While the Left celebrates the Wall Street occupation with much fanfare — including endorsements from Michael Moore, Cornel West, Noam Chomsky, and Susan Sarandon — an anti-Semitic undercurrent in the protests goes largely unchallenged. Consider Nathalie Rothschild’s account in the Huffington Post of the noxious response elicited by her unflattering portrait of protesters in the online journal Spiked. According to Rothschild:

I received a string of indignant emails and tweets about my Jewish, kleptocrat banking connections; demands that I reveal the details of my pay checks and that I come clean about my not-so-hidden agenda. I was told that my family name disqualifies me from having any opinion about the protest and that I have ‘the karma of a demon’. One reader posted my article online, headlining the post ‘Journalist & Jew – Nathalie ROTHSCHILD’. [1]

There have also been reports of protestors at Wall Street holding signs with clearly anti-Semitic statements; one such sign instructs passersby to search on Google for “Wall St. Jews,” “Jewish Billionaires,” and the like. [2] A recent post on the online Public Forum of the NYC General Assembly, the decentralized grouping that has emerged as the leadership of the movement, notes that “It is common for statements to be made, placing overwhelming blame and responsibility on Jews for the economic crisis” and asks “what can be done about the existence of anti-Semitic statements made by so-called supporters of the protest?” The post has received responses accusing the author of pursuing a “witch hunt” and others suggesting that readers “Look into who was involved in setting up the Federal Reserve in 1913.” [3]

The initial call for the September 17^th Wall Street demonstration came from the Canadian-based AdBusters, an activist publication focused on “culture jamming” and anti-consumerism, which once published a list of prominent neo-conservatives with black dots placed adjacent to the names of the Jewish ones. The list appeared as part of a March/April 2004 piece, entitled “Why won’t anyone say they are Jewish?” and written by AdBusters’ co-founder and editor-in-chief Kalle Lasn, which alleges that neo-cons have a “special affinity for Israel” that shapes U.S. policy in the Middle East. Lasn, claiming to “tackle the issue head on,” offers up “a carefully researched list” of “the 50 most influential neocons in the US” and stresses that “half of the them [sic] are Jewish.” [4]

The NYC General Assembly, in its “Principles of Solidarity – working draft,” includes “Empowering one another against all forms of oppression” as a “point of unity.” [5] The General Assembly, and all supporters of the Wall Street occupation, would do well to pay this more than lip service. To do so demands not only unequivocally condemning anti-Semitism in all of its manifestations in movement, but struggling to get at its roots, too. Anti-Semitism and anti-capitalism have a long, complex, and intertwined history — and it is with good reason that August Bebel, one of the founders of German Social Democracy, described anti-Semitism as “the socialism of fools.” The facile substitution of angry screeds against greed, corruption, and inequality — which, let’s face it, is endemic to the Wall Street protests and much of the Left today — for careful study of capitalism’s law of value and tendency toward crisis not only fosters an environment in which bizarre and racist conspiracy theories flourish, but also prevents the Left from working out a vision of a liberatory alternative to capital and all of its horrors.

[Editor's note added Oct. 14, 2011: Also see MHI's current editorial, "Beware of Left Anti-Semitism."]

Notes
[1] “Supporters of the Wall Street Occupation Demand Free Expression — Except for Jews, Apparently,” September 23, 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathalie-rothschild/supporters-of-the-wall-st_b_977505.html.
[2] “Photo of an anti-semite on Wall Street,” September 19, 2011, Elder of Ziyon blog, http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2011/09/photo-of-anti-semite-on-wall-street.html.
[3] “Concerns about antisemitism,” http://occupywallst.org/forum/concerns-about-antisemitism/.
[4] Bill Weinberg’s “Indignado movement comes to Wall Street—with the usual contradictions,” http://ww4report.com/node/10348, offers further discussion of Lasn’s
“Why won’t anyone say they are Jewish?” and a link to a PDF reproduction of the article.
[5] “Principles of Solidarity – working draft,” http://nycga.cc/2011/09/24/principles-of-solidarity-working-draft/.

The cost of college has risen sharply in recent years, making it much harder for young people to get access to education after high school, and making many fall back on low-level, dead-end jobs. But it wasn’t always this way. Not all that long ago, in 1996, a year at Rutgers cost only four thousand dollars, as opposed to the $12,755 it costs now.

The biggest difference is that the federal and state governments used to subsidize colleges much more, which allowed them to provide students with quality education under much less financial pressure. N.J., for instance, used to give public universities about two thirds of the cost of each student’s tuition. But from 1990 to 2009 the situation reversed: now, the state government covers only one-third of the costs, meaning that each student has to come up with the remaining two- thirds by themselves. Now, the average four-year student in America graduates $24,000 in debt.

Social programs can make higher education much cheaper, something we can access without going into debt, but an active, united student movement is the only thing that will make government officials take measures that help us, rather than helping the banks and financial institutions that profit from our debt.

To see how this can be done, let’s look at Rutgers, where a student movement recently won a major victory: a cut of hundreds of dollars from a proposed tuition hike.

Student protesters "Walk Into Action" on April 13

Rutgers University students organize

At Rutgers New Brunswick, a wide number of student groups formed Rutgers United to serve as an umbrella group for progressive forces on campus and to organize against tuition hikes. Rutgers United includes the Women’s Center Coalition, the United Black Council, Queer Caucus, Asian American Leadership Cabinet, and many others.

Some of the Rutgers United organizers had run “Tent State” in past years, an ongoing annual event in which students set up temporary encampments on Voorhees Mall, host concerts, invite other students to hold workshops on things they’re interested in, and encourage everyone passing through to write to their legislators supporting public funding for higher education. This was inspired by a longer Rutgers tradition of activists setting up camp in prominent campus locations, as a tactic to pressure the administration for policy changes on many issues, from similar matters of affordability, to divestment from South Africa’s former apartheid government.

Rutgers United reached out to progressive students from Rutgers Newark and seven other public universities around New Jersey, and formed New Jersey United Students (NJUS).

Some Rutgers United members ran for Student Assembly (RUSA), an assembly which currently acts like a student government, although the administration can override its decisions. The Rutgers United candidates said that the Student Assembly shouldn’t be an organization for governing students, but rather, a student union that represents student interests to administration– that is, stands up for lower tuition, the rights of students to privacy and due process, and other common concerns.

The Rutgers United ticket won a majority of Student Assembly seats in the spring of 2010. Because of this, they were able to vote to affiliate Rutgers New Brunswick with the United States Student Assembly (USSA).

The USSA works like a student union on the national level. Campuses pay dues to join, and work together to build student power within colleges, and reinforce each other’s organizing projects on the state and local level.

“Being part of a national organization expands your capacity to organize,” said Rutgers United organizer and RUSA vice-president Matt Cordeiro, mentioning that the USSA was helping to raise funds for NJUS.

In fall 2010, Rutgers United hosted a teach-in to educate people on student debt, how the banks were profiting from it, and how it could be resisted. This was followed up by a number of large-scale actions in the spring of 2011.

“The way I see it is that we put pressure on the administration all semester, from storming into McCormick’s office during the Walk Into Action, to the sit-in, to constantly having a presence at the Board of Governors meetings. And it was the mix of exerting student power and using the very selective means that the administration gives us to exert power intelligently,” said Renee Coppola, a student who was elected to RUSA to represent off-campus students and took part in an occupation of the administration’s Old Queens offices.

At Rutgers, like at many colleges, the Board of Governors is the unelected group of officials in charge of administrating the college, who often represent corporate interests. For instance, at Rutgers, the B.O.G. is headed by Ralph Izzo, the CEO of Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG, formerly Public Service Electric & Gas).

The Walk Into Action was the first major demonstration of the semester. On April 13, over three hundred students walked out of class and shut down College Aveue.

Students at N.J. public colleges intensify fight

This walkout was part of a Day of Action that went far beyond New Brunswick. The other colleges in NJUS held similar demonstrations around the state at the same time. They had also talked to student organizers and university workers nationally, to decide how to make their efforts most effective, and wound up scheduling the Walk Into Action for the same day that many schools in California participated in marches and sit-ins.

Then, on April 27, twenty Rutgers students occupied the Old Queens administration building. They held a sit-in at University President McCormick’s office that lasted a day and a half. The protesters demanded the following:

• That the students, faculty, and staff each be allowed to elect their own voting members to the Board of Governors, to make it a more democratic structure.
• An immediate freeze on tuition, meaning no more price hikes.
• Fair and speedy arbitration for campus workers whom Rutgers hired through subcontracts.
• That students be able to get copies of their own transcripts without paying a fee.
• That the university drop its affiliation with the Fair Labor Association, which is a corporate front group.

At the end, the administration publicly stated that it would not meet any of these demands. But that day, without announcing it, they quietly removed the fees they had been charging for getting transcript records.

Students’ and workers’ alliance

These actions have been stronger and more effective because the student movement has built a coalition with the faculty and staff of the university, who are also suffering from the decisions of the Board of Governors. The student-labor coalition was formed under the name of Rutgers One.

Rutgers One is made of student organizers, the R.U. chapters of the AAUP and AFT (the unions that represent faculty), and the university’s blue collar workers, who are in AFSCME Local 888.

In 2009, when negotiating the budget for the upcoming year, the workers in these unions agreed to forgo salary raises and adjustments for inflation, but signed a contract with the administration stating that these raises would be given to them in 2010. Rutgers administrators, however, broke the contract, and none of the faculty or staff have yet received the money which was promised to them in the current contract.

For Rutgers employees working for companies under subcontracts, the situation is also bleak. The Rutgers bus drivers, for the past ten years, were hired through Academy Bus. When the contract was signed ten years ago, the workers were paid low wages and received poor benefits. But the drivers organized, and over the years, successfully pushed their wages to much higher levels, and won better health coverage from Academy. Now, however, Rutgers has cut its ties with Academy, and instead given the contract to First Transit. Under the new contract, First Transit doesn’t have to pay the same wages, provide the same benefits, recognize the union that existed under Academy, nor even allow all the bus drivers to keep their jobs.

Tuition increase disappears

On July 14, the Rutgers One coalition rallied at a meeting of the Board of Governors over the administration’s refusal to freeze tuition and meet other demands of the sit-in, their breach of contract by withholding promised pay raises, and their union-busting of the bus drivers via the First Transit contract.

The B.O.G. has made it quite difficult for people in the university community to talk to them. They insist that people sign up to comment at meetings over 24 hours ahead of time. In the past, they have had students and faculty shut out of the building during meetings which are supposed to be public, and have suddenly built makeshift walls around themselves when people have said things to them that they did not like.

Nonetheless, on July 14, many students and workers went inside to talk to the Board members, before rejoining the larger crowd of about a hundred protesters outside.

It was at this rally that Board Chairman Izzo announced that the proposed tuition raise would be cut in half–a raise of 1.8% rather than 3.6%–by far the lowest hike in years. Tuition has gone up by around 7% per year since 2001. This year, the rise of the cost will actually be less than inflation.

Many students reacted with surprise to this victory. Certainly, it is a concession that the Board would not have made if there had not been such intense pressure on them. But why this particular maneuver by the Board?

Trying to pacify certain sections of social movements by giving them concessions like these is a typical move for college administrations–and governments–to make, so that they can marginalize those who they are still oppressing. Even before the tuition hike was dropped, the administration had long been using divide-and-conquer tactics in its negotiations, telling students that the high wages of workers were the reason they had to pay so much and telling workers that they should support higher tuition because it was the money that their wages came from.

Students and workers assert common interests

But wages have not risen with tuition–rather, both have gotten worse. And trying to convince people otherwise has been a futile task on the administration’s part. The students and workers at recent rallies were clear on this, carrying signs such as, “Freeze Tuition, Not Wages,” and there have been widespread objections to the amount of money that is being wasted on athletics, administrative salaries, and inflated pay and conspicuous benefits for sports coaches.

This realization of common interest between students and workers–and of the fact that neither has anything to gain by siding with the administration–is by no means limited to Rutgers or New Jersey. On April 13, while hundreds of students shut down College Ave, Sonoma State University (California), too, was swept with protests against both wage cuts and tuition hikes.

Now, seeing the way that unity and persistent action can reverse the pattern of soaring tuition at one school, we should look at reversing the same trend on the national level, and explore how the student and workers’ movements can best amplify each other.

Fortunately, we have many good examples of the latter. Student groups like United Students Against Sweatshops have, for years, been organizing boycotts to help workers fight for better pay internationally, especially in the garment industry. The AAUP was instrumental in reaching out to other chapters nationally and coordinating rallies in California on April 13.

The California student movement, too, focuses on stopping tuition hikes at public universities– especially the University of California, which has campuses in ten cities. The diverse and militant movement to keep these schools affordable has organized under the banner of the Education Crisis Movement.

The largest UC campus is in Los Angeles. Here, the tuition fight-back is made up largely of local youth who don’t know whether they’ll be able to go to college at all. They are rooted in the communities of Los Angeles, and they, their families and neighbors are often already engaged in broader struggles against a power structure which continuously murders civilians, the Oscar Grant case being the most publicized but far from unique.

Nation-wide frameworks for student activism, like the USSA, can be very helpful for learning effective tactics from each other, building solidarity, and encouraging organizers to learn more about the different circumstances faced in each university and each state.

“The administration does not give us much room to express grievances but every chance we got, we took, and when that wasn’t enough we were willing to take matter into our own hands,” said Renee Coppola. “I’m still surprised that what came of it did, but for the future I know we have a group of determined people who all have the same goal–and that is what will make us successful.”

Discussion at the well-attended supporters’ meeting, which included workers from other New York and New Jersey unions, ranged over many issues: whether public sentiment is for or against so-called middle-class workers (those with relatively decent wages and benefits), the long-lost concept of “no contract, no work,” and whether, as a result of the massive demonstrations in Wisconsin at the beginning of this year, there is now a new dimension to “class warfare” in which private and public sector unions are linked. Private and public workers’ mutual support appears key to reversing the push to break unions and lower workers’ standard of living.

Verizon employs 45,000 unionized workers. The August strike was the largest U.S. strike since the General Motors strike in 2007 that lasted just two days. But other Verizon workers are not unionized, including the cell phone workers. Verizon claims that it is entitled to cut back its costs for employees who work on declining landline phone services, while the union points out that the company has never been more profitable. The strike was called after six weeks of negotiations, during which Verizon did not budge from its demand for 100 givebacks. Verizon doesn’t claim it cannot afford to maintain the pay and benefits in the expired contract, but instead claims that it should not have to maintain them in this day and age.

“The strike is not over”

Vincent Galvin, a worker with 34 years in the union at Verizon and its predecessor companies, declared at the meeting: “The strike is not over: this is just a time-out.” He said that Verizon was more likely to bargain in good faith now because the strike had crippled its ability to accomplish repairs and installations. He noted the extra repair problems caused by the weather: “God must be a union man, because heavy rain and old copper wires don’t mix.” Phones went out and customers were angry when they weren’t fixed.  Potential customers trying to order new phone service or Fios were being given installation dates in December. An official of one large corporation approached the union and asked whom he could see about getting its phones working; he was directed to go tell the head of Verizon to settle the strike.

The other “success” of the strike was in shutting down cell phone stores, “Verizon’s cash cow.” Galvin noted the great help at the workplace and store picket lines from the public and from members of other unions, including the Transit Workers Union, United Federation of Teachers, District Council 37 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (New York’s largest public employees union), the Teamsters, and Service Employees International Union 32B-J, especially their youth brigade.

Other strikers we met on a wireless store picket line a few days earlier praised the public’s support in New York City, but feared the company’s campaign to paint the workers as making “too much” and being “greedy” was getting traction elsewhere. The union publicized Verizon’s huge profits––$24.2 billion in 2009 and 2010, and $6.9 billion in the first six months of this year–while it failed to pay any income tax at all, according to the union. But while the union played up “saving middle class jobs,” it failed to attack the idea of give-backs head on. It is not even asking for improvements in pay or benefits, but only to continue current pay and benefits without making concessions.

CWA workers set wages for others

Local 1101 works on landlines and the infrastructure on which cell phones depend. Verizon, Galvin said, does not want to have a work force, preferring to contract out all the work to companies using non-union workers. Verizon claims that the workers must expect to pay a larger share of their health care costs at a time when so many other workers are agreeing to givebacks; Galvin explained that Verizon workers had helped build up the company over the years, including the wireless division and Fios, all the while receiving only small wage increases, and they had done this in return for increases in their benefits.  Due to the phone workers’ long and militant history of unionism, Galvin said, “Everyone in the world is watching us; we set the wages for union and non-union workers.”

Ron Spaulding, with 17 years in the union, spoke about the Rebuild 1101 Movement of rank-and-file members who are challenging the current CWA leadership. The last long and militant strike of phone workers was 22 years ago. Since then, the union has accepted a two-tier system in which new hires have lower pay and fewer benefits and rights. Now anyone hired in 2003 or later has no job security. As Galvin put it, “we gave away the unborn.”

Spaulding described the creative strike activity that had just taken place, including harassing scabs, chasing managers, and shutting down wireless stores. There was great energy, he said, such as the rally of 2,000 strikers when members of Local 1109 marched across the Brooklyn Bridge and joined Local 1101 and others in a mass demonstration. All the speakers remarked on the strike’s good side effect of breaking down long-standing divisions among the union locals that cover different areas in New York and other states.

Strikers see their strength and possibilities

Amy Muldoon, a young Verizon worker, said that “the wheel is turning” toward workers’ victories after a long period of defeats. “I feel like we’re discovering our secret power,” she said, although she knows victory is not guaranteed. She pointed out that the stewards, not the union leadership, instituted the pickets of the wireless stores: “It felt like we were turning the wheel.”

The workers lost two weeks’ pay while on strike, and 59 people are facing disciplinary action. The conditions under which they returned to work on August 22 stipulate that they cannot resume the strike for 30 days, during which period there is no cap on the amount of overtime they can be forced to work. “They will attempt to demoralize us and break us,” Muldoon opined, “but we can have an aggressive in-plant policy, like work-to-rule and pursuing grievances.”

There was also criticism of the union for not preparing for the strike and for failing to provide strike pay, or even to advise the workers during the futile bargaining period that they should save up money for a possible strike. If the strike had continued to the end of the month, the workers would have lost their health insurance coverage. Yet no one hesitated to join the picket lines, the workers reported. They even viewed returning to work under the pay and benefits provisions of the expired contract as a kind of victory, since the alternative was givebacks.

Muldoon had spoken at a large rally a few days earlier outside the Department of Education (DOE), where the Panel for Education Policy (PEP) was voting on a $120 million contract with Verizon. Teachers, transit workers, and the general public turned out with the strikers in a mass rally to oppose renewal of Verizon’s contract. They pointed not only to the strike, but to the recent discovery that a contractor stole $3.6 million dollars from the education system by falsely billing for wiring schools, and Verizon was found to have concealed the theft from the DOE!  Nevertheless, PEP approved a new contract with Verizon.

Several audience members asked if the workers had “a plan” for fighting from the inside now. Galvin suggested that it could take some time to get work back up to speed: “The first week, we’ll all be talking about the strike at the water cooler. The second week, we’ll be so tired from all the activity that we’ll have to rest. The third week, we’ll be remembering how to do our jobs. By the fourth week, I hope we’ll have a contract.”

Relations between private and public workers are key

Some in the audience criticized the CWA for calling off the strike without having a contract in sight, while others noted that the teachers, transit workers, and other unions had done the same thing, and some of them then worked for years under disadvantageous expired contracts. However, it is illegal for public employees in New York to strike, and so easier to force their unions to end strikes through fines and injunctions than it should be to force private sector unions to end strikes. In spite of their differences, public employees’ unions were the biggest supporters of the Verizon strike.

The strikers were asked what supporters could do now that there are no picket lines. The workers suggested they continue to picket the wireless stores, but we haven’t seen that happen.

Much audience discussion focused on the issue of whether new alliances between public and private sector workers could “turn the wheel” back from defeats to victories. One person said that if the Verizon workers give concessions, “the message will be that striking doesn’t work.” Another pointed out that although public sector workers have recently had concessions forced on them, there has been much resistance: in Connecticut, the public workers voted down concessions, but the union forced a re-vote that put them through; New York State public workers were just pressured into passing a concessions contract under threat of massive job cuts, but 40% of the vote was against accepting the contract. And private sector workers sometimes win: the concrete workers at the World Trade Center site went out on strike recently and got a better contract.

Also, it was pointed out, there are organized rank-and-file groups within several unions that could gain control of locals and defeat bad contracts in the future.  Some in the audience termed the Verizon struggle “class warfare” and an overtly political fight, calling it preparation for breaking the union. To the Verizon workers, one supporter said, “thank you for being the spark for war.”

In the “New Economy,” many of the available and newly created jobs require that the employees “work remotely.” The employee is expected to furnish the work environment…be it at the local Starbucks––with blaring music and deafening coffee grinding––or in the social seclusion of one’s home. Typically, the employee provides computer equipment, Internet connection, Smartphone with unlimited calls, e-mailing and texting, general office supplies (e.g., high-priced cartridges), and business transportation, subject to escalating fuel costs. Depending on the employer, all, some, or none of those expenses are reimbursed. There may or may not be healthcare benefits.

This is the modern version of the old home-work system prevalent in capitalism in centuries past. Women picked up fabric from the factory, worked on it at home, and were paid by the piece. They had to provide their own space, light, thread, tools, and sewing machines and electricity after those came in. They worked day and night to earn a pittance. Often, their children worked, too.

For years, I worked on the premises of my former employer, a large conglomerate. My new employer, a business start-up, requires that I work at home in order to minimize (their) overhead. While this gives me certain freedoms, I often yearn for the camaraderie and structure of my old environment. Yet, the world I left behind a short time ago no longer exists: the building that once housed hundreds of employees is now an empty shell, with most positions having been eliminated, outsourced, or converted to home-work.

Contrary to the stereotype of the home-work employee as someone who stays in her pajamas all day, I put on a suit each morning and focus on work. I dress for business because of personal preference, but also out of financial necessity. When I worked in an office, I always wore suits, so those are the items in my closet. I am sure I am not unique in this.

I do not own a TV, I do not take food breaks every 1-2 hours, and my online activity is generally job related. The one distraction I do have is cleaning. At 5 p.m., no one comes into my apartment to empty the trash, mop the floors, or restock the bathroom with toilet paper. It is up to me to maintain a hygienic, professional work space. The upside of my home-work situation is that I am autonomous and do not have a boss breathing down my neck eight hours a day. One downside is that I am simultaneously responsible for uncreative tasks like cleaning. Furthermore, as I am in sales and paid commissions only, the time I spend cleaning reduces my earnings potential. It doesn’t take the boss’s presence on the premises to make me work long and hard.

Another downside is the lack of social interaction. There are few opportunities for workers to relate to each other, discover mutual concerns, and put––at minimum––indirect pressure on management to improve their situations. People know better than to complain to each other about their jobs via e-mails that could get back to the boss.

For young employees, the physical isolation of working from home can stifle career growth. They miss out on opportunities to be mentored, learn from co-workers in the same role, expand their knowledge at cross-departmental meetings, and help out during emergencies, when they could acquire and visibly demonstrate new skills. Home-work employees are out of sight and therefore often out of mind.

What would a non-exploitative workplace look like? One Utopian vision guarantees the highest pay for the most distasteful, treacherous tasks. In this topsy-turvy world, I imagine executives who make far reaching, removed decisions being paid minimum wages, while the janitors who scrub the corporate washroom are rewarded as princes. A variant on this scenario is that all tasks––from the menial and mindless to the intellectually advanced and personally fulfilling––are distributed evenly among all members of society. I crave concrete, realizable examples, because home-work is far from non-exploitative.

From my study of Marx, I expect that it is impossible to escape the dictates of capitalism within capitalism. No matter the type of work, it will be exploitative as long as the essence of the system is to get the maximum labor out of people for the least expense. We need to look further than home or office to create non-exploitative work.

Today even the legal right to abortion is increasingly threatened with elimination. This is a bedrock demand of the religious Right. The Supreme Court, now made up of a majority of right-wingers, could reverse Roe v. Wade. Or the states, Congress, and the President could simply make it impossible for anyone but the rich to obtain abortions. Even before they controlled one house of Congress, the Republicans managed to contort the new health insurance law into a vehicle for eliminating insurance coverage for abortions, and they imposed a ban that prevents abortion from being provided in the health care for women in the military.

The most immediate threat to women’s rights comes from the states. Last November’s elections increased the number of governors and state legislatures who vow to place more and more restrictions on abortion rights. Twenty-nine governors are now solidly anti-choice, and in 15 states, both the governor and legislature are anti-choice. Some of the laws they favor passing right away include outlawing abortion after the twentieth week, and forcing women seeking abortions to view ultra-sound pictures of the fetus.

Even in New York, where abortion rights are fully protected, an anti-choice group recently began picketing and harassing women when they enter a clinic in the Bronx. The anti-choice forces are undoubted emboldened not only by their electoral victories, but also by the temper of the times in Washington, where Obama has been willing to go along with many new restrictions on abortion rights.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, the slogan of the women’s movement had not been legalization alone, but rather “Free abortion on demand.” Our large and loud movement led to the Supreme Court decision. But afterwards, the movement was unprepared to keep fighting over and over, as it must do not only to keep the right legal, but to turn it into a reality for all women by treating abortion like any other health matter and by providing health care to all.

Like racism, the ideology behind controlling women’s lives can’t be uprooted by a law. It will take a revolution made by people who want to start a new way of life.

–Old Feminist

One of the most notable parts of the rally was the presence of a relatively sizable socialist contingent of approximately 100 to 200 participants that marched down to the rally. The group with the clearest presence by far within this contingent was the International Socialist Organization, which provided most of the signs that the participants in the contingent carried; however, members of the Socialist Party USA and Socialist Action were also present, although in much smaller numbers.

Although the primary aims of the rally–outside of the socialist contingent–were in no way related to breaking with the two-party system, there was a clear air of anger and frustration directed towards the Obama administration for its failure to push through many of the changes that voters had believed his election would bring for the working class. I believe that the rally was definitely worthwhile, and that some of the people who attended it­­­­–those who are very dissatisfied with the present state of political affairs in the U.S. and are becoming disillusioned with the Democratic Party as an advocate for working class interests–present a possible future force for the advancement of a socialist movement.

I believe that the way to bring these dissatisfied people closer to the cause of socialism is to demonstrate that the political and economic failures and shortcomings that they are protesting against are not simply caused by wrong choices within the framework of capitalism by a particular capitalist political party, but that these failures are, rather, inherent in the logic of capitalism itself–a demonstration for which the recent economic crisis and current recession provide the perfect context.

Student Participant

THE ECONOMIC CRISIS & LEFT RESPONSES

A conference convened by Marxist-Humanist Initiative

Saturday Nov. 6, 2010 – 9 am to 6 pm

Pace University in lower Manhattan

One Pace Plaza, Multipurpose Room

Confirmed Speakers:

Roslyn Bologh, Brendan Cooney, Walter Daum,

Barry Finger, Mac Intosh, Anne Jaclard, Andrew Kliman

Paul Mattick, Fred Moseley, and Richard Wolff

________________

Chances of a double-dip recession in the U.S. are increasing. The threat of government-debt defaults in Europe also indicates that the economic crisis of 2007-08 continues to have consequences. The U.S. government’s efforts to prevent another Great Depression have left it saddled with a serious debt problem that could impede efforts to stabilize the economy for a long time to come. The future is especially uncertain, and “the new normal” may prove to be very difficult, economically and politically.

For the Left to be prepared for what may happen and prepared to respond effectively, activity and organization will not be enough. We also need the organization of thought–and that is why we have convened this conference. In order to work out a viable response, one that doesn’t merely react to and support the least-bad proposals offered by policymakers and mainstream thinkers, we need a clear and deep understanding of what has gone wrong with capitalism, and of the limits and pitfalls of proposed reforms. And we cannot take for granted that more progressive policies would in fact bring capitalism out of the crisis and restore jobs, economic growth, and stability. Wide-ranging dialogue on these topics is needed, not only so that all views can be heard but, above all, so that we can test different ideas in debate and work out answers to the questions we face.

Sponsored by Pace University’s Center for Community Action & Research and Economics Department (Pace-Pleasantville campus), the Committee for a Conference on the Economic Crisis, Marxist-Humanist Initiative, League for the Revolutionary Party, Internationalist Perspective, and The New SPACE.

Pre-Registration is Required

Update (11/4/10): Website pre-registration will close Friday at 9 am. There may be seats remaining on Saturday morning; people can come to the registration desk at 9:15 am Saturday to find out.

Pre-registration is required due to limited seating. Please register below via PayPal. The registration fee is $20; $10 for students and low income individuals. The conference is free for Pace University students, faculty, and staff with valid ID (contact us to register). Note: Registrants must check in by 9:15 a.m. The conference will start promptly at 9:30 am in the Multipurpose Room at 1 Pace Plaza. Enter on Spruce St. Click here for directions to Pace’s lower Manhattan campus.

PLEASE REGISTER NOW

General Admission $20.00 Low Income $10.00

click here to view the original & second version of this announcement

Presented by Marxist-Humanist Initiative

Tues. April 6, 7:00 – 9:00 p.m.

Speakers:

Anne Jaclard: “The Biography of an Idea Whose Time has Come”

Andrew Kliman: “Capitalism’s Changing ‘Forms of Appearance’: Going Below the Surface with Dunayevskaya”

Mike Dola: “Automation: A New Stage of Production, a New Stage of Cognition”

Seth Weiss: “Philosophy, Organization, and the New Society: An exploration of Dunayevskaya’s last writings on Marx’s ‘Gotha Critique’”

At TRS Inc. Professional Suite, 11th floor, 44 East 32nd Street, Manhattan (bet. Madison & Park Aves.)

Contribution requested

The latest Case-Shiller home price figures, which came out this morning, indicate that home prices in the US fell by an average of 2.2% in March. Home prices have now fallen at just about this rate (between 1.9% and 2.2%) for seven months in a row; the pace of decline is not slowing down (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Monthly Percentage Change in Case-Shiller 20-City Home Price Index Since 2006 (Seasonally Adjusted)

In recent weeks, there has been a lot of talk about a “moderation of the contraction”; see my post earlier this month here.  But there is no moderation of the contraction, much less an upturn in the US housing sector-the sector which has been, and remains, the key to the current crisis.

Home prices are now 32.2% below the peak reached in July 2006 (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Case-Shiller 20-City Home Price Index Since 2000

In many of the 20 metropolitan areas covered in the index, especially in the Southwest, home prices have now fallen by more than 40% from peak levels:  Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Miami, Tampa, and Detroit.  In Phoenix and Las Vegas, they have fallen by more than half.

Nine months ago, at the end of August, 2008, I wrote an analysis of the economic crisis (“A Crisis for the Centre of the System“).  At that point, as I noted then, the Case-Shiller index was down “only” 18.4%, and forecasters were typically saying (Meredith Whitney being a notable exception) that the total decline from the peak would reach 20% to 25%. In other words, they believed that the home-price slump had already come close to bottoming out. They were seriously wrong.

The unrelenting decline in home prices is an extremely serious matter because of the huge losses of home equity wealth involved, and because of the ever-deeper losses on mortgage loans, mortgage-backed securities, and so forth that are being taken by financial institutions.  It is very difficult to believe that the economy can turn around if home prices are still declining.

One Comment on “Unrelenting Decline in US Home Prices”

1. 1Anne said at 2:24 pm on May 29th, 2009:Nor is there any prospect of home prices ceasing to fall, let alone rising, any time soon. The latest figures show that the number of home purchases is up, but so many more homes came on the market recently due to increased foreclosures, that increased sales are not expected to drive up prices. The latest wave of foreclosures is against prime mortgages, not just sub-primes, as more and more people lose their jobs and can’t pay.

May Day 2009: Immigrants, Jobs, and Politics in a Time of Economic Crisis; Haitians

We had two May Day demonstrations in New York City this year, one sponsored by unions and workers’ centers, the other dominated by the Left, both called by immigrants rights groups. The turn-out was largely Latino and heavily students. Many national and ethnic groups announced themselves with banners, and there were contingents of the unemployed and homeless.

Many signs and chants at both demonstrations, besides those calling for amnesty for the undocumented, were based on the view that government bail-out money should be used for education, housing, health care, etc. instead of going to Wall Street institutions. High school and college students asked for changes in the law to permit undocumented youth to obtain state aid for college, and asked for aid. One flyer by a Left organization consisted of a part telling students they need to demand more money for education, and another part of equal size denouncing the mayor on the sole grounds that he is very rich.

The prevailing view that real change can result from redistributing wealth hobbles the challenge we face in a time of economic crisis to have the inherent defects of capitalism understood and accompanied by a demand for its uprooting. We were sorry not to find clear openings to discuss this among the young and foreign born.

And what happened to the huge immigrants rights movement of three years ago, when millions turned out at May Day demonstrations across the country? In New York, Union Square Park had been so packed then that you could not move once you entered it; this year, several hundred people (in a heavy rain storm) filled only a fraction of the park. Meanwhile, life has gotten harder for immigrants, with many jailed and deported during these three years. Bush stepped up work-place raids and deportations, and many people left voluntarily due to a declining demand for cheap labor that cannot be filled by desperate citizens.

Did the movement die because people lost hope when no major changes in the law resulted from the mass demonstrations? Was it constrained by prevailing political organizations to rely on the Democrats to pass more favorable laws? Immigrants rights has recently become a demand of some unions, quite a change from the days when they feared the competition of foreigners and kept them out of unionized jobs. But the new concern for immigrants may be more the result of unions’ need to preserve themselves from shrinking into oblivion by getting new members, than of any ideological shift.

While the U.S. Left concentrates on defending Cuba and demanding the U.S. end close to 50 years of stupid and harmful sanctions and embargo, the same Left largely ignores the one million Haitian immigrants in our midst-including the people who drown during attempts to get here and those here who are threatened with deportation. Many are locked in prison while awaiting rulings on their refuge status (Cubans remain free during the process, and are presumed to be entitled to the status). 30,000 Haitians have final orders of deportation against them, although non-criminal deportations have halted while the U.S. government considers giving these 30,000 Temporary Protective Status (TPS), which would allow them to remain temporarily. That status is sometimes granted when a home country has suffered disasters that make it impossible for repatriated people to find work and that make much of the population dependent on their remittances from abroad. Haiti certainly qualifies-it had three hurricanes last summer and is suffering greatly from the world economic crisis, yet the U.S. has yet to grant it TPS status.