Monday, October 27, 2008

Wrong In Iraq

It's too bad the politicians have so thoroughly ignored their responsibilities to thought and reasoning when sending our troops off to war. It makes ordinary citizens feel like we have a right to kill anyone we don't like as we please. How did we ever get to this place?

I just sent this to a Catholic Paratrooper who believes in rah-rahing the Iraq War. He's forgotten the obligation to be morally right about going to war.

We have to be right when going to war.

It doesn''t make any difference if you're Catholic or atheist, going to war requires responsibility FIRST IN THE DECISION. Going to war is the most serious undertaking of all, and requires Justice, first to Christian Justice and then to the U.S. Constitution. The government was wrong on both counts about going to war in Iraq. The politicians, except for a handful, traitored on their duty to God, Country and our Troops.

The reasoning below of Just War Theory applied to Iraq is sound but few in the Congress heeded it, and no one in the White House. (Which is run by dessreters and daft dodgers by the way.)

The comments below, also morally rule out Pacifism and Nonviolence and even require, as a duty, in every possible way, the defense of our families and countriy:

Cardinal Ratzinger [Pope Benedict XVI]
Relevant Citations:
Cardinal Ratzinger, After the 9/11 Attacks Interview with Vatican Radio. November 2001:
Q: Is there any such thing as a "just war"?
Cardinal Ratzinger: This is a major issue of concern. In the preparation of the Catechism, there were two problems: the death penalty and just war theory were the most debated. The debate has taken on new urgency given the response of the Americans. Or, another example: Poland, which defended itself against Hitler.
I'd say that we cannot ignore, in the great Christian tradition and in a world marked by sin, any evil aggression that threatens to destroy not only many values, many people, but the image of humanity itself.
In this case, defending oneself and others is a duty. Let's say for example that a father who sees his family attacked is duty-bound to defend them in every way possible -- even if that means using proportional violence.
Thus, the just war problem is defined according to these parameters:
1) Everything must be conscientiously considered, and every alternative explored if there is even just one possibility to save human life and values;
2) Only the most necessary means of defense should be used and human rights must always be respected; in such a war the enemy must be respected as a human being and all fundamental rights must be respected.
I think that the Christian tradition on this point has provided answers that must be updated on the basis of new methods of destruction and of new dangers. For example, there may be no way for a population to defend itself from an atomic bomb. So, these must be updated.
But I'd say that we cannot totally exclude the need, the moral need, to suitably defend people and values against unjust aggressors. …
Cardinal Ratzinger Says Unilateral Attack on Iraq Not Justified - Gives Personal Opinion; Favors Decision from U.N. Zenit News Service. Sept. 22, 2002.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger does not believe that a unilateral military attack by the United States against Iraq would be morally justifiable, under the current circumstances.
According to the prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith -- who acknowledged that political questions are not within his competence -- "the United Nations is the [institution] that should make the final decision."
"It is necessary that the community of nations makes the decision, not a particular power," the cardinal said, after receiving the 2002 Trieste Liberal Award. His statements were published Saturday in the Italian newspaper Avvenire.
"The fact that the United Nations is seeking the way to avoid war, seems to me to demonstrate with enough evidence that the damage would be greater than the values one hopes to save," the cardinal said.
He said that "the U.N. can be criticized" from several points of view, but "it is the instrument created after the war for the coordination -- including moral -- of politics."
The "concept of a 'preventive war' does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church," Cardinal Ratzinger noted.
"One cannot simply say that the catechism does not legitimize the war," he continued. "But it is true that the catechism has developed a doctrine that, on one hand, does not exclude the fact that there are values and peoples that must be defended in some circumstances; on the other hand, it offers a very precise doctrine on the limits of these possibilities."
Interview with May 2, 2003:
Q: Eminence, a topical question that in a certain sense is inherent to the Catechism: Does the Anglo-American war against Iraq fit the canons of a "just war"?
Cardinal Ratzinger: The Pope expressed his thought with great clarity, not only as his individual thought but as the thought of a man who is knowledgeable in the highest functions of the Catholic Church. Of course, he did not impose this position as doctrine of the Church but as the appeal of a conscience enlightened by faith.
The Holy Father's judgment is also convincing from the rational point of view: There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war."

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Buying Chrysler

So now Chrysler may be sold off in pieces to various car companies.

Not in the buy line are the most logical buyers, the Chrysler workers: the managers, engineers, designers, skilled trades and production workers are left out of any purchase plan.

The Chrysler sale is yet another opportunity for the UAW to put their cash where their big mouths are. If the UAW is truly committed to the production of sane cars and trucks, they could easily purchase Chrysler and establish Guild Production along the lines of Mondragon.

What American auto production really needs is a production system revolution. Cuurently American auto production is controlled by marketers. We need production to be controlled by the most knowledgeable - the people who own the tools and do the work.

Long background story made short: The UAW long ago took the wrong turn in its own development. Internal wars into the late 1940's, between Marxists-Leninists-Trotkyists-Stalinists-Socialists and Trade Unionists led to the consolidation of UAW power by Capitalists. It's been all downhill for autoworkers since the UAW adopted the competitive values of the corporation in the place of Solidarity. The UAW led all the big unions down the path of corporatism leaving American workers without a Trade Union Movement.

What if the UAW once it had developed the power of Solidarity had used it to take over production to run it in a common sense way to benefit American Society by winning good josb for all? Certainly our country - and world - would be much healthier today.

The UAW, with its $billions, IF it is not quite as dead yet as I think it is, could still recover its principles. The late great union has another opportunity to not only act like a union but to revolutionize auto production by purchasing Chrysler and turning it over to the true auto production experts - the Chrysler workers.

The Chrysler Local Unions then would be expanded to include all the workers from design to engineering to trades and production in a production sytem that would be so inspirational and quality-oriented it would crank out the world's best autos.

They're already doing this at Mondragon.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Need a Program? How about this one:

From John Medaille:

Monday, September 08, 2008

"Pro-Life" or Just "Anti-Abortion"?

Political debate is often a matter of controlling the terms, since the names we call things often dictate the way we feel about them. For example, those who support abortion want to be known as “pro-choice” rather than “pro-abortion.” The preference is interesting in that it reveals that, even among its supporters, abortion is not really something worthy of support. “Choice,” however, sounds a lot like “freedom,” and hence is worthy of our highest support. Of course, since the “choice” is the choice for abortion, there is not really a functional difference between the terms; it is merely a matter of marketing.
By the same token, the anti-abortion movement would prefer to be known as “pro-life.” Here the situation is completely different, because while being pro-life means being anti-abortion, being anti-abortion doesn't necessarily mean being pro-life; the different names really do designate different things. One can be anti-abortion on narrow moral grounds, on political grounds, or just out of a certain fastidiousness. But families do a lot more than just give birth, and life is more than just its beginning. A true pro-life movement could be—and should have been—the foundation of a new Catholic politics. This is crucial because after Vatican II, Catholic politics in America severely deteriorated. What had been a strong presence dwindled so that there was very little difference between the Catholic voter and the rest of the population. The strong pro-worker bias of Catholic politics became bifurcated into radical divergent wings and highly partisan. But a pro-life party could have found areas of agreement between the factions and become a true “centrist” movement.
What would a “pro-life” agenda look like? Mostly, it would be pro-family:
Pro-Family Wage. Wages have stagnated for 30 years; in fact, the median wage has declined in the face of vastly increased productivity. This has put pressure on women to enter the work force, limiting their freedom to be full time mothers and home-makers. The Just Wage is intrinsic to Catholic social teaching and a pro-family policy. Without it, you cannot be a pro-life party, and certainly not pro-family.
Pro-natalist. The bias of both law and policy should support families and particularly large families. American politics has been caught in the grip of a false Malthusian doctrine, one that is disproved in generation after generation, yet still holds sway in the culture. Further, the accepted neoclassical economic doctrines privilege capital over labor. This is a direct result of a Malthusian outlook which makes people problematic and wealth an end in itself. Capital is thought to be the true source of wealth, while labor is just a drag on profits. What the economy needs first of all is a supply of workers and consumers, and if we don't “produce” these ourselves, people will come across the border—legally and otherwise—to fill the spaces we have left vacant.
Pro (Marian-)Feminist. Secular feminism doesn't seem to differ much from anti-feminism, and leaves women in an ambiguous place in the society. But in such a masculinity culture such as ours, a real feminism would be a real gift; we affirm not merely the dignity of women, but even more we affirm that women do tend to have a different spiritual and psychological outlook. Thus women make a unique contribution, not only in birth but in every aspect of life, but they need freedom to make this contribution. And the first freedom that women need is the freedom to be mothers. Currently society makes this very difficult. Usually, they must be mothers in addition to all the burdens of wage-earners. Sarah Palin seems to be the modern model, where the needs of the family are subordinated to the needs of the career. This is not real feminism; women in this model must be like pit bulls (that is, like their male counterparts) with lipstick. Some women, I'm sure, will find that appealing. But others will not, and the current culture of death favors the pit-bull view.
Pro-education. The education system has failed in this country, and even the college-educated are often functional illiterates. A pro-education policy would include both public and private schools, and even (or especially) home schooling, since the primary authority and responsibility for education remains with the parents. But for this to be the case, the first three points in this list must also be true.
Pro Just War Doctrine. A Catholic party would not be pacifist, at least not when home and hearth were truly threatened. But it would be opposed to most of the wars we have actually fought. Nothing this side of divorce quite disrupts a family like sons and fathers (and increasingly today, mothers) marching off to war. This should only happen when the war can be unambiguously squared with the just war doctrine.
Pro-employment. A pro-family policy would not subordinate the needs of the economy to globalist doctrines. Families need work, and providing that work is the first duty of the economy and economic policy. We would make intelligent trade decisions that truly benefited both sides (the only kind of just agreement) and not merely imported poverty.
Other issues would be seen in a new light by a Catholic pro-family movement. For example, health care. Now, one may be for it or not, but surely a pro-natalist policy would ensure that every mother had access to pre-natal care and basic health care for her children, regardless of her economic status. A pro-family politics even sheds light on city planning. Is the vast separation of working, shopping, and living quarters really conducive to family life? Should the subsidies to such centripetal forces that spread cities out (subsidies such as the “freeways”) really just a hindrance to family life, a hindrance supported with public money?
A pro-life polity is not so much a group of programs as it is a new (and counter-cultural) was of looking at things. It allows us to work with a variety of people at different levels, and so bridge merely partisan differences in American politics. For example, we can work with Fundamentalists who may merely be anti-abortion, and with Evangelicals who are pro-family, and with Democrats who want to improve the worker's situation, and with Republicans who want to restore virtue in public life, etc. More importantly, it allows us to showcase the richness of Catholic Social Teaching, and is therefore a tool of evangelization. It allows us to display the love of Christ and say with St. Paul, “Look at these Christians, how they love one another.”
With all that in mind, we can ask, “Is the current pro-life movement really pro-life or just anti-abortion?” Before I answer that, let me relate the phone call which prompted these ruminations. A reader of this review called to say that his parish priest had told him that a vote for Obama was a mortal sin and put his soul at risk. Now, as a mere matter of canon law, the priest exceeded his authority; such pronouncements can only be made by competent authority, and that authority is not the parish priest. If the priest's bishop has made such a pronouncement, the priest may repeat. But he has no authority to make this ruling on his own. However, if the priest is right, if voting for a candidate who supports abortion is a mortal sin, then neither can one vote for John McCain, who supports abortion in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother's life is in danger. We know from past experience that these exceptions turn out to be nearly identical to abortion-on-demand. Further, McCain supports federal money being used for new lines of embryonic stem cell research, which not only requires abortions, but actually creates a market for aborted children. Perhaps the priest in question supports this because it will be a free market. Now, one may argue that McCain is slightly better on abortion and therefore deserves our vote, and that's fine. But surely the difference is not enough to compel our vote.
The priest in question is subverting the power of the confessional for purely partisan political purposes. This damages Church authority and violates canon law; Christians should be able to go to confession without receiving a political diatribe. At all times, the Church must speak out on particular issues and at some times must prohibit a vote for particular candidates. But this is function of competent authority, and not a priest subverting the confessional for partisan political purposes on hypocritical grounds.
But the incident does serve as a metaphor for the political wing of the anti-abortion movement. It has never been a pro-life movement, and has always subordinated the totality of Catholic Social Teaching to the needs of the Republican Party. This might even be justified on the grounds of pragmattic politics. But in fact, 35 years of slavish devotion to the Republican Party has produced very little in the way of results. They make a few statements, toss of few crumbs our way, but mostly treat us with contempt, the same kind of contempt that useful idiots and fellow-travelers deserve from their ideological masters. The truth is that the Republicans have appointed 70% or more of all the judges in this country, and if they had wanted to shut down Roe v. Wade, they could have done so a long time ago. But they do not and will not. I doubt if a single life has been saved by our political action, and many other parts of Catholic Social Teaching have been severely compromised on the political level. I do not know how the National Right to Life Committee is funded, and they do not publish a list of donors. But they certainly act as if they were a wholly-owned subsidiary of Fox News and Entertainment, with Rupert Murdoch as the sole proprietor.
This is not to say that people who actually work the issue have not been effective. Those who walk the picket, who pray for the mothers and babies, who counsel mothers facing difficulties, who adopt babies, who establish orphanages, and who show the love of Christ in a hundred over ways, have actually saved lives and won souls for Christ. But they are being betrayed by the NRLC.
The Republicans have not paid very much for the devotion given them by the pro-life voters, voters who usually provide their margin of victory in election after election. They are not even an anti-abortion party, much less a pro-life party. Rather, they are a “Big Tent” party, content to accept our support, especially when it is offered so cheaply and with so few conditions. Lip service is enough. Indeed, abortion was originally supported by the Republican Party under the Libertarian rhetoric of “get the government off my back and out of the bedroom!” Conservatives forget that before Roe v. Wade compelled the states to allow abortion, California did so voluntarily, and did so with the support and the signature of Governor Ronald Reagan. His conversion to the cause only came after he saw its political power to seduce a lot of Catholic voters. The result of giving our votes so cheaply is that we now have one-and-a-half pro-abortion parties and one-half an anti-abortion party.
And no pro-life parties.
Posted by John Médaille at 9/08/2008 10:10:00 AM 11 comments Links to this post
Labels: ,

Saturday, October 18, 2008

The Baracka Wake Up

I don't put much stock in most politicians but put much more in Baracka than McCain.

I wouldn’t worry too much about what Baracka didn’t get done. He’s part of a Senate and government that doesn’t do much but screw us and send our troops off to yet another Unjust war.

I believe in good jobs for everyone because there is no way to resolve the massive social problems we have without jobs. I spent a lot of years arguing with Left and Right wingers about everything from phony diversity programs to the permanent underclass.

I finally reduced the big question for organizing to what will it take to have full employment at good work?

Lots of people get in the way of answering this basic qustion about good jobs for all. But the most damaging people to winning back our work, good neighbiorhoods & towns, our country and world are the new liberals who say we are all lost without Capitalism, the free market and the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex. They all, as Chesterton pointed out, seem to disdain every honest worker & love every country in the world but their own.

The truth is, without a return to the American values for decent work and virtuous community business men like Mike Ptacek (my favorite friendly, small town Patriot & grocer) we're going nowhere good. The insanity of the big business elite’s profiteering criminal trade agreements is destroying our country. They are making it impossible for millions of us to make a good living for our families.

It's all getting much worse but McCain says we need more of the same free market, free trade and massive banks and corporations. Bull Shit! It amazes me that any working stiff can be so out of touch as to support him! I really wonder what some people think about?

No politician is going to change anything for the betterment of most of us. For one thing, it’s still impossible to win an election while telling the truth about Big Business. But there is a huge difference between McCain and Baracka and that is, Baracka admits it. And McCain puts himself up as the saviour. Baracka is, hopefully, about organizing a Populist Movement. If he wins, we’ll find out if he’s really serious about maintaining this movement he’s organized. If he sells out, perhaps other leadership will emerge and continue the organizing towards a more family-friendly society.

McCain is all about "Elect me and I will save you all." Which appeals to those Americans who never seem to get it: that we are part of the equation. Unless we organize around principles of justice and become powerful enough to act and win, nothing will change for the better. And everything will get much, much worse.

I had lunch yesterday with Bill Hannigan who fought all the way through WWII with the 82nd Airborne. He is alive because of many miracles. Bill says this mess we have today is not the America they fought WWII for. He laughed when I said his generation would have seized the docks, sunk every slave-product container ship and blown up the rail tracks before they'd watch our country being sold to China and our troops sent off to an unconstitutional war.

Bill laughed because he knows his generation would never have put up with anyone destroying their livelihoods. And he knows that they wouldn’t have begged some hack to save them. They were a generation that fought for each other and saved themselves. And saved us too. Bill is 87 now. He tells me it’s our turn to fight. He’s right.

We should feel embarassed to leave our children and grandchildren so badly off. We would be the first American generation to do that. It pisses me off that the good, old dudes in my Union turn in their graves now because we have refused to defend what they won for us. They were the guys who organized the greatest strike wave in American history in 1946. They were the guys who gave us all the great things that are being stolen from American workers today like the Union wage, work systems, the 8-hour day, vacations, health care and pensions....without a fight. It is all disappearing without a fight! (At least beyond those few valiant battles by overmatched and stabbed in the back, honest Local Unions.)

There have been a number of wake-up calls to American Labor that have pretty much fallen on deaf ears. People are busy sending jokes and prayers around the internet while whining about everything else. They say they care about our troops. But where were they when the troops, before they were soldiers, went on strike to defend their jobs? Where are they now when the troops come home and their jobs are in China? The same people who hated us as workers say they love us as troops. BS.

So Baracka is giving us another wake-up call.

Let's hope it is not the last wake-up call before everything is shot to shit. We either get ourselves together around Solidarity and get ourselves into position to win a fight or everything's going to be gone.

I think it is clear that Obama would help do that while McCain will have the cops at our doors and picketlines.
The country's crumbling. I think you can see the evidence for this everywhere, everyday. It's time to get focused on what can be done about it and the answer can't be the guy who tells us everything's cool.

It's all about good jobs and whether us working stiffs can get back to basics.

Coming 'Round the Mountain


I didn't know you liked Eddie Cochran?! Great, isn't he? I wrote the first verses to a new Ford song:

Written by A. P. Worker

You call yourself an industrial engineer
But you probably couldn't draw a glass of beer
Oh you say you have a TASK, well you can kiss my frickin' ass
You dirty-ass, job-cutting motherfricker.
Oh, you're roaming through the racks and down the aisles
We can smell you from a quarter of a mile,
There's gonna be a bloody fight, gonna hit that bright red light,
You dirty-ass, job-cutting motherfricker.

(Sung to the tune "She's Comin' Round The Mountain.")

See you pal.

Card Check vs Trade Union Check

Back in the good old days when unions were like families and were bent on winning strikes to better our society, working men and women called them up and asked to join.

My favorite organizing story is about a soda-jerk kid calling up the UAW-CIO and saying, "OK, we're all sitting down. What do we do next?" There was that sort of excitement about the CIO and its ability to make the boss say "yes" when he wanted to say "no".

That was before the day the CIO turned away from Solidarity, to power consolidation, merged with the AFL and ending what should have been an everlasting drive for the betterment of everyone who works for an honest living.

Now the Big Labor Porkchoppers can't organize anyone. Why? No one wants to join a union that's in bed with the boss. No one gets excited about a union that identifies the enemy as the guy on the other shift or the other Local or state. No one is interested in trading in Friendship and Solidarity for dog-eat-dog "competiveness".

Most of us working stiffs want unions that can win a fight to lift up working folks, to better our families, neighborhoods and country. But these phony unions today are not about that at all. The modern unions should not even be called unions because they don't unite anyone in The Good Fight. Modern corporate unionism is not about community at all. It is all about individualism, selfishness, corporatism and the acceptance of a permanent underclass.

And now, since they can't organize through good work anymore, the corporate unions want "Card Check".

How about we first get "Union Check"? If we want to join a union, how would we know if a particular union is a True Trade Union? For instance, all modern unions claim a Solidarity philosophy and promise to fight for their members. How would we know if the union sales people are telling us the truth about this? In the old days, the family focus in the Solidarity philosophy and the union's ability to win The Good fight was self-evident. But today, it is just the opposite. Today, it is evident to any conscious person that unions accept - even promote - speedup, quality-cutting, skill-cutting, downsizing, outsourcing, wage-cutting and plant closings. It is also apparent that they have accepted metric tons of Global Baloney and attacked, and defeated, the strikes of their own members all across our country.

These are not True Trade Unions folks!

So before the Democrats hand out the Card Check to these bozos, how about laws regulating unions by Solidarity qualifications?

Of course, when we get True Trade Unions - and they WILL rise again - they won't need "Card Check". Solidarity will again attract good working people everywhere.

And this time, let us continue towards high-quality, democatic, Guild-like, big production systems like Mondragon; and family-owned, small businesses devoted to the community.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Earl DeLong

Common Sense
Blog Archive
2008 (1)
October (1)
Farewell Earl!

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Farewell Earl!
Earl Delong was buried in Birchwood, Wisconsin yesterday, his favorite place in the world. His wife of 61 years, Dorothy, was surrounded by family and friends, the cemetery ringed with burning maples, oaks and yellow birch. The American Legion gun squad had a couple of misfires but thye were backed up by a duck hunter a mile away who helped out with the salute to the old hunter and Marine. The USMC sent three flag-folders to honor this good man. We all sang the Marine Corps Hymm at his gravesite. Being a Marine was a big deal to Earl.So was being a Catholic. Earl lived a full life on miracle time. He won the Silver Star on Tarawa surviving for the invasion of Iwo Jima. He was terribly wounded there but saved by a friend who moved him to the wounded group prioritized for evacuation to a hospital ship. Earl talked about how he seemed to leave his body then to experience the most beautiful place he had ever seen. He wondered from above, why they were working so frantically to save him?His son Dan told this soul story at St. John's Catholic Church in a nice eulogy to a wonderful, small town man.We lunched at The Blue Gill Bar, Earl and Dorothy's favorite place to watch the Packers. People agreed that Earl was now in a position to order the Packers to start playing some defense. Small town businessmen talked about how the economy would be in great shape if the government had defended virtuous business people like Earl instead selling out to the Wall Street Bankers and crooks. There was a slide show of Earl and Dorothy with all their kids and grandkids and friends that sparked all kinds of stories about Earl. And all those stories revolved around one, great man's discipline for honest business practice, small town virtue and love of family and friends.R.I.P. Earl DeLong
Posted by Tom Laney at 6:21 AM 0 comments
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

The Deregulation of Labor Circa 1970-Present

When the big unions took Solidarity and direct action in The Good Fight away, they removed the heartbeat and regulation of Trade Unionism.

Some years ago it was clear in my union - the UAW - had turned from attacking rank & filers as "dissidents" & "commies" to leaders of the now broad dissension of Bigshot Labor with Solidarity. "The UAW has become the Dissidents," Dave Yettaw said. Yettaw observed that the UAW was playing checkers while the corporations were playing chess. He also noted all the union bigs had traded in Soidarity for anything-goes-dog-eat-dog competition. They attacked the Golden Rule of Solidarity and thus de-regulated the Priority of Labor.

As the UAW leaders of my plant carry the immorality of the market like it’s supposed to run our lives and lecture us about our stupidity in not electing enough sellout democrats (who put the troops on the P-9rs?) , they have moved from not only not having the right answers to having answers that are destroying our country and world. And they are pushing these anti-answers everywhere in our local unions.

Do WE really have to go so the obscenely rich and powerful pals of the UAW big shots can be more obscenely rich and powerful?

Because the UAW’s and Labor's dictators have trashed our constitution and smashed local, council and convention democracy we have no chance to fix these bastards.

They claim they only bargain for what the members tell them to. Did any member of local ask them to open our contract and attack the retirees? Where are the members who asked them to screw new hires?

"The policy is bankrupt and we’re locked into it," said an old GM Chairman some years ago on his way out of a phony convention.

This dead-ended idiocy is not new. The UAW lobbied against fuel economy in the 70s and lost us 100s of thousands of jobs as the public bought fuel efficient cars made in Japan. And they proved their resistance to truth and reason by doing it again just a few years ago.

The UAW turned it’s back on Japanese democratic trade unionists who were then asking for our help. UAWCapsters, (the nonsense politics UAW arm) instead fostered a hysteria against people who even looked Japanese and raised funds by selling three sledgehammer swings at Toyotas for a buck. That was their answer in the 70s: beat the crap out of Japanese people and sledgehammer the shit out of Toyotas while ignoring the scab parts that filled up the corporations’ stock racks. UAW Buy American never applied to our country’s biggest importers - the Big 3. Local 879 UAW-Capsters Gene Neuman and Bob Killeen Sr. even attacked Congressman Joe Karth when he called for better fuel economy and an Americn Content Amendment to protect our jobs. We paid for this stupidity with our jobs. Some political action program.
In the late 1990s the UAW was still at it, doing he legwork for the auto giants in opposing more fuel economy in CAFÉ standards. Sen. Paul Wellstone told them to get lost.

In the early 1990s the UAW and AFL-CIA were turning its back on Ford workers in Mexico who were being beaten and shot by the company for the terrible crime of demanding their year end bonuses. They asked the UAW for financial help in supporting their strikes. Their offer to us: They would reject any US and Canadian work that Ford was moving there if we would help fund their fights. There were enough American Ford workers at the time to pay the Mexican wages while they struck by simply contributing 10 cents a month to them. The UAW instead lined up with Ford against them.

Those of us who believed that the UAW would eventually wake up and see the need to defend our work and our society against the corporations and the market were wrong. They are dug in on the side of the corporations and they are marching against us and against every principle this union ever stood for. Their empty heads and hearts have been filled with Capitalist liberalism. Where we need Common Sense and battle for what’s right, they have defined rights and justice as corporate freedom to destroy everything other generations fought for and won for us. They are more than willing to fight. But their fight is against us.

If the market needs anything it is regulation. If unions require one thing, it is the regulation of Solidarity.

The rich and powerful and their politicians are out of control, it is they who require a drastic downsizing.

It is the honest small businessman who serves the community who needs defense.

The market is flooded with products made by foreign workers who have practically nothing. And it is American, antipatriotic, transnational corporations who are insuring that these workers will continue to get practically nothing.

The UAW steadfastly defends the wrong people, and their biggest lie - that the market should be allowed to run and ruin our lives - is promoted in all our local unions. All locals are now turned to a concessionary race to the bottom. It is this race that is ruining our work and impoverishng the unemployed. That’s just the way it is according to Ron Gettelfinger and Gerald Bantam. And their lappies in our local lap that one up too. Sales are off. We’re fucked. The only thing we can do according to them, is elect more Democrats.

Sales are off because our products cost more than those built by workers who have no rights. The options are:

1. Sit on our butts until all our production is gone;


2. Help those workers equalize their wages and working conditions with ours. Equality - a real, true, trade union principle - Battle - for what’s Just for everyone by fighting at the docks and winning high quality, Guild Production at home and a Just Wage abroad.

How do we get efficient, highest-quality production?

Is it by allowing greedy owners and marketers to misrepresent quality through advertising?

Or is it by freeing up the talent to design, engineer, manage and craft the finest cars and trucks, steel, aircraft, ships, etc. possible?

Can this quality and craft production work? It works in developing and producing nuclear submarines. It works in the space program and it can work in every big production system. Mondragon Production workers for the workers, consumers and communities. Check it out. We can get it all done democratically with a true eye for quality and efficiency and good jobs for everyone in the world.

We need to continue what the Delphi workers started. Let's get to organizing democratic meetings and talking work to rule, winning strikes and sitdowns.

And we need to stop talking bullshit Porkchop politics and start talking up direct action on the ship and truck docks across our country. That’s where we solve the trade issues.

WE need the Solidarity Movement again