Psyche, Science, and Society

Eidelson: In Praise of Shared Outrage

Roy Eidelson has a new article on the importance of shared moral outrage in bringing about egalitarian social change:

In Praise of Shared Outrage

By Roy Eidelson

“We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity and opportunity for all.” These were the words of Lord Brian Griffiths, Goldman Sachs international adviser, when he spoke at London’s St. Paul’s Cathedral last fall. With inequality at historic levels here in the United States and around the world, it’s a reassuring message we all might wish to be true.

Unfortunately, scientific research reveals a sharply different reality: inequality is a driving force behind many of our most profound social ills. The Equality Trust reviewed thousands of studies conducted by the US Census Bureau, the World Health Organization, the United Nations and the World Bank. Consistent patterns emerged, both among and within countries. Inequality is associated with diminished levels of physical and mental health, child well-being, educational achievement, social mobility, trust and community life. And it is linked to increased levels of violence, drug use, imprisonment, obesity and teenage births. In short, Lord Griffiths’ claim – despite the venue – was a self-serving fiction.

Shared Outrage and Solidarity

Although there are no easy or quick solutions for reversing today’s extreme inequalities and repairing the daily harm they cause, the path forward may be clearer than we realize. Change of this magnitude requires a stubborn, passionate and broadly embraced commitment to greater equality as a moral necessity. Although regularly overlooked and misunderstood, the catalyst for such a transformation is often surprisingly simple: shared outrage. Indeed, when shared by the disadvantaged and oppressed on the one hand and by those with greater security and resources on the other, outrage can spur the concerted action required to overcome the injustice, insensitivity and inhumanity that foster inequality around the world.

Recent work by social psychologists such as Emma Thomas, Craig McGarty, Kenneth Mavor and Emina Subasic (among others) highlights why this is so. Outrage shared among groups that otherwise differ in many ways creates the solidarity vital to forcefully challenging a destructive status quo. This shared emotion is so powerful because it breaks the established boundaries that separate the “haves” from the “have-nots.” Outrage over inequality can unite the direct victims of discrimination with those who find discrimination morally repugnant even though they themselves have not experienced it. Similarly, outrage can bring together in common cause people struggling to make ends meet and those who, while better off, are convinced that it’s simply wrong for anyone to go without adequate food, shelter or health care.

What also makes this shared moral outrage special is its collective action orientation – it pushes for sustained engagement against the individuals, groups and institutions that benefit from inequality and seek to perpetuate it. As a political force, shared outrage takes us beyond the mere acknowledgment of regrettable circumstances in the world. It insists on explanations for what’s wrong and it seeks accountability for the wrongdoing. And the chorus of voices rising up in shared outrage prevents any single group from becoming an isolated target for condemnation or retribution from the powers that be.

In the US alone, there are many settings today that cry out for this shared outrage. Consider a small sample:

• Wall Street’s largest banks turn a taxpayer-funded bailout into billions of dollars in bonuses for their highest-paid employees – while millions of working people lose their jobs and their homes. It’s not only the unemployed and homeless who should be outraged.
• Health insurance giants add to their bottom line by denying life-saving treatment to sick children, dropping policyholders when they become too ill and aggressively raising premiums despite the economic hardship facing so many. It’s not only those whose health or recovery is imperiled who should be outraged.
• Profit-driven global polluters, their lobbyists and their political defenders block effective responses to climate change while the poor suffer disproportionately from environmental disasters and devastation. It’s not only those whose lives are destroyed by drought or flood who should be outraged.
• Unethical politicians protect the privileged and the wealthy by embracing falsehoods and obstructionism to prevent legislation that would address inequality in such arenas as preschool programs, student aid, worker rights and the minimum wage. It’s not only those denied an adequate education, a decent job or a chance at a brighter future who should be outraged.
• With support and funding from powerful elites, hate-mongers take to the airwaves and the print media. They condemn, ridicule and arouse fear and hostility toward minority group members already disadvantaged by prejudice, discrimination and infringements of their civil rights. It’s not only the targeted groups who should be outraged.

The Limits of Compassion

The shared outrage I’m extolling is by no means the only prosocial emotion we can experience in response to human suffering. Compassion, for example, is another common and important reaction – but alone it’s not sufficient to promote meaningful and lasting social change. Part of the problem, as demonstrated by the research of psychologists such as Paul Slovic, Ilana Ritov and Tehila Kogut, is that our natural tendency to experience compassion is quite limited in breadth. We tend to respond most strongly to the misfortune of a single identified individual. Unfortunately, these feelings of care and concern quickly diminish in strength as the number of victims increases. So, even though compassion can lead to crucial short-term efforts to help the needy, it doesn’t readily translate into a sustained movement. It doesn’t truly unite groups in common purpose over time.

In fact, compassion felt toward those less well off actually highlights differences among groups rather than effectively transforming two groups into one. In contrast to moral outrage, which can be fully shared, compassion is a feeling experienced only by the outsider; a disadvantaged group doesn’t feel compassion for itself. Moreover, compassion too often finds expression in patronizing gestures. A we-know-better attitude inadvertently intensifies group boundaries by failing to fully recognize the capabilities, resiliency, special knowledge and equal humanity of those to whom help is offered.

Just as important, compassion does not search for, identify and hold accountable those responsible for conditions of inequality and injustice. In short, feeling bad for those less fortunate isn’t enough. Shared outrage goes much further. It combats illegitimate attempts to blame the victims for their plight. It prioritizes the need for long-term change beyond emergency assistance alone. And it demands accountability for the failure to use power and influence for the greater good.

Hurdles to Shared Outrage

But if moral outrage shared by the disadvantaged and advantaged alike offers such promise for positive social change, what stands in its way? Why, for example, is inequality growing on so many fronts rather than receding? Far too often, the blossoming of such shared outrage is cut short – both by the powerful self-interested beneficiaries of the status quo and by those who, without malevolent intent, mistakenly view outrage as an undesirable, inappropriate or ineffective response to inequality and injustice.

Many of those perched atop the social and economic ladder, accustomed to the access and resources entrenched power bestows, have little interest in climbing down a rung or two. For them, preserving the inequality they welcome depends upon suppressing shared outrage. This is routinely accomplished by promoting an alternative narrative that supports and glorifies the current system. “The world is the way it should be.” “Claims of injustice, illegitimacy or wrongdoing are unfounded; they overlook a deeper logic and necessity.” “Inequality is a good thing.”

In this world of skillfully crafted illusions, rags-to-riches stories are like gold to those who own the mines. When they are sufficiently persuasive, we’re inclined to overlook the words of people such as Bangladeshi Nobel Laureate and micro-lender Muhammad Yunus, who explained, “Poverty is not created by poor people. It has been created and sustained by the economic and social system that we have designed for ourselves; the institutions and concepts that make up that system; the policies that we pursue.”

Those who defend current structures of inequality – whether their status derives from political power, outsized salaries or inherited wealth – have many other tactics at their disposal. Sometimes, the disadvantaged are blamed, ridiculed and reprimanded for the adversity they face. When the victims accept these false accusations as true, their outrage is smothered and their disempowerment is nearly complete. Sometimes, powerful elites overburden potential allies of the underprivileged with obstacles and worries that prevent them from looking beyond their own circumstances and joining cause with those who are even worse off. And, sometimes, the status quo’s winners conspire to pit everyone else against each other, thereby extinguishing the possibility that shared outrage might unseat them.

Regrettably, the barriers to justice are further strengthened by the well-intentioned and risk-averse when they fail to become partners in moral outrage with the worst victims of an inequality-perpetuating system. When such sympathizers take to the sidelines and become mere bystanders, they tragically help society’s wealthiest and most powerful avoid the full force of broadly-supported and insistent demands for meaningful change. For a movement working to build momentum, apathy and indecision from prospective allies can be as destructive as outright opposition. Recall Martin Luther King’s deep disappointment over the decent people who deemed outrage an inappropriate response to the racism and segregation of the 1960s:

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

What Shared Moral Outrage About Inequality Is Not

The shared moral outrage discussed here is often inadvertently misunderstood or intentionally misrepresented. It is, therefore, important to be clear about what this form of outrage is not.

First, shared outrage over inequality is not the same as irrational anger. Rather, it’s an entirely reasonable response to an outrageous situation. Likewise, effective strategies for pursuing real change linked to moral outrage can be bold and discomforting while still being purposeful and carefully planned. To prize civility and decorum (and “bipartisanship”) when doing so aids the powerful defenders of an unjust status quo is either foolish or deceitful.

Second, the shared outrage I’m praising is not supportive of violence in the pursuit of its aims. In fact, such outrage has historically been the source of transformative nonviolent movements around the world. At the same time, the manner in which shared outrage is expressed can indeed reflect the recognition that timid stances are too often ignored or dismissed by the mainstream media, the centers of power and those who are comfortably insulated from life’s daily hardships and injustices.

Third, this shared outrage over inequality is not artificial. It is explicitly not the simulated populist anger manufactured and promoted by corporate-funded “Astroturf” groups that represent many more dollars than people. Such efforts have very different underlying goals and often include an agenda that expands rather than diminishes inequality. Despite superficial appearances, the current Tea Party movement fits this bill. A recent CNN/Opinion Research poll found that these activists are predominantly male, higher-income, college-educated and conservative, with 87 percent supporting the Republican candidate for the US House. That’s certainly not the profile of a broad and diverse coalition of haves and have-nots fighting systemic injustices that do particular harm to the least fortunate among us.

Finally, shared moral outrage should not be mistaken for the anger displayed by representatives of powerful interests responding to attempts to alter the status quo. Such big-budget political theater is strategically designed to subvert the efforts of groups pursuing change that will benefit the disadvantaged. Outrage fueled by distortions, misrepresentations and lies must be discounted as well.

Where to Now?

Now is the time for more of the shared moral outrage I’ve described, not less. As Frederick Douglass explained more than a century and a half ago, “If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.”

Although forces of globalization and technological developments have undoubtedly altered the landscape for political action, the importance of shared moral outrage as a foundation for social progress persists. Examples from the past half-century remain as compelling as ever. Emerging from the horrors of World War II, the United Nations adopted the groundbreaking Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Broad and sustained political movements advanced the civil rights of African-Americans and women in the United States and ended apartheid in South Africa. Populist campaigns curtailed the exploitation and abuse of farm and factory workers. Churches and local communities created sanctuaries that offered protection for immigrants and refugees. All of these efforts (and many others) were aimed at promoting greater equality and all recognized that inequality could not be meaningfully reduced without improving the circumstances of society’s most vulnerable and marginalized members.

In the 1976 Oscar-winning film “Network,” deranged TV news anchor Howard Beale implores his viewers to open their windows and scream, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!” The sentiment and emotion may be right, but what’s really needed now is greater engagement in organized efforts that bring together inspiring leaders, dedicated advocates and inclusive coalitions of diverse supporters committed to reducing inequality and its injustices. Together, we must face head-on the full reality of today’s morally bankrupt status quo while nurturing our collective imagination to envision building a better world. This difficult balancing act will require that we resist the lure of cynicism, self-absorption and conventional mindsets – and that we find, nurture and share our moral outrage.

Add comment March 16th, 2010

Herbert: Howard Zinn, a radical treasure

Bob Herbert on Howard Zinn:

A Radical Treasure

By Bob Herbert

I had lunch with Howard Zinn just a few weeks ago, and I’ve seldom had more fun while talking about so many matters that were unreservedly unpleasant: the sorry state of government and politics in the U.S., the tragic futility of our escalation in Afghanistan, the plight of working people in an economy rigged to benefit the rich and powerful.

Mr. Zinn could talk about all of that and more without losing his sense of humor. He was a historian with a big, engaging smile that seemed ever-present. His death this week at the age of 87 was a loss that should have drawn much more attention from a press corps that spends an inordinate amount of its time obsessing idiotically over the likes of Tiger Woods and John Edwards.

Mr. Zinn was chagrined by the present state of affairs, but undaunted. “If there is going to be change, real change,” he said, “it will have to work its way from the bottom up, from the people themselves. That’s how change happens.”

We were in a restaurant at the Warwick Hotel in Manhattan. Also there was Anthony Arnove, who had worked closely with Mr. Zinn in recent years and had collaborated on his last major project, “The People Speak.” It’s a film in which well-known performers bring to life the inspirational words of everyday citizens whose struggles led to some of the most profound changes in the nation’s history. Think of those who joined in — and in many cases became leaders of — the abolitionist movement, the labor movement, the civil rights movement, the feminist revolution, the gay rights movement, and so on.

Think of what this country would have been like if those ordinary people had never bothered to fight and sometimes die for what they believed in. Mr. Zinn refers to them as “the people who have given this country whatever liberty and democracy we have.”

Our tendency is to give these true American heroes short shrift, just as we gave Howard Zinn short shrift. In the nitwit era that we’re living through now, it’s fashionable, for example, to bad-mouth labor unions and feminists even as workers throughout the land are treated like so much trash and the culture is so riddled with sexism that most people don’t even notice it. (There’s a restaurant chain called “Hooters,” for crying out loud.)

I always wondered why Howard Zinn was considered a radical. (He called himself a radical.) He was an unbelievably decent man who felt obliged to challenge injustice and unfairness wherever he found it. What was so radical about believing that workers should get a fair shake on the job, that corporations have too much power over our lives and much too much influence with the government, that wars are so murderously destructive that alternatives to warfare should be found, that blacks and other racial and ethnic minorities should have the same rights as whites, that the interests of powerful political leaders and corporate elites are not the same as those of ordinary people who are struggling from week to week to make ends meet?

Mr. Zinn was often taken to task for peeling back the rosy veneer of much of American history to reveal sordid realities that had remained hidden for too long. When writing about Andrew Jackson in his most famous book, “A People’s History of the United States,” published in 1980, Mr. Zinn said:

“If you look through high school textbooks and elementary school textbooks in American history, you will find Jackson the frontiersman, soldier, democrat, man of the people — not Jackson the slaveholder, land speculator, executioner of dissident soldiers, exterminator of Indians.”

Radical? Hardly.

Mr. Zinn would protest peacefully for important issues he believed in — against racial segregation, for example, or against the war in Vietnam — and at times he was beaten and arrested for doing so. He was a man of exceptionally strong character who worked hard as a boy growing up in Brooklyn during the Depression. He was a bomber pilot in World War II, and his experience of the unmitigated horror of warfare served as the foundation for his lifelong quest for peaceful solutions to conflict.

He had a wonderful family, and he cherished it. He and his wife, Roslyn, known to all as Roz, were married in 1944 and were inseparable for more than six decades until her death in 2008. She was an activist, too, and Howard’s editor. “I never showed my work to anyone except her,” he said.

They had two children and five grandchildren.

Mr. Zinn was in Santa Monica this week, resting up after a grueling year of work and travel, when he suffered a heart attack and died on Wednesday. He was a treasure and an inspiration. That he was considered radical says way more about this society than it does about him.

January 30th, 2010

Democracy Now! Tribute to Howard Zinn

From Democracy Now–Howard Zinn (1922-2010): A Tribute to the Legendary Historian with Noam Chomsky, Alice Walker, Naomi Klein and Anthony Arnove:

The transcript can be read at Democracy Now!

January 30th, 2010

Forget the great men. The People Speak this Sunday

This Sunday you have the opportunity to see the amazing film The People Speak on the History channel. The film is based upon Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. I saw a preview and live dramatization of sections in Boston and it’s a must watch. Actor Viggo Mortensen tells about the film:

“Great Man” Theory? History Is Driven by the Little Guy

By Viggo Mortensen

Actors have the privilege of exploring fictional characters, to see the world from the perspective of another person’s imagined life. Sometimes, usually less often, we have the opportunity to speak the words of historical figures, to say the words they themselves spoke. This presents a different kind of challenge, in many ways, something I have been thinking about personally since becoming involved with a performance project and now documentary film called The People Speak, which is airing on History Channel, Sunday, December 13, at 8 pm (7 pm Central). (A soundtrack of music from the film is available from the Verve label December 9.)

The project is inspired by Howard Zinn’s books A People’s History of the United States and, with Anthony Arnove, Voices of a People’s History of the United States, two books that have had a deep influence on how I understand this country. Howard’s books provide a history of the United States from below, from the standpoint of ordinary people often overlooked in our textbooks and in our culture.

In 2005, I had the chance to be part of reading in Los Angeles with a remarkable lineup of actors, including Sandra Oh and Josh Brolin, which we called Voices of a People’s History of the United States. The enthusiastic reaction of the audience to hearing the words of people in our country’s history who have spoken out, fought injustice, and made a change, demonstrated how empowering it can be for people to reclaim this history and to make it their own. And how enlightening it is to shine the light of history on the issues and concerns of the present.

The success of these performances throughout the country — some in high schools and some in theaters, some with professional actors and musicians, some with high school students — led a few of us to think that we should make a film that could highlight and preserve these stories. The stories of people like Plough Jogger, a farmer in Shay’s Rebellion, who asserted “We’ve come to relieve the distresses of the people.”

Or an anonymous member of the Industrial Workers of the World who was arrested for denouncing World War One, saying, “This war is a businessman’s war and we don’t see why we should go out and get shot in order to save the lovely state of affairs which we now enjoy.”

Or Orlando and Phyllis Rodriguez, who lost their son on 9/11, and issued this heartfelt statement a few days after: “Our son died a victim of an inhuman ideology. Our actions should not serve the same purpose. Let us grieve. Let us reflect and pray. Let us think about a rational response that brings real peace and justice to our world. But let us not as a nation add to the inhumanity of our times.”

What we have found in making this film over the past two years is that people respond to these voices in profoundly personal and emotional ways. They take inspiration from seeing how people struggled in the past, often against far greater odds than we face today, to make their voices heard and to right historic wrongs. They find insight from these expressions of the past into how they feel and live in the present. And they also find hope for a different future.

As Howard Zinn has often pointed out, history told from above — from the standpoint of generals and kings and presidents — encourages passivity, a sense of helplessness. In this version of history, “great men” make history, not ordinary people. But looked at from below, history has another lesson. Whenever change as happened, it has been through protest, dissent, struggle, social movements, ordinary people picketing, striking, boycotting, sitting down, sitting in. All this mans that we make history, history is effected by our everyday decisions. And we have a responsibility to speak out when we see injustice. We can’t wait on others to “lead” us or solve our problems for us. We have to participate, to engage, every day and not just once every four years.

Howard Zinn’s work also reminds us that we always need to ask: what stories am I not hearing? Whose voices am I not hearing? And that if no one is telling our stories, we need to find ways — creative, dynamic — ways of telling them ourselves.

December 11th, 2009

UCLA students protest fee hikes

UCLA students have been protesting huge 32% fee hikes this week that will the cost of an education (not counting books and living costs)  above $10,000 for the first time. Students are concerned that these increases will increase the inaccessibility of higher education to poorer students. As has happened so often at campuses around the country, the university called in police in riot gear to suppress protests. Fourteen students were arrested and others injured. Protest, including a sit-in, are continuing on Thursday. [A statement from the students sitting in can be heard here.]:

November 19th, 2009

The People Speak College Tour

For Boston area readers:

***Seats are going fast, so reserve your free seat today for this event on Thursday!***

Please join

HOWARD ZINN
DAVID STRATHAIRN
CHRIS MOORE

for

THE PEOPLE SPEAK COLLEGE TOUR
at
BOSTON UNIVERSITY

Thursday, November 5, 2009
7PM

Boston University Tsai Performance Center
685 Commonwealth Avenue
College of Arts and Sciences
Boston MA
http://www.bu.edu/tsai

FREE! All seats General Admission.

To reserve a seat in advance and learn more, please visit:
http://www.history.com/thepeoplespeakcollegetour

Sponsored by HISTORY
http://www.history.com/

Hosted by the College of Arts and Sciences, the Core Curriculum, the Honors Program, and the Departments of History and Political Science at Boston University

THE PEOPLE SPEAK COLLEGE TOUR is a national campus tour for the forthcoming documentary film THE PEOPLE SPEAK (http://www.thepeoplespeak.com/) and will will bring the film’s producers and cast members to eight universities across the country for live readings, clip screenings, and in-depth discussion.

Using dramatic and musical performances of the letters, diaries and speeches of everyday Americans, THE PEOPLE SPEAK gives voice to those who spoke up for social change throughout U.S. history, forging a nation from the bottom up with their insistence on equality and justice. Produced by Matt Damon, Josh Brolin, Chris Moore, Anthony Arnove and acclaimed historian Howard Zinn, THE PEOPLE SPEAK illustrates the relevance of these passionate historical moments to our society today and reminds us never to take liberty for granted.

THE PEOPLE SPEAK features Josh Brolin, Matt Damon, Rosario Dawson, Bob Dylan, Morgan Freeman, John Legend, Viggo Mortensen, Bruce Springsteen, Marisa Tomei, and Kerry Washington.

THE PEOPLE SPEAK COLLEGE TOUR at BOSTON UNIVERSITY features HOWARD ZINN and his co-executive producer CHRIS MOORE (Project Greenlight, Good Will Hunting, American Pie) and actor DAVID STRATHAIRN (Bourne Ultimatum, Good Night and Good Luck) in live performance and also showing highlights from the film, talking with the audience, and taking questions from students.

Join The People Speak on History on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/thepeoplespeakonhistory

MORE INFORMATION
http://www.history.com/thepeoplespeakcollegetour
http://www.HowardZinn.org/ |   http://www.facebook.com/HowardZinn
http://www.PeoplesHistory.us/ |   http://www.facebook.com/Voices.Live

NEW AND UPDATED edition of the source books for THE PEOPLE SPEAK just released:

Voices of a People’s History of the United States, by Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove
http://www.sevenstories.com/book/?GCOI=58322100808900

A People’s History of the United States, 1492-Present, by Howard Zinn
http://www.harpercollins.com/book/index.aspx?isbn=9780060528423

November 3rd, 2009

United Steelworkers and MONDRAGON are bringing worplace democracy to the US

At the end of Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story, Moore states that there is an alternative to capitalism. “It’s called ‘democracy’ ” he says. By ‘democracy’ he clearly means democracy in our economic life, including inside the workplace.  In the film he has shown us workers cooperatives where workers participate fully in decision-making about their enterprises. The Basque MONDRAGON cooperatives have been one of the few large-scale efforts to implement these cooperative democratic principles.

While these efforts are no without their problems, workers cooperatives are among the few interesting alternatives to traditional capitalist enterprises around. They deserve to be further developed and fully explored. Perhaps most exciting is how workplace democracy can overcome the alienation typical of the traditional workplace where so many are assumed to lack the knowledge, insight, and understanding to make good decisions while a small group of individuals who are guided largely by monetary concerns make the decisions for all and are rewarded handsomely for their supposed acumen.

The United Steelworkers and MONDRAGON cooperatives  have issued the following press release which suggests that workplace democracy may soon be coming to an enterprise near you:

The United Steelworkers (USW) and MONDRAGON Internacional, S.A. today announced a framework agreement for collaboration in establishing MONDRAGON cooperatives in the manufacturing sector within the United States and Canada.  The USW and MONDRAGON will work to establish manufacturing cooperatives that adapt collective bargaining principles to the MONDRAGON worker ownership model of “one worker, one vote.”“We see today’s agreement as a historic first step towards making union co-ops a viable business model that can create good jobs, empower workers, and support communities in the United States and Canada,” said USW International President Leo W. Gerard.  “Too often we have seen Wall Street hollow out companies by draining their cash and assets and hollowing out communities by shedding jobs and shuttering plants.  We need a new business model that invests in workers and invests in communities.”

Josu Ugarte, President of MONDGRAGON Internacional added: “What we are announcing today represents a historic first – combining the world’s largest industrial worker cooperative with one of the world’s most progressive and forward-thinking manufacturing unions to work together so that our combined know-how and complimentary visions can transform manufacturing practices in North America.”

Highlighting the differences between Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) and union co-ops, Gerard said, “We have lots of experience with ESOPs, but have found that it doesn’t take long for the Wall Street types to push workers aside and take back control.  We see Mondragon’s cooperative model with ‘one worker, one vote’ ownership as a means to re-empower workers and make business accountable to Main Street instead of Wall Street.”

Both the USW and MONDRAGON emphasized the shared values that will drive this collaboration.  Mr. Ugarte commented, “We feel inspired to take this step based on our common set of values with the Steelworkers who have proved time and again that the future belongs to those who connect vision and values to people and put all three first. We are excited about working with Mondragon because of our shared values, that work should empower workers and sustain families and communities,” Gerard added.

In the coming months, the USW and MONDRAGON will seek opportunities to implement this union co-op hybrid approach by sharing the common values put forward by the USW and MONDGRAGON and by operating in similar manufacturing segments in which both the USW and MONDRAGON already participate.

Click here for the full text of the Agreement.

About MONDRAGON:

The MONDRAGON Corporation mission is to produce and sell goods and provide services and distribution using democratic methods in its organizational structure and distributing the assets generated for the benefit of its members and the community, as a measure of solidarity.  MONDRAGON began its activities in 1956 in the Basque town of Mondragon by a rural village priest with a transformative vision who believed in the values of worker collaboration and working hard to reach for and realize the common good.

Today, with approximately 100,000 cooperative members in over 260 cooperative enterprises present in more than forty countries; MONDRAGON Corporation is committed to the creation of greater social wealth through customer satisfaction, job creation, technological and business development, continuous improvement, the promotion of education, and respect for the environment.   In 2008, MONDRAGON Corporation reached annual sales of more than sixteen billion euros with its own cooperative university, cooperative bank, and cooperative social security mutual and is ranked as the top Basque business group, the seventh largest in Spain, and the world’s largest industrial workers cooperative.

About the USW:

The USW is North America’s largest industrial union representing 1.2 million active and retired members in a diverse range of industries.

October 29th, 2009

Men in military fatigues “arresting” appraently G20 demonstrator

Huffington Post has a strange video apparently of men in military fatigues “arresting” a demonstrator at the G20 summit. If true, it is important to understand what is going on here. Who are these men? Are they “arresting” or “kidnapping” the demonstrator? Why are they in military fatigues? Is this a new police uniform, or is there some sinister paramilitary force at work in Pittsburgh?

UPDATE: Raw Story has more information on this incident:

G20 security officials took responsibility Friday afternoon for a video that seemed to depict US troops ‘kidnapping’ a protester.

The military was not involved in the incident, but G20 security did acknowledge that “law enforcement officers from a multi-agency tactical response team” had detained a protester they said was believed to be vandalizing a store.

Video posted at YouTube shows onlookers calling out “what the fuck” and “what the fuck is wrong with you?” as people in camo uniforms haul a protester along by his collar, shove him into the back seat of a car, and rapidly drive off.

Officials with G20 security released the following statement to Raw Story and other media outlets:
Story continues below…

“Military members supporting the G20 Summit work with local law enforcement authorities but do not have the authority to make arrests. The individuals involved in the 9/24/09 arrest which has appeared online are law enforcement officers from a multi-agency tactical response team assigned to the security operations for the G20. It is not unusual for tactical team members to wear camouflaged fatigues. The type of fatigues the officers wear designates their unit affiliation.

Prior to the arrest, the officers observed this subject vandalizing a local business. Due to the hostile nature of the crowd, officer safety and the safety of the person under arrest, the subject was immediately removed from the area.”

The video was featured this morning at the Drudge Report under the heading, “SEE U.S. MILITARY SNATCH PROTESTER… .”

At the liberal website Democratic Underground, one commenter asserted, “This is staged” and then claimed, “Those were not the uniforms National Guard/military were wearing yesterday. Neither was that the vehicles they were driving. This was just a bunch of idiots trying to make some point.”

According to news reports, “U.S. authorities assembled a security force of nearly 5,000 people to safeguard the event, including 2,500 National Guard troops, 1,200 state troopers, 875 Pittsburgh city police and small groups of officers from other agencies.”

Police and National Guard troops headed off an unauthorized march by some 1000 protesters on Thursday and eventually forced the crowd to scatter.

The police reaction to the protests has been marked by what antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan calls “profound overkill.”

“I have been to dozens of protests, large and small, since my son was killed in Iraq, but I have never seen anything like today,” Sheehan writes. “There were easily two cops/soldiers for every one of us protesters or maybe even 3 to 1.”

Sheehan also witnessed the National Guard troops working with the local police and comments, “Seeing the National Guard troops, fresh from Iraq, broke my heart the hardest. I also talked to dozens of them, none had ever heard of posse commitatus, and asked them if my son, their brother, died in Iraq so they could steal the rights of his mother. Most of them wouldn’t even look at me.

September 25th, 2009

Navarro: Obama’s Mistakes in Health Care Reform

As we watch Obama’s health care reform plans destruct, veteran leftist health policy expert Vincent Navarro, long-time editor of the International Journal of Health Services, dissects the disaster:

Obama’s Mistakes in Health Care Reform

By Vincent Navarro

Let me start by saying that I have never been a fan of Barack Obama. Early on, I warned many on the left that his slogan, “Yes, we can,” could not be read as a commitment to the major change this country needs (see “Yes, We Can. Can We? The Next Failure of Health Reform”). Still, I actively supported him against John McCain and was very pleased when he became president – for many reasons, encompassing a broad range of feelings. One reason was that Obama is African-American, and the country needed to have a black president. Another was that his election seemed to signal the end of the Bush era. But, the most important reason was that I saw him as a decent man, surrounded by some good people who could promote change from the center and open up some possibilities for progress, giving the left a chance to influence the administration’s policies. Well, after just over seven months of the Obama White House, I have no reason to doubt that he is a decent man, but I am dismayed by the bad judgment he has shown in the choice of some of his staff and advisors. I really doubt that he is going to be able to make the changes we need. As I said, I never had great expectations about him and his policies, but even the lowest of my expectations have not been met.

Some among the many skeptics on the left might add, “What did you expect?” Well, at least I expected Obama to show the same degree of astuteness that he and his team had shown during the campaign. He seemed to be a brilliant strategist, and his election proves this. But my greatest disappointment is the strategies he is now following in his proposals for health care reform – they could not be worse. I am really concerned that the fiasco of this reform may make Obama a one-term president.

Error number One

One of the two major objectives for health care reform, as emphasized by Obama, is the need to reduce medical care costs. The notion that “the economy cannot afford a medical care system so costly, with the annual increases of medical care running wild” has been repeated over and over – only the tone varies, depending on the audience. An element of this argument is Obama’s emphasis on eliminating the federal deficit. He stresses that most of the government deficit is due to the outrageous growth in costs in federal health programs. Thus, a crucial part of the message he is transmitting is the health care reform objective of reducing costs.

This message, as it reaches the average citizen, seems like a threat to achieve cost reductions by cutting existing benefits. This perception is particularly accentuated among elderly people – which is not unreasonable, given that the president indicates that the funds needed to provide health benefits coverage to the 48 million currently uncovered will come partially from existing programs, such as Medicare, with savings supposedly achieved by increasing efficiency. To the average citizen (who has developed an enormous skepticism about the political process), this call for savings by increasing efficiency sounds like a code for cutting benefits. Not surprisingly, then, one sector of the population most skeptical about health care reform is seniors – the beneficiaries of Medicare. The comment that “government should keep its hands off my Medicare,” as heard at some of the town hall meetings, is not as paradoxical or ridiculous as the liberal media paint it. It makes a lot of sense. An increasing number of elderly people feel that the uninsured are going to be insured at the expense of seniors’ benefits.

Error Number Two

The second major objective of health care reform as presented by Obama is to provide health benefits coverage for the uncovered: the 48 million people who don’t have any form of health benefits coverage. This is an important and urgently needed intervention. The U.S. cannot claim to be a civilized nation and a defender of human rights around the world unless this major human and moral problem at home is resolved once and for all. But, however important, this is not the largest problem we have in the health care sector. The most widespread problem is not being uninsured but underinsured: the majority of people in the U.S. – 168 million, to be precise – are underinsured. And many (32 per cent) are not even aware of this until they need their health insurance coverage. This undercoverage is an enormous human, social, and economic problem. Among people who are terminally ill, 42 per cent worry about how they or their family will pay for medical care. And most of these people are insured – but their insurance does not cover all of their conditions and necessary interventions. Co-payments, deductibles, and other extra expenses – besides the insurance premiums – can amount to 10 per cent or even higher proportion of disposable income.

During the presidential campaign, both Obama and Hillary Clinton, in discussing the need for health care reform, made frequent reference to heart-breaking stories – cases in which families and individuals suffer under our current system of medical care. But none of the proposals that the Obama administration is ready to support would address most of these cases. It will be an embarrassing and uncomfortable moment during the 2012 presidential campaign if someone asks candidate Obama about what has happened to some of the people whose stories he told in the 2008 campaign.

Error Number Three

Obama plans to cover the uninsured by increasing taxes on the rich (a very popular measure, as shown in all polls) and by transferring funds saved through increased efficiencies in existing programs, including Medicare (an unpopular measure, for the reasons I’ve mentioned). We see here the same problems we’ve seen with other programs targeted to specific, small sectors of the population, such as the poor. Programs that are not universal (i.e., do not benefit everyone) are intrinsically unpopular. This is why antipoverty programs are unpopular. People feel that they are paying, through taxation, for programs that do not benefit them. Compassion is not, and never has been, a successful motivation for public policy. Solidarity is. You support others with the understanding that they will support you when you need it most. The long history of social policy, in the U.S. and elsewhere, shows that universality is a better way to get popular support for a program than means-testing for programs targeted to specific vulnerable groups. The limited popularity of the welfare state in the U.S. is precisely due to the fact that most programs are not universal but means-tested. The history of social policy shows that the best way to resolve poverty is not by developing antipoverty programs, but by developing universal programs to which all people are entitled – for example, job and incomes programs. In the same way, the problem of noncoverage by health insurance will not be resolved without resolving the problem of undercoverage, because both result from the same failing: the absence of government power to ensure universal rights. There is no health care system in the world (including the fashionable Swiss model) that provides universal health benefits coverage without the government intervening, using its muscle to control prices and practices. The various proposals being put forward by the Obama administration are simply tinkering with, not resolving, the problem. You can call this government role “single-payer” or whatever, but our experience in the U.S. has already shown (what other countries have known and practiced for decades) that without government intervention, all the measures now being proposed by this administration will be handsome bailouts for the medical-insurance-pharmaceutical complex.

Error Number Four

I can understand that Obama does not want to advocate single-payer. But he has made a huge tactical mistake in excluding it as an option for study and consideration. He needs single-payer to be among the options under discussion. And he needs single-payer to make his own proposal “respectable.” (Keep in mind how Martin Luther King became the civil rights figure promoted by the establishment because, in the background, there was a Malcolm X threatening the establishment.) This was a major mistake made by Bill Clinton in 1993. When Clinton gave up on single-payer, his own proposal became the “left” proposal (unbelievable as that may seem) and was dead on arrival in Congress. The historical function of the left in this country has been to make the center “respectable.” If there is no left alternative, the Obama proposals will become the “left” proposal, and this will severely limit whatever reform he will finally be able to get.

But there’s another reason that Obama has erred in excluding single-payer. He has antagonized the left of his own party that supports single-payer, without which he cannot be reelected in 2012. He cannot win only with the left, of course, but he certainly cannot win without the mobilization of the left. His victory in 2008 is evidence of this. And today, the left is angry at him. It is a surprise to me, but Obama is going to pay the same price Clinton paid in 1994. Clinton antagonized the left by putting deficit reduction (under pressure from Wall Street) at the top of his policies and supporting NAFTA against the wishes of the AFL-CIO and the majority of Democrats. The Gingrich Republican Revolution of 1994 was due to a demobilization of the left. The Republicans got the same (I repeat the same) number of votes in the 1994 congressional election that they got in 1990 (the previous non-presidential election year). Large sectors of the grassroots of the Democratic Party that voted Democratic in 1990 stayed home in 1994. Something similar could happen in 2010 and in 2012. We could see a strong mobilization of the right and a very demoralized left. We are already seeing this. Why aren’t those on the left out in force at the town hall meetings on health care reform? Because the option they want – single-payer – has already been excluded from the debate by a president they fought to get elected.

This is my concern. The alternative to Obama is Sarah Palin or someone like her. Palin has a lot of support among the people who mobilized to support John McCain. And the ridicule heaped on her by the liberal media (which is despised by large sectors of the working class of this country) helps her, or her like, enormously. I am afraid we may have, in the near future, friendly fascism. And I do not use the term lightly. I grew up under fascism, in Franco’s Spain, and if nothing else, I recognize fascism when I see it. And we are seeing a growing fascism with a working-class base in the U.S. This is why we cannot afford to see Obama fail. But his staff and advisors are doing a remarkable job to achieve this. Ideologues such as chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel (who, when a congressman, was the most highly funded by Wall Street) and his brother, Ezekiel Emanuel (who did indeed write that old people should have a lower priority for health care spending) are leading the country along a wrong path.

I don’t doubt that President Obama, a decent man, wants to provide universal health care to all citizens of this country. But his judgment in developing his strategy to reach that goal is profoundly flawed, and, as mentioned above, it may cost him the presidency – an outcome that would be extremely negative for the country. He should have called for a major mobilization against the medical-industrial complex, to ensure that everyone has the same benefits that their representatives in Congress have, broadening and improving Medicare for all. The emphasis of his strategy should have been on improving health benefits coverage for everyone, including those who are currently uncovered. And to achieve this goal – which the majority of the population supports – he should have stressed the need for government to ensure that this extension of benefits to everyone will occur.

That he has not chosen this strategy touches on the essence of U.S. democracy. The enormous power of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries corrupts the nature of our democracy and shapes the frontiers of what is possible in the U.S. Given this reality, it seems to me that the role of the left is to initiate a program of social political agitation and rebellion (I applaud the health professionals who disrupted the meetings of the Senate Finance Committee), following the tactics of the Civil Rights and anti-Vietnam War movements of the 1960s and 1970s. It is wrong to expect and hope that the Obama administration will change. Without pressure and agitation, not much will be done.

********

Vicente Navarro, M.D., Ph.D., professor of Health Policy at The Johns Hopkins University and editor-in-chief of the International Journal of Health Services. The opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the institutions with which he is affiliated. Dr Navarro can be reached at vnavarro@jhsph.edu

September 7th, 2009

Scenes from the Iranian revolution

Iran is definitely in a revolutionary situation now. Of course that doesn’t mean that the protesters will win. But it means that there is a definite contest for power and the rebels must try to win. Things have gone far enough that loss means a bloodbath, thousands or tens of thousands arrested, possible mass executions etc. Defeat of the fascist regime is necessary for survival.

Robert Fisk, who is defying the ban on foreign reporters reporting — “I rather think an awful lot of journalists take it too seriously. If you get in a car and go out and see things, no-one’s going to stop you, frankly.” — tells of the military protecting protesters and of policemen smiling at them:

I’ve just been witnessing a confrontation, in dusk and into the night, between about 15,000 supporters of Ahmadinejad – supposedly the president of Iran – who are desperate to down the supporters of Mr Mousavi, who thinks he should be the president of Iran.

There were about 10,000 Mousavi men and women on the streets, with approximately 500 Iranian special forces, trying to keep them apart.

It was interesting that the special forces – who normally take the side of Ahmadinejad’s Basij militia – were there with clubs and sticks in their camouflage trousers and their purity white shirts and on this occasion the Iranian military kept them away from Mousavi’s men and women.

In fact at one point, Mousavi’s supporters were shouting ‘thank you, thank you’ to the soldiers.

One woman went up to the special forces men, who normally are very brutal with Mr Mousavi’s supporters, and said ‘can you protect us from the Basij?’ He said ‘with God’s help’.

It was quite extraordinary because it looked as if the military authorities in Tehran have either taken a decision not to go on supporting the very brutal militia – which is always associated with the presidency here – or individual soldiers have made up their own mind that they’re tired of being associated with the kind of brutality that left seven dead yesterday – buried, by the way secretly by the police – and indeed the seven or eight students who were killed on the university campus 24 hours earlier.

Quite a lot of policeman are beginning to smile towards the demonstrators of Mr Mousavi, who are insisting there must be a new election because Mr Ahmadinejad wasn’t really elected. Quite an extraordinary scene.

There were a lot of stones thrown and quite a lot of bitter fighting, hand-to-hand but at the end of the day the special forces did keep them apart.

Fisk also reports that some official institutions seem to be trying to build bridges to the opposition at the same as the militias are trying to crush them:

You’ve got to realise that what’s happening at the moment is that the actual authorities are losing control of what’s happening on the streets and that’s very dangerous and damaging to them.

It’s interesting that the actual government newspapers reported at one point that Sunday’s march was not provocative by the marchers. They carried a very powerful statement by the Chancellor of the Tehran University, condemning the police and Basij, who broke into university dormitories on Sunday night and killed seven students.

They’ve even carried reports of the seven dead after the march on Sunday … almost as if, not to compromise but they’re trying to get a little bit closer to the other side.

[Read a more detailed account by Fisk here. ]

The revolution is certainly not just in Tehran. A rally in Isfahan, Iran on Monday:

1 comment June 17th, 2009