Killing Hassan Nasrallah

The Illusion of a Solution

by Binoy Kampmark / September 29th, 2024

The ongoing Israeli operation against Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militia group so dominant in Lebanon, is following a standard pattern.  Ignore base causes.  Ignore context.  Target leaders, and target personnel.  See matters in conventional terms of civilisational warrior against barbarian despot.  Israel, the valiant and bold, fighting the forces of darkness.

The entire blood woven tapestry of the Middle East offers uncomfortable explanations.  The region has seen false political boundaries sketched and pronounced by foreign powers, fictional countries proclaimed, and entities brought into being on the pure interests of powers in Europe.  These empires produced shoddy cartography in the name of the nation state and plundering self-interest, leaving aside the complexities of ethnic belonging and tribal dispositions.  Tragically, such cartographic fictions tended to keep company with crime, dispossession, displacement, ethnic cleansing and enthusiastic hatreds.

Since October 7, when Hamas flipped the table on Israel’s heralded security apparatus to kill over 1,200 of its citizens and smuggle over 200 hostages into Gaza, historical realities became present with a nasty resonance.  While Israel falsely sported its credentials as a peaceful state with dry cleaned democratic credentials ravaged by Islamic barbarians, Hamas had tapped into a vein of history stretching back to 1948.  Dispossession, racial segregation, suppression, were all going to be addressed, if only for a moment of vanguardist and cruel violence.

To the north, where Lebanon and Israel share yet another nonsense of a border, October 7 presented a change.  Both the Israeli Defence Forces and Hezbollah took to every bloodier jousting.  It was a serious affair: 70,000 Israelis displaced to the south; tens of thousands of Lebanese likewise to the north. (The latter are almost never mentioned in the huffed commentaries of the West.)

The Israeli strategy in this latest phase was made all too apparent by the number of military commanders and high-ranking operatives in Hezbollah the IDF has targeted.  Added to this the pager-walkie talkie killings as a prelude to a likely ground invasion of Lebanon, it was clear that Hezbollah’s leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, figured as an exemplary target.

Hezbollah confirmed the death of its leader in a September 27 strike on Beirut’s southern suburb of Dahiyeh and promised “to continue its jihad in confronting the enemy, supporting Gaza and Palestine, and defending Lebanon and its steadfast and honourable people.”  Others killed included Ali Karki, commander of the organisation’s southern front, and various other commanders who had gathered.

Israeli officials have been prematurely thrilled.  Like deluded scientists obsessed with eliminating a symptom, they ignore the disease with habitual obsession.  “Most of the senior leaders of Hezbollah have been eliminated,” claimed a triumphant Israeli military spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Nadav Shoshani.

Defence Minister Yoav Gallant called the measure “the most significant strike since the founding of the State of Israel.”  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated with simplicity that killing Nasrallah was necessary to “changing the balance of power in the region for years to come” and enable displaced Israelis to return to their homes in the north.

Various reports swallowed the Israeli narrative.  Reuters, for instance, called the killing “a heavy blow to the Iran-backed group as it reels from an escalating campaign of Israeli attacks.”  Al Jazeera’s Zeina Khodr opined that this “will be a major setback for the organisation.”  But the death of a being is never any guarantee for the death of an idea. The body merely offers a period of occupancy.  Ideas will be transferred, grow, and proliferate, taking residence in other organisations or entities. The assassinating missile is a poor substitute to addressing the reasons why such an idea came into being.

A dead or mutilated body merely offers assurance that power might have won the day for a moment, a situation offering only brief delight to military strategists and the journalists keeping tabs on the morgue’s latest additions.  It is easy, then, to ignore why Hezbollah became a haunting consequence of Israel’s bungling invasion and occupation of Lebanon in 1982.  Easy to also ignore the 1985 manifesto, with its reference to the organisation’s determination to combat Israel and those it backed, such as the Christian Phalangist allies in the Lebanese Civil War, and to remove the Israeli occupying force.

Such oblique notions as “degrading” the capacity of an ideological, religious group hardly addresses the broader problem.  The subsequent shoots from a savage pruning can prove ever more vigorous.  The 1992 killing of Hezbollah’s secretary-general Abbas al-Musawi, along with his wife and son, merely saw the elevation of Nasrallah.  Nasrallah turned out to be a more formidable, resourceful and eloquent proposition.  He also pushed other figures to the fore, such as the recently assassinated Fuad Shukr, who became an important figure in obtaining the group’s vast array of long-range rockets and precision-guided missiles.

Ibrahim Al-Marashi of California State University, San Marcos, summarises the efforts of Israel’s high-profile killing strategy as shortsighted feats of miscalculation.  “History shows every single Israeli assassination of a high-profile political or military operator, even after being initially hailed as a game-changing victory, eventually led to the killed leader being replaced by someone more determined, adept and hawkish.”  Another Nasrallah is bound to be in tow, with several others in incubation.FacebookTwitter

RedditEmail

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com. Read other articles by Binoy.

Lebanon on the Brink of War: Imperialism is to Blame


As the Middle East reaches the brink of war, the imperialist powers — and their unwavering support for Israel, the genocide of Gazans, and the expansion of West Bank colonization — are responsible.


Révolution Permanente

September 23, 2024


In the past week, Israel has brutally intensified its attacks on Lebanon, launching two waves of large-scale terrorist attacks on Tuesday and Wednesday before massively bombing southern Lebanon. Blowing up thousands of communication devices across the country, first pagers and then radio systems, Israel plunged Lebanon into terror, killing around thirty people and wounding several thousand. Overnight from Thursday to Friday, the Israeli air force pounded border regions, indiscriminately hitting dozens of villages. At the same time, the Israeli government continuously threatened Lebanon throughout the week, claiming that “the center of gravity of the war had shifted to the north” and that Israel had “entered a new phase of the war.”

Israel pushed its campaign against Lebanon even further: targeting a Hezbollah leader in Beirut, Israel struck a residential building in the southern suburbs four times, causing dozens of casualties. The target was Ibrahim Aqil, one of Hezbollah’s most important military leaders and a member of the Jihad Council, the leadership of the organization’s military branch. Alongside the new leader of the military wing, ten elite Hezbollah commanders were also killed in the attack.

Humiliated by these recent massive attacks on its members, Hezbollah now finds itself in an impossible position. The party cannot ignore these repeated affronts that destroy its credibility, and retaliated by firing rockets into Israel, targeting a town just north of Haifa on Sunday morning. Israel has responded with another round of bombings — the deadliest attacks by Israel in Lebanon to date — which brings the death toll to at least 274 people and has injured over 1,000 people. According to Lebanese officials, the Israeli attacks have targeted medical centers, ambulances, and cars of people trying to flee.

It is clear that Israel wants to push Hezbollah into war. Clashes with Hezbollah have already forced 60,000 Israelis to leave the region and near-daily Israeli bombings in Lebanon since October 8 have displaced close to 110,000 people. War now seems to be the path favored by Netanyahu. While the Far Right already dreams of recolonizing the region south of the Litani River, the Israeli military openly talks about the need to impose a “security zone” in Lebanon — in other words, an invasion of the country.

Since October 7, the region has never been closer to escalating into all-out war — and the imperialist powers are entirely responsible. For eleven months, they have granted Israel total freedom of action, delivering tons and tons of weapons and ammunition used to massacre the Palestinian people in Gaza. The imperialist powers, led by the United States, have ruthlessly suppressed solidarity mobilizations for Palestine that have ignited worldwide. Militarily, morally, and economically supported by imperialist countries, Israel has been able to continue its massacre in Gaza with impunity, forcing two million Gazans to leave their homes, reducing the area to rubble, almost entirely annexing the West Bank, and bombing nearly all neighboring countries: Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, and Iran.

In the Red Sea, these same powers, organized within an international coalition led by the United States, have repeatedly bombed Yemen, directly involving themselves in the escalation. Benefiting from the unwavering support of its imperialist allies, Israel feels emboldened and is now directly attacking Lebanon, crossing all the “red lines” week after week that could have prevented the outbreak of an all-out war. While the Zionist Far Right has put the project of “Greater Israel” — a Jewish state stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates — on the agenda and the government hopes to “solve” its Palestinian problem once and for all, the Israeli state is threatening more than ever to wage a devastating war on Lebanon, for which the population will pay the price in fire and blood.

Despite the recent calls for calm from the Biden administration which fears getting involved in a new conflict on the eve of elections, and Emmanuel Macron’s change in tone in defense of France’s material interests in Lebanon, the imperialist powers cannot hide their responsibility. Faced with the deadly threat posed by the Israeli state to Lebanon, only the struggle of the working class and oppressed of all countries in the region can prevent the impending bloodbath. Israel has embarked on a dead-end path that could be irreversible if Israeli workers do not decisively break with the colonial ambitions of the Zionist Israeli state and mobilize to put an end to the genocide in Palestine. This perspective is all the more central given that, while opposition to Netanyahu is growing in Israel, the massive mobilizations offer no progressive solution in the current situation. In this context, and in a moment when Israel will become even more dependent on supplies from its imperialist allies if it wages war in Lebanon, mobilizations in solidarity with Palestine around the world are indispensable.

End the bombings and Israeli terror in Lebanon! Hands off Lebanon! The United States is responsible: no weapons to Israel! Stop the genocide in Gaza!

Translated and adapted from the original French, published in Révolution Permanente on September 20.

Boeing Workers are Uniquely Situated to Disrupt the Global Economy

In their fight against Boeing, striking IAM members have significant leverage over the boss and the state.

Jason Koslowski and James Dennis Hoff

September 25, 2024

LEFT VOICE, U$A

Photo credit: Wall Street Journal

It’s been almost two weeks since more than 33,000 Boeing workers in Washington and Oregon went on strike, crippling one of the largest aerospace companies in the world. Since then Boeing has lost more than $500 million and is losing millions more every day. Thanks in large part to a series of terrible decisions, they seem unprepared to weather a long strike, but the struggle at Boeing has significant international implications as well. Boeing, after all, is the largest exporter in the United States by dollar value, the biggest supplier of commercial aircraft in the United States, and one of the main manufacturers of the weapons that Israel is using in both its genocide in Gaza and its war against Lebanon. It is also a key chokepoint in a much larger and still vulnerable global supply chain that extends across the globe.

All of this means that Boeing workers currently have a level of influence and leverage that far exceeds the immediate impact on the company’s bottom line. The union not only has a chance to recoup the major concessions forced on them by years of neoliberalism. They have a chance to throw a wrench into the imperialist machine itself.

In capitalism, the working class always has key strategic power. That’s because the source of all value and of all profit is ultimately exploited work, sucked out of us, vampire-like, by our bosses. We’re the ones who flip the burgers, drive the buses, weld the plane fuselages, teach the classes … and on and on and on. When we go on strike we remove that power — and start stemming the flow of profits made off of our labor.

But Boeing workers in particular are striking at a major strategic nexus of the global economy. It’s a “chokepoint,” and applying force here cuts off huge flows of profit across the system.

To see just how much leverage these 33,000 workers are holding in their hands, it helps to think in terms of concentric circles: the economics of Boeing, its place in the U.S. economy, and then its place in the global economy.
A Crisis of Boeing’s Own Making

Whatever kind of day you’re having, it’s not as bad as the Boeing CEO’s. That’s good news for the working class — and not just in this country.

First of all, Boeing is in the midst of a major crisis of consumer and investor confidence.

Not only is it massively in debt, but for months now, every major newspaper across the globe has been reporting on one Boeing disaster after another, highlighting how Boeing has, time and time again, put profit over the safety of its workers and consumers. In January, for instance, an emergency exit door blew off one of their planes mid-flight, leading to a loss of cabin pressure that could have been catastrophic. It was a 737 MAX 9, produced at the Renton plant outside Seattle, one of their newest models.

This was hardly just a blip on the radar.

In 2018 and 2019, two planes crashed, killing every person on board. This past July, the company’s leaders pled guilty to criminal fraud in those cases. Meanwhile, problems with the Boeing Starliner space capsule have left two astronauts stranded on the International Space Station for months. These astronauts will now not be able to return home until February.

All told, Boeing has already lost something like $1.4 billion in the last three months. It’s shouldering $58 billion in debt. And now there’s a strike.

In other words, the union has tremendous leverage over the boss: Boeing simply can’t afford this strike. If this strike is anything like the last one in 2008, they’re looking down the barrel of losing something like $100 million in lost revenue per day until the strike is settled and workers return to the production lines.

How’d we get here? To see that, we have to take a glance at the last couple of decades at Boeing.

First, it’s worth remembering that in 2004, under then-President George W. Bush, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) decided that Boeing can regulate its own production. In other words, it would not be regulated by an outside body. This helps to explain why Being was able to cut corners so aggressively in making its planes, to maximize its output and its profits.

The problems with this system of self-regulation were made clear when a whistleblower came forward to detail the many mistakes and safety problems that were being ignored by the company. This whistleblower was reporting exclusively on the production of the 787 at Renton, but the lack of any outside oversight means we can probably assume that these kinds of “cost cutting” procedures are common in making other planes, too. For instance, Fortune has reported that “engineers in the construction of the 777 jets” were also “‘pressured to overlook’ issues. … The complaint … alleges these defects ‘are generally not detectable through visual inspection… [and] could ultimately cause a premature fatigue failure without any warning.’”

Another key plank of this production model is the company’s attempts to undercut the union. Just after the last contract was settled with the IAM — in 2009 — Boeing announced it would be building its newest model of jets in Charleston, South Carolina, far from the unionized main plant outside Seattle. The main reason: the workers there, like so many others in the south, wouldn’t be unionized. That, in turn, meant cheaper workers whose hours and workload could be ramped up without any protections from a union. The move was a powerful blow to the IAM’s leverage, raising the specter that the company could just shut down and move production if the union did not play ball. And unfortunately that’s exactly what the union did. The leadership of the IAM cut a deal a few years later to give huge concessions to the bosses, including giving away the guaranteed pension — one of the main grievances in this current strike.

In the wake of these attempts to undermine the union’s power, union workers have faced even more pressure from Boeing to ramp up production. At the Washington plant, some aircraft “can move down the line with incomplete work in order to maintain speed,” reports Business Insider.


Speaking to National Transportation Safety Board investigators in April, another Renton [Washington] factory employee, who works on seat installation, said there were problems with time management. “You just got to work around it,” he said. “So if like, another crew is behind, we’ll just work on the next plane we need to work on.” … He added that 60% to 70% of the aircraft that come through to his station are still waiting for other work to be done. “They travel defects [defective parts] constantly. The line has to keep going” …

Boeing isn’t very original, though. These practices are part of the wider trend of “just-in-time” production that’s been a key part of capitalism over the last few decades: reduce lag time, increase shipping speeds, reduce warehouse space, and speed up production to its maximum in order to ramp up profits.

In other words, the catastrophic failures of Boeing’s planes aren’t the result of lazy workers; they’re baked into the system. Doors falling off of airplanes is par for the course.

But, as Kim Moody so elegantly explains, what makes this system of just-in-time production so profitable, also makes the company vulnerable. In On New Terrain, Moody says:


The overall picture of the context in which the U.S. working class has taken shape since the early 1980s began as one of decentralized production via outsourcing, increased precarious work, and the experience of fragmentation. As is so often the case in the expansion of capital accumulation, however, the reality of competition has produced an opposite tendency in the increased concentration and centralization of capital in almost every realm of the production of goods and services. As part of this process, more and more aspects of production are tied together in just-in-time supply chains that have reproduced the vulnerability that capital sought to escape through lean production methods and relocation

When these supply chains are broken, when production slows down, even a little, it can have knock-off effects across the industry and often the entire economy. This is why this strike in particular, and similar strikes at other major manufacturing or shipping bottlenecks like the ports, Amazon, or the Big Three auto manufacturers are so powerful. But these workers don’t just have leverage over their bosses. They have significant leverage over the global economy as a whole.
A Chokepoint in the Global Economy

Boeing, after all, isn’t just another corporation. It’s a massive monopoly and is more or less the only major U.S. supplier and manufacturer of commercial aircraft.

Its total revenue last year was an astounding $77.8 billion (up 17 percent from the year before). Though a small portion of the total U.S. GDP, Boeing is just one part of a much larger chain of production that reaches across the entire economy. Making an aircraft, for example, also requires making glass, plastic chairs, fuselages, rubber tires, microchips and entire electronic displays, and so on. The strike threatens to disrupt a long supply chain of goods in the U.S. economy — precisely when it seemed like the supply chain disruptions of the pandemic were smoothing out, and at a time when both Harris and Trump are promising a restored “normal” economy for the ruling class. Since Boeing is one of the largest suppliers of commercial aircraft to U.S. airlines, it also threatens to disrupt the airline industry, leading to potentially higher consumer costs, aka inflation, which has been a significant contributor to the labor struggles, particularly among organized labor, that we’ve seen since the end of the pandemic.

This strike, in other words, doesn’t just hold leverage over Boeing’s bottom line. The workers are holding in their hands a significant chunk of the United States’s overall economic output. All this gives some sense of the leverage of the IAM union at this moment.

And it’s not just in the United States that Boeing has such economic weight. As the single biggest exporter in the U.S., it stands at the center of its imperial agenda. Its main competitor in the world is AirBus and together — as a global duopoly — they corner the vast majority of the world’s aviation economy. With a wobbling Boeing, though, the problem isn’t just that AirBus will take on more market share, increasingly crowding Boeing out of the market. The problem is the United States’s imperialist maneuverings against China. As a symbol of America’s technological leadership, the calamitous state of Boeing’s production process, the safety scandals, and accidents, are yet more signs of the decline of U.S. imperialism.

Both Trump and Biden have made trying to maneuver against China central to their administrations. In this, they were continuing a much longer legacy, which includes Obama’s “pivot” to Asia to try to contain China. When Biden unrolled his “Build Back Better” plan to rebuild the United States’s infrastructure, a key goal was to prepare the United States to compete with China. As it is, though, the Chinese economy is already leading in one key area: electric vehicles. They’re flooding the markets of the world with their models, with the United States struggling to respond. Now the danger to the plan of containing China economically, then, is that, with a struggling Boeing, China could better market its own aircraft abroad.

But Boeing doesn’t just make planes. It makes weapons, too — a lot of them. It’s the fourth largest weapons company in the world, and weapons manufacturing account for a full 44% of its total revenue. And in the last few years it’s also been the single biggest producer of weapons for the State of Israel, fueling the still unfolding genocide, which has completely upended the lives of millons and already led to the deaths of more than 40,000 Gazans.

In this sense, the global impact of an extended strike at Boeing not only threatens capitalist profits, it also directly threatens the imperialist firepower of the United States.

No wonder then that major players in the U.S. state have already sent federal mediators in to settle the strike as soon as possible. Though the union leadership of IAM sees such mediation as being in their favor, the rank and file should not place any trust in the U.S. state or the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to represent their interests or the larger interest of the larger working class. Make no mistake, the federal mediators are not there for the workers but are part of an effort to keep the wheels of imperialism well greased and running smoothly. But the rank and file have a chance to take this strike into their own hands and, alongside the larger working class, use their leverage to build a fight against both the boss and the state.
Strike Boeing for Gaza

Although the workers currently on strike at Boeing are focused mostly on their contract struggle, the strike — as we explain above — has the power to disrupt not only Boeing but also the broader U.S. economy, and even the global economy.

That leverage is a crucial weapon to reverse a long history of concessions to the bosses that led, among other things, to the elimination of IAM’s pension.

There’s much more at stake, too. Not least is our own safety.

We already pointed out that Boeing is a duopoly, and the only U.S. maker of commercial aircraft. It hasn’t just been cutting corners, it’s been slashing at them. Doors are falling off planes; the leaders of the company have already pled guilty to criminal fraud in deadly crashes. The IAM fight, in other words, isn’t just about better conditions and wages; it’s about the safety and integrity of the aircrafts that so many of us have to fly on.

However, in the midst of an unfolding genocide that is being fully funded by the United States, with weapons made by the very same company these workers are fighting against, they are also in a unique position to go further, to take a stand against that genocide, and to demand an end to all weapons shipments and aid to Israel. This is a hugely popular demand among working class people in the United States; it could garner a ton of support for the strike, while at the same time asserting the hegemony of the working class, showing how they can fight for deeply-felt causes in our society.

We already know the old story: Biden, Harris, and the Democrats wave a vague hand at the idea of stopping the slaughter, while continuing to send guns, bullets, bombs, and cash. Boeing’s CEO and its shareholders are cashing in. Stopping the brutality now is going to have to happen because of workers standing at global chokepoints.

In other words, by taking up the fight for Gaza, the workers on the Boeing picket lines have a chance to link up with one of the most militant and dynamic parts of class struggle recently in the United States — to build up wider, and militant, support for the strike.

And this is not just pie in the sky. It is something that several unions have already taken up, including the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the National Education Association (NEA), and the United auto Workers (UAW). While the bureaucracies of these unions have done little more than make statements, the demand, thanks in part to these efforts, has become more mainstream.

In fact, IAMs own Executive Council has already called for a ceasefire — in March of this year!

In cloudy Seattle, we’re seeing thousands of workers on picket lines who have the power to throw a wrench into the local economy, the global flow of profits, and the imperialist war machine — to win their demands and actually do the thing their union leaders, and union leaders across the country, are calling for. It seems clear from the outside the union leaders don’t have much interest in following through on their own call for a ceasefire. In other words, the workers have major leverage, but to be fully used, it’ll have to be wielded by the rank and file themselves.

And even more than this, IAM rank and filers are facing down a chance to set a precedent for the entire labor movement to follow. We’ve seen plenty of our unions in the United States offering fine words — and little action — against the genocide. Taking a stand now, using the strike to fight against the shipment of bombs to Israel, could be the inspiration that other rank and filers need to help them join the fight in their own strikes: to turn words into action.

IAM’s fight is ours too; it belongs to the whole working class. It’s a powerful part of the tooth-and-claw fight to reverse the long decay of worker power and conditions in the neoliberal age. Boeing’s pickets are at the vanguard of that fight today. But IAM’s fight is at the vanguard of the working class’s struggle right now, too — a chance to disrupt the imperialist slaughter that the United States is so good at exporting.


Jason Koslowski
Jason is a contingent college teacher and union organizer who lives in Philadelphia.


James Dennis Hoff
James Dennis Hoff is a writer, educator, labor activist, and member of the Left Voice editorial board. He teaches at The City University of New York.

Dispatch from the Boeing Picket Lines

Here’s what I saw at three Boeing picket lines in Washington and Oregon.

Samuel Karlin 

September 26, 2024

LEFT VOICE, U$A



When I booked a trip to the Pacific Northwest back in April, I didn’t think for a second that it would align perfectly with the largest strike in the United States so far this year. I just thought I’d be hiking and see the world’s largest rubber chicken in Seattle.

But then 33,000 machinists at Boeing voted overwhelmingly to strike, despite the International Association of Machinists bureaucracy pushing workers to accept a sell-out contract. Less than a week later I was lucky enough to meet some of these workers on the picket lines. The flight from Newark to Seattle was six hours on a Boeing plane, so even before reaching the picket I was reminded of just how different mine and so many people’s lives would be if not for the machines these workers build.

After picking up a rental car and a quick meal, I went straight to the picket line at the Boeing factory in Renton, WA, just outside of Seattle. As I drove by to find parking, picketers were dancing along the sidewalk. Before my trip was over I’d go there once more and also visit the picket in Portland, Oregon.

September 17 in Renton, Washington

I don’t think I’ve ever strolled up to a more energetic picket line. As I approached the big tent surrounded by a large crew of workers and their families, someone greeted me with “Welcome to the block party!” It sure felt like one, with all sorts of food from pizza to freshly grilled sausages blanketing two folding tables and loud hip hop blasting from a speaker. The energy from the workers was matched by the constant stream of cars passing by and honking in solidarity.


Asian, Black, and white workers were dancing, laughing, and talking with one another. It was a beautiful reminder that despite stereotypical depictions of the working class in the United States as mainly chauvinist white men, U.S. workers are diverse and nothing breaks down the very real racial divisions of our class like a shared struggle on the picket line.

I grabbed a sign and stood at the curb soaking it up. Pretty early on it became clear that vehicles were still regularly driving in and out of the facility, almost always honking or raising their fists in solidarity with the workers on strike. Even though these drivers were still helping Boeing run, the striking machinists seemed to mainly just appreciate the honks from these workers and see them as acting in solidarity.

After about an hour I spoke with a machinist who works at the end of the line, checking the quality of the product. He was practically bursting with excitement to be on the picket line. It was his first ever strike. He was ecstatic that I’d come all the way from New Jersey to support, yelling every few minutes at his coworkers “They came all the way from New Jersey!”

He also said in passing that he was surprised I was there to support because “A lot of people don’t like Boeing.” I see where he’s coming from. Boeing has been in the news lately for planes breaking down, and especially in light of this strike I’ve noticed a media campaign trying to pin the blame on the workers who construct the planes. The truth is, these workers are incredibly talented craftspeople spending long hours making machines that improve countless people’s lives and help the world run. It’s the company and bosses who deserve scrutiny for trying to cut corners and ramp up production to save money which degrades the quality of the planes and thus the safety of the workers making them and the passengers using them.

From the still constant stream of honks from passing cars, it seemed that even if people don’t like Boeing the company, they like workers and agree that for their contributions they deserve the 40 percent raise and quality retirement and healthcare that they’re demanding.

I then talked to another machinist who works at the end of the line. “I’m here for my coworkers,” he said, emphasizing that his highly-skilled position pays comfortably, but that he knows so many Boeing workers who aren’t paid a decent wage and that it was important to him to support them. He also expressed some anger with the union leadership which had tried to sell out these workers and prevent a strike. He talked about the union not managing retirement funds well, and donating to “all sorts of political campaigns.” This point really resonated. Especially in this election year, it’s been clear to me that the role of the union bureaucracies is to align workers with the capitalist parties at a time when the labor movement is becoming much more combative. Along with strengthening the parties of the bosses, this work of the union bureaucracies leads many workers to distrust unions as organizations that can be by and for the rank and file. Unions should be organized from below by people like this machinist who was committed to fighting for his less well-off coworkers, not by bureaucrats beholden to the Democrats.

After spending some time at this main tent, I walked down the road where there were smaller (but still highly energetic) pickets sprinkled outside each entrance to the factory. At one of these spots a group of workers kept yelling “do a wheelie” at the passing cars. They were clearly having just as good a time away from the main tent. Eventually I left to check into my hotel and take a desperately needed nap, but very excited to return.

As I was leaving I walked past signs taped to a large traffic pole, reading “THE UNION SOLD US OUT,” and “2014 ALL OVER AGAIN,” the latter referring to the 2014 contract that passed by a mere 51 percent due to pressure on workers from the union leadership. There were also signs encouraging a no vote on this recent contract that the union had been pushing prior to the strike. Another reminder that if the workers win, it’ll be from the fight that the rank and file puts up.

September 18 in Renton, Washington

I returned the following evening to a much different scene. Maybe it was just a weird day and time for the picket. Maybe it was because this was the day that Boeing and the union returned to negotiations which are closed to the rank and file. Maybe it was the news of Boeing furloughing thousands of white collar employees. Whatever the case, far fewer people were out on the picket line, and the mood was much more passive.

I arrived at the location where there’d been about 80 people celebrating the day before. This time there were just five workers holding it down, not talking to each other much, though occasionally one would crack a joke to another. Despite the small numbers, these workers seemed to be in good spirits.

At one point a pedestrian walked by and while waiting to cross the busy intersection, asked about the negotiations. One of the more talkative workers responded that if they don’t get the 40 percent raise that they’re demanding, then “We’ll vote no again.”

I walked down to some of the other locations. The first one I approached had about ten workers. A child of a worker, maybe about eight years old, sat in a camping chair blasting a horn at passing cars. Some workers stood in clusters making small talk.

I walked to another entrance covered by a small but mighty group of workers who were putting all their effort into getting honks from passing cars and hollering “Just give me my money!” One or two cars flipped off or yelled racial slurs at the workers as they passed, an unfortunate reminder that there’s still people out there who are hostile to class struggle, especially when Black and Brown workers are part of it. Still, only about two people like this passed. Dozens if not hundreds honked in support.

Again, I noticed that whenever vans drove in and out of the factory the drivers tended to honk and express solidarity, and the picketers seemed to appreciate it. I asked a worker about it and he simply said, “Yeah they’re in a different union. I think the forklift drivers?” I thought to myself how powerful it would be to see these drivers join the strike, showing clearly that Boeing is nothing without workers in all points of production, from the machinists building planes to drivers transporting materials. Sadly, labor law has greatly attacked the historical practice of workers in different unions striking in solidarity with their class siblings who go on strike for better pay, benefits, and conditions. But at least at the Renton factory, there’s clearly some driver/machinist solidarity that can be built upon for greater shared struggle.

Later on I heard a younger worker telling his fellow picketers about his typical work shift which starts around 2am and runs through to the morning. He said, “It’s not too bad,” but he and his coworkers joked that if he wants a girlfriend he’ll have to meet her in the factory and take her on a date in the cafeteria. A worker who’d been there a decade at least replied, “I’ve seen this work break up so many families,” referring to the long hours that seem to be the norm for most of the machinists.

While it didn’t come up at these pickets, there has been much reporting on how Boeing uses forced overtime to make workers labor for long hours, with some workers spending 70 hours a week at the factory.

September 21 in Portland, Oregon

After a drive down the 101, I was in Portland where I had the opportunity to check out another picket at a different factory. This one was smaller than the first one I attended, about 30 people maybe, but it ended up being the most overtly friendly picket of the three. Just about everyone along the sidewalk outside the factory was smiling as I pulled up.

I arrived at a small tent with two people and we immediately started talking. I asked how they felt about the strike. One said she’d start looking for work soon because she didn’t want to be sitting around with nothing to do. The other seemed more content, adding “we’ve had years to prepare for this.”

I soon learned from conversations that this factory in particular had about 1,000 workers and while the strike was taking place there were 4 scabs inside trying to fill the tasks of about 30-something people and operate machines that they had no clue how to use. I was also happy to learn that this picket had received support from many other unions including firefighters, representatives from the local AFL-CIO, and Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace, to name a few. Plenty of passing cars also showed solidarity with their horns.

“I think how these negotiations go will affect how all negotiations in the future go,” one worker said. Adding that “If Boeing can get away with cutting retirement, what’s stopping other companies from doing it? If they can go after healthcare, other companies will.” He clearly understood this strike not just as a fight for himself and his coworkers, but for the larger labor movement.

I also learned from talking to another worker that the union was in charge of scheduling who showed up for which picketing shifts, and at least at this factory that meant workers were mostly only scheduled to picket with people they’d typically work with inside the factory. This type of bureaucratic organization of the picket lines is the norm and presents an obstacle to this strike and many others becoming as powerful as possible. Pickets should be spaces that bring out as many workers and community members as possible. In fact, the pickets should serve as spaces where workers have the opportunity to decide how to organize their strike rather than having the union bureaucracy dictate tactics to the workers. These could be spaces where Boeing workers try to convince drivers to join them on strike, affirm their most important demands, and strategize the fight so that the picket can last the long-haul and no contracts skimp out on their demands.

As I headed out I saw some type of box for telecommunications just inside the factory lawn, with “free Palestine fuck Boeing” scrawled across the top. It was powerful to see this message right outside the factory given the role that Boeing is playing in the current Israeli genocide in Gaza. Boeing has long been one of the top weapons manufacturers, and reporting from The Intercept highlights the company’s direct, currently expanding role in Israel’s genocidal campaign.

With no context of who wrote the message or how long it had been there, I don’t want to make too many assumptions. Maybe it was from an unrelated protest. But it made me hopeful that the historic movement for Palestine can find its way onto the picket line in solidarity with these workers fighting for the company to pay them what they deserve. The historic, youth-led movement for Palestine in the United States has shown that imperialist countries should not be written off as sites of struggle against oppression of the world’s most vulnerable people. Meanwhile, the Boeing strike and other recent struggles from the U.S. working class shows the unparalleled role that workers play in making everything, including imperialist companies like Boeing, run. These two struggles, the movement for Palestine and the strike at Boeing, showing up for one another is a scenario that could greatly change how each movement understands its own power and the role that the U.S. working class can play in resisting oppression and all forms of imperialism.

So far, there have only been a few examples of connections being made between the striking Boeing machinists and the anti-imperialist movement for Palestine. The bureaucratic control of the union leadership also is likely to present an obstacle to more militancy in Boeing workers, whether it be the workers taking up anti-imperialist demands or organizing the strike from the rank and file. Despite these limits, I can’t help but feel moralized by these picket lines and what they show about the growing desire of the U.S. working class to fight for everything we deserve.



Samuel Karlin  is a socialist with a background in journalism. He mainly writes for Left Voice about U.S. imperialism and international class struggle.

From Boeing machinists to cannabis workers, unions are mobilizing across U.S. industries

By Robert Forrant, UMass Lowell

Sept. 27, 2024 

THE CONVERSATION


City workers rally at City Hall in Los Angeles in August. 

File Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI | License Photo


What do violinists, grocery store clerks, college dorm counselors, nurses, teachers, hotel housekeepers, dockworkers, TV writers, autoworkers, Amazon warehouse workers and Boeing workers have in common?

In the past year or so, they've all gone on strike, tried to get co-workers to join a union, or threatened to walk off the job over an array of issues that include retirement plans, technology replacing workers and lagging wages as inflation increased.

The array of Americans who are organizing unions extends to the tech, digital media and cannabis industries. Even climbing gym employees have formed a union.

This is happening as U.S. workers in general are finding themselves in an increasingly precarious position. As a labor historian, I believe mobilization is the result of economic disruption caused by the relocation of jobs, the impact of new technologies on work and the erosion of income stability. It's become very unlikely that today's workers will have the same employer for decades, as my father and many men and women of his generation did.

Greatest generation of jobs

My father, a butcher, worked for the same company for 40 years and raised a family of seven on his union-secured wages and benefits. While back in the 1950s and 1960s many working-class Americans took that kind of job security for granted, it's no longer the case. Some career coaches consider keeping a job for many years as a character flaw.

The upsurge in labor organizing is in part a way for workers to gain some sort of say about what happens to their jobs. It's also helping employees plan for the future.

Union members are increasingly using strikes to demand higher wages, better benefits and increased job security. Why should it be, some low-income earners are asking, that in my family we must hold down two or three jobs to make ends meet, while CEO pay goes through the stratosphere?

There were 33 major strikes involving nearly a half-million workers in 2023, the most since 2000. Many labor scholars attribute much of this uptick in organizing to several long-term trends. They include stagnating wages, high out-of-pocket health spending costs -- even for those with insurance coverage -- and growing concerns over job insecurity caused by the expanded use of labor-saving technology.

Precarious work

In many industries, large numbers of the reliable jobs that paid enough for workers to be in the middle class have dwindled. That's largely due to technological advances that replaced labor with automation and manufacturers moving to lower-income places, including Mexico, China and other foreign countries, as well as southern states such as Alabama and Tennessee. These trends have left behind a Rust Belt strewn with decaying buildings that once housed bustling factories and increasing numbers of what are sometimes called "precarious" jobs, which are poorly paid and lack sick leave, vacation time and other basic protections.

This isn't new.

I've researched how New England's textile industry fled cities such as Lowell, Mass., as early as the 1920s for nonunion locations in South Carolina, while precision metalworking plants in Springfield, Mass., sent work to Mississippi and South Carolina starting in the 1950s.

But faced with mounting economic uncertainty, public support for unions is increasing. A 2024 Gallup Poll found that 70% of Americans approve of them -- close to the 71% level seen in 2022, which was the highest approval rating that unions had gotten in half a century.

Support is even rising among Americans who identify as Republicans, a political party that has historically frowned on organized labor: Gallup found it stood at 49% in 2024, down from 56% two years earlier but up from a low point of 26% in 2011.
Advertisement





Hotel workers strike

On Labor Day weekend in 2024, more than 10,000 hotel workers represented by the UNITE HERE union and employed by 24 hotels from Boston to the West Coast to Hawaii went on strike. Their labor actions disrupted travel plans during a busy time.

Most hotel work stoppages lasted for three days and intended to pressure the companies that own hotels as part of a larger labor contract negotiation strategy. Later in September, workers kept walking off the job at other hotels to pressure management to improve pay, expand health insurance coverage, boost retirement benefits and agree to resolve important job security issues.

Although the hotel industry has been booming since 2023, UNITE HERE contends that employment has decreased by nearly 40%, while wages have stagnated. On the picket line, workers have described living paycheck to paycheck and working one or two additional jobs to cover recent rent hikes.

Hotel workers have more bargaining power today because, according to an industry study, 79% of the 450 hotels surveyed looking to hire people said they could not fill open jobs.

That strike shows no sign of ending. Thousands more hotel workers were joining in by late September.

Boeing strike

Unlike the hotel workers' brief rolling work stoppages, the Boeing strike hasn't let up since it began Sept. 13. About 32,000 workers, mainly in Seattle and Portland, Ore., have walked off the job.

Boeing workers declared the strike even though the International Association of Machinists District 751 leadership in Seattle wanted to accept a deal from Boeing's management. But on Sept. 12, 94.6% of all rank-and-file workers rejected the tentative contract their leadership recommended the union accept.

The Boeing strike started the next day; it could last a long time. On Wednesday, the workers rejected what the company had called its "best and final offer" to settle the strike.

This is the eighth time these workers have gone on strike since their union formed in the 1930s. Its two most recent strikes, in 2008 and 2005, lasted 57 days and 28 days, respectively. Boeing's management, already reeling from the company's numerous operational and safety problems, has announced several cost-cutting measures, including furloughs for some nonunion employees.

Boeing's nonunion backup plan

Boeing has assured its shareholders and the public that the strike would not hinder production of the 787 Dreamliner jets at the company's nonunion factory in South Carolina.

International Association of Machinists union members have never forgiven Boeing for deciding to build that assembly plant. Operational since 2011, it now employs roughly 6,000 workers. Most of them would have been union members had Boeing built that plant or expanded production in Washington or Oregon, because the existing labor agreement would have covered the new workers.

However, the agreement did not extend to South Carolina.

At the time of the decision, a Boeing spokesperson said, its contract with the machinists' union "acknowledges our right to locate work elsewhere, and that's what we chose to do in this case because we just couldn't get the terms from them that we needed."

Dockworkers could be next

The timing of the hotel and Boeing strikes makes them perhaps more visible than they might have been because union members' votes are coveted by both major parties in the 2024 presidential election.

Meanwhile, 25,000 dockworkers who belong to the International Longshoremen's Association are planning a possible shutdown of ports from Boston to Houston on Oct. 1, over the union's concern for job loss due to automation.

How job security issues are addressed following this wave of strikes could set the tone for what other hospitality, manufacturing and transportation unions seek when their contracts are up for negotiation again.

Robert Forrant is a professor of U.S. history and labor studies at UMass Lowell.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

Mexico’s Sheinbaum to take reins of nation facing huge challenges


By AFP
September 28, 2024

Mexican president-elect Claudia Sheinbaum celebrates after her election victory - Copyright AFP Gerardo Luna

Daniel Rook

Claudia Sheinbaum will be sworn in on Tuesday as Mexico’s first woman president, taking charge of the violence-plagued Latin American nation at a time of mounting security, economic and diplomatic challenges.

The 62-year-old former Mexico City mayor and ruling party heavyweight will face immediate tests from cartel violence, frictions with key international allies and a backlash against controversial judicial reforms.

A scientist by training, Sheinbaum won a landslide election victory in June with a pledge to continue the left-wing reform agenda of outgoing leader Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, a close ally.

Sheinbaum’s relations with the United States, Mexico’s main trading partner and a key ally in areas including security and migration, will depend to a large extent on who wins the US election on November 5.

Sheinbaum could probably develop “a quite good relationship with Kamala Harris because they’re very much alike,” said Pamela Starr, a professor of political science and international relations at the University of Southern California.

“They’re both women who will be the first female president of their countries. So they’re both interested in advancing women’s issues and women’s rights. They’re both very much on the same page when it comes to climate change. And they’re both very much progressives,” she said.

Relations with Donald Trump, if he wins, would “be much more difficult, in part because he doesn’t have as much respect for female leaders as he does for male leaders,” Starr said.

And because Sheinbaum is not a populist, “he won’t see a kindred soul in her like he saw in Lopez Obrador,” she added.

Trump’s vow to deport significant numbers of undocumented people would present a major challenge for Mexican-US relations, according to experts.

In that case, “passions on both sides of the border will become inflamed and the relationship could be put to a severe test,” said Michael Shifter, an expert at the Inter-American Dialogue think tank in Washington.

Even before taking office, Sheinbaum has found herself engulfed in a diplomatic row with Spain, another key economic partner, after she refused to invite King Felipe VI to her inauguration, accusing him of failing to acknowledge harm caused by colonization.

-‘ More pragmatic’ –

While Sheinbaum’s presidency is unlikely to usher in a radical change of direction for the world’s most populous Spanish-speaking country, home to 129 million people, she is expected to bring her own style of leadership, experts said.

“She’s more pragmatic and less ideological than Lopez Obrador,” Starr told AFP.

Lopez Obrador leaves office due to the country’s single-term limit, enjoying an approval rating of around 70 percent.

He hands Sheinbaum the reins of a nation where murders and kidnappings occur daily and ultra-violent cartels involved in drug trafficking, people smuggling and other crimes control vast swaths of territory.

In the northwestern state of Sinaloa, cartel infighting has left dozens of people dead in recent weeks.

Gender-based violence is another major issue with around 10 women or girls murdered every day across the country.

“Sheinbaum’s chief challenge will be tackling Mexico’s deteriorating security situation,” said Shifter.

“Lopez Obrador mainly relied on rhetoric to address spreading cartel activity, but Sheinbaum will likely be data-driven and technocratic in her approach to this vexing problem and will try to improve the effectiveness of the police,” he added.

Lopez Obrador prioritized addressing the root causes of crime such as poverty and inequality — a policy that he calls “hugs, not bullets.”

In his final weeks in office, the self-proclaimed anti-corruption fighter pushed through controversial reforms including the election of all judges by popular vote.

Critics warned the changes would make it easier for politicians and organized crime to influence the courts.

The reforms upset foreign investors as well as key trade partners the United States and Canada.

Once in office, Sheinbaum is likely to seek ways to allay the concerns, Shifter said.

“By all accounts she is pragmatic and understands that Mexico cannot afford to antagonize both governments and alienate investors,” he added.


In Acapulco and across Mexico, violence poses huge test for new president

By AFP
September 28, 2024


A member of the National Guard at the police headquarters in Acapulco 

- Copyright AFP ANWAR AMRO

Samir TOUNSI

Gunfire, murders and threats — insecurity is part of everyday life across much of Mexico and one of the main challenges awaiting Claudia Sheinbaum when she becomes president on Tuesday.

A shooting this month in the Pacific resort city of Acapulco left two people wounded in a seafront bar. In late August, a human head was thrown in front of the establishment.

When contacted about the incident, a bar manager cut the questioner short.

Locals speculated that he had refused to pay “rent” to one of two local gangs.

Farther back from the seafront, the El Progreso neighborhood is one of those most affected by violence in Acapulco.

A man was killed in a cobbler’s shop a few days ago, a resident said. “It’s a daily occurrence,” he added with a sigh.

“Six murders in Acapulco” was the headline in the newspaper El Sur on September 10.

“That’s a total of 26 crimes this month, presumably linked to organized crime,” the local newspaper said, without naming the two rival gangs involved in extortion and drugs.

Acapulco, once a playground for the rich and famous, has lost its luster over the last decade as foreign tourists have been spooked by bloodshed that has made it one of the world’s most violent cities.

The insecurity is hardly unique to the city in the southern state of Guerrero.

Spiraling criminal violence, much of it linked to drug trafficking and gangs, has seen more than 450,000 people murdered in the Latin American nation since 2006.

But in the heart of El Progreso, the mood on a recent day was one of celebration at the municipal police headquarters.

Under a blazing sun, Mayor Abelina Lopez Rodriguez handed out new uniforms to officers.

Giving a speech, she made no mention of violence, preferring to talk about year-end bonuses instead.

“Acapulco is a paradise,” she told AFP.

“We must continue working to create better opportunities for our police officers and for society,” added Lopez Rodriguez, a lawyer by profession.

“Peace is built in hearts,” she added.

Corruption comes from another level of government, her entourage explained off-camera.

“Of course” municipal police can be infiltrated by gangs, the new head of public security, Eduardo Bailleres Mendoza, told AFP.

He wants officers to undergo random drug testing “to prevent staff from also being victims of the use of toxic substances” — and thus susceptible to the influence of organized crime.

A municipal police officer earns just 14,000 pesos ($710) per month, he said.

– Drones and bombs –

On the eve of the Independence Day holiday weekend in mid-September, hoteliers were optimistic.

Tourists will come, they said.

But when the area has been in the headlines recently, it has not been for good news.

In nearby Coyuca de Benitez, at the foot of the Sierra Madre mountain range, a candidate was murdered on the eve of June 2 municipal elections.

Some 150 kilometers (90 miles) north of Acapulco, the inhabitants of Santa Rosa de Lima said they are living under pressure from local cartel La Familia Michoacana.

The gang has been using drones against communities that resist extortion.

“On April 21, they lobbed bombs, more than 20. Several hectares of forest were burned,” said Azucena Rosas Garcia, leader of the mountain community of San Antonio Texas.

She showed images that she said were recovered from the memory card of a downed drone. An investigation was opened months later.

Suddenly, as she spoke, armed men drove by in a red pickup truck.

They were self-defense militias, explained Victor Espino, a local community leader who said that he himself was arrested by the police in possession of a weapon.

“When it suits them, the law exists. When it doesn’t suit them, they don’t apply it,” the avocado farmer said.

“They don’t defend us, nor let us defend ourselves,” he added.

Nearly 200,000 people have been murdered in six years under outgoing President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who prioritized tackling the root causes of crime — a strategy he calls “hugs, not bullets.”

President-elect Sheinbaum, who comes from the same left-wing party, has pledged to continue that approach while improving coordination between security forces and state prosecutors.

In the northwestern state of Sinaloa, cartel infighting has left dozens of people dead in recent weeks, underscoring the magnitude of the task facing Sheinbaum.

The End of AMLO’s Six-Year Term and His Legacy: Debates on Progressivism and Socialism


Below, Pablo Oprinari, editor of La Izquierda Diario Mexico and leader of the Socialist Workers Movement (MTS), provides a comprehensive critical overview of the six-year term of former president Andrés Manuel López Obrador.

Pablo Oprinari

September 27, 2024

LEFT VOICE USA

Photo: Beatriz Gutierres Muller

On September 1, Andrés Manuel López Obrador gave a long speech to mark the end of his government. His extensive address was intended to make clear what he considers his legacy in Mexico and to look forward to constructing a progressive tradition in the country. Inevitably, this was interspersed with bitter criticism of the opposition and a defense of his controversial judicial reform, which allows judges to be voted on democratically instead of appointed. He also criticized the U.S. government, which he nevertheless considers a “good friend and neighbor,” and he repeatedly mentioned the family and its importance to Mexican culture and society, in phrasing with strong traditionalist and nationalist overtones. This was perhaps the final speech given by the strongman to his followers at the Zócalo, Mexico City’s massive central plaza. In 2006 he spoke as the leader of an opposition that denounced former Mexican president Felipe Calderón’s electoral fraud. Since 2018 he has led an administration that came to preserve political stability and restore the relationship between rulers and ruled. In this speech he made a lot of goodbyes, but it is open to speculation what place AMLO will occupy for his party.

AMLO ends his term with a more than 60 percent approval rating. This allowed Sheinbaum to win the presidency with more votes than he won six years ago. It also gave him the opportunity to hold his lavish and propagandistic farewell speech on September 1, something unprecedented in the last decades. It is also true, however, that other Latin American progressive governments ended their first terms with high approval ratings, and that the decline came later, as was the case in Argentina and Brazil. Perhaps because of that specter of decline, Obrador dedicated much of his speech to praising Sheinbaum’s character, seeking to pass on his popularity to her. At the same time, he intends to take advantage of her strength in order to implement and fast-track his reforms, such as in the judicial system. All this is causing a real national polarization, which includes student mobilizations both for and against the reforms, as well as strikes by workers, all encouraged and stoked by the right-wing opposition.
On Hegemonies, Idleness, and the Integral State

Behind the festivities lies a persistent hegemony, cultivated by the public policies deployed by AMLO’s administration. In particular, AMLO’s social programs, labor reforms, and wage increases culminated the rising expectations that his arrival generated among the masses, the working class in particular. These marked a tendency in AMLO’s administration to incorporate elements of what Gramsci called the “integral state.” Although this hegemony has important limits that contribute to its legitimacy—which we will return to later—what is certain is that AMLO’s popularity and charisma were based on representing, for the popular imagination, something seen by millions as different from the decades of previous neoliberal governments and their legacy of plundering and obscene corruption.

In the ideological field, Obradorism sought to support its progressive profile by presenting a critical and emancipatory perspective on the educational and cultural fields (which could not hide the greater precariousness in education and the budget decrease) and a decolonization framework incorporated into Mexico’s history.1 In addition, it embraced, as if they were part of Morena’s own lineage, the workers’ and social mobilizations of the previous decades. All these elements were fundamental to pacifying the class struggle, although it did not head off important resistance movements, before, during, and after the pandemic.

This hegemony rested on the weakness of the conservative opposition, which still shows no signs of recovery. This weakness resulted from the organic crisis that began in 2014, which ended up pulverizing the institutional and electoral weight of the three member parties of the Pact for Mexico, as it was called: the PRI, the PAN, and the PRD, all conservative, neoliberal parties that ruled over Mexico for decades. This allowed AMLO’s party, Morena, to win a majority in the Chamber of Deputies and a near majority in the Senate. Thus, Morena is at the center of a true reconfiguration of the party regime that, although it began in 2018, resoundingly defeated the opposition coalition a few months ago. 2 Obradorism has taken advantage of this hegemonic construction to concentrate its power and impose its legislative agenda, heightening the president’s Bonapartist tendencies and those of the armed forces, while reforms such as the judicial reform combine the popular election of judges with the reactionary proposal to establish “faceless judges,” or anonymous judges who rule on gang-related cases. On paper, this seems fair, since the fear of retribution is high in cases involving the cartels. But when this was implemented, famously in Italy in its efforts against the Mafia, it paved the way for corrupt sentences and closed-door deals, eliminating accountability from the judicial process. 3
Obradorism and the Marginalization of the Workers’ Movement

Obradorism constitutes a watershed in recent political history, particularly since it conquered and co-opted the labor movement and mass movements for the oppressed.

The narrative around AMLO and the discourse he weaponizes revolves around the “people” and the commoner. A grassroots movement was formed through AMLO and his party, one that brought together the expectations and illusions of extensive and broad social sectors. AMLO seeks to maintain a “direct” relationship with this movement, which breaks with the traditional patterns of Mexican politics. Although this went beyond the frontiers of Morena’s party structure, these movements are now subject to a leadership with a bourgeois political and programmatic perspective, which has not questioned the social and economic order of capitalism. Far from it. Although AMLO’s government had massive social and electoral support, many of its gestures and some of its policies—from the social programs to the energy and judicial reforms—generated discomfort in business sectors and U.S. imperialism itself. Yet Obradorism has preserved the profits of the big businessmen and expanded opportunities for transnational corporations, even in state-run industries.

These two points are crucial to explain the new hegemony, without simplifying AMLO’s regime by focusing only on the results of his welfare policy. To recognize the true contours (and limits) of his government’s progressive character, we must uphold the importance of a class-independent strategy as an alternative to building political power, based on the autonomous action of the working class and its alliance with other oppressed sectors. It is important to consider other experiences that arose in the region in previous historical moments, allowing for all circumstances and considering the very different conditions, from the national-popular movements of the 1930s and 1940s—particularly Argentinean Peronism and Cardenism—to the first wave of progressivism that emerged in the political spotlight after 2000.

In the case of Peronism, the subordination of workers’ organizations and the search for autonomy (class independence) were a fundamental political problem that revolutionary socialists faced. From the hegemonic viewpoint of the revolutionary actors, the working class and the oppressed did not aim to overthrow the capitalist regime but instead looked to reform it. As for Cardenism in Mexico’s 1930s, in this era we can find great lessons for the present. For example, the Mexican Communist Party tried to develop a popular front under the leadership of the Party of the Mexican Revolution, headed by Cárdenas, and in doing so they subordinated themselves to it instead of making space for their distinctly Marxist policies. On the other hand, the position proposed by Leon Trotsky and the small nucleus of Marxists organized around his ideas raised the importance of maintaining political and organizational independence from bourgeois parties, with a strategic focus on polemicizing against the latter instead of folding into them.

Nevertheless, there were profound differences between the experience of the workers’ movement under Cárdenas against the imperialist powers, particularly the United States. Cárdenas relied on the workers’ movement and the masses to carry out measures such as the oil and railroad expropriations, creating strong frictions with the imperialist powers. AMLO was far from that. Beyond some diplomatic gestures that sought to establish a sovereign image of the country, he deepened Mexico’s economic integration with the United States and went so far as to claim that the xenophobic and racist Trump was his “friend.” 4
On the Limits of the Obradorist Hegemony

Every hegemony has limits, even more so when the regional context is one of economic and social instability and developing class struggle. Furthermore, the main imperialist power—which undergirds Mexico’s new investment boom, thirsty for the advantages of “nearshoring”—is in hegemonic decline and is subject to the fluctuations of the international economy, geopolitical upheavals, and its disputes with the looming power of China. A few weeks ago, Mexican financial markets shook at the pace of the Japanese stock market and the widespread fall of international markets, and the peso is no longer at its strongest.

AMLO’s moderate stances during his term—even those seen as progressive—were limited by Mexico’s dependent capitalism and by its increasing integration with the United States. AMLO’s government, contrary to its progressive face, sustained conservative policies that were continuous with neoliberalism; they thus constantly attacked the interests of workers, women, and youth. 5

One example of this was the precarization of labor, an issue that was not questioned by Obradorism, even the outsourcing reforms, and was redoubled by the administration in the public sector. The same can be said of extractivism and the development of megaprojects, including those proposed for the industrialization of the Southeast, which constitute a process of accumulation by dispossession and is consistent with the big capital’s need to seek out new spaces for capitalist accumulation. Examples include the Mayan Train project, which violates the wishes of the peoples and communities in the Yucatán Peninsula, and the invasions of Canadian and U.S. companies into Mexico’s natural reserves. Those who opposed these policies—as is the case of the EZLN and the indigenous movement of the CNI—were persecuted and repressed, from the assassination of Samir Flores onward.

Issues as elementary, but as necessary and fundamental, as the historical demands of the women’s movement, such as the legalization of abortion, went unaddressed by the government. Meanwhile, femicidal violence continues to rise.

On the other hand, there have been the recent disputes between AMLO and the U.S. embassy, which once again showed the latter’s interventionism. These disputes do not hide the fact that, together with nearshoring, which promises a new whirlpool of investment opportunities for imperialist capital, the demands of the White House around immigration and security policies have been accepted and implemented by AMLO’s administration.

In this sense, militarization is a fundamental aspect of the U.S. relationship, and it clearly corresponds with the subordination of progressivism to the Yankee mandate. Under AMLO, the dominant role of the armed forces expanded, offering great economic benefits and broadening military influence. At the same time, an ideological operation was deployed that presented the armed forces as an armed people, allowing a rehabilitation of their image that neither Peña Nieto nor Calderón had achieved, and that could only be achieved by a “progressive” government.

Throughout this article, we’ve laid out several different aspects of Obradorism’s legacy, on the part of the Left and the critical intelligentsia, aspects that should be part of a real and deep discussion. At a time when many who come from the Left support the 4T project, or avoid criticizing it while participating in its “training schools,” a truly critical position should enter this debate and avoid the ideological justification of an economic, political, and social project that does not bet on breaking the reality of dependence, exploitation, and oppression, which has characterized Mexico for centuries.
The Struggle for a Revolutionary Socialism from Below

In other articles, we have written about the possible perspectives of the incoming government. Bourgeois hegemony can be preserved only if it is based on the passivization and numbness of the masses. Therefore, if this hegemony is broken, it will depend on sectors of workers, youth, and the women’s movement retaking the path of struggle and advancing with a perspective that questions the government, regaining confidence in their forces and in their autonomous and independent action, breaking with their subordination to the bureaucratic leaderships.

The AMLO government had to face demonstrators who put their claims and demands on the streets—education workers (from elementary school to university), state workers, and health workers, among others. Others included the industrial workers in Matamoros, who carried out a great workers’ struggle in 2019, and all who fought for their rights during the pandemic.

Following this path, we are preparing ourselves for new struggles and to progress in organizing ourselves. It is fundamental to open, from the socialist Left, an active debate that does not limit itself to discussing what exists today, but rather places at its center the project of building a socialist future.

AMLO’s progressivism has shown its limits; it is capitalism with a “human face.” It does not pretend to combat the results of this capitalist system of exploitation—such as precariousness, environmental devastation, structural violence against women, or militarization—nor to attack its deep roots, nor to break the deep dependence that subordinates Mexico to the United States. Furthermore, at any hint of economic crisis or danger to the profits of the bankers and industrialists, the working and living conditions of the masses will once again be pushed down by the same progressive government that gave so few benefits in a time of plenty.

In view of this, it is essential to update the socialist perspective. We must wage the struggle for a new social order, based on expropriating large corporations and transnationals and breaking the pacts and agreements that subordinate us (economically, but also politically, militarily, and diplomatically) to the United States or any other imperialist power. Both previous government’s and AMLO’s have led Mexico to become a source of cheap and precarious labor for transnationals, with hundreds of thousands of deaths and disappearances as a result of militarization and femicides.

Our perspective demands a true and radical social transformation that puts the whole economy in the hands of the workers, those who move the levers of production, transportation, communications, and commerce. In this perspective, technology and technological advances are not at the service of rendering us even more precarious, but at the service of living better, working fewer hours, and having the possibility of dedicating more time to leisure, culture, and recreation. We must take up the historical demands of the indigenous peoples, demands that can be met only through the revolutionary alliance of the workers of the cities and the countryside.

This is a socialist perspective from below, based on the democratic organization of the real producers of society, the workers. Together with the peasants and indigenous peoples, we will take all decisions into our hands. We will begin by democratically planning the economy according to the needs of the majority, seeking a balance with nature, and guaranteeing housing, health, education, and culture for all. Other key aspects of this perspective, such as ending repression and respecting the autonomy of indigenous peoples, will also be guaranteed. This will be infinitely superior to the current bourgeois democracy, in which the great majorities can vote only once every three or six years, but without the right to determine any of the fundamental aspects of the economy and society.

To build this material force, we need a political organization anchored in the working class, the youth, and the women’s movement, one that can achieve this goal. It is fundamental to maintain political and organizational independence in the face of Sheinbaum’s new government, as well as in the face of the bourgeois opposition. Likewise, we must bet on the victory of working-class demands, as well as the demands of the peasants, the indigenous peoples, and all the popular sectors, continuing to promote every struggle against the capitalists. We do this in hopes of overcoming the obstacles and truces that the bureaucratic leaderships want to impose.

A socialist perspective can be achieved only on the basis of a social revolution led by the working class together with its allies in the countryside and the city. That alliance will win a government by and for the exploited and oppressed of Mexico, thus retaking the revolutionary struggle begun more than 110 years ago by the insurrectionary peasants of Morelos led by Zapata with the cry of tierra y libertad (land and liberty). This is the essential debate that must be taken up among workers, poor peasants, indigenous peoples, women, and youth: what kind of society we want, and how to fight for it.

This article was originally published in Ideas de Izquierda Mexico on September 8.

Translated by Kimberly Ann.


Notes

Notes↑1 See for example: Fourth Transformation in education: from class struggle to passivization, by Sergio Mendez Moissen
↑2 An exhaustive analysis of the electoral process and its main points can be found in the article “Elections in Mexico: coordinates, contours and perspectives of Claudia Sheinbaum’s triumph.”
↑3 In other articles we have addressed the debate on authoritarianism and democracy in Mexico. Obradorism has also raised discussions about the “return of the old PRI”, both for its economic policy (in particular the weight of the State) and its authoritarian traits. For these debates, see this work by Oscar Fernandez.
↑4 In this differentiation we make, it must be mentioned that the “highly progressive national defense measures” (Trotsky) that Cárdenas carried out did not question its character as a bourgeois nationalist government nor did they assign it a “socializing” dynamic. Shortly after the expropriations, Cárdenas experienced a conservative turn in the last part of his mandate, which led him to designate Manuel Ávila Camacho as his successor instead of his friend and companion Francisco Múgica, who represented the left wing of the Party of the Mexican Revolution, in an election that privileged stability and the rise of a more right-wing sector of that party.
↑5 In fact, AMLO’s government was also far from other so-called progressive experiences in Latin America that, without questioning the foundations of capitalist dependency and exploitation, carried out certain policies that caused strong friction with imperialism, as was the case of Chavismo in Venezuela (particularly during the time of Hugo Chávez’s government), and of Evomoralism in Bolivia. Regarding Venezuela, see this article by Milton D’León.



Pablo Oprinari
Pablo is a sociologist from Mexico City and a leader of the Socialist Workers Movement (MTS).