A Truly Global Union: The IWW
by Peter Cole, David Struthers and Kenyon Zimmer
BUY THE BOOK

From all four corners of the globe, the Industrial Workers of the World made rampant capitalists shake in their boots! This article, by the editors of Wobblies of the World, tells the global history of the Wobblies and the radical organising and displays of solidarity in countries as diverse as Australia, Canada, Mexico, South Africa, Sweden and Ireland.

——————

In our last blogpost we closed with an explanation of the IWW motto—an injury to one is an injury to all—as an expression of the core Wobbly value of solidarity in opposition to capitalism. Capitalism, however, varied across industry, geography, and country, creating different injuries in different places and the various forms that organising and solidarity took across the IWW’s chapters reflected these differences. In this post, we want to highlight some of the regional and global variations of the influences that acted upon the IWW, and of subsequent IWW organising, as described in the book. To capture the flexibility and adaptability of the IWW, the contributors to this volume drew on archival resources scattered around the world and on linguistic skills well beyond most individual researchers. (Someone out there surely must read both Maori and Finnish, right?)

An appropriate understanding of what exactly the IWW was is necessary to see its variations. Salvatore Salerno’s Red November, Black November: Culture and Community in the Industrial Workers of the World (1989) crucially shifted from prior scholars’ views of the IWW as a formal organisation to framing it as more like a social movement. Growing from this perspective, recent work—including that of the three editors—on the IWW in the United States emphasised the many cultural elements of the IWW that spread its influence beyond those holding the union’s red membership card. The scholars included in the present volume trace the IWW’s growth as one strand within the global syndicalist movement and document both the chartering of formal union branches in many countries, as well as forms of its cultural and intellectual influence carried by mobile workers, sailors, and Wobbly publications.

As we wrote in the book’s introduction, ‘the IWW was an international organisation, with national administrations, local branches, and mobile members spread out across the globe.’ If we judge the IWW’s reach by its official international organisation, its peak came directly before American entry into the First World War, and included branches in Australia, Canada, Chile, England, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, and Sweden. But new research illustrates how the chronology of the IWW’s ascendency and retreat varied by region and within individual locals in countries without formal ties to the international organisation. The IWW achieved different forms—from having the power to organise at workplaces to being limited to speaking and propaganda efforts—over time, a trend heightened by government repression, most notably during the First World War. Wartime repression and decline is an important element in the IWW’s story, though decline occurred more gradually than often recounted and the IWW retained significant power out through its global reaches into the 1920s and 1930s. For the IWW to inspire and grow in as many countries as it did, it had to adapt to local conditions.

The IWW itself was also an adaptation of sorts. The time has long since passed when scholars could describe the IWW as an organisation solely spawned by white American hard rock miners. The IWW’s founding and its membership in the United States reflected myriad immigrants arriving in or passing through the country and the ideas they carried. Contributions to the book reflect this diversity in different regions of the United States and in the IWW’s contiguous spread into Canada and Mexico. Influences were also intellectual, as Dominique Pinsolle’s chapter, Sabotage, the IWW, and Repression: How the American Reinterpretation of a French Concept Gave Rise to a New International Conception of Sabotage, brings a nuanced understanding to the IWW’s development of the concept and tactic of sabotage represented by the iconic black cat, the ‘Sabo Tabby.’

In the United States, the IWW had a national level organisation that supported local labour organising to various degrees—usually limited by the national body’s lack of financial resources—but never controlled it. In the Southwest, the IWW forged its own way forward among itinerant workers, piecing together an existence through agricultural labour and construction work on projects like roads, laying track, and gas pipelines. The IWW also organised in Arizona copper mines in the years before American entry into World War One. Multiracial workforces were the norm and the IWW’s acceptance of all workers regardless of race dramatically shone through in the region. Many Mexican IWW organisers also organised with the revolutionary Partido Liberal Mexicano. This lent a particularly militant streak to IWW organising in the region.

In Australia, the IWW worked with the mainstream unions—despite ideological differences—in opposing World War I, which resulted in surprising solidarity from those unions when the IWW suffered fierce government repression. In Ireland, one-time Wobblies led a nationalist revolution. What Wobblies did in Tampico, Mexico could be quite different than what they did in Malmö, Sweden. Perhaps equally fascinating are the commonalties. For one, the IWW did not shed its bedrock opposition to racism and xenophobia, no matter the mainstream customs of whichever society in which it organised. The IWW was the first white-majority union or organisation to attempt lining up Maori in New Zealand and Xhosa in South Africa. The IWW rejected anti-Asian sentiment in California and embraced Finns across northern Ontario.

As we argue in our introduction to this volume:

The IWW defined, in a very real way, the ideal of solidarity when it coined the legendary motto, ‘An Injury to One is an Injury to All.’ That slogan, like the Wobblies themselves, spread globally. For example, it was introduced by Wobbly sailors to South Africa in the First World War era, and today remains the motto of South Africa’s largest labour federation, the Congress of South African Trade Unions. The struggles of a century ago still resonate throughout the industrialising Global South as well as the deindustrialising Global North. Only when workers around the world embrace the spirit and internationalism of the Wobblies will they be strong enough to challenge global capitalism, which might as well formally adopt as its own motto, ‘divide and conquer’.

We’re writing this blog post as German elections results indicate that Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) will become the first openly nationalist party to join the Bundestag in over half a century, largely on the back of anti-immigrant sentiment. In Myanmar, the ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Rohingya is ongoing. In the United States furore continues over Donald Trump’s attempt to force symbolic sports patriotism on American football players while ignoring the plight of American citizens in Puerto Rico. In Catalonia, Guardia Civil dispatched from Madrid raided the offices and arrested leaders of the independence/nationalist movement. Each draws from distinct local and regional histories, but they all rest on the fundamental issue of how people understand membership in ‘their’ community, how they construct the ‘all.’ For the IWW ‘an injury to one is an injury to all’ was and remains a rallying cry for solidarity against capitalism, racism, nationalism, and militarism. Forces which continue to wreak havoc on the planet now as surely as they did over century ago at the IWW’s founding. Our book’s lessons of the successes and failures of the IWW around the world point to one conclusion: the only way we can be defeated is if we stop fighting for justice in all its forms.

—————

Peter Cole is Professor of History at Western Illinois University and Research Associate at the Society, Work and Development Institute, University of the Witwatersrand. He is the author of Wobblies on the Waterfront (University of Illinois Press, 2007).

David M. Struthers is an Adjunct Assistant Professor at the University of Copenhagen.

Kenyon Zimmer is Associate Professor of History at the University of Texas at Arlington. He is the author of Immigrants Against the State (University of Illinois Press, 2015).

—————

Wobblies of the World: A Global History of the IWW edited by Peter Cole, David Struthers and Kenyon Zimmer is available to buy from Pluto Press.

Ten contradictions that plague Biden’s Democracy Summit

Just as the people of Venezuela have not elected or appointed Juan Guaidó as their president, the people of the world have not elected or appointed the United States as the president or leader of all Earthlings.

By

 Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies

 -

December 10, 2021

SOURCENationofChange

Protest by students in Thailand. AP

President Biden’s virtual Summit for Democracy on December 9-10 is part of a campaign to restore the United States’ standing in the world, which took such a beating under President Trump’s erratic foreign policies. Biden hopes to secure his place at the head of the “Free World” table by coming out as a champion for human rights and democratic practices worldwide. 

The greater possible value of this gathering of 111 countries is that it could instead serve as an “intervention,” or an opportunity for people and governments around the world to express their concerns about the flaws in U.S. democracy and the undemocratic way the United States deals with the rest of the world. Here are just a few issues that should be considered:

1.The U.S. claims to be a leader in global democracy at a time when its own already deeply flawed democracy is crumbling, as evidenced by the shocking January 6 assault on the nation’s Capitol. On top of the systemic problem of a duopoly that keeps other political parties locked out and the obscene influence of money in politics, the U.S. electoral system is being further eroded by the increasing tendency to contest credible election results and widespread efforts to suppress voter participation (19 states have enacted 33 laws that make it more difficult for citizens to vote). 

A broad global ranking of countries by various measures of democracy puts the U.S. at # 33, while the U.S. government-funded Freedom House ranks the United States a # 61 in the world for political freedom and civil liberties, on a par with Mongolia, Panama and Romania. 

2. The unspoken U.S. agenda at this “summit” is to demonize and isolate China and Russia. But if we agree that democracies should be judged by how they treat their people, then why is the U.S. Congress failing to pass a bill to provide basic services like health care, child care, housing and education, which are guaranteed to most Chinese citizens for free or at minimal cost? 

And consider China’s extraordinary success in relieving poverty. As UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said, “Every time I visit China, I am stunned by the speed of change and progress. You have created one of the most dynamic economies in the world, while helping more than 800 million people to lift themselves out of poverty – the greatest anti-poverty achievement in history.” 

China has also far surpassed the U.S. in dealing with the pandemic. Little wonder a Harvard University report found that over 90% of the Chinese people like their government. One would think that China’s extraordinary domestic achievements would make the Biden administration a bit more humble about its “one-size-fits-all” concept of democracy. 

3. The climate crisis and the pandemic are a wake-up call for global cooperation, but this Summit is transparently designed to exacerbate divisions. The Chinese and Russian ambassadors to Washington have publicly accused the United States of staging the summit to stoke ideological confrontation and divide the world into hostile camps, while China held a competing International Democracy Forum with 120 countries the weekend before the U.S. summit.  

Inviting the government of Taiwan to the U.S. summit further erodes the 1972 Shanghai Communiqué, in which the United States acknowledged the One-China policy and agreed to cut back military installations on Taiwan. 

Also invited is the corrupt anti-Russian government installed by the 2014 U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine, which reportedly has half its military forces poised to invade the self-declared People’s Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in Eastern Ukraine, who declared independence in response to the 2014 coup. The U.S. and NATO have so far supported this major escalation of a civil war that already killed 14,000 people. 

4. The U.S. and its Western allies—the self-anointed leaders of human rights—just happen to be the major suppliers of weapons and training to some of the world’s most vicious dictators. Despite its verbal commitment to human rights, the Biden administration and Congress recently approved a $650 million weapons deal for Saudi Arabia at a time when this repressive kingdom is bombing and starving the people of Yemen.

Heck, the administration even uses U.S. tax dollars to “donate” weapons to dictators, like General Sisi in Egypt, who oversees a regime with thousands of political prisoners, many of whom have been tortured. Of course, these U.S. allies were not invited to the Democracy Summit—that would be too embarrassing.

5. Perhaps someone should inform Biden that the right to survive is a basic human right. The right to food is recognized in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights as part of the right to an adequate standard of living, and is enshrined in the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 

So why is the U.S. imposing brutal sanctions on countries from Venezuela to North Korea that are causing inflation, scarcity, and malnutrition among children? Former UN special rapporteur Alfred de Zayas has blasted the United States for engaging in “economic warfare” and compared its illegal unilateral sanctions to medieval sieges. No country that purposely denies children the right to food and starves them to death can call itself a champion of democracy.

6. Since the United States was defeated by the Taliban and withdrew its occupation forces from Afghanistan, it is acting as a very sore loser and reneging on basic international and humanitarian commitments. Certainly, Taliban rule in Afghanistan is a setback for human rights, especially for women, but pulling the plug on Afghanistan’s economy is catastrophic for the entire nation.  

The United States is denying the new government access to billions of dollars in Afghanistan’s foreign currency reserves held in U.S. banks, causing a collapse in the banking system. Hundreds of thousands of public servants have not been paid. The UN is warning that millions of Afghans are at risk of starving to death this winter as the result of these coercive measures by the United States and its allies. 

7. It’s telling that the Biden administration had such a difficult time finding Middle Eastern countries to invite to the summit. The United States just spent 20 years and $8 trillion trying to impose its brand of democracy on the Middle East and Afghanistan, so you’d think it would have a few proteges to showcase.

But no. In the end, they could only agree to invite the state of Israel, an apartheid regime that enforces Jewish supremacy over all the land it occupies, legally or otherwise. Embarrassed to have no Arab states attending, the Biden administration added Iraq, whose unstable government has been racked by corruption and sectarian divisions ever since the U.S. invasion in 2003. Its brutal security forces have killed over 600 demonstrators since huge anti-government protests began in 2019.

8. What, pray tell, is democratic about the U.S. gulag at Guantánamo Bay? The U.S. Government opened the Guantanamo detention center in January 2002 as a way to circumvent the rule of law as it kidnapped and jailed people without trial after the crimes of September 11, 2001. Since then, 780 men have been detained there. Very few were charged with any crime or confirmed as combatants, but still they were tortured, held for years without charges, and never tried. 

This gross violation of human rights continues, with most of the 39 remaining detainees never even charged with a crime. Yet this country that has locked up hundreds of innocent men with no due process for up to 20 years still claims the authority to pass judgment on the legal processes of other countries, in particular on China’s efforts to cope with Islamist radicalism and terrorism among its Uighur minority. 

9. With the recent investigations into the March 2019 U.S. bombing in Syria that left 70 civilians dead and the drone strike that killed an Afghan family of ten in August 2021, the truth of massive civilian casualties in U.S. drone strikes and airstrikes is gradually emerging, as well as how these war crimes have perpetuated and fueled the “war on terror,” instead of winning or ending it. 

If this was a real democracy summit, whistleblowers like Daniel Hale, Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange, who have risked so much to expose the reality of U.S. war crimes to the world, would be honored guests at the summit instead of political prisoners in the American gulag. 

10. The United States picks and chooses countries as “democracies” on an entirely self-serving basis. But in the case of Venezuela, it has gone even farther and invited an imaginary U.S.-appointed “president” instead of the country’s actual government. 

The Trump administration anointed Juan Guaidó as “president” of Venezuela, and Biden invited him to the summit, but Guaidó is neither a president nor a democrat, and he boycotted parliamentary elections in 2020 and regional elections in 2021. But Guaido did come tops in one recent opinion poll, with the highest public disapproval of any opposition figure in Venezuela at 83%, and the lowest approval rating at 13%. 

Guaidó named himself “interim president” (without any legal mandate) in 2019, and launched a failed coup against the elected government of Venezuela. When all his U.S.-backed efforts to overthrow the government failed, Guaidó signed off on a mercenary invasion which failed even more spectacularly. The European Union no longer recognizes Guaido’s claim to the presidency, and his “interim foreign minister” recently resigned, accusing Guaidó of corruption. 

Conclusion

Just as the people of Venezuela have not elected or appointed Juan Guaidó as their president, the people of the world have not elected or appointed the United States as the president or leader of all Earthlings. 

When the United States emerged from the Second World War as the strongest economic and military power in the world, its leaders had the wisdom not to claim such a role. Instead, they brought the whole world together to form the United Nations, on the principles of sovereign equality, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, a universal commitment to the peaceful resolution of disputes and a prohibition on the threat or use of force against each other.

The United States enjoyed great wealth and international power under the UN system it devised. But in the post-Cold War era, power-hungry U.S. leaders came to see the UN Charter and the rule of international law as obstacles to their insatiable ambitions. They belatedly staked a claim to universal global leadership and dominance, relying on the threat and use of force that the UN Charter prohibits. The results have been catastrophic for millions of people in many countries, including Americans. 

Since the United States has invited its friends from around the world to this ”democracy summit,” maybe they can use the occasion to try to persuade their bomb-toting friend to recognize that its bid for unilateral global power has failed, and that it should instead make a real commitment to peace, cooperation and international democracy under the rules-based order of the UN Charter.

Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nicolas J. S. Davies is a writer for Consortium News and a researcher with CODEPINK, and the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

ON WORLD HUMAN RIGHTS DAY

British court rules Assange can be extradited to US to face espionage charges

“Today is international human rights day, what a shame. How cynical to have this decision on this day.”

By

 Marlee Kokotovic

 -

December 10, 2021

SOURCENationofChange

A British high court just ruled that Wikileaks founder and publisher Julian Assange can be extradited to theU.S. to face espionage charges. 

According to The Washington Post, the 50-year-old Australian will remain in London’s Belmarsh prison, where he has been held since April 2019 after the Ecuadoran Embassy revoked his political asylum.

His lawyers claim they will seek appeal but this news is devastating depressed freedom advocates and human rights advocates. 

“Today is international human rights day, what a shame. How cynical to have this decision on this day,” says Stella Moris, Assange’s fiancee. 

“This is an utterly shameful development that has alarming implications not only for Assange’s mental health, but also for journalism and press freedom around the world,” says Rebecca Vincent, director of international campaigns for Reporters Without Borders. 

The decision overturns an earlier ruling by Judge Vanessa Baraitser of the Westminster Magistrates’ Court, who argued in January that extradition would endanger the WikiLeaks founder’s life, writes Common Dreams. 

As reported by The New York Times, the ruling was a victory for the Biden administration, at least for now, which has pursued an effort to prosecute Mr. Assange begun under the Trump administration.

“Biden’s administration cannot reasonably claim to support principles of democracy and human rights while at the same time seeking the extradition of a publisher, Julian Assange, which is opposed by global press freedom organizations,” says Shadowproof’s Kevin Gosztola. 

Julian Assange: WikiLeaks founder can be extradited to the US, rules UK High Court

By Euronews • Updated: 10/12/2021 -

Supporters stage a demonstration in support of Julian Assange, outside the High Court in London, Wednesday, Oct. 27, 2021. - Copyright Frank Augstein/Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved


A British court has ruled that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange can be extradited to the US where he faces up to 175 years in jail over the 2020 release of top secret diplomatic cables by Wikileaks.

The High Court overturned a January 4 ruling by District Judge Vanessa Baraitser that the Wikileaks founder could not be extradited on mental health grounds following an appeal by the US.

On August 11, 2021, the court allowed the US to widen the scope of its appeal and on 27 and 28 October the court heard arguments from both parties.

What is WikiLeaks? What did Julian Assange do? Why does the US want to extradite him?

Baraitser had said that Assange was unable to cope with the harsh prison system in the US and was a suicide risk if he was extradited.

But the High Court said it had received guarantees that Assange would not be sent to a so-called "supermax" prison.

On Twitter, Wikileaks quoted Assange's fiancee describing the decision as a "grave miscarriage of justice".

“This is a travesty of justice," said Nils Muižnieks, Amnesty International's Europe Director. "By allowing this appeal, the High Court has chosen to accept the deeply flawed diplomatic assurances given by the US that Assange would not be held in solitary confinement in a maximum-security prison. The fact that the US has reserved the right to change its mind at any time means that these assurances are not worth the paper they are written on.

“If extradited to the US, Julian Assange could not only face trial on charges under the Espionage Act but also a real risk of serious human rights violations due to detention conditions that could amount to torture or other ill-treatment.

“The US government’s indictment poses a grave threat to press freedom both in the United States and abroad. If upheld, it would undermine the key role of journalists and publishers in scrutinizing governments and exposing their misdeeds ­– and would leave journalists everywhere looking over their shoulders.”

Assange, 50, is currently being held at London’s high-security Belmarsh Prison.

US prosecutors have indicted Assange on 17 espionage charges and one charge of computer misuse over WikiLeaks’ publication of thousands of leaked military and diplomatic documents.

The charges carry a maximum sentence of 175 years in prison, although government lawyer James Lewis said: “the longest sentence ever imposed for this offence is 63 months".

Julian Assange: WikiLeaks' Controversial Founder


By Callum PATON
10/24/21 

The legal controversies surrounding WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange are now in their second decade and the divisions between his supporters and critics remain as intractable as ever.

For some, the Australian national, now 50, is a fearless campaigner for press freedom. For others, he was reckless with classified information, possibly endangering sources.

Assange is the figurehead of the whistleblowing website that exposed government secrets worldwide, notably the explosive leak of US military and diplomatic files related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Julian Assange has spent most of the past decade either in custody or holed up in Ecuador's London embassy as he has tried to avoid extradition Photo: AFP / BEN STANSALL

He has spent most of the past decade in custody or holed up in Ecuador's London embassy, trying to avoid extradition -- first to Sweden to answer allegations of rape, and then to the United States.

Born in Townsville, Queensland, in 1971, Assange has described a peripatetic childhood and claims to have attended 37 schools before settling in Melbourne.

As a teenager, he discovered a talent for computer hacking, which soon brought him to the attention of Australian police.

Assange fell out spectacularly with erstwhile media partners after WikiLeaks dumped unredacted documents online Photo: AFP / Daniel LEAL-OLIVAS

He admitted most of the charges levelled against him, for which he paid a fine.

Assange launched WikiLeaks in 2006 with a group of like-minded activists and IT experts.

"We are creating a new standard for a free press," Assange told AFP in an interview in August 2010.

Assange has been held at Belmarsh high security prison in southeast London, despite his extradition being blocked, as he is deemed a flight risk Photo: AFP / Tolga Akmen

His current legal saga began in 2010, soon after he published revelations from classified documents about US military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, and rape allegations in Sweden, which he consistently denied.

Assange's case has become a cause celebre for free speech but the United States says he put lives at risk by publishing classified information Photo: AFP / JUSTIN TALLIS

He was in Britain when Sweden sought his extradition, which he was able to dodge when Ecuador granted him political asylum and allowed him to live in its London embassy.

For seven years, Assange lived in a small apartment in the embassy, exercising on a treadmill and using a sun lamp to make up for the lack of natural light in a situation he compared to living in a space station.

His protracted stay in the mission ended, however, after a new government in Quito turned him over to British police in April 2019. He was arrested for jumping bail and jailed.

Swedish prosecutors had dropped the rape investigation, saying in 2019 that despite a "credible" account from the alleged victim there was insufficient evidence to proceed.

Assange's fiancee Stella Moris, the mother of his two young boys, has been leading the campaign for his release Photo: AFP / JOEL SAGET

But as Assange had feared, it was then revealed that Washington was charging him with violating the US Espionage Act over the 2010 leaks.

His supporters, including the Chinese dissident artist Ai Weiwei and the fashion designer Vivienne Westwood, claim the charges are politically motivated.

They have repeatedly raised concerns about the physical and mental toll of his prolonged incarceration.

Nils Melzer, the UN special rapporteur on torture, has condemned the conditions at London's Belmarsh Prison where Assange is being held, saying the "progressively severe suffering inflicted" on him is tantamount to torture.

In January, a judge blocked his extradition on the grounds his mental health could deteriorate drastically if he was sent to the United States, and he could take his own life.

Assange was initially supported by human rights groups and newspapers that once worked with him to edit and publish the US war logs.

They included a leaked video showing a US military Apache helicopter firing on and killing two journalists and several Iraqi civilians on a Baghdad street in 2007.

But many were horrified when WikiLeaks dumped unredacted documents online, including the names of informants, and Assange fell out spectacularly with his media partners.

US lawyers have conceded that while they were "aware" of sources who disappeared after WikiLeaks published their names, it "can't prove that their disappearance was the result of being outed by WikiLeaks".

Questions also mounted over Assange's relationship with Russia.

Special prosecutor Robert Mueller's probe into interference in the 2016 US presidential election won by Donald Trump found that Russians "appeared" to have hacked Democrat Hillary Clinton's campaign, and then "publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks".

But Assange's lawyer asserted in one court hearing that Trump had promised a pardon if his client testified that Russia did not provide the emails that so damaged Clinton.

Trump has angrily rejected allegations that his campaign colluded with the Kremlin -- claims found to be baseless by the Mueller investigation.

Assange is the father of two small boys with his partner and fiancee Stella Moris, a South Africa-born lawyer.

Why a Marxist School?

Karl Marx's ideas are a common touchstone for many people working for change.  His historical materialism, his many contributions to political economy and class analysis, all continue to serve his core values--the self-emancipation of the working class and a vision of a classless society.

USING THE OUL: Try it in study groups or school classes, face-to-face via video projector with a net connection, or via Zoom meetings. For research, explore our Archives. For interesting arguments, read our blog page. Use the 'Sort' device to group topics. Or just explore us like a great library.

To search us, just use the 'GO' box in the upper right, or type site:ouleft.sp-mesolite.tilted.net/ into google, followed by whatever you're looking for

There are naturally many trends in Marxism that have developed over the years, and new ones are on the rise today.  All of them and others who want to see this project succeed are welcome here. A PDF flyer file for spreading the word is HERE

Henry Winston - Mistakes & Criticism of the CPUSA



AfroMarxist
Henry Winston (2 April 1911 – 13 December 1986) was chairman of the National Committee of the Communist Party USA. He succeeded CPUSA chair Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, who went on to found the ACLU, and he served with Gus Hall who was General Secretary of the Party.

 

That's a wrap... The legislative session wrapped up at 3:00 a.m. on Wednesday after the UCP government used closure to limit debate and ram through their anti-democratic Bill 81. This bill creates new loopholes to allow their rich friends to donate even more, and includes provisions that will allow the purchase of party memberships for others, without their consent! You can't make this stuff up. In this legislative session we learned that no one was in charge during the fourth wave of the pandemic. The Premier went on vacation and left no one in charge as cases skyrocketed in our most devastating wave. No action was taken and tens of thousands of surgeries were cancelled, yet no one in this government will take responsibility for the lack of leadership. It was a session where the UCP was focused on anything but helping Albertans. They passed bad legislation to sell off affordable housing and when I rose to speak about my concerns with their approach to affordable housing and my concerns for our unhoused neighbours, especially during these cold winter months, what was the UCP's reaction to my comments? Laughter. They cut funding for vulnerable Albertans trying to go to school and watered down workplace health and safety protections. And rather than support Albertans with the growing costs on families such as groceries, gas, tuition, utilities and so much more; they prioritized passing legislation to let insurance companies charge even higher fees. I know we can do better. Albertans deserve better. As we prepare to head in to 2022, I commit to continue to fight for the issues that matter most to my constituents in Edmonton-Highlands-Norwood and to continue to work to defeat this harmful UCP government in the next election. As this icy weather continues, please be safe, be kind and look out for each other. Janis   On the same day the Senate passed a ban on conversion therapy, I asked the Premier, Finance Minister, and Education Minister if they support the ban. Not only did they not answer, the Health Minister actually said he’s “never heard of it being done in Alberta”. Unbelievable.   This is incredibly disrespectful to the countless survivors who’ve shared their stories and relived their trauma. To all of you, I’m sorry. And I’m so grateful to you for your courage.   The UCP might not be listening, but we are, and we will always support you and stand with you.    Watch my questions to the Minister here. On the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, you'd expect the Minister responsible to answer questions about women’s shelters.   I guess I expected too much? Survivors and those impacted by violence deserve so much better.   Watch my questions to the Minister here. Access to abortion and healthcare for 2SLGBTQ+ folks remain under threat with this government. While one UCP MLA claims that abortion isn’t up for debate, the two UCP MLAs behind her are on the record saying otherwise, and the look on one of their faces says a lot...   Watch my remarks here.

Thank you Edmonton Meals on Wheels for the warm welcome and for all you do in our community! It was lovely to deliver meals to folks in my riding this week. They’re in need of volunteers and donations. Reach out if you’re able to help, friends!  It’s about time.  Alberta's Future - We want to hear from you Alberta’s NDP is building a vision for an Alberta economy that works for everyone, not just the rich. We believe that our province can and will prosper again but to do so we need to build an economy for the future. We want your input on our ideas. View our proposals and submit your own ideas online at: https://www.albertasfuture.ca/

Stump vs $500k armoured vehicle. Who wins? Just this past week I’ve sent out six freedom of information or FOIP requests. A FOIP is a tool that we use that helps us pry information out of governments and government agencies in order to do the independent, investigative journalism that we do.  One of these FOIPs is going to the Edmonton Police Service to figure out just how much it’s going to cost them to fix the $500,000 armoured vehicle they bought just last year after it ran into every tank’s mortal enemy—a tree stump.  But that’s just one FOIP. We get excellent tips all the time from people deep within the government and sometimes the best way to confirm them is with an adroit FOIP request. So with this recent batch we’re not just FOIPing the Edmonton Police but we’re also FOIPing the ministry of health to try and understand just how badly they’ve cocked up their response to the opioid poisoning crisis.  FOIP requests aren’t free. Even though this is public information held by a public body they charge us $25 per request. And sometimes they even come back with ridiculously high fees in order to provide this public information.  So if you have a few extra bucks to spare the best way to support our independent, investigative journalism is to become a recurring donor. These small, regular donations give us the stability we need to continue to hold the rich and powerful to account.  And if you just want to cover the cost of a couple of FOIPs (or say a cool dozen) you can also make a one-time donation here. We understand if you can’t donate. One thing that everyone can do though is to try and guess, Price-is-Right style, just how much it’s going to cost to fix the Edmonton Police Service’s big toy. You can put your guesses on this Twitter thread Jim started or just reply to this email.  The winner gets a Progress Alberta t-shirt. Thanks so much for all you do, from all of us here at the Progress Report Duncan Kinney Editor, The Progress Report