Friday, October 25, 2024

Capitalism is a War-Making Machine


 October 25, 2024

Facebook

Harris and her Republican Love Affair

Within the Democratic Party’s rapid descent into hawkish neoconservatism over the last few decades, perhaps no moment has been as much of a “masks-off” moment than Kamala Harris celebrating her endorsement by Dick Cheney, and her corresponding embrace of Liz Cheney to accompany her on the campaign trail.

Despite the mass historical amnesia that seems to have settled like a wet blanket over many US Democrats who seemingly accept this endorsement without question, it’s important to remember that Vice-President Dick Cheney was a notorious war criminal in the early 2000’s and the architect of some of the most heinous torture techniques (think Abu Ghraib images), prisoner abuse, illegal detention and interrogation practices that this country has ever overseen. He fabricated countless lies that took this country into the 2003 illegal invasion of Iraq that ended up taking more than a million lives. And Cheney was responsible for numerous constitutional rights violations against US citizens, such as detention without trial (including of US citizens), warrantless surveillance, and warrantless wire-tapping, which have become the new norm in US public surveillance.

Dick Cheney is the former CEO of Halliburton, an oil-services company that provides construction and military support services. Halliburton and its subsidiary company, Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR), were heavily involved in the rebuilding of Iraq after the US invasion in 2003. KBR is estimated to have made billions of dollars rebuilding Iraq after the war. Cheney, who stepped down from Halliburton in 2000, was still receiving as much as $1 million a year in deferred compensation in 2003, as Halliburton played a major role in handling the Bush Administration’s post-war oil production in Iraq– a classic tale in the military-industrial-government revolving door phenomenon.

So it is remarkable that in spite of Cheney’s egregious and criminal record, Harris has been so very proud to accept the Cheney endorsement, bragging about it on multiple occasions. She also regularly brags about the endorsement of 200 Republicans who formerly worked with President Bush, Mitt Romney and John McCain. At the same time, Harris, herself, said in an October 8th interview on “The View” that the main difference between a Harris and Biden Administration is that unlike Joe Biden, Harris plans to have a republican in her cabinet.

All of this data tracks well with Harris’s speakers at the 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago: six republicans took the stage compared to zero Palestinians, who were beseeching the Harris campaign to give them a voice as part of the Uncommitted Movement– just one chance to be heard from the DNC stage. But no Palestinian voices were heard. Arab-American voters staged a protest outside the DNC, while inside the convention, a Muslim delegate for the Democratic Party was beaten over the head with a “We Love Joe” sign– a physical assault from a fellow Democratic delegate.

According to Abbas Alawieh, co-founder of the Uncommitted National Movement and a former congressional staffer, the Harris campaign now refuses to even meet with any members of the Uncommitted Movement because she refuses to meet with any person(s) who have not already endorsed her. And on October 21st, the Harris campaign, along with Liz Cheney, ejected a Muslim American Democrat from a campaign rally in metro Detroit, and he was threatened with arrest, even though he had RSVP’d, cleared security, and was already seated at the event, at the time they threw him out. Good luck, Harris, with the Arab-American vote in November!

In other obvious gestures to her status as a right-wing neocon, Harris’s campaign ads promise to be tougher on illegal immigration than Trump. And Harris repeats her mantra ad-nauseum about “Israel’s right to defend itself,” even as Israel continues its brutal slaughter in northern Gaza- launching daily airstrikes killing hundreds of people (in Gaza and Lebanon)– airstrikes on schools, refugee shelters, hospitals, entire neighborhoods, UN aid workers, and displaced refugees in tents, burning children and patients alive. The Biden-Harris Administration pretends their hands are tied, as they continue sending millions in aid packages to Israel.

And recently when Harris’ VP-pick Tim Walz, was asked in a debate with J.D. Vance, if the United States should support a pre-emptive strike by Israel on Iran, Walz responded by saying, “The expansion of Israel and its proxies is an absolute, fundamental necessity for the United States’ steady leadership there.” This is the first time, to my knowledge, that the US Democratic Party has publicly called for the expansion of Israel into other sovereign countries, even though the United States has long supported Israel’s expansion through financing, intelligence operations, etc.

So now we have the United States continuing to arm Israel not only as it executes its final stages of genocide in Gaza, its bombing campaign in Lebanon, and its promised attack on Iran. It’s again worth noting that even former President Reagan stopped Israel from bombing Lebanon in 1982, with a single phone call. But today’s neocon Democrats are clearly to the right of Reagan, when it comes to aiding and abetting war crimes and genocide. The United States is showing zero signs of restraint or diplomacy as Israel plans another major strike against Iran. It feels as if we are on the precipice of World War III.

Simultaneously, the Biden/Harris administration has dropped all talk of a cease-fire that they were supposedly “working tirelessly” for in the weeks leading up to the Democratic Convention. According to Akbar Shahid Ahmed, senior diplomatic correspondent for HuffPost, “This idea they had that they were going to achieve a deal, bring home hostages, send aid to Palestinians, stop the bombing and the starvation, that’s all out the window at this point. The shiny new thing is a Lebanon incursion, opportunity and sort of hoping Gaza doesn’t reach the top headlines.”

And on October 1st, in a rare moment of honesty, White House spokesperson Matthew Miller said, “We never wanted to see a diplomatic resolution with Hamas.” And then when the reporter asked bewilderedly, “Well, what about the ceasefire?!” Miller said, “We wanted to see a ceasefire, but we’ve always been committed to the destruction of Hamas.” This belligerent statement came days before Israel killed Hamas leader and chief negotiator, Yahya Sinwar. And it came just two days after Israel killed Hezbollah Leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, who had agreed to a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon just hours before he was assassinated.

Is there no end to this US administration’s willingness to support genocide, illegal invasions, extrajudicial killings, and the expansion of a US-Israeli war all over West Asia, while US residents are struggling at home– many still swimming in their neighborhoods after a wave a deadly hurricanes, and right before an election, when the US working class has seen more economic hardship in the last decade than at any time in recent history?

The Uniparty: a single foreign policy to rule the world

While it may be shocking to some progressives to observe the unfettered embrace of war-mongering neoconservatism within the Democratic Party, it’s not actually a new phenomenon at all. In a recent interview with Glenn Greenwald, Jeffery Sachs, world-renowned economist and professor at Columbia University, summarized US foreign policy leaders from 1991 (the fall of the Soviet Union)The following paragraphs are paraphrased:

The doctrine of the “grandiose, unipolar, indispensable state” took hold in 1992, was codified by Paul Wolfowitz, and initially executed by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney under Bush, Sr.. This doctrine was based on the need for NATO expansion, which dominated the presidency of Bill Clinton.

And then as soon as George W. Bush, Jr., came into office in 2001, Victoria Nuland became the deputy national security advisor for then Vice President Dick Cheney.

Then comes Obama in 2008, who is supposedly our peace president. And Victoria Nuland becomes Hillary Clinton’s spokeswoman in the new State Department. She goes from being Bush’s ambassador to NATO in 2005-2008 when Bush pushes this extraordinarily reckless drive to expand NATO to Ukraine and Georgia- the reason for the Ukraine war. And Nuland goes immediately from being Bush’s NATO ambassador to being Hillary Clinton’s top assistant. Then she became the assistant secretary of state for European affairs, and then became the point person for overthrowing the Ukrainian government on February 22nd, 2014, during the Maidan protest.

Then comes Trump in 2016. He continues the NATO policies. He’s the one who starts arming Ukraine.

(And Sachs doesn’t mention this, but the Democrats launch impeachment trials against Trump in 2019, as soon as he stops arming Ukraine. And Lead Impeachment Officer Adam Schiff gave this famous speech about why the US needs to keep arming Ukraine.)

And then comes Biden in 2021. “He’s been up to his neck with the military industrial complex his whole career, taking money from it, being a shill for it, being a point person for it, being the one who gave the attaboys to the overthrow of democratically-elected Yanukovych in 2014, always pushing for NATO enlargement,” said Sachs.

So Jeffery Sachs’ concluding argument is that the United States, since 1991, has had one single foreign policy to rule the world, regardless of president. And now, Harris promises to maintain basically the same policies as Biden, other than adding a republican to her cabinet. So really, should it be any surprise that Dick Cheney, 200 republicans, and all these neocons are backing Harris? No, this is how the uniparty has operated for decades.

US Government and the War Industry

While the policy is not surprising, the absence of any sincere efforts toward diplomacy in the uniparty is noteworthy though. The State Department was once the home of the nation’s top diplomats. Now it’s the home of the nation’s top lobbyists for the military industrial complex. Secretary of State Blinken, for example, came to the State Department after co-founding West-Exec Advisors, a business described by the Project on Government Oversight to be “helping defense corporations market their products to the Pentagon and other agencies.” In 2020, the Intercept described Biden’s national security team as “a well-worn group of advisers who backed or waged the disastrous wars of the last two decades, and the group is notable for keeping the military-industrial complex’s revolving door greased and spinning. His transitional advisors include… retired Gen. Lloyd Austin (of Raytheon), former principal deputy under secretary of defense for policy Kathleen H. Hicks (of Aerospace Corporation), and the former No. 2 civilian at the Pentagon, Robert Work (of Raytheon and Govini), among many others in the incoming administration’s orbit.” In fact, one-third of Biden’s national security team is financed by the weapons industry.

One thing we can easily conclude from this always-increasing US investment in the war industry is that war is very profitable, and diplomacy is not. It’s so profitable, in fact, that US lawmakers, themselves, can’t keep their own hands out of the pie, even when they’re sitting on national security committees, conducting official government business. Let’s look at a few numbers:

+ The United States continues to have the largest military budget in the world- an estimated $967 billion for 2024- a larger military budget than the next nine countries’ with the biggest national military budgets combined.

+ The United States continues as the world’s largest arms supplier. From 2014-18, the US supplied 35% of global arms exports. From 2019-23, it supplied 42%, an increase of 17% between those two time periods. In those same time periods, Russia’s share of global arms exports decreased by 53%.

+ In 2020, according to American Prospect magazine, “51 members of Congress and their spouses own between $2.3 and $5.8 million worth of stocks in companies that are among the top 30 defense contractors in the world.” And “Eighteen members of Congress, combined, own as much as $760,000 worth of stock of Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest defense contractor in terms of overall defense revenues.”

+ In 2022, according to Responsible Statecraft, “At least 25 [Congress] members sat on committees that shape national security policy while simultaneously trading financial assets in companies that could create competing interests with their work, such as defense stock. With a near-even party split, Democrats and Republicans may have found a rare instance of common ground.”

+ Also in 2022, according CNBC, in the lead-up to the US-backed Ukrainian war against Russia, more than a dozen Congressmembers (or their family members) traded stocks in weapons companies that were directly involved in the war: companies like Raytheon, Chevron, Occidental Petroleum, Crowdstrike, Marathon and Akamai. These trades totaled some $7.7 million that began on Feb 1st, 2022, just days before Russia’s military operations began.

In addition to the direct profits that Congressmembers make directly from US-backed wars, we should also look at the general trends of the stock market as the global economy becomes more and more militarized.

In 2022, in the first two weeks of Russia’s military operations in Ukraine, war industry stocks surged across the board: Raytheon, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman stocks surged between eight and 22 percent, with one consultant to Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Technologies: “For the defense industry, happy days are here again.”

In October 2024, military stocks hit record highs as the wars in Palestine, Lebanon, and tensions with Iran escalated. Lockheed Martin and RTX (previously Raytheon) shares booked all-time highs on Oct. 1st, 2024, while L3Harris and Northrop Grumman tallied their top share price since 2022.

According to the Financial Times:

The world’s largest aerospace and defence companies are set to rake in record levels of cash over the next three years as they benefit from a surge in government orders for new weapons amid rising geopolitical tensions. The leading 15 defence contractors are forecast to log free cash flow of $52bn in 2026 — almost double their combined cash flow at the end of 2021.

Military Accumulation- a primary economic engine of the global economy

So what does all of this say about the trajectory of the global economy? Sociologist William I. Robinson, in his article, “Global Capitalism Has Become Dependent on War-Making to Sustain Itself,” details how military accumulation has now become a primary economic engine of the global economy. While it’s almost always been common sense that war stimulates the economy, Robinson’s analysis goes far beyond that. He defines “militarized accumulation” as:

a situation in which a global war economy relies on the state to organize war-making, social control and repression to sustain capital accumulation in the face of chronic stagnation and saturation of global markets. These state-organized practices are outsourced to transnational corporate capital, involving the fusion of private accumulation with state militarization in order to sustain the process of capital accumulation. Cycles of destruction and reconstruction provide ongoing outlets for over-accumulated capital; that is, these cycles open up new profit-making opportunities for transnational capitalists seeking ongoing opportunities to profitably reinvest the enormous amounts of cash they have accumulated. There is a convergence in this process of global capitalism’s political need for social control and repression in the face of mounting popular discontent worldwide and its economic need to perpetuate accumulation in the face of stagnation.

As I understand this, the profitability of constant war creates a feedback loop whereby transnational capitalists accumulate mass amounts of wealth by investing in arms, military contracts, intelligence, surveillance, policing, and other forms of social control. And by investing in the war industry at the expense of domestic priorities– education, healthcare, housing, etc., then there’s more and more political discontent within the masses, within the working class, and more of a ruling-class need for wars and policing to repress popular resistance movements. So governments are not only increasing their military and police budgets every year, but they’re also reinvesting those profits directly into the war economy. So transnational capital continues to grow through this violent cycle of profit, wars, genocide, mass destruction, followed by capitalist reconstruction.

When Benjamin Netanyahu showed his plans in September 2023 to the United Nations– plans for a massive economic project– a canal/corridor to connect India, Europe and the Middle East– he showed a map to his audience of the canal going directly through the middle of Palestine, through what would be the West Bank and most likely the Gaza Strip. He made no mention of Palestinians, nor were their territories shown on the map.

Not only would such a transnational corridor like this be an enormous capitalist infrastructure project that would be incredibly profitable for the industries that build it, but just as profitable for the global economy is the genocide to rid Palestine of Palestinians, in order to prepare for this project.

In addition, Israeli officials have talked for decades about oil and natural gas reserves that sit off the coast of Gaza. According to TRT World, “Israel’s hegemony over oil and gas reserves in its vicinity reflects a long-term ambition to become an energy hub and regional connectivity nexus. Therefore, as in any colonial settler endeavor, displacement and mass killings are merely the price to pay to continue the ruthless exploitation of resources from the native population.”

It’s perhaps too horrific for most people to imagine that this is how our global economy functions. It’s far more comfortable to pretend we still operate within democracies that respond to the needs of people, rather than to realize that national governments have largely become agents for the militarized accumulation of capital.

In Caitlan Johnstone’s article: “The US Empire Isn’t A Government That Runs Nonstop Wars, It’s A Nonstop War That Runs A Government,” she writes:

It clears up a lot of confusion when you understand that the US empire is not a national government which happens to run nonstop military operations, it’s a nonstop military operation that happens to run a national government…The wars are not designed to serve the interests of the United States, the United States is designed to serve the interests of the wars. The US as a country is just a source of funding, personnel, resources and diplomatic cover for a nonstop campaign to dominate the planet with mass military violence and the threat thereof.

And beyond the politics of global domination, anyone who has a basic understanding of Marxist economics knows that capitalism as an economic system requires constant growth, constant profit, and endless extraction in order to achieve profit. If capitalism stops growing, stops profiting, it collapses. It is not a system that can ever achieve stasis or balance with other interdependent systems around it. It has to expand, consume everything, create bigger and bigger profits, until it devours its host. This is one of capitalism’s deadly contradictions, and it’s why capitalism is an unsustainable economic system within fragile ecosystems. And it is also why a hyper-militarized global capitalist economy will quickly destroy our ecosystem, since war is one the most carbon-emitting, environmentally-destructive activities on the planet.

At this stage in capitalism’s inevitable devolution, this global economic system has become dependent on non-stop wars. Capitalism has to always be acquiring new markets, and war is now one of, if not, the main way the global economy does that. Wars are mechanisms of market expansion. If you believe that nation states are supreme and have supreme power of the market, you won’t be able to understand this. And if you think that governments will generally do what’s best for their people and won’t start WWIII, nuclear war, or completely destroy the climate to make their profits, then you have missed the point.

Like Halliburton’s oil contracts in the rebuilding of Iraq, Chevron’s contracts in Ukraine, and Netanyahu’s corridor planned on top of a flattened Gaza, the potential spoils that come from these genocidal wars and colonial projects reign supreme over any risk or national interest. At the expense of everything – national security, diplomacy, international standing, human survival– many governments will happily sign up to sponsor a genocide (as we have witnessed) in order to partake in the spoils of war. So many governments are now agents of the military industrial complex. They are drunk on the profits of war. Capitalism is a war-making machine.

Erin McCarley is an independent photojournalist, filmmaker and writer based in Denver, Colorado. Her still photography, videos and/or writing have been published by Dissident Voice, CounterPunchCommon DreamsReal Progressives, Yes! MagazineDue Dissidence, The Christian Science Monitor, the WestwordteleSUR EnglishFree Speech TV in Boulder, CO, KLRU TV in Austin, TX, the MIT Press, the Ford FoundationScience DailyThe Daily Texan, and others. She also co-hosts the political podcast Crawdads & Taters: Red State Rebels.


US Labor’s Global Anti-Communist Crusade



 October 25, 2024
FacebookTwitter

Cover art for the book Blue Collar Empire by Jeff Schuhrke

Jeff Schuhrke begins his new book, Blue Collar Empire, with a powerful story:  how the CIA, operating through the offices of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), a US-based international union, helped sustain a bitter three month strike against the government in the British colony of Guiana during 1984, effecting the post-colonial period after decolonization.  (Today, this South American country is known as Guyana.)  While targeting the CIA connection in this case and using it to dramatize US efforts to intervene in other countries’ internal affairs, it is ultimately a powerful indictment of how upper echelon people in the AFL-CIO have worked to attack progressive workers’ and their political allies in struggles around the world.

Professor Schuhrke writes, emphasizing the contradiction at the heart of his book:  “… the same twentieth-century labor movement that brought a measure of economic security and personal dignity to millions of working people also participated in some of the most shameful and destructive episodes in this history of US imperialism” (p. 3).  It is the latter part, what I have long termed as “labor imperialism” (my term; Schuhrke does not use it), that Schuhrke documents so well in this book:

This book tells the story of US labor officialdom’s quest to control the workers’ movements in Europe, Latin America, Africa, and Asia between the 1940s and 1990s—and the bitter conflicts exacerbated along the way.  When thinking about labor’s role in the Cold War, it is important to understand that ‘the Cold War was not only an East-West struggle between rival superpowers, but also a series of imperial, often grotesquely violent intrusions by the Global North into the Global South.  Like a roving picket line marching from country to country, the AFL-CIO’s international agents carried out their own imperial intrusions, expending incredible energy and resources to block revolutionary ideologies and militant class consciousness from taking hold in foreign labor movements.

In practice, this means meddling in the internal processes of other countries’ unions, stoking internecine rivalries, creating and financing splinter labor organizations, grooming cadres of conservative unionists, and occasionally using the power of the strike to sabotage left-wing governments.  American labor officials usually carried out such activities without the full knowledge or approval of the rank-and-file union members they purported to represent (p.5).

He also points out while early researchers saw the labor movement as little more than “a puppet for the US Government,” later researchers “demonstrated how the CIA was only the most notorious government entity that organized labor partnered with. In reality, the AFL-CIO became closely allied with almost the entire US foreign policy apparatus—not only the CIA, but also the State Department, Agency for International Development, and National Endowment for Democracy.”  He follows with a damning conclusion:  “Scholars in the early twentieth-century rightly contend that American labor leaders were not just dupes of the government, but were instead aggressive cold warriors in their own right” (emphasis added, p. 6).  [Although uncredited here, I made this argument in a 1989 article, “Labor’s Foreign Policy:  Its Origins with Samuel Gompers and the AFL,” that was published in The Newsletter of International Labor Studies, and updated in Scipes, 2010.]

But, interestingly, Schuhrke also makes a powerful damning connection:  “When we examine top labor officials’ actions in the realm of foreign policy, it becomes clearer how the global Cold War directly contributed to US labor’s decline in the latter half of the twentieth century” (p. 6), noting that in 1947, approximately 35 percent of private sector, non-agricultural workers were in unions, but in 1991 (the end of the Cold War), only 11 percent were in unions.  (Note:  in 2023, only six percent of these private sector workers were unionized—KS).

To me, this is the heart of Schuhrke’s book:  that the American Federation of Labor (AFL) and later, after 1955, the combined AFL-CIO (Congress of Industrial Organizations) have operated globally to subjugate workers and their allies who sought goals different and in opposition to US labor’s goals; that this “labor imperialism” came from within the labor movement and was not imposed by outside entities such as the US government, the State Department or the CIA;  that these efforts were all-but-unknown by the overwhelmingly large numbers of the affiliated unions’ members and the large majority of their leadership (i.e., knowledge of these foreign policies and operations was confined to a very small group of people at the very top of the AFL-CIO directly involved with “international affairs”); and that these operations were responsible for at least some of the disintegration and declawing of the US labor movement.

How does Schuhrke establish these points?  By a very detailed discussion of the process of AFL-CIO interventions, particularly in Latin America and to a lesser extent also in Africa and Asia.

After his excellent introduction, he divides the book into three sections:  Free Trade Unionism between 1945-1960, Free Labor Development between 1960-1975, and the Free Market Revolution between 1973-1995.

The first section is an examination of the key activists—particularly George Meany, Jay Lovestone, and Irving Brown, who were to “lead” AFL-CIO foreign operations over these years and into the 1970s.  This not only talks about the AFL’s efforts to undermine the post-World War II World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU), but also focuses on Brown’s leading role in splitting the French labor center, the CGT through creating Force Ouvriere, a rival trade union center.  From there, Schuhrke discusses AFL operations in Latin America.  Then he jumps back to Europe to undermine the Communists by supporting the 1947 Marshall Plan.  He concludes that the US created an “informal” empire after the war, and that it has been working to enhance or maintain it ever since, and he talks about how the AFL and right-wing leaders of the CIO, along with the British and Dutch, joined together with a number of labor centers to create the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions in 1949 to challenge the WFTU.

What you see here is that these US labor leaders have been involved at least since the end of World War II in advancing the US Empire.

Schuhrke then details US labor’s involvement with the CIA, primarily in Europe but also in places like Indonesia and China, and how labor was a “partner” with the CIA, but not a subordinate one:  CIA funding was cut off in 1958, yet US labor kept operating around the world with money from other US government agencies, such as the US Agency for International Development.  He returns to events in Latin America….

The second section focuses on the “Institutes” period, where the AFL-CIO established regional organizations in Latin America (1962), Africa (1964), and Asia (1967).  This was after the AFL supported the coup against the democratically-elected government in Guatemala (1954), and in this following period, the AFL-CIO was intimately involved in overthrowing the democratically-elected governments in Brazil (1964) and in Chile (1973), using its regional organization AIFLD, the American Institute for Free Labor Development.  What we see in both Brazil and Chile is that AIFLD helped overthrow two labor-friendly regimes and replaced each with a dictatorship that was focused on labor repression.  And thousands of workers and their supporters were arrested, tortured and many subsequently killed by the newly-installed dictatorships, and previously established labor centers and unions were destroyed.

Also described herein are the strikes in Guyana, mentioned above, and intervention in the Dominican Republic in 1965.

Schuhrke shifts his focus.  In Chapter 9, he concentrates on Africa, and briefly discusses operations across that continent, and then to Vietnam in Chapter 10.  The latter is a particularly rich chapter, and not only shows the AFL-CIO leadership in supporting the war, but the emerging cracks by union leaders against the war.  And then, in 1967, the magazine Ramparts exposed CIA activities around the world, including with labor,  and opens up further opposition to the war and the US Empire.

The third section (1973-1995) focuses on “Free Market Revolution.”  Beginning with the Chilean coup on September 11, 1973—the first “9-11”—Schuhrke focuses on the economic “solutions” due to the failure of capitalism with the development of “neoliberalism,” which is based on privatization, liberalization, and deregulation.  Advanced by economists from the University of Chicago, who were advising the dictator Pinochet after the Chilian coup, it was ultimately advanced throughout the “developing world” (also referred to as the “third world”) as the way forward, and then, in 1981, by US President Ronald Reagan and subsequent administrations, both Republican and Democratic, in the United States.  These were attacks on the social safety network established by President Roosevelt’s administration in the 1930s that had helped Americans survive the Great Depression.  This included selling off public services and assets, such as bridges and airports, as well as reducing restraints on businesses.

(If you want an excellent visual representation of this, go back and watch Michael Moore’s 1989 movie, “Roger and Me.”  He vividly illustrates the impact of deindustrialization on Flint, Michigan during the late 1970s and throughout the ‘80s, showing the social devastation on one city by these policies, although this devastation spread extensively across what became known as the “Rust Belt” because of these policies, as well as in California, neither of which Moore unfortunately does not mention.)

Schuhrke then talks about Lane Kirkland replacing George Meany in 1979, and Kirkland’s efforts to stay involved in foreign affairs.  He provides a major overview of the AFL-CIO’s support for Solidarnosc, a Polish labor center, right after the AFL-CIO stood by and allowed Reagan to destroy PATCO, the Professional Air Traffic Controllers union, in 1981.  Yet he also discusses the formation of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in 1983, established by that “democrat,” Ronald Reagan, which combined the international wing of the Democratic Party, the international wing of the Republican Party, the international wing of the AFL-CIO’s domestic arch enemy, the US Chamber of Commerce, with the international wing of the AFL-CIO, at that time, the Free Trade Union Institute.  (The AFL-CIO, through its “Solidarity Center” still works with the imperialist NED today.  See Scipes, 2010: 96-105.)

In this period, Schuhrke also discusses briefly some of their work in the Philippines in the late 1980s, as well as more fully, South Africa across the 1980s.

He also discusses AFL-CIO operations in the 1970s and ‘80s in El Salvador and Guatemala, each torn by guerrilla uprisings, which AIFLD sought to undermine, as well as their projects in Grenada and Nicaragua.  This allows him to discuss the emergence and development of the National Labor Committee in Support of Demcracy and Human Rights in El Salvador (NLC), where a few progressive union presidents worked to support these struggles, and also rank and file union members’ and their allies’ efforts to support the struggles.  And eventually this takes us up to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, then the fateful 1995 election of John Sweeney to the presidency of the AFL-CIO.

Evaluation:  Data and Analysis

First and foremost, Schuhrke has done a truly remarkable job simply telling us in detail about the AFL and the AFL-CIO operations around the world during these years.  He has weaved together a sprawling, extremely complicated chain of events that extend around the world, and over roughly a 50 year period:  I think this is a tour de force, and that this book should be read by every trade unionist and people studying US global operations over these years; labor’s contributions simply cannot be ignored in the development of the US Empire across these years.  More importantly than merely detailing these developments, Schuhrke explicates the processes by how these developed; this is first class work!  So, data provided in this book will almost certainly never be surpassed overall, although there might be arguments about specific situation.  (For any scholar thinking about initiating new research on the AFL-CIO’s operations across these years, I’d suggest not:  we need much research on the post-1995 period, and that’s where I’d encourage you to engage.)

Schuhrke provides an in-depth account of labor politics on US politics and operations on a global level, as well as at national ones as well, especially in Latin America.  For the specialist, this is valuable information.  For trade unionists, who want the focus to be on unions, I would begin by trying to understand the situation in particular countries and/or regions, and expand from there, rather than trying to understand everything at the beginning.

Now, as complimentary as I have been—and this is genuine—I have some complaints about Schuhrke’s analysis of his data.  Somewhere along my career, however, I came to a very important understanding about reporting research:  you never want to claim more than your empirical evidence supports, but you want to claim everything your evidence supports.  In my opinion, Schuhrke’s evidence is much stronger than his analysis; his argument is much stronger than he claims.

His focus, bluntly, is on the AFL’s and then AFL-CIO’s war against “communism.”  (And by the way, I think some publicist got carried away in the subtitle to his book:  this is not the “untold story” about labor’s global anticommunist crusade, and Schuhrke knows this, but it is the most detailed story.)  While he delves into the earlier history of the AFL’s fight against the left (i.e., including communists, but also including anarchists, Trotskyists, black and Latino nationalists, militant rank and file trade unionists of all colors, ethnicities, etc.) in the Introduction, his book really zooms in on the perceived war against communism.  I say “perceived war” because he accepts this “battle” as presented by the US labor protagonists; his scholarly detachment, to me, privileges one side against the other; while extremely critical, nonetheless, he acts as though US labor’s positions are “normal” and a place to start from.

Where you can see this is that there is almost no discussion in this book—certainly not for a long time—about rank and file union members in the United States in regard to these issues.  They are basically not considered in the bulk of the book although they are truly the “meat” of the labor movement.  So, this book is not about the US labor movement; it really is about the upper echelons of the AFL/AFL-CIO foreign policy leadership, who has done almost everything to consciously keep rank and file members (and most of their leaders across the country) from knowing what they are doing in the members’ names, but behind their backs, in countries around the world.  In fact, my research has shown that involvement in these foreign politics began in the late 1890s, not the mid-to-late 1940s (i.e., long before the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917), and in over 100 years, the AFL-CIO leadership has never given an honest report to the rank and file that can be verified by independent researchers.  And Schuhrke suggests but does not explicitly make this point; I think it’s important.

It is important because the labor movement claims to be a democratic institution and yet by leaders consciously hiding overseas operations—again, done behind the backs and in the name of American workers, without honestly reporting these efforts to their members about these operations—guts the very concept of “labor democracy.”

Accompanying this, Schuhrke doesn’t challenge what is meant by “communism.”  To domestic rank and file activists, when discussing it, “communism” is at least somewhat conflated with “workers’ control” or at least “workers’ democracy”; i.e., one person, one vote, get to discuss everything that might affect a particular group of workers.  That’s very different from these AFL-CIO foreign policy actors, who see anything that challenges their control to be a project of the Soviet Union; in other words, many activists get labeled as “communists” not as an explicit label but as a general label to denigrate their unwillingness to simply stand in line and do as their told by their “leaders” no matter how unacceptable their leaders’ actions might be seen.  (This is often referred to as “red bating.”)  Note that any discussion of “communism” is not based on specific analysis of this policy or that but is a general denigration of anyone who might think in a progressive, life-enhancing manner.

This means, of course, that in the case of any workers’ struggles in other countries, anyone who thinks “outside of the box” or differently from their leaders, is automatically a communist.  That means they should be killed, and their organizations destroyed, and doing so is “legitimate” and desirable.

And should any government in the so-called developing world have the temerity to question the US Empire, or even US foreign policy, or to try to make life better for workers by limiting capitalist exploitation and accumulation, then they should be overthrown, their leaders arrested, killed or exiled, and being replaced with a dictatorship that puts an iron straitjacket on workers’ and allies’ organizations.

Without questioning these basic positions, then people who bought into US propaganda—in Schuhrke’s time period, served almost daily in the mainstream media and utilized mercilessly by US government officials and corporate executives—can see that “fighting communism” is a good thing.  We have to preclude this option, whenever possible.

Ironically, even if “communism” equals Soviet Union, as our so-called “leaders” project, then—if being honest—they would recognize that the position of the Soviet government in regard to labor varied over time.  Before 1935, they wanted to create revolutionary labor organizations in countries around the world to overthrow the capitalist system.  In 1935, in response to the failure to stop the Nazis from taking power in Germany, they renounced their revolutionary aspirations, at least in the imperial countries, and were willing to work with any labor organizations willing to fight fascism.  In 1939, after the Nazi-Soviet pact, they switched to trying to keep the US out of the European War, but in 1941—after the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in June—they fought for the US to join the war on the side of the Soviet Union and for increased production in US factories to support the war effort (acting to constrain class conflict on the shopfloors in expense of enhancing it, as previously).  After the war, the Soviets were willing to unite with the CIO and the British Trades Union Congress to work against the restoration of fascism through the creation of the World Federation of Trade Unions, but after mid-1947, they realized no matter what they did or said, the US and Britian would oppose them, and this realization led to their sole focus on their national interests.  (In this quick sketch, I’m not saying they were necessarily “good” or “desirable,” but to point out that their position changed over time.)

Why recognizing this is important is that the AFL in particular did not care:  “communism,” as they saw it was evil and everything they did or said must be removed from human consideration.  But this quickly demonstrates that the AFL’s position was based only on ideology and not on any rational analysis.

And what accepting the AFL’s position—including after the 1955 merger with the CIO right-wing, after throwing out most of the left wing of the CIO in 1949-50—cannot explain is why the AFL fought the left both before the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and continues to fight the left today, over 30 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the ensuing “death” of Soviet-style communism.  The so-called “war against communism” by AFL/AFL-CIO foreign policy leaders was (and continues to be) an on-going effort to support the US Empire’s effort to dominate all of the other countries of the world, which it has specifically done since at least 1945.  This has not been an “informal” empire, but rather is simply another form of empire, albeit differing from the Romans.

And the politics and policies of the AFL-CIO international operations today are intended to advance such domination around the world.

Even as domestically, the AFL-CIO leadership continues to fail the American public, and especially working people.

I go into this long explanation here because I think Schuhrke would have been better served by focusing on their ideological war against “communism” as a tool to dominate the world (and the US labor movement) during a certain period of world history and not as an end in and of itself.  In my opinion, this is what he shows, and his book is an important intervention in the struggle against AFL-CIO labor imperialism.

Together with my 2010 book, Jeff Schuhrke provides an unassailable account of US labor operations around the world between the 1940s and the 1990s.

I think US trade unionists must consider Schuhrke’s arguments, and decide whether to ignore AFL-CIO international operations, or whether to eradicate these under current leadership and rebuild US unions to fight for working people at home and abroad.

Kim Scipes is a long-time political activist and trade unionist.  He teaches sociology at Purdue University Northwest in Westville, Indiana.  His latest book is an edited collection titled Building Global Labor Solidarity in a Time of Accelerating Globalization.  (Chicago:  Haymarket Books, 2016.)