important kind of freedom is freedom from domination — and if you take that seriously, you should oppose capitalism.
Source: Jacobin The men and women who built the trade union movement and fought to end child labor and institute an eight-hour day understood they were fighting for a profoundly important kind of human freedom. (Claude Gabriel / Unsplash)
In my last article for Jacobin, I praised “the republican theory of freedom” — the idea that the most important kind of freedom is freedom from domination.
Some might wonder why I think it’s important for the Left talk about freedom in the first place. We see “freedom” invoked to defend everything from the right of corner gun shops to sell AR-15s without background checks to the right of chemical plants to dump toxic waste in rivers. Shouldn’t we instead ground our politics in alternative values like equality or the alleviation of suffering?
These other values are important. Equality matters both in itself and because genuine freedom is impossible amid massive inequality. Reducing suffering is a valiant aim too. But it would be a huge mistake to cede “freedom” to the defenders of the capitalist status quo.
The drive to overcome unjust relations of domination has always been at the center of the Left’s project. Conservatives, Libertarians, and Freedom
Conservatives love to talk about freedom. Donald Trump just announced a proposal to charter “freedom cities” on federally owned land. His likely rival for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, Florida governor Ron DeSantis, recently published a book called The Courage to Be Free.
Progressives pushing back against this rhetoric often point to the Right’s inconsistencies and hypocrisies. What about the freedom of pregnant women to decide what happens in their own bodies? What about the freedoms of gay and trans people?
This is all true and important. But none of it quite reaches the nub of the issue.
After all, if the only problem with mainstream conservatives’ invocation of freedom is that it’s full of blind spots, what should we say about those few relatively principled libertarians who do come down on the right side of many of these battles? While some libertarians are antiabortion, for example, the ones who aren’t describe their worldview as “pro-choice on everything.”
The libertarian conception of freedom is “noninterference” — an idea pithily summarized in the title of Matt Kibbe’s 2014 “libertarian manifesto” Don’t Hurt People and Don’t Take Their Stuff. When DeSantis wants to lock up a Floridian who smokes a joint in her backyard, he’s going against the first half of that title. And when leftists advocate nationalizing private corporations — or even raising taxes to pay for Medicare for All — they’re going against the second half.
One easy way to rebut the Don’t Hurt People and Don’t Take Their Stuff worldview is simply to emphasize the importance of competing values. If you think that people struggling with suicidal depression or addiction to hard drugs sometimes need to be saved from themselves, for instance, or that mass shootings are an unacceptable price to pay for “gun freedom,” you’re going to reject at least the most extreme form of libertarianism. But that’s consistent with thinking freedom is very important — and that “freedom” means what libertarians think it means. So even if you support gun control or want the legal system to push heroin addicts into rehab, you might value “freedom” too much to want to take away Amazon from Jeff Bezos and run it as a public utility.
A deeper problem with freedom as noninterference — or at least with the claim that economic redistribution violates this view of freedom — is that every time you recognize a property right to “stuff,” you’re actually carving out an exception to the “don’t hurt people” part. If you don’t believe me, try to board a privately owned train without a ticket and see what happens.
Libertarians sometimes attempt to get around this problem by appealing to the “non-aggression principle,” which says that hurting people or taking their stuff is only bad if you’re the one initiating the use of force. It’s fine to defend people or their property with the use of force.
But the problem here is with the concept of “your” property. Does this mean the property that’s legally yours? If so, taxation and even nationalization of private companies is just fine! If Congress passes a law to nationalize Amazon, then the company is no longer legally Bezos’s property. On the other hand, if “your” property means the property you’re morally entitled to, then objecting to ethical arguments for redistribution on the grounds that it undercuts your freedom against interference with “your” property is just arguing in a circle.
Whether we’re talking about socialist proposals like nationalizing Amazon or daily capitalist realities like a landlord calling the police to kick squatters out of an unoccupied building, all possible distributions of scarce resources are enforced by some sort of coercion. The question in dispute is never coercion versus no coercion. It is, always and everywhere, which distribution to coercively enforce. Negative Freedom, Positive Freedom, and Freedom From Domination
If you were nodding along to that last argument, you might think “freedom” can’t tell us much about how resources should be distributed. And it can’t — if freedom means noninterference. But is that the only important kind of freedom, or even the kind that matters most?
One way of pushing back against an excessive emphasis on “negative” liberty is to play up “positive” liberty. Maybe a drug addict, for example, isn’t truly free — you can’t be the master of your own destiny if you’re enslaved to your addiction.
The classic objection to this idea comes from philosopher Isaiah Berlin, who conceded that coercing someone for their own good might in some cases be justified, but who still thought it was absurd to say that if it is my good, then I am not being coerced, for I have willed it, whether I know this or not, and am free (or “truly” free) even when my poor earthly body and foolish mind bitterly reject it, and struggle against those who seek however benevolently to impose it.
Fair enough. But the dichotomy between “negative” freedom from interference and “positive” freedom to act on your “real” underlying interests doesn’t exhaust the possibilities. “Republican” theorists — as in ancient Greek and Roman republics — emphasized freedom from domination, and argued that this was a more fundamental kind of freedom than freedom from interference.
Think about the most extreme form of nonfreedom, slavery. A slave who’s whipped every day is certainly less lucky than one whose master hardly ever strikes him. His body is interfered with less. But is he more free? Proponents of republicanism would say no, because in each case the slave is at the mercy of the master and the same underlying relationship of domination persists.
Of course, ancient republican philosophers had no objection to slavery. They just wanted a class of citizens to be free from the whims of any emperor or oligarch. But in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, abolitionists, labor organizers, and socialists advocated a society in which everyone would be robustly free from domination. Even the elimination of extreme unfreedom through the Union’s victory in the Civil War wasn’t enough to satisfy these radicals, who saw disturbing patterns of domination in Northern industrial capitalism: “Emancipation may have eliminated chattel slavery, but, as eight-hour campaigner Ira Steward once put it, the creation of this new form of economic dependence meant ‘something of slavery still remains . . . something of freedom is yet to come.’”
Under capitalism, the vast majority of people who are directly involved in the economy don’t own what Marxists call “the means of production.” They don’t own factories, for example, or book-packaging warehouses or grocery stores, and they can’t afford to buy any of these things. So they have no realistic option except to rent themselves out for eight hours a day — and it’s only eight hours due to the efforts of people like Steward — to people who do own them.
There’s a profound power imbalance in this relationship. Many workplaces are run as petty dictatorships where the boss can tell workers when they have to smile, when they are or aren’t allowed to talk to each other, and when they can and can’t go to the bathroom. In the vast majority of cases — exceptions include workers with rare and highly valued skills, and periods of especially low unemployment — it’s much easier for a company to replace a worker than for the worker to replace her livelihood. She has to fret about her boss’s opinion of her in a way that he doesn’t. Even if he is a benevolent boss, she is still subject to his whims.
To be sure, there’s a sense in which absolute nondomination is impossible. Humans are socially interconnected, and therefore inescapably dependent on each other’s whims to some extent. We rely on each other to meet our most basic needs — very few of us, for instance, are in a position to grow all our own food. And while human institutions can provide an important degree of stability, legal and political institutions rise and fall over the course of history. Any rights that you have in a given system could be taken away in some unlikely but theoretically possible scenario in the future. We could achieve workers’ control of the means of production and then lose it in a counterrevolution.
But arguing that this means spreading economic power far more evenly wouldn’t be a deeply meaningful extension of freedom from domination is a little bit like saying that someone who lives in a compound surrounded by a high wall and armed guards doesn’t count as “really” safe because they could be taken out by assassins with sufficiently advanced military hardware. Absolute freedom, like absolute safety, is impossible — but that doesn’t make humanly achievable degrees of freedom or safety unimportant.
