Showing posts sorted by date for query ELIZABETH GURLEY FLYNN. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query ELIZABETH GURLEY FLYNN. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Tuesday, May 13, 2025

Sabotage Is On The Menu

In the UK, ecoactivists are increasingly turning to something new: sabotage. How far will it go? And how might it change the climate movement?
May 13, 2025
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.


A Shut The System activist cuts the fibre optic cables of an insurance company in the City of London, January 20, 2025. Photo: Shut The System



It is the final week of February 2024, and the City of London, the capital’s ancient financial district, where corporations cluster like woodland trees, is teeming with climate activists. For three days they march the streets, block the entrances, and infiltrate the lobbies of major insurance companies. They act as part of a global campaign by an alliance of groups, and their aim is simple: stop the insurers from underwriting new fossil fuel infrastructure. This protest will end up showcasing both the pruning of one type of climate activism, and the blossoming of another.

The first activists to be arrested are a five-strong Extinction Rebellion troupe dressed like 1940s washerwomen, complete with hair curlers, heavy makeup and rubber gloves. Known as the Dirty Scrubbers, their plan is to performatively clean some corporate entrances, and dye some fake money green in their ‘greenwashing machine’ – an old washing machine on bike wheels. The action encapsulates much of what made Extinction Rebellion a global phenomenon – fun, theatrical, eye-catching activism that still has a bit of bite. The police commander is informed by protest organisers and gives the performance the go ahead. But half an hour later, the police on the street have other ideas. Thirty officers surround the Dirty Scrubbers as they wheel their greenwashing machine into the protest zone, and arrest them for conspiring to cause criminal damage. Only some are handcuffed, but all are loaded into vans and held in police cells until the evening. Their greenwashing machine is impounded.

On the third and final day of the protest, in the early hours of the night, a previously unknown group makes its debut. Hooded activists wielding paint-filled fire extinguishers spray the entrances of three insurers and flee the scene before the police arrive. Rather than getting cleaned by the Dirty Scrubbers, the skyscrapers end up stained blood-red by anonymous members of Shut The System (STS).



The Dirty Scrubbers are led into police vans, City of London, February 27, 2024. Photo: Extinction Rebellion UK

In their online manifesto (now taken down), STS promise to “shut down key actors in the fossil fuel economy” by waging an escalating “campaign of sabotage.” True to their word, their sabotage escalates. When they return to the streets four months later, this time to target Barclays bank in a joint action with Palestine Action, they don’t just spray-paint the bank’s glass fronted buildings, they smash them too. More than 20 branches are temporarily shut down across the UK to pressure the bank to divest from fossil fuels and Elbit Systems, Israel’s biggest weapons manufacturer. Weeks later, they return to the City of London to deface and smash insurance company windows.

Then in January of this year, STS try a new, more sophisticated kind of sabotage – cutting fibre optics cables. First to be forced offline is a collection of climate-denying lobby groups housed a stone’s throw from the British Parliament. Two weeks later, STS target those major insurers again, this time severing cables of firms not just in the City of London but also in Leeds, Birmingham and Sheffield.

Most recently, they target the private homes of three Barclays executives. On the morning of the bank’s AGM, its CEO, global head of sustainable finance, and president find their luxury properties spray-painted with messages demanding an end to fossil fuel investments. Cables are also cut at Barclaycard’s UK headquarters, and more than 20 bank branches have their door locks and ATMs superglued shut.

The ‘campaign of sabotage’ quickly bears fruit. A week after its entrance is stained blood-red, the insurance company Probitas declares it will not insure two ‘carbon bomb’ projects singled out by protesters (the East African Crude Oil Pipeline and a proposed coal mine in North West England). Days after STS and Palestine Action shatter Barclays bank branches, its CEO writes an op-ed in the Guardian renouncing the damage and voicing concern about the “overall suffering” in the Middle East. Four months later, the bank has sold all of its shares in Elbit Systems.

A long-term member of STS, who required total anonymity to be interviewed, was happy to outline the strategy behind their ‘campaign of sabotage’: “We want to give the climate movement more teeth by training up people and getting them into these sorts of actions, mobilising further across Europe and the world,” they say. “So when fossil fuel companies are presented with demands by protesters, they can expect the tactics we provide. There’s power in that. These industries will know that we’re escalating, know that we care about this, and know that we’re not going away.”

In adopting and spreading sabotage, STS doesn’t see itself as breaking away from the climate movement’s sustained adherence to non-violence. My contact instantly references the author of the manifesto How to Blow Up a Pipeline to explain: “I’m in complete agreement with Andreas Malm. Violence can be done to people, but not to buildings or infrastructure. We will not harm individuals.” Asked if they’d be willing to cut the cables of the home of, say, an oil company CEO, they don’t hesitate; “personally speaking, that’s within my limits. These people are killing people.”

But the use of sabotage does mark STS apart from the climate movement in other ways. The tactic necessitates a radically different culture to earlier organisations like Extinction Rebellion (XR) and Just Stop Oil (JSO), one where the need for security, and the fear of infiltration, reshapes nearly everything else. Reaching a member of STS for interview required multiple approaches. Once contact was made, Signal had to be jettisoned for a more anonymous messaging app. The days of open meetings in community halls and welcoming spokespeople is long gone. It begs the question, if you want to be a part of STS, how do you join? “We grow through people who know people, reaching out through a chain of trust,” says my contact. To become a member, you must be vouched for by at least two current members of STS, and members with deep roots in the climate movement are encouraged to scour their contacts for candidates. “We often find that people we’ve reached out to have been seeking a route in for a long time.”

This chain of trust spreads right across the UK, but it is a patchwork quilt, not a uniform fabric. Nobody can know everybody in STS, and group meetings are deliberately avoided. “Someone could have their phone taken away by police or put on remand. One person’s security failure could take out a lot of people” says my contact. Instead, a central team of organisers will chat with local leaders to agree on targets and dates and times, as well as pass on tactical knowhow. When it comes to deciding the specifics of an action – who takes which target, who adopts what tactic – the group operate like a take-away restaurant. “A long menu of possible options is sent around, and local cells then decide what they want to do based on location recces and capacity.”


A Barclays bank branch in Bristol after a joint nationwide action by STS and Palestine Action, June 10, 2024. Photo: Martin Booth

STS is a year old, and the menu system appears to be working. But it does raise issues around power distribution and decision-making. A typical STS activist will not know who writes the menu, nor have a say over what dishes are made available. Their experience of STS will rarely if ever breach the limits of their local cell. It’s a long way from the open strategy meetings of XR, or the large social soup nights of JSO, where power is mitigated and community fostered as much as possible. My contact accepts the criticism: “There are no elections right now for the central team, but questions are being asked about this. And we do want a system of feedback, but security is just so important.”

Questions are also being asked in the central team about money. Namely, how can supporters chip in so STS members can focus on action research and development full-time. “Applying for funding through the normal climate movement routes is very difficult,” confirms my source. “So far we’ve raised small amounts, mostly on the backs of individuals. We have plans afoot for many more types of sabotage, but the scope to try different things is dependent on finding funding.” Asked for possible solutions, my source can only say, “we’re working on it.”

The artistic side of the climate movement, so intrinsic to XR and offshoots like the Dirty Scrubbers, has also been sacrificed on the altar of security. The central team have little interest in branding, messaging, or media. “We do have a logo on Instagram,” points out my contact. “But our visual and social media content is minimal – a recognition that being in any kind of contact with our group holds risk. It’s not a philosophy, just a result of priorities. Our circle’s central concern is security.”

If STS is the vanguard of a new phase in the UK’s climate movement, this phase isn’t as accessible, transparent or fun as what came before. But my contact is sure that this self-described “darker, more serious wing” is needed. With a climate denier in the White House, Big Oil ripping up pledges to decarbonise, the planet heating faster than predicted, and climate scientists warning that cataclysmic tipping points could happen as soon as this year, it’s not surprising that some ecoactivists are ready to embrace more militant tactics. But when I ask my contact what drew them to sabotage, the worsening status quo, and the apparent failure of traditional protest tactics to reverse it, weren’t the only factors.

My contact first got involved in ecoactivism after the Covid pandemic, when a friend invited them to a local XR meeting. Impressed by the confident activists they found there, they started taking part in actions. As they spent more time in the movement, they learned about the global struggle for environmental justice, including brutal events like the Ogoni 9, where nine Nigerian activists opposing Shell’s drilling of the Niger delta were framed for murder and hanged in 1995. The UK-based oil giant was implicated in both their false charges and a long campaign of violence in the region. These corporate crimes fundamentally shifted how my contact saw XR’s activism: “What we were doing was engaging the public, but it started to feel too performative, like an illusion. We had this messaging of crisis, of lives being at risk, of needing to change right now! But we weren’t willing to really threaten the institutions most responsible.”

I put the criticism to Richard Ecclestone, an XR spokesperson and former police inspector. He is sympathetic: “I understand why they expressed those views. I’m horrified by the behaviour of companies like Shell, Barclays, Perenco (an Anglo-French oil company accused of ongoing ecocide in the DRC).” Ecclestone is also sympathetic towards their use of sabotage: “Personally, I don’t believe action against property is violent when you consider the harm being done by these companies to people and planet. A tiny amount of damage to their operations could be justified. That’s my take. Others within the movement will think different. We’re a broad church.”

But this doesn’t mean Ecclestone will be joining STS anytime soon, nor that he would welcome their tactics in future XR campaigns. “Our actions need to stick to our principles and values, and one of those is that we are accountable,” he says, meaning XR activists must accept the repercussions of their actions, including arrest. “If there’s no firewall between accountable and nonaccountable actions, we expose our people to extra risk, and that will hurt marginalised groups who for one reason or another can’t take on that risk. We have to do our best to be a home for everyone in the UK who wants to express their right to protest.”


City of London insurance firms are again visited by STS overnight, July 24, 2024. Photo: Shut The System

Another factor that steered my STS contact towards unaccountable sabotage was the increasingly draconian punishments the British state was dishing out to peaceful protesters. “Just Stop Oil’s campaign of blocking roads and disrupting sports events really boosted the signal – put the words just-stop-oil in every mind in the country,” they enthuse. “But the prosecutions and prison sentences have been ridiculous. If I’m going to go down and do time, I want to cause the maximum amount of disruption in the time I have, and that means covert actions.”

Since the rise of groups like XR and JSO, the UK government has been introducing increasingly repressive anti-protest laws, at least some of which were drafted by an oil-funded lobby group targeted by STS cable-cutters. The latest legislation started being enforced by police last year. As a result, unprecedented numbers of nonviolent protesters, mostly members of JSO, have been either imprisoned for years or paralysed by bail conditions for years as they wait for the overwhelmed justice system to put them on trial. The new laws have been used for even mildly disruptive actions like slow-marching, and when activists do have their week in court, the new legislation allows judges to strip them of all legal defences and ban them from mentioning climate change to juries.

After nearly 200 prison sentences, thousands of court cases, and the government adopting their core demand to stop new oil and gas, JSO has ended its three-year campaign. Their final action, a celebratory march through central London, took place last month. Mel Carrington, a JSO spokesperson, is bullish about the group’s achievements: “We won our demand, and we made the need to end new oil and gas a national talking point.” But she also acknowledges that the group failed to mobilise enough people to continue, and that the state crackdown on protest played its part in that: “To do street level actions you need a broad base of support. Since 2022, fewer and fewer people have mobilised, even for modest actions like slow marching. That’s the trend.”

While part of JSO will remain to support its many activists still trapped in the justice system, the bulk of the organisation will now metamorphosise into something new. And while Carrington is in dialogue with groups like STS, and open-minded about their tactics, she is confident that JSO’s successor organisation will not adopt them. Again, the key issue with STS is their lack of accountability, and how that undermines JSO’s understanding of nonviolence. “Nonviolence uses disruption to create moments of tension and an emotional response, and accountability is an essential part of that,” she says. “As we don’t hide our faces or identities, we show that we are willing to stand up for what we believe in and to accept the legal consequences.” By ensuring actions are public displays of human vulnerability and courageous defiance, accountability is also a major catalyst for press attention. “Disruption, arrests and imprisonment are typically what drives our media coverage” continues Carrington.

While JSO and XR are both firmly wedded to accountability, they have very different takes on the virtues of disruption. On New Year’s Eve of 2022, XR renounced public disruption as a primary tactic, and started to prioritise attendance over arrests to stem waning participation post-pandemic. This led to ‘The Big One’ a few months later, a four-day rebellion outside the British parliament that was carefully marshalled by XR to minimise risk and maximise participation. And while The Big One did draw huge crowds, media interest was threadbare, the government ignored it, and it failed to match the impact of previous rebellions. Or as Carrington puts it: “XR got 90,000 onto the streets, but no one cared because it wasn’t challenging anything.”

Ecclestone gently refutes the idea that no one cared about The Big One, noting how XR collaborated with more than 200 organisations for the event, and how much hard work went into forging that grand alliance behind the scenes. For him, media coverage is not the only way to engage more of the population, and XR has no plans right now to go back to disrupting the public. “XR has remained consistent over the years. Our principles and values haven’t changed. We’ve always tried to be inclusive and accessible, and a home for everyone in the UK.”

What has changed for Ecclestone is police strategy. “In the 1990s, when I was policing protests against live animal exports, we had no interest in arresting the activists, or punishing them for blocking the trucks. We let them express their right to protest, and let the trucks get through with a minimum of fuss,” he says. “This new legislation is a way for police to abdicate their responsibility to enable peaceful protest. If you extinguish people’s right to protest, they’ll go to Shut The System to take it out on perpetrators directly rather than trying to persuade politicians.”

Although my STS contact will not be drawn into details, the group have big plans for this year, and they will not be alone in bringing sabotage to British streets. In February, another new climate group, Sabotage Oil for Survival, kicked off their campaign by drilling into the tyres of over 100 gas-guzzling SUVs across three Land Rover dealerships. Palestine Action will also continue to share knowledge and collaborate with STS, and although there is no formal union between the two organisations, my contact describes the pro-Palestinian network as their “biggest inspiration.”

As for what this sabotage-filled future might mean for the rest of the climate movement, my STS contact focuses on the positives. They cite a recent academic study showing the “radical flank effect” of JSO, where that group’s disruptive actions made the moderate campaign of Friends of the Earth more popular. With global warming already exceeding 1.5°C, the Paris Agreement now a roadmap for a bygone era, and even the sober risk analysts of the insurance industry now warning that four billions lives could be lost by 2050, the belief that only moderate means can divert us from disaster feels increasingly delusional. If the climate movement adds sabotage to its arsenal, and breaking glass ends up breaking the political impasse, such actions should be seen not as sneaky sabotage, but heroic self-defence.


ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.Donate



Adem Ayy is a writer and activist based in London. He spent five years working for Extinction Rebellion, where he helped coordinate the global media team and edit a global newsletter that connected him to activists all over the world. He wants to spread their inspiring stories as far and wide as possible.


Elizabeth Gurley Flynn Sabotage The Conscious Withdrawal of the Workers' Industrial Efficiency October 1916 Originally published as SABOTAGE, THE CONSCIOUS.


First, it is widely believed that Ecodefense (or Abbey's Monkey Wrench Gang) launched the practice of monkeywrenching. In fact, ecological sabotage was ...

Friday, February 28, 2025

 

Organized US Labor’s Anticommunism


On December 2, 2024, MLToday posted Ruth Needleman’s review of Jeff Schuhrke’s outstanding book, Blue Collar Empire: The Untold Story of US Labor’s Global Anticommunist Crusade (London:  Verso). Without taking anything away from either the reviewer or the author, I would like to make a few supplementary points.

Needleman credits Schuhrke with providing “a clearly written, comprehensive and meticulously documented account of the AFL-CIO’s decades of subversive actions aimed at dividing, replacing or just destroying labor federations and movements throughout the world.” In the name of fighting communism, this campaign began before the Cold War, peaked during the Cold War and continues after the Cold War  under the auspices of the AFL-CIO’s Solidarity Center. By undermining militant trade unionism and pro-labor political leaders in Europe and the Third World, the AFL-CIO not only palpably worsened the wages and conditions of workers abroad but also injured American workers by diverting resources that could have been used for domestic organizing to the pursuit of the government’s foreign policy objectives and by making these countries more attractive for American capital investment  encouraged the deindustrialization that began in earnest in the 1980s.

All that Needleman says is true, but it leaves out part of the story, namely why did labor play this role?

One could come away from Needleman’s review as well as many other accounts by thinking that labor’s anti-communism just represented a kneejerk response to the Cold War or a kind of psychological disturbance, a form of paranoia. Of course, labor’s anticommunism did reflect the times and had an exaggerated and irrational aspect. Schuhrke, however, explains that  labor’s anti-communism was  rooted in the dominant ideology of the labor movement that emerged under AFL leader Samuel Gompers in the 1890s. This was the ideology of class collaboration. This ideology posited that labor would benefit by cooperating with employers to increase production, productivity and profits and by eschewing strikes and other conflicts and by avoiding  political involvement with any radical movements or parties. This ideology reflected the interests of what Karl Marx called the “labor aristocracy,” the most well-placed members of the labor movement.

The ideology of class collaboration did not reign uncontested. Throughout the history of American labor, another ideology opposed it, namely the ideology of class struggle. His ideology reflected an analysis by Karl Marx and others that under capitalism the interests of workers and capitalists were inherently and inevitably in conflict. Demands for better wages, shorter hours, and safer conditions inevitably conflicted with the capitalists’ desire for greater profits. In this situation, workers could advance only by using strikes, slowdowns, and other means of force to wring concessions from the capitalists.  Early in his career as leader of the Cigarmakers, Samuel Gompers read Marx and more or  less agreed with his analysis and its implications for trade unions. At a time when the Knights of Labor, the largest labor organization of its time, welcomed workers and nonworkers and relied on education and cooperatives to improve the workers’ lot rather than strikes,  Gompers argued that workers needed an organization  exclusively of workers, and one that defended the workers’ right to strike. By the end of the 19th century, as President of the AFL, Gompers changed beliefs and came to embody the ideology of class collaboration, and while not opposing strikes in principle, opposed them in practice.

In opposition to Gompers, the ideology of class struggle gained adherents.  Before World War I the ideology of class struggle was embraced by the William Haywood and the Western Federation of Miners,  Elizabeth Gurley Flynn and the Industrial Workers of the World, the Syndicalist League of North America, and leftwing Socialists like Eugene V. Debs.  In the 1920s and early 1930s, the class struggle  ideology found expression in William Z. Foster and the Communist Party and the Communist-initiated Trade Union Education League, and later the Trade Union Unity League.  From the mid-1930s to the end of the 1940s, militant class struggle ideas served as  the ideology of the Communists and other militants who organized the industrial unions of  the CIO. After the expulsion of the so-called Communist-led unions by the CIO in 1949, the ideology of class conflict was largely confined to those unions that had been expelled and to pockets of Communists and leftists in other unions. George Meany and the leaders of the AFL-CIO trumpeted the dominant ideology of class collaboration.

Leading capitalists and politicians, at least among those not openly hostile to unions, supported the ideology of class collaboration. Promoting this ideology was the raison d’etre of  the National Civic Federation, an organization of capitalists and union leaders formed in 1900, whose first president was the capitalist Republican Mark Hanna and whose vice-president was Samuel Gompers, president of AFL. Thus, the ideology of class collaboration represented the ideology of the capitalists within the labor movement. This ideology did not result in any meaningful gains for workers or labor.  From 1900 until 1935,  most workers labored under subsistence wages, long hours, unhealthy conditions, and less than 10 percent of the workers (mainly skilled workers, and miners and garment workers) belonged to a union.

This situation did not change until the mid-1930s when Communists, Socialists and other militants with a class struggle orientation succeeded in organizing the workers in such mass production industries auto, rubber, steel and electrical, waged successful strikes, won union recognition and collective bargaining agreements, and became the leaders of these unions.

The scandalous foreign policy that mainstream labor pursued and that Schuhrke describes cannot be understood apart from the equally scandalous behavior that most labor leaders followed at home.  Needleman does not fully appreciate this connection. This is reflected by her neglect of Schuhrke’s discussion of the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU).

At the end of World War II, unions in the Allied countries formed the WFTU.  This move  was spearheaded by the Soviet trade unions and the CIO. Following  meetings of representatives of the Soviet trade unions and the CIO, the CIO issued a document calling for cooperation of all the trade unions in the allied countries and  the promotion of  peace, justice and prosperity for all workers.  In a preface, Phil Murray, President of the CIO, wrote, “I consider this document of first-rate importance, not only for American labor but for all who are interested in knowing the truth about the Soviet trade union movement and promoting friendship and understanding between the peoples of our two countries.”1

As constituted in October 1945 and headquartered in Paris, the WFTU represented unions in 56 countries, representing 67,000,000 workers.  The largest organizations were those of the USSR, Great Britain, the USA (CIO), Italy, France, and Latin America.  The preamble of its constitution stated that its purposes, among others,  were to organize and unite trade unions in the whole world, to assist workers in less developed countries in forming unions, to fight against fascism, to combat war and the causes of war, to support the economic, social and democratic rights of workers, as well as the worker security and full employment, the progressive improvement of wages, hours and working conditions, and social security for workers and their families.2  Underpinning the WFTU was a shared ideology of militant, class- struggle unionism.

Schuhrke points out that the WFTU and its affiliated unions became the major target of the AFL’s disruptive anticommunist campaign. In 1945, the AFL established a Free Trade Union Committee (FTUC)  which would serve in Schuhrke’s words as “its primary weapon for waging the Cold War.” Initially,  free trade unions referred to unions purportedly not dominated by a Communist state, but “by 1945 the term was being used by the AFL as a synonym for anticommunist unionism. In other words, even if a union were autonomous and democratic, the AFL would still consider it illegitimate and ‘unfree’ if it happened to be led or influenced by communists.” This included, for example, the French CGT (General Confederation of Labor), the largest labor federation in France, two thirds of whose affiliates were led by Communists. After 1949, when the CIO’s expelled its leftwing unions and acquiesced in the Taft-Hartley Act’s requirement that all union officers sign non-Communist affidavits,  the CIO leaders adopted the AFL’s “free trade unionism” position and rejected the WFTU. This meant not only the rejection of unions in Communist countries and unions anywhere led by Communists but also a rejection of the kind of class struggle unionism that these unions represented, that is to say a unionism rooted in the Marxist idea that the essential interests of labor and capital were in conflict, and that furthering the interests of labor required international cooperation and economic and political struggle on behalf of their interests and against the employers.

Support for “free trade unionism” meant that American labor leaders would become adjuncts of American foreign policy.   It also meant adherence to a class collaboration ideology at home. It meant that AFL leaders like George Meany and the UAW (United Automobile Workers) leader Walter Reuther (head of the CIO after 1952) opposed the kind of progressive, class struggle oriented unionism that the WFTU and the CIO had hitherto stood for and adopted  a unionism that prioritized class collaboration, the idea that the interests of workers was best served by cooperating with the employer and the foreign policy operations of the government. After World War II, Walter Reuther, who continues to enjoy an undeserved reputation as a progressive labor leader, actually spearheaded the class collaboration ideology. Schuhrke said, “Instead of a constant struggle for control of the workplace through strikes, slowdowns, and similar militant tactics, Reuther held that unionized workers would gain far more by behaving themselves on the shop floor and boosting production in exchange for getting to partner with government and industry in economic planning.”

Did the class collaboration bring workers and unions the benefits Reuther promised? It opened a spigot of government money to fund labor’s overseas operations, and gained leaders like Reuther a measure of respectability, but  in the main, it produced the exact opposite of what was promised. Labor organizing diminished. The CIO abandoned Operation Dixie, its stillborn campaign to organize the South, which remained ever since a bastion of the open shop and right-to-work laws. After expelling eleven leftwing unions like the United Electrical Workers (UE) and the Farm Equipment Workers (FE) in 1949, the CIO devoted resources to raiding the members of the expelled unions instead of organizing the unorganized. The Communist and other militant organizers of the CIO’s heyday were shunted aside. Reuther and his followers weakened the steward system, abandoned the right to strike between contracts,  extended the length of collective bargaining agreements (often to five years), introduced the idea that wage increases should be linked to productivity gains, initiated labor-management administered benefit programs,  and downplayed civil rights, and made labor a junior partner of the Democratic Party.  Meanwhile,  the percentage of organized workers peaked in the mid-1950s at about 33 percent and declined thereafter. Today less than 10 percent of workers belong to unions. Moreover, in  Left Out: Reds and America’s Industrial Unions, Judith Stepan-Norris and Maurice Zeitlin show, unions led by non-Communists, acted less militantly, gained worse contracts, and behaved less democratically than unions led by or influenced by Communists.

Moreover, by undermining militant trade unions abroad and cooperating with rightwing dictators who suppressed unions, the AFL-CIO contributed to the low wage environment in Latin America and Asia  that produced the offshoring and deindustrialization that has plagued the American working class since the late 1970s.

In the end, Schuhrke’s treatment of labor’s global anticommunist crusade provides a more trenchant and far-reaching critique of mainstream labor leadership than even such a discerning reviewer as Needleman recognizes.

Schuhrke’s book provokes a question that goes beyond his focus on labor’s foreign policy. After the expulsion of the leftwing CIO unions in 1949, what happened to the militant, class struggle ideology? The radical tradition remained alive in what remained of the left-wing CIO as UE, FE and the Westcoast Longshoremen. Schuhrke shows that an echo of this ideology manifested itself in dissent from the AFL-CIO’s foreign policy. In the 1960s and 1970s, opposition to the War in Vietnam developed in some sections of the labor movement, and in the 1980s a segment of labor supported the movement for democracy and human rights in El Salvador and the movement against South African apartheid.

Still, the real “untold story” was the persistence of labor activists who, even through the dark days of the Cold War and McCarthyism, upheld a militant class struggle ideology. These were mainly Communists and those who had been or remained close to them. Schuhrke does not mention them. Indeed,  he does not mention any Communist role after 1947. Of course, the ranks and influence of those who upheld the ideas of militant class struggle were greatly reduced by the persecution and ostracism of those times.   One has only to look at the fate of UAW Local 248 at Allis-Chalmers in Milwaukee and its leader Harold Christoffel to appreciate the sledgehammer that fell on such militant unionists. (See Stephen Meyer, Stalin Over Wisconsin.) Nevertheless, these ideas had a voice in such leaders as Mo Foner and Leon Davis of District 1199 of Hospital Workers, and David Livingston and Cleveland Robinson of District 65 of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Workers (RWDSU). It also had a voice in UAW Local 600 at Ford,  which with some 60,000 members in the 1950s was the largest local union in the world and which practiced what historians Stepan-Norris and Zeitlin (see above) called a “homegrown American workers’ version of “‘Communist ideology.’” It also continued in the ideas and practices of the Farm Equipment Workers (FE) at International Harvester. (See Toni Gilpin, The Long Deep Grudge: A Story of Big Capital, Radical Labor and Class War in the American Heartland.)

The main proponent of militant trade unionism and class struggle ideas after 1950 was the Communist Party and its affiliated organizations. Until 1960, William Z. Foster kept promoting class struggle unionism in his writings, and the Party kept his books, including American Trade Unionism and Pages from a Worker’s Life, in print. George Morris, labor editor of the Daily Worker, wrote a regular column on labor and several books including in 1967 one of the first accounts of American labor’s betrayals abroad, CIA and American Labor: The Subversion of the AFL-CIO’s Foreign Policy. Moreover, the International Publishers issued Philip Foner’s multi-volume The History of the Labor Movement in the United States, which recounted the contest between class collaboration and class conflict in the history of American labor. In 1971, Foner published American Labor and the Indo-China War: The Growth of Union Opposition. This book and Morris’s show that labor’s anticommunist crusade abroad was not completely, as Schurhrke would have it, an “untold story.” Plus, the Party-affiliated Labor Research Association produced a yearly fact book of working class conditions and labor struggles. Throughout the Cold War, the WFTU maintained an American presence through its representatives, Ernest DeMaio, Fred Gaboury and Frank Goldsmith, who promoted militant unionism and international solidarity. These figures remain heroes of an untold story.

In his recent book, The Truth About the ’37 Oshawa GM Strike in Canada, Tony Leah submits that the revival of American and Canadian labor will depend on absorbing an important lesson of that struggle, namely the need to transform unions into “organizations that are based on the interests of their members as part of the working class — on class struggle not class collaboration.” This transformation will involve learning the history that Schuhrke tells as well as the history he does not tell, namely the history of those who against all odds kept the ideas of Marxist class struggle alive to pass on to a new generation of activists.

  • First published at Marxism-Leninism Today.
  • Endnotes:

    Roger Keeran is now Professor Emeritus of the Empire State College at SUNY after retiring in 2013. He has taught at Cornell, Princeton, Rutgers, and the State University of New York. In 1980, he published The Communist Party and the Autoworkers UnionsRead other articles by Roger.

     

    Is USAID “a criminal organization?”


    In Nicaragua, the evidence suggests it was

    President Trump has just closed down USAID after Elon Musk branded it “a criminal organization,” adding “it’s time for it to die.” Is there any truth at all in Musk’s allegation?

    One “beneficiary” of USAID is Nicaragua, a country with one of the lowest incomes per head in Latin America. Between 2014 and 2021, USAID spent US$315,009,297 on projects there. Uninformed observers might suppose that this money helped poor communities, but they would be wrong. Most of it was spent trying to undermine Nicaragua’s government, and in the process gave lucrative contracts to US consultancies and to some of Nicaragua’s richest families.

    USAID has been working in Nicaragua for decades, but this article focuses on the period 2014-2021. The story is not a pleasant one. The key element is the agency’s role in the coup attempt against Nicaragua’s Sandinista government in 2018 and, later, in trying to disrupt the country’s general elections in 2021. Detailed information has been revealed by websites such as NicaleaksTortilla con Sal and Behind Back Doors, but after 2021 many of the local “non-governmental” organizations USAID funded were closed (voluntarily in some cases, in others following resolutions by Nicaragua’s parliament). In the last few years, the agency’s operations, in Nicaragua at least, have become more obscure.

    The last major operation that was exposed to the public gaze, via a leaked document, was called “RAIN” (“Responsive Assistance in Nicaragua”). If you ask Google’s AI assistant, Search Labs, what it is, you will be told that it provides rapid aid in response to natural disasters. But it does nothing of the sort. It started with a $2 million program in 2020-2022 to try to ensure that the Sandinistas were defeated in the 2021 elections. I described the project here and an article by Ben Norton went into further detail. The contract, active until recently, is now recorded as worth $5 million and was extended at least to April 2024.

    The RAIN contract was awarded to the Navanti Group, one of many large consultancies that have benefitted from USAID’s Nicaraguan projects. Binoy Kampmark recently noted in Dissident Voice that nine out of every ten dollars spent by USAID goes to a limited number of consultancies, mostly based in Washington. Back in 2023, New Lines Magazine commented that “USAID and its massive budget have spurred a network of firms, lobbyists, academics and logistics personnel that would cease to exist without government funding.”

    One such firm is Creative Associates International, a company described by Alan MacLeod in Mintpress News as “one of the largest and most powerful non-governmental organizations operating anywhere in the world,” its regime-change work has taken place in Cuba, Venezuela and elsewhere, mostly marked by failure. In Cuba alone it received $1.8 billion of USAID money. Then from 2018-2020, Creative Associates was awarded $7.5 million-worth of projects in Nicaragua. One, dubbed TVET SAY, was to train young opposition political leaders in towns on Nicaragua’s Caribbean coast so that they could engage more effectively with business leaders opposed to the government.

    Manuel Orozco, a Nicaraguan organizer of the 2018 coup attempt, later became a director of Creative Associates. Now based in Washington, when he last planned to visit Nicaragua in June 2021, he was advised by USAID to cancel his trip as he risked being arrested for his role in the coup. Shortly afterwards he was formally accused of conspiracy by the Nicaraguan prosecutor.

    Another large company, Dexis, which had $144 million of new contracts with USAID in 2024, ran a $9 million “Institutional strengthening program” in Nicaragua between 2013-2018. Its purpose was to help opposition leaders mobilize and to run media campaigns. In 2023, USAID audited Dexis contracts and found over $41 million of ineligible or unsupported costs.

    Dexis subcontracted the Nicaraguan work to another US firm, Chemonics, which has 6,000 employees (“teammates”) and is USAID’s biggest contractor. It received awards of well over $1 billion in both 2023 and 2024, despite heavy criticisms of its previous work, for example in Haiti. Chemonics’s founder told the New York Times in 1993 that he created the firm to “have my own CIA.”

    Two US consultancies had USAID contracts to promote anti-Sandinista opinion and instill antigovernment practices. DevTech Systems, a company awarded $45 million in USAID contracts in 2024, ran a $14 million education project on the Caribbean coast with these objectives, from 2013 to 2019. Global Communities, two-thirds of whose income ($248 million in 2023) comes from the US government, ran a similar, $29 million program.

    Yet another large consultancy, the International Research and Exchange Board (IREX), formed close ties with one of Nicaragua’s richest families, the Chamorros. IREX has a global staff of 760 and over 80% of its $155 million income comes from the US government. It ran “media strengthening” programs in Nicaragua worth $10,300,000. Ticavision, a Costa Rican TV channel, recently reported that USAID is investigating the misuse of $158 million allocated through IREX to Nicaraguan projects, including this one. The money went to a number of well-known Nicaraguan journalists, now based abroad, including Confidencial’s Carlos Fernando Chamorro.

    The Chamorro family, owners of the newspaper La Prensa and online outlet Confidencial, were the main beneficiaries of USAID in Nicaragua. The Violeta Barrios de Chamorro Foundation is named after a former president and run by her daughter, Cristiana Chamorro. It received $7 million in USAID funds to promote opposition media platforms, including those owned by the family. From this it disbursed smaller sums – typically $40,000 each – to other media organizations such as 100% Noticias and various radio and TV channels. But the bulk of the money stayed with the Chamorros.

    All the media that received money were openly anti-Sandinista. In 2018, the owner of 100% Noticias, Miguel Mora incited a violent arson attack against Sandinista-supporting Radio Ya, from which the journalists barely escaped alive. Later he told Max Blumenthal of The Grayzone that the US should have intervened militarily to remove the Nicaraguan government. Mora was later welcomed at the White House by then vice-president Mike Pence.

    Another Chamorro organization, the thinktank FUNIDES, was allegedly created by USAID and received $3,699,221 to run anti-government research projects. Its head was Juan Sebastián Chamorro (cousin of Cristiana and Carlos).

    Yet another Chamorro thinktank, CINCO, headed by Carlos Fernando and opposition activist Sofía Montenegro, received $3,247,632. There is considerable evidence of close liaison between the Chamorros, Montenegro and US officials. For example, Montenegro received money directly from USAID and was also photographed at the US embassy; USAID representative Deborah Ullmer met Juan Sebastián Chamorro in October 2018 to discuss why the coup attempt had failed. Juan Sebastián was then head of one of the main opposition political parties, the Civic Alliance.

    In total, it is estimated that the Chamorros benefitted personally to the tune of $5,516,578 in US government money. In 2022, Cristiana Chamorro was found guilty of money laundering (her eight-year sentence was commuted to house arrest; after a few months she was given asylum in the US).

    Luciano García Mejía, a wealthy member of the family of the former dictator, Anastasio Somoza, was another beneficiary of Washington’s dollars. He ran another political pressure group, Hagamos Democracia (“Let’s make democracy”). This was funded partially by USAID but principally (with $1,114,000) by the CIA. Hagamos Democracia openly called for criminal acts during the coup attempt, recruited known criminals and directly threatened President Ortega to “look to his own and his family’s safety and leave without further repercussions.”

    Other affluent Nicaraguans to receive USAID money included Mónica Baltodano who, through her Fundación Popol Na was paid $207,762. Similarly, Violeta Granera’s Movement for Nicaragua was paid $803,154. Both were opposition leaders; Granera later called for US sanctions against Nicaragua.

    Not only did USAID fund and actively monitor the 2018 insurrection as it developed, but once it realized that the coup had failed, it began to undermine the 2021 elections. This was another failure, but the corporate media’s current depiction of Nicaragua as a “dictatorship” or an “authoritarian regime” is due in no small part to the work of the US government’s “aid agency.”

    Very little of USAID’s work over the past eleven years benefitted ordinary Nicaraguans. Instead, millions of dollars were creamed off by wealthy consultants in Washington and wealthy oligarchs in Nicaragua. Evidence of fraud comes mainly from Nicaraguan government investigations but, as noted in the examples in this article, it fits within a pattern of US-government largesse with limited accountability and plentiful evidence of bad practice.

    This is only a small part of the story in which the agency spent $315 millions in training and funding Nicaraguan opposition leaders who coordinated the violence and criminality of the 2018 coup attempt. In Nicaragua at least, the evidence arguably supports Musk’s contention that USAID is “a criminal organization.”FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

    John Perry is based in Masaya, Nicaragua and writes for the London Review of Books, Covert Action, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, Counterpunch, The Grayzone and other publications. Read other articles by John.

    Tuesday, February 18, 2025

    ANARCHY IN THE WORKPLACE

    Avoiding the workplace mediocrity trap



    In team-based settings, workplace exclusion can push high-achieving employees to intentionally sabotage productivity, a costly risk for organizations across industries, Rutgers researchers find



    Rutgers University




    Confidence. Persistence. Ingenuity. Conventional wisdom tells us these are some of the traits needed for success at the office. But within teams, less laudable characteristics – maintaining the status quo, for instance – might be just as desirable, according to new Rutgers research.

    Cong Liu, an expert on organizational thinking at the Rutgers Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology, reports in the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology that teams with high rates of envy often ostracize their best performers, in turn leading those standout employees to sabotage productivity.

    “In organizations, there are good soldiers who help facilitate workplace efficiency and effectiveness and bad apples who hinder productivity and well-being,” Cong wrote. “Over the years, there has been mounting evidence that this distinction between good and bad behaviors … might not be as stark as we think.”

    What’s often overlooked is how workplace ostracism can blur this line. When high-performing employees – good soldiers – are excluded or undervalued by their peers, their motivation can shift from driving success to undermining it, Cong said. This exclusion can lead to frustration, disengagement, and even intentional underperformance, effectively turning them into bad apples.

    To illuminate this process, Cong and colleagues surveyed 630 workers in 131 workplace teams across a wide swath of industries based in China, including health care, finance, real estate and manufacturing. Participants worked in teams of three or more. More than two-thirds of respondents were women, and most participants had been on the job for about six years. While the study was conducted in China, its findings are universally applicable, especially in team-driven environments like those found in the American workforce.

    “If proactive employees are ostracized by their coworkers, organizations will bear a heavy toll,” Cong said.

    Two in-person surveys were administered a month apart. In the first survey, employees rated perceived levels of proactivity, envy, coworker ostracism, negative emotions and job satisfaction. In the second, employees were asked to evaluate their own “production deviance,” a measure of intentional underperformance.

    Through statistical modeling, the researchers found that teams with higher rates of envy were more likely to exclude proactive employees – and that the targets of this exclusionary behavior exhibited greater production deviance.

    While the study didn’t quantify productivity losses, Cong said previous work demonstrates that poorly managed workplace dynamics can lead to significant production fallout. In today’s fast-paced work environment, where collaboration is key, even small disruptions in team dynamics can have far-reaching consequences.

    Addressing team-based ostracism and potential production declines is never easy, said Cong. Jealousy, envy and pride are human characteristics, as is so-called “upward comparison” – the sense of inadequacy someone might feel when working with higher-yielding colleagues. In corporate America, where performance metrics are often public and competition is encouraged, these emotions can be amplified, making it even more critical for managers to intervene.

    “Take sales,” Cong said. “If one team member beats the sales quota, the entire team benefits but underperforming colleagues might still be viewed by management as less effective.” 

    This can lead team members to assume that being a “middle performer” is the safest place to be, she added.

    There are steps employers can take to guard against these corrosive dynamics, said Cong. Most important is recognizing that every employee should be judged on their own merits – rather than against the output of the top performers.

    “Managers should always encourage proactive behaviors but should also ensure that performance evaluations are based on required outputs, rather than comparing employees to top performers,” Cong said. “It’s essential to treat each team member as an individual, valuing their unique contributions rather than viewing them through the lens of their peers.”

    Cong added: “In today’s workplace, where collaboration and innovation drive success, creating an inclusive and supportive environment isn’t just effective management – it’s a strategic advantage for any business.”

    Friday, March 22, 2024

    GOP CANCEL CUTLURE
    Judge dismisses lawsuit over removal of marker dedicated to Communist Party leader



    CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — A judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought against the state of New Hampshire after government officials removed a historical marker dedicated to a feminist and labor activist who also led the U.S. Communist Party.

    The sponsors of the marker honoring Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, who filed the lawsuit last year, lack the legal right or interest to argue for the marker's restoration, Judge John Kissinger wrote, agreeing with the state's argument for a dismissal. The ruling was made public Wednesday.

    The sponsors argued they had standing because they spent time and energy researching Gurley Flynn, gathering signatures in support of the marker and filing for its approval. They said state officials violated a law regarding administrative procedures and should put it back up.

    “While no one disputes the time and effort expended by the plaintiffs in relation to the Flynn marker, the court finds no support for a determination that such efforts give rise to a legal right, interest, or privilege protected by law,” Kissinger wrote.

    One of the plaintiffs, Arnie Alpert, said Thursday that they were considering filing a request with the judge for reconsideration.

    The green and white sign describing the life of Flynn was installed last May in Concord, close to where she was born on Aug. 7, 1890. It was one of more than 275 across the state that describe people and places, from Revolutionary War soldiers to contemporary sports figures. But it was taken down two weeks after it went up.

    The marker had drawn criticism from two Republican members of the Executive Council, a five-member body that approves state contracts, judicial nominees and other positions, who argued it was inappropriate, given Flynn’s Communist involvement. Republican Gov. Chris Sununu agreed and called for a review of the historical marker process. It was removed in consultation with Sununu, according to Sarah Crawford Stewart, commissioner of the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources.

    Known as “The Rebel Girl” for her fiery speeches, Flynn was a founder of the American Civil Liberties Union and advocated for women’s voting rights and access to birth control. The marker said she joined the Communist Party in 1936 and was sent to prison in 1951. She was one of many party members prosecuted “under the notorious Smith Act,” the marker said, which forbade attempts to advocate, abet or teach the violent destruction of the U.S. government.

    Flynn later chaired the Communist Party of the United States. She died at 74 in Moscow during a visit in 1964.

    Under the current process, any person, municipality or agency can suggest a marker as long as they get 20 signatures from New Hampshire residents. Supporters must draft the marker’s text and provide footnotes and copies of supporting documentation, according to the state Division of Historical Resources. The division and a historical resources advisory group evaluate the criteria.

    The lawsuit said that policies and guidelines used by Stewart's department to run the program are invalid because their adoption wasn’t consistent with requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. The lawsuit said Stewart didn’t follow the guidelines, which require the department to consult with the advisory historical resources council before markers are “retired.”

    Kathy Mccormack, The Associated Press

    Tuesday, March 12, 2024

    Cancelling Elizabeth Gurley Flynn

    BY MARY ANNE TRASCIATTI
    MAY 24, 2023
    LAWCHA | 

    If you blinked, you might have missed the historical marker dedicated to Elizabeth Gurley Flynn at the site of her childhood home in Concord, New Hampshire, on May 1, 2023. That’s because Republican lawmakers had it removed just two weeks after it was unveiled, arguing that Flynn did not deserve such recognition because she was “un-American.”

    They based their charge on her membership in the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA). Flynn joined the Party during the Popular Front period and remained a member until her death in 1964.

    The marker does not shy away from this history. It explicitly states that Flynn was a Party member and that she was sent to prison under “the notorious Smith Act,” a reference to the 1940 law that made it a crime to advocate the violent overthrow of the federal government. Although it was supposed to protect the nation from Nazis as well as Communists, the law –like most anti-subversive legislation — was used almost exclusively as a weapon to bludgeon the Left.

    Early in the Cold War, in 1948, at the urging of J. Edgar Hoover, federal agents arrested CPUSA leaders around the country and brought them to trial, presenting dubious evidence, much of it provided by paid informers, to secure convictions. In 1951, the Supreme Court upheld the convictions in Dennis v. United States. Almost immediately after that decision was announced, Flynn and several other Communists were arrested and indicted under the Smith Act. In 1953, all of them were found guilty.

    After the appeals were exhausted, Flynn served twenty-eight months in prison. She was nearly sixty-seven years old when she was released in May 1957. Two months later, the Supreme Court decided in Yates v. United States that the First Amendment protects radical speech, which effectively ended Smith Act prosecutions. Now, nearly seventy years after her Smith Act conviction, when the Cold War is supposedly over, Flynn is once again being penalized for her political ideas.

    Gurley Flynn, who started as a soapbox speaker in high school, inspired the Song by Joe Hill. Credit: Wikipedia Commons

    If Flynn were around today, she would undoubtedly unleash her quick wit and sharp tongue to roast her critics. And she would be justified. To label her un-American is preposterous. Most of her life was spent fighting with and for working people in the U.S. During her years with the Industrial Workers of the World, she led organizing drives, strikes, and free speech fights. She had toyed with the idea of becoming a Constitutional lawyer, but instead, she studied the Constitution on her own, becoming an expert of sorts on civil liberties. In 1918, she founded the Workers Defense Union to aid labor activists whose First Amendment rights were endangered by the wartime Espionage Act and to advocate for recognition of political prisoners by the federal government.

    Flynn used this experience as a founding member of the ACLU and she acted as a bridge between the liberals in that organization and the radical labor activists they had pledged to defend, including Sacco and Vanzetti. Long before most Americans understood the danger posed by Mussolini, she recognized his fascist regime as a threat to democracy around the world and spoke against it. She also opposed the Ku Klux Klan, which she saw as a uniquely American fascist organization.

    Flynn’s commitment to the struggle for Black liberation was unsurpassed among white activists of her era. She campaigned alongside Black comrades against lynching, suppression of voting rights, housing discrimination, job discrimination, education discrimination, and police brutality. In the final years of her life, when she was appealing the denial of her passport under Section 6 of the McCarran Act, she wrote numerous articles in which she argued that freedom of movement was necessary for the exercise of one’s First Amendment rights. All Americans should be this un-American.
    The marker to Flynn in Concord, N.H. was one of 278 across the state. It lasted less than two weeks. Credit: Joseph Alsip.

    While I bristle at the claim that Flynn (or, as New Hampshire Executive Councilmember Joseph Kenney called her, “someone like that”) does not deserve to be commemorated in public space, I also regret the way that New Hampshire activists chose to remember her. The plaque in Concord identified Flynn as a “nationally renowned labor leader” whose “fiery speeches” earned her the nickname “the Rebel Girl.” Yet it also claimed that Flynn worked through the ACLU to advocate for women’s rights, particularly suffrage and birth control. That claim is simply not accurate. Flynn was not a proponent of voting until she joined the CUPSA and cast a ballot for Roosevelt in 1937. Although she fought for the right of Margaret Sanger to speak about birth control, the issue was not a priority for her. The idea that Flynn was primarily a women’s rights activist has also seeped into media coverage of the controversy over the plaque. The Washington Post, for example, bears a headline that refers to Flynn as “feminist, with Communist past.” She would be surprised to see herself described this way, even if she espoused many ideas that we think of as feminist.

    Moreover, Flynn would recoil at the subordination of “Communist” to “feminist.” From the moment she joined the CPUSA until the day she died, Flynn saw herself as a Communist – no qualifier. The movement to which she dedicated her life was, in her own words, “the working-class movement” and the organization that she believed best advanced the interests of the working class was the Communist Party of the United States. In fact, when she was faced with a choice between the ACLU and the CPUSA, she chose the latter. Her refusal to let the ACLU dictate her politics resulted in her expulsion from the organization in 1940.

    We can debate her decision to join the Party or to stay with the Party as long as she did. Nevertheless, if we are going to commemorate Elizabeth Gurley Flynn or any other controversial figures whom we believe have made important and valuable contributions to U.S. society, we should commemorate them as they really were, not as we want to see them. In the case of Flynn, the epitaph from her tombstone in Forest Home Cemetery, where her ashes lie near the graves of the Haymarket Martyrs, may offer the best guidance:

    “The Rebel Girl”
    Fighter for Working Class Emancipation


    Credit:
    Credit: Einar E Kvaran aka carptrash courtesy https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Elizabeth_Gurley_Flynn#Media/File:Elizabeth_Gurley_Flynn_gravestone,_Chicago,_IL,_USA.jpeg



    Mary Anne Trasciatti



    History.acadiau.ca

    https://history.acadiau.ca/tl_files/sites/history/Documents/Carlie%20Visser.pdf

    This thesis focuses on the early life and activism of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, a ... pdf. 46 Foner, Women and the ... 100 Flynn, Sabotage, 4. 101 Elizabeth Gurley ...


    Archive.org

    https://archive.org/details/MemoriesOfTheIndustrialWorkersOfTheWorldiww

    Jun 28, 2010 ... p5^e. MEMORIES OF THE INDUSTRIAL. WORKERS OF THE WORLD CIWW). by Elizabeth Gurley Flynn. Occasional Paper No. 2k (1977).


    Historyireland.com

    https://www.historyireland.com/the-girl-orator-of-the-bowery-elizabeth-gurley-flynn-ireland-and-the-industrial-workers-of-the-world

    He organised for the IWW and soon moved to a Bronx flat near Flynn's family. Connolly's ability to inspire multilingual audiences impressed Flynn. Her memoirs ...

    Concordmonitor.com

    https://www.concordmonitor.com/Concord-Historical-Society-Gurley-Flynn-presentation-51628087

    Jul 14, 2023 ... Alpert offered a backstory for a woman who had begun to fade from memory. Inspired by the dangerous and unsafe conditions she saw in the mill ...

    Dp.la

    https://dp.la/exhibitions/breadandroses/strikers/elizabeth-gurley-flynn

    Elizabeth Gurley Flynn was a labor leader, activist, and feminist who played a leading role in the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). She is just one of ...

    Historyisaweapon.com

    https://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/gurleyflynnpaterson.html

    Born in 1890 in New Hampshire, Gurley Flynn joined the I.W.W. in 1906 at the age of sixteen and for the next ten years was a leading organizer, soapboxer, and ...