Socialism
Rules TBD.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/8166476
cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/40168
By Chris Gilbert – Apr 1, 2026
The debates about Venezuela on the left today leave a great deal to be desired in many respects. However, one of the most symptomatic pitfalls, in my view, has been the excessive focus on the question of whether Delcy Rodríguez’s government, in the wake of the January 3 attacks, has made a tactical retreat of the Brest-Litovsk type or not.
In these debates, “Brest-Litovsk” has become a kind of shorthand. It refers to V. I. Lenin’s decision, in the months immediately following the October Revolution, to make a separate peace with Germany that involved ample concessions, doing so as a way to save the revolution.
For many, this historical example is taken as the model of correct revolutionary decision-making from the Venezuelan leadership. For this group, Lenin’s decision serves to justify the concessions that Rodríguez has made under duress to US imperialism, as a means for guaranteeing the revolution’s survival and buying time.
By contrast, there is a second group that is skeptical. They claim that a tactical retreat of the Brest-Litovsk kind is impossible in Venezuela, allegedly because there is no strategic vision or the concessions are too substantial. Instead of a retreat, they believe there has been capitulation.
One symptomatic feature of this debate is how both groups’ excessive focus on the Brest-Litovsk dilemma—which centers on the question simply of whether to fight or make a tactical retreat—erroneously compares Venezuela today, which is a relatively longstanding revolutionary process, to the Russian situation just four months after the October Revolution had taken place. The Russian Revolution was glorious and extraordinary (arguably it was the most important event of the twentieth century), but it was just getting going at the time of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty.
Thus, the focus on Brest-Litovsk amounts to a failure to accurately locate the historical moment, and it effectively denies that the Bolivarian Revolution has had substantial material and organizational achievements over the past quarter of a century. On a theoretical level, we see how focusing the debate on a “Brest-Litovsk moment” completely sidelines Hugo Chávez’s claims about the revolutionary “irreversibility” that had been achieved over the course of the revolution.
Unfortunately, this is typical of how intellectuals from the global North—even sympathetic ones—tend to perceive events in Venezuela, to say nothing of their perspective on the rest of Latin America. For many years, a large group of global North intellectuals insisted that the Bolivarian Revolution had made no real progress because it had failed to liquidate the bourgeoisie and nationalize all the major means of production.
Another common claim was that the popular movement in Venezuela and the government were in a relation of “dual power.” Since dual power refers to the period in Russia between February and October 1917, before the October Revolution, this implicitly suggests that Chávez (and later Maduro) were simply “Kerenskys,” and the real revolution is still to take place! All of this, along with other related positions, implies that there has been no real revolution in Venezuela, and therefore no substantial revolutionary trajectory or transformations.
Chávez’s view, of course, was the complete opposite of those sketched above. Right or wrong, the Venezuelan leader believed he was carrying out a real revolution, and he believed that, during the course of it, the leadership was passing power and social control over to the people through a variety of mechanisms.
Chávez repeatedly argued that these steps toward grassroots control of production and other aspects of social life—the popular power that has come to exist in the community councils, the civilian-military alliance, the communes, and the popular militias—all also constitute steps toward what he called irreversibility.
Two PerspectivesWho is right here? Is it the intellectuals who imagine themselves perpetually seated at the Brest-Litovsk negotiating table, deciding whether to fight or retreat, just months after the taking of power? Or is it Hugo Chávez, who thought that the longstanding Bolivarian Revolution could be something real, deep-rooted, and hard to undo?
It is worth observing that Comandante Chávez, with whom those engaged in this debate so systematically disagree, had most of the verdicts of history on his side. That is because history has shown that once working-class people gain participation in decision-making about production, territorial control, and national defense, it always takes an extraordinary effort to roll it back. Although popular participation may not be absolutely irreversible, it does take significant effort to eradicate a revolutionary process that has undergone substantial steps in social transformation.
That is why, in the former Eastern Bloc countries after 1991, educational systems were profoundly changed to promote recolonization, and workers’ rights were systematically destroyed. In the post-Soviet states, the cruelest kind of shock treatment was applied. Fortunately, extreme as this shock therapy was, it was not sufficient to fully terminate Russia’s hard-won and deeply ingrained delinking from the imperialist world economy. That is what has allowed a newly sovereign and anti-imperialist (even if no longer socialist) Russia to emerge under the leadership of Vladimir Putin.
What history has shown, then, is that if you want to break the back of a revolution, you need to destroy its bases in popular power. This requires work and dedication. It usually involves extensive and sustained violence, along with powerful cultural campaigns that wipe out historical memory.
Need it be observed that there is little evidence of this in Venezuela in the past few months? The Bolivarian army remains intact; the PSUV and its leadership are the same as ever; and the 5,000-plus communes and communal circuits are still functioning and receiving more, not less, financial support.
Yes, it is true that Venezuela’s oil industry, and especially its commercial side, has partly passed out of the country’s control. However, it should be remembered that this new situation also represents a de facto easing of the blockade, which was a longstanding aspiration of Maduro’s government, even if no one imagined it would take the form it has.
Locating the Historical MomentIn revolutions, timing is everything. That is something that both Lenin and Fidel Castro agreed on, the latter going so far as to say that “Revolution means understanding the historical moment.”
What historical moment are we in now: one similar to Brest-Litovsk, or is there a better comparison?
In fact, given that we are twenty-five years into the revolutionary process and the bulk of the Bolivarian Revolution’s organizational achievements remain intact, we should not turn so hastily to the Brest-Litovsk Treaty for comparison. Instead, we need to look for different historical references. In this respect, both China and Vietnam’s openings to the world market and foreign investment—each of which took place after an extended period of revolutionary consolidation—are much more relevant examples to consider.
Of course, many foreign intellectuals at the time of these openings insisted that the Chinese and Vietnamese revolutions were being abandoned by their leadership. There was no shortage of claims about restorations or Thermidor-type reversals taking place.
However, today most of those skeptical voices—except for the most entrenched and incapable of self-criticism—would recognize that history has proved them wrong: the steps taken by China in the late 1970s, with its Reform and Opening Up, and by Vietnam in its Renovation process in the next decade, were actually what saved these revolutions in the face of the imperialist neoliberal counterrevolution taking place at the time.
Descendents of Cacique Ähuänumä: The 4F Huo̧ttö̧ja̧ Commune (Part I)
At present, history seems to repeat itself, as a large group of international observers falls into defeatism or myopia with regard to Venezuela. This manifests in how they show surprisingly little interest in the current status of the revolution’s main organizational pillars—most of which appear very stable and thus have much future potential in an emancipatory process that is far from dismantled.
In sum, many in the cosmopolitan intellectual sector seems to think that the Venezuelan state is like a car stalled at an intersection that is called Brest-Litovsk: the car could go left, right, backward, or forward. Like self-appointed traffic police, they eagerly observe the vehicle.
It never occurs to most of these observers that, after twenty-five years of revolutionary construction, the Venezuelan state-vehicle might be politically or socially different from any of the other state-vehicles that exist on the planet. They do not recognize that its inner workings might be distinct, that it may have been rewired in new, relatively irreversible ways, and that changing all that would require concerted and significant counterrevolutionary efforts.
In so doing, these observers repeat the patterns of bourgeois ideologues by seeming to deny that a revolution has ever taken place in the country—and that it therefore has to be reckoned with.
Cosmopolitan InternationalismRecently we have seen the emergence of a new generation of anti-imperialist intellectuals who are organized mostly in online networks and collectives. This should be seen, in most respects, as a welcome development. It is likely a reaction to the socialist currents and magazines that emerged in the global North following the 2008 crisis, one of whose main weak points was their failure to be sufficiently anti-imperialist. It was a weakness that became evident to all as the US-Israeli genocide in Palestine unfolded.
A correction of course was necessary. The downside, however, was that the new anti-imperialist intellectuals, who correctly understand that the main contradiction today is between US imperialism and oppressed nations, have frequently replaced the earlier generation’s blind spot with regard to imperialism with an anti-imperialism that is too cosmopolitan, too little rooted in concrete struggle. To the extent that this limitation has become ingrained, it reflects a failure to overcome their own class position and material conditions—which include easy air travel, privileged passports, and financial independence or flexible work conditions—that facilitate visits and virtual monitoring of developments across a wide range of countries and regions.
The main problem is that, on the spectrum that extends between “free-floating” and “organic” intellectuality, this group tends too much toward the former position. Undoubtedly, a revolutionary internationalism focused on anti-imperialism is an urgent necessity in our time, but it should be driven by people organically engaged with, even embedded in, a concrete revolutionary project or struggle. From that situated engagement (and the praxis, commitment, and self-critical reflection it calls for), an intellectual can then reach out and engage with other projects, theoretical claims, and social imaginaries.
Amilcar Cabral insisted that “rice is cooked inside the pot, not outside,” meaning that revolutions require a profound understanding of local subjective and objective conditions. Without such rootedness, and the understanding that goes with it, facile comparisons, made from the middle-class stratosphere, will replace productive, mutual learning processes. One set of leaders or one form of struggle will be held out as better than another, more combative, more heroic, and so on, without consideration of the material situation and history from which they emerged. For that reason, access to a multiplicity of processes and projects in diverse national conditions needs to be accompanied by an understanding that the times and character of each revolutionary process will be distinct and should be respected.
This is what Chávez himself insisted on, never allowing his internationalism to removed into cosmopolitanism. It can be observed that those actively participating in the defense of Iran, Cuba, or Palestine, and doing so from their respective territories, do not engage in the same invidious and facile comparisons as the cosmopolitan sector is inclined to do. That is because people with a rooted praxis of national or popular emancipation understand that the main project is not to sort out the good from the not-so-good, and then “criticize” the latter. In fact, the central project is to win: to defeat US imperialism.
That in turn requires respect for differences in timeframes, local conditions, and methodologies among various peoples and nations, all of it in the name of building the amplest anti-imperialist movement, which is the only one with a prospect of victory.
From Orinoco Tribune via This RSS Feed.
This is a translation of a video by Oleg Tkach, a Russian Marxist quite known among local leftists.
I thought it would be interesting for some of you to see what Marxist agenda looks in Russia. Because it is in many ways different from the Western tradition.
I would appreciate your thoughts on this :)
cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/8046839
Organizing, Not Merely Mobilizing
We have all heard and seen the mass demonstrations, marches, and walkouts that erupted in the Twin Cities, signaling the start of this year of struggle. We’ve heard the tramp of ten thousand people marching against the occupation, the sounds of mobilization; but beneath it, and lasting beyond, for those who know to listen, is a steadier sound — like whispers, like chants. That of the organizers standing sentry on street corners in the aching cold, coordinating grocery runs, rapid response to raids, and transporting students and workers safely. These bands are built by grassroots organization, and it’s precisely the last lesson our enemies want us to learn.
Five years ago, Minneapolis erupted in response to the murder of George Floyd. For that summer, it seemed every city in the world became an uprising, as Democrats scrambled to take a knee and corporations writhed to retire racist brand mascots and grant better media representation. USU spoke with a Communist on the ground in Minneapolis who has witnessed the sweep of 2020 to the present moment. “During this period, it felt like people were taking power in a way that’d be much bigger,” they told us. “Living in south Minneapolis, a police precinct being lit and set on fire, grocery stores looted and turned into mutual aid sites, 200 buildings going up in flames – that was a lot happening. In that short period of time, it felt more than a moment, but it quickly went away.”
All the energy to abolish the police, or even defund them, was funneled by liberal counterinsurgents into tactics that either wasted the time of great masses of the oppressed, or narrowly appealed to the upper classes of the nationally oppressed through job prospects and investment opportunity.1 The “moment” that was 2020 evaporated into an utter defeat for the oppressed, and a complete victory for the settler-colonial ruling class that ensures daily the death of a countless unnamed Floyds. The only price paid: a handful of temporary concessions this current regime has already pried back with vengeance, and a single sacrificial pig.
As our comrade in Minneapolis said, “As Communists, we were not organized enough to win the masses over when they were ripe to be captured.”
It is the general consensus of principled Communists that this was a watershed moment wasted. Every failure is a lesson, data in the experiment of social revolution; but if no one is keeping track, if no one is recording the results and learning from past efforts, the movement might as well be hurling human lives at the wall to see what sticks and looking away at each impact. But, as it turns out, something has stuck. Something has lodged itself firmly in the communities of Minneapolis, that all resulting efforts to resist occupation have been able to grow from: organizations, persisting from the embers of 2020 to now. It’s our responsibility to learn from them.
Miriam Pawel, The Union of Their Dreams: Power, Hope, and Struggle in Cesar Chavez’s Farm Worker Movement (New York: Bloomsbury, 2009), 372 pages, $28.00, hardcover.
Or you could get it here from Anna's Archive. Unfortunately they only have a chunky PDF.
After reading The Union of Their Dreams, Miriam Pawel’s exceptional account of the rise and fall of the United Farm Workers Union (UFW), I reread an article I wrote for The Nation in November 1977. In “A Union Is Not a Movement,” I leveled some harsh criticism at the UFW and its famous leader, Cesar Chavez. In response, the Union’s chief counsel, Jerry Cohen, one of the major characters in Pawel’s book, threatened suit against the magazine. At the time I was upset, thinking that maybe I should have been more careful in what I had said. However, as The Union of Their Dreams makes clear, I need not have been concerned, since everything I said was true. And then some.
Nearly every book written about the UFW has placed Cesar Chavez front and center, and most of them have portrayed him as a cross between Gandhi and Jesus Christ. Chavez appeared on the scene, say these books, and everything changed. He did what no one had ever managed: he built a strong union of the poorest of the poor—migrant farm workers. Pawel’s book has the great virtue of not making Chavez its main protagonist. Instead, she uses to excellent effect the journalistic technique of telling the story of the UFW through the eyes of several key participants—none of them Chavez—in the struggle to build the union. He is, as he must be, always present in the book, but by focusing on the lives and actions of others, Pawel both demythologizes Cesar and shows that he was but one of many talented and dedicated people who made UFW history.
The book’s eight protagonists are Eliseo Medina, the Mexican-born farm worker who became a brilliant organizer and all-round union mastermind; Chris Hartmire, Chavez stalwart, protestant minister, and head of the California Migrant Ministry, which he converted into an arm of the UFW; Ellen Eggers, who joined the union boycott crusade, became a UFW attorney, and later an advocate for death row inmates; Gretchen Laue, who joined the boycott in Boston more or less by accident and went on to become a union organizer; the aforementioned Jerry Cohen, who, while learning on the fly, became one of the best labor lawyers in the United States, developing the many innovative legal tactics that helped build the UFW; Sandy Nathan, Cohen’s right-hand man and a resourceful lawyer and negotiator in his own right; and rank-and-file farm workers Sabino Lopez and Mario Bustamante, whose rise and fall inside the UFW illustrate as well as anything the mixed legacy of Cesar Chavez.
Pawel conducted extensive interviews with these eight key sources, and with many others as well, and she uses their words and considerable research in both primary and secondary sources (letters, memoranda, notes, court files, newspaper stories, and diaries as well as six hundred hours of tapes of meetings, rallies, and interviews recorded between 1969 and 1980) to weave an exciting and original investigation into the spectacular growth and inglorious collapse of the union that was once the hope of the U.S. labor movement and that provided a formative experience for thousands of workers and hundreds of volunteers. I speak from experience: I worked for the UFW in the winter and spring of 1977, and I was profoundly influenced by what I witnessed there and the people I met.
What is most important about this book is that it puts people integral to the union’s historical trajectory on record, so that what they tell us can be compared to what has stood so far as the main record: that of Cesar Chavez. Instead of hearing only from him and those who have remained uncritically loyal to him, like the famed firebrand Delores Huerta, longtime Chavez secretary Mark Grossman, and current union president and Cesar’s son-in-law Arturo Rodríquez, we listen to the voices of men and women who have complex, nuanced views of the union and Chavez’s role in it. This allows us to gain a more complete and accurate picture of the UFW, and, whether or not Pawel intends this, it also gives plenty of ammunition to those of us whose attitude toward Chavez is, on balance, negative.
The first part of the book vividly captures the remarkable and exciting story of the rise of the UFW, from its beginnings in grape strikes, nationwide boycotts, the activation of thousands of idealistic and fanatical lay and religious volunteers, the sweetheart contracts signed by the growers with the Teamsters, beatings, jailings, Cesar’s fasts and marches, and the recruitment and amazing development of one of the best labor legal staffs in the country, to the passage of the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act in 1975, the most protective labor law for farm workers in the country. This section of the book brought back the excitement and moral certitude I felt when I first learned of and began to participate in the farm workers’ struggle for justice in the fields. Pawel captures the impact of the UFW’s epic efforts on so many of us when she writes of the young Eliseo Medina joining the union in 1965, in the midst of the first grape strike:
The shy teenager from Zacatecas with a shock of dark hair tended to deliberate carefully before acting. Once he made a decision, Eliseo embraced the path with focused enthusiasm and a big, contagious grin. He went home after the meeting at the church and cracked open his piggy bank. He didn’t know what a contract was, but he counted out ten dollars and fifty cents. The next day, he drove to the headquarters at 102 Albany Street, handed three months dues to Helen Chavez, and joined her husband’s union.
And Ellen Eggers, a few years later, when she decides to commit herself to the union:
Ellen called her mother and sobbed as she explained the importance of the union’s struggle and why she had to stay. Ten years from now, she reasoned, she would not remember whether she went back to see her nephew and her boyfriend. But she would always remember if she left when the movement needed her to stay.
In the early chapters, Pawel throws out hints of the troubles to come, and she doesn’t hesitate to suggest that these were rooted in the personality and politics of Cesar Chavez. There are signs that Chavez would brook no opposition, that he was often petty and vindictive, and that he did not believe the words of Eugene Debs: “I do not want to rise above the working class; I want to rise with them.” Chavez’s attitude toward the workers he led is reflected in a famous statement, quoted many times, almost always with approval: “I am convinced that the truest act of courage, the strongest act of humanness, is to sacrifice ourselves for others in a totally non-violent struggle for justice. To be truly alive is to suffer for others. God help us to be truly alive!”
He would suffer for the farm workers, and by doing this he would be alive. But what would happen if the workers saw things differently, if they wanted, not a Christ figure to lead them, but wanted to lead the union themselves? What if, rather than eternally suffering, they wanted better lives, here and now? Once, in a community meeting at La Paz, the union’s headquarters in the desert mountains east of Bakersfield, California (a place not accidentally far removed from where most farm laborers lived and worked), Chavez told us that a union supporter wanted to donate some washing machines for use by the union volunteers. Cesar said that he wasn’t sure he should accept the gift, because we probably wouldn’t take care of them. We protested vigorously, telling him that people had to find a way up the mountain to Tehachapi to do laundry, and that many volunteers didn’t have money for this. Cesar scoffed and said this was all “chickenshit,” and that he didn’t do his own laundry anyway, so he didn’t care. This led to a loud chorus of boos for the sexist remark. He responded with narrowed eyes and said, “I work eighteen fucking hours a day for the union. Which of you can say the same?” He loved playing the martyr, and he used this to gain and keep power. Not that, with his numerous fasts and forced marches, he didn’t really suffer. But Jesus’ suffering ended in death. Cesar kept living and could use his suffering over and over again to silence his critics.
The tone changes dramatically in the second part of the book. While the new Labor Relations law was slow to get off the ground, eventually it worked to the UFW’s advantage, and the union soon had thousands of new members. It also pretty much succeeded in driving the Teamsters from the fields. When the growers were able to stall legislative funding for administration of the law by the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, Chavez decided to organize a massive campaign to put a ballot initiative before voters that would make funding part of the state’s constitution. Money would never again be subject to the vagaries of Sacramento politics. Unfortunately, the UFW campaign was badly flawed, and it was easily defeated. Pawel suggests, and her sources imply, that the union would have been better served by devoting its time and resources to winning union representation elections and securing collective bargaining agreements. Behind the scenes, however, Chavez apparently had other fish to fry.
Most accounts of UFW history speculate that something happened to Chavez after the lost initiative, and he somehow went off the deep end. Certainly, bizarre and ugly things began to happen. He hatched a scheme with Chris Hartmire to start a new religious order, whose farm worker and volunteer initiates would live by communal farming. He deepened his friendship with Charles Dederich, who had made his once successful drug rehabilitation organization, Synanon, into a cult. Dederich employed a technique he called “The Game” to break down the addicts’ fragile personalities so that they could be more accessible to the forces of social control, and—in particular—his control.
Chavez began taking his inner circle to Synanon for training, and made The Game a centerpiece of union activities. Right after the lost initiative campaign, Chavez had begun to purge some key personnel, charging them with disloyalty, complicity with the growers, and communism. Then, at an infamous community meeting at La Paz, Game participants led a frenzied psychological attack on several volunteers, who were summarily kicked out of the union. During this “Monday Night Massacre,” after one volunteer protested vigorously, the union called the police and had him arrested and forcibly removed from the property. Several resignations followed (a year and a half later, Eliseo Medina, the one person who might have challenged Chavez’s leadership, left the union). From this point on, The Game would be a major weapon Chavez and his loyalists would use to consolidate power.
Most of the union’s staff remained loyal to Chavez, and most participated in The Game, despite misgivings. They failed to see what was happening or did not care, believing that the cause was more important than the purges or that Chavez had inside information, and those forced out of the union deserved it. Some actively participated in the carnage, while others felt that, as long as the purges did not interfere with what they were doing, they did not matter. Nearly all of the staff would suffer the same fate as those who resigned or were kicked out of the union, in what Chris Hartmire called Cesar’s “cultural revolution.”
The next few years saw the union becoming more and more dysfunctional, as Chavez balked repeatedly at any efforts to build a real union. On the surface, there were skirmishes between Chavez and staffers: Chavez and Medina. Chavez and Marshall Ganz, perhaps the union’s best organizer. Chavez and Gilbert Padilla, one of the union’s founders and with Chavez from the beginning. Chavez and Jerry Cohen and the legal staff. Chavez and Filipino farm worker leader, Philip Vera Cruz… There were various bones of contention: The Game; the fact that the attorneys (and a couple of doctors) received salaries and no one else did; Cesar’s insistence that everyone live at La Paz; the disorganization of the union and Chavez’s use of various management “gurus” to put the union house in order; Chavez’s insane nitpicking over the spending of small sums of money; his refusal to allow negotiators to sign off on collective bargaining agreements; his disinterest in the nuts and bolts of a labor union and his drifting from one idealistic movement-building scheme to another; his constant threats to resign if he didn’t get his way… Beneath the surface, however, was buried the root difficulty: Chavez could not abide the idea, much less the reality, that the farm workers themselves could and should run the union.
Pawel unearths plenty of evidence of Chavez’s disdain, distrust, even dislike of the rank-and-file for whom he had presumably built his movement. In many unions, talented workers get elected to local union office, and from there, they can actively participate in national union affairs, and sometimes get elected or appointed to higher union office. This was impossible in the UFW, because there were never any local unions. Chavez made all appointments to the staff and tightly controlled those who sat on the UFW board. The union’s constitution gave staff persons due process rights, but Chavez always ignored these. Few staffers were former farm workers; most were Anglos, including the attorneys. I believe that this was intentional. It prevented the formation of power bases that might challenge Chavez. The only Anglo who might have successfully challenged Chavez was Marshall Ganz, and he chose not to do so, at least not openly.
Chavez regularly told farm worker leaders one thing and staff and the board another. In late 1976, with the union on the verge of power in the fields, Medina and others were excited about newly formed ranch committees of workers whom they hoped would eventually become the centers of the union. Chavez always gave lip service to worker empowerment but, when push came to shove, he backed away. At a conference that Medina could not attend, Chavez said, in regard to workers: “The newer they are in terms of immigrants the more money means to them.” They didn’t understand sacrifice, he argued, and they would have to be educated before they could assume power. Pawel tells us that these comments were edited out of the conference minutes, as were these telling words: “You don’t want farm workers managing the union right now. With the attitude they have on money, it would be a total god damn disaster, it would be chaotic. Unless they’re taught the other life, it wouldn’t work.” During the purges in 1977, Chavez said about his members: “Every time we look at them, they want more money. Like pigs, you know. Here we’re slaving, and we’re starving and the goddam workers don’t give a shit about anything because we don’t train them, you know, we don’t teach them anything.” Or tell them anything either. They knew nothing about The Game or the internal struggles in their own union. Perhaps nothing illustrates the disdain Chavez and his closest allies felt toward farm workers better than an event at La Paz in 1979, when volunteers were teaching English to farm workers. Ironically, the legal staff and the workers were celebrating major victories in the lettuce strikes. Chavez had been invited to join the festivities, but he stayed at La Paz. Here is how Pawel describes what happened:
A few days later, a different celebration took place at La Paz. Farmworkers graduated from an English class….The proud students put on a slide show for their families, the La Paz community, and most of the union officers. The slides ended with a familiar refrain, the same message that Eliseo had delivered at a boycott conference in almost the same spot less than eight years earlier: The union is not Cesar Chavez. The union is not La Paz. The union is the workers.
Graduates and guests, board members and union leaders trooped down to the communal kitchen for a celebratory lunch. They had barely sat down when Delores Huerta rose and began to grill the teachers. She demanded to know who had suggested such subversive thoughts. Someone must have put the workers up to voicing such disloyalty, and she wanted a confession. The meal ended before it had begun. Two teachers were fired later that day.
The union is the workers had been their campaign slogan, the essence of the UFW’s appeal as the union waged war against the Teamsters and piled up election victories. But that was four years earlier and another era. The union was Cesar Chavez, and to suggest otherwise was treason.
When I read this, I thought that the many groups that have honored Huerta should be ashamed.
Despite myriad problems, the UFW continued to organize, to get contracts, to win legal victories, and to strike. Then, at the end of 1978, events commenced that finally destroyed the union, bringing into the open Chavez’s refusal to countenance worker control. Thirty collective bargaining agreements expired, most of them involving lettuce companies, the heart and soul of California agriculture. Union farm worker leaders from various ranches came to La Paz to plot strategy for what promised to be an epic struggle to negotiate new contracts. Ten workers were elected to a negotiating committee, which would bargain with all of the companies as a group. Ultimately, a strike vote was called and a strike fund authorized.
The great lettuce strike began on January 19, 1979. It spread and stopped production. However, Chavez sabotaged it every step of the way. He accused Ganz of inciting violence. He finally dismantled the UFW’s legal department. When the strikers began to build power among themselves that could have expanded the strike and achieved stunning victories, Chavez said the strike couldn’t be won, and that only a boycott could succeed. When—as a direct result of the strike and workers’ newly developed power—Jerry Cohen finally won contracts from many of the growers, Chavez sulked in La Paz. The new agreements provided for company-paid ranch union representatives, such as shop stewards in a local union of factory workers. These paid union reps were a credible threat to Chavez’s power and, while Chavez again praised the workers poised to run the union, he also plotted to destroy them. The final fifty pages of the book make for depressing reading. Chavez used every dirty trick in the book to defeat the worker leaders. He slandered them. He sent goons, including his criminal cousin, Manuel Chavez, to threaten and beat them. The union may even have engineered the automobile accident of farm worker leader Cleofas Guzman that left him paralyzed. When it appeared that a worker-dominated slate opposed to him might win seats on the board, Chavez wrote new rules for the union convention. He fired the paid reps who challenged him, including Mario Bustamante and Sabino Lopez, and had them drummed out of the union. His goons picketed places where Sabino and Mario got employment.
A look at the UFW today gives us an accurate picture of the legacy of Cesar Chavez. Before writing her book, Miriam Pawel wrote an exceptional series of articles for the Los Angeles Times that exposed the union as not only irrelevant to the lives of farm workers, a mere handful of whom are still members, but also as what might charitably be called a quasi-racket. She discusses this in the book, but the Times essays give more detail. The union is now run by Cesar’s son-in-law, Arturo Rodríquez, who comes in for some rough treatment by Pawel’s informants, including Eliseo Medina. Perhaps the word that best describes Rodríquez is incompetent; certainly he has shown none of the abilities of any of the great UFW organizers. He does appear to have a talent for overseeing, along with Cesar’s son Paul and other family members and assorted scoundrels, an empire—begun by Chavez himself—of housing developments, radio stations, consulting enterprises, mass-mailing fund-raising campaigns, and marketing schemes (UFW paraphernalia, Chavez mementos, and the like). Meanwhile, pensions and health funds are awash in cash, but precious few workers get any benefits. In a labor movement notorious for corruption and shortchanging the membership, the United Farm Workers has secured a place on the union wall of infamy.
Miriam Pawel does not claim that The Union of Their Dreams is a definitive account of the United Farm Workers. We do not get much insight into the formation of Chavez’s personality and worldview. We do not learn enough about the history of the farm worker labor movement. Filipino workers played a key role here, and Chavez’s complex relationship with them gets little attention, even though it could be argued that he usurped the nascent union they had built. The roles of clergy, Saul Alinsky, the AFL-CIO, the left-led unions, anti-communism, and much else do not get sufficient attention. I believe that when scholars really dig into all of this, they are going to find that there is more continuity in Chavez’s history and philosophy than previously understood, and that his conception of building a movement in a modern capitalist society was remarkably flawed.
But, as Pawel herself says, many more books will have to be written before the whole story has been told. Luckily for us, she has shown the way. This is the most honest book yet written about the UFW. For anyone interested in this iconic union, this is indispensable reading.
I am a mother of three children. After a long and painful displacement, we were left with nothing. We lost our home, our source of income, and every sense of safety and stability. We have no real shelter. The tents flood when it rains, and the tarps are torn apart by the wind. There is nothing to protect us from the cold. Winter is getting harsher, and we don’t have warm clothes or blankets for the children. Life here has become unbearable. There is no gas, no electricity, and no clean drinking water. Even salty water is difficult to find. Prices are extremely high, and every single day is a struggle just to survive. My children keep asking me, “When will we have a home again?” and I have no answer. We are trying to raise donations to help us escape this reality, rebuild our lives, and give our children a future where they can live with dignity and safety. Please, if you can help or even just share our story, it would mean the world to us. 🙏 Chuffed link: https://chuffed.org/project/172805-save-hala-and-her-children-in-gaza
نُشر تبادليًا من: https://hexbear.net/post/8030759
نُشر تبادليًا من: https://hexbear.net/post/8016693
نُشر تبادليًا من: https://hexbear.net/post/8013618
thank you from the bottom of my heart. You have truly been a reason for my children’s happiness. Because of your kindness and support, I was able to bring them small moments of joy during these difficult days.
Even though we haven’t received donations for some time, we deeply appreciate every bit of help we got before — it meant so much to us.
But we still need your help. Life is still very hard for us, and your continued support means everything. Please don’t forget us, and if you can, continue to stand by our side. Even a small donation can make a big difference for my family.
If you would like to help me, the link is in my bio, or you can message me privately. 🤍
نُشر تبادليًا من: https://hexbear.net/post/8013618
Today is the second day of Eid, and I want to say thank you from the bottom of my heart. You have truly been a reason for my children’s happiness. Because of your kindness and support, I was able to bring them small moments of joy during these difficult days.
Even though we haven’t received donations for some time, we deeply appreciate every bit of help we got before — it meant so much to us.
But we still need your help. Life is still very hard for us, and your continued support means everything. Please don’t forget us, and if you can, continue to stand by our side. Even a small donation can make a big difference for my family.
If you would like to help me, the link is in my bio, or you can message me privately. 🤍
Hello! What are good socialist critiques of georgism?
Let's assume for the sake of argument georgism involves:
-shifting to only taxing inelastic supply items like the unimproved value of land and other simular things like co2eq and radio bands at whatever rate you prefer.
-No taxes on elastic supply items like income, sales, value added, property improvements, estate taxes, etc.
-no seizing the means of production nor outlawing trade
-tax revenue being used for whatever you prefer
cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7946977
cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/35212
The administration of US President Donald Trump has launched a series of military and political offensives in the last several months in different corners of the globe. The goals of Washington’s various military and diplomatic actions have been the subject of heated debate. Are they aimed at reestablishing a threatened hegemony? Do they strive to secure a unipolar position that was never really in danger? Or are these the dying (and most violent) breaths of an empire in decline?
What is certain is that these actions have had a major impact on the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean, as the US government appears eager to secure key territories and/or to conquer natural resources that are indispensable for the geopolitical and military conflicts it anticipates.
The Monroe Doctrine has now been revived under the so-called Donroe Doctrine. Washington has demonstrated that it will secure hemispheric control at all costs, whether by imposing new tariffs (as it did against Brazil), directly supporting a presidential candidate (as happened with Nasry Asfura in Honduras), or the granting of USD 20 billion to save an ally (such as the far-right libertarian government of Javier Milei in Argentina).
This is how Miguel Ruiz, professor at the Central University of Ecuador and scholar of international relations between the United States and Latin America, understands this current moment. Ruiz spoke with Peoples Dispatch to understand this phenomenon:
“The world is undergoing a profound geopolitical transition that, like an onion, has several layers, some more visible than others. On the surface, we can see aspects such as Trump’s tariff offensive; a radical shift to the right in various parts of the world besides the United States itself, such as in some countries in Europe and Latin America; the increase in US belligerence in Latin America (Venezuela, Cuba); the aggression of Israel and the US toward Iran, etc. All these more visible aspects are merely symptoms of deeper processes, among which I would highlight two fundamental ones:
a) the so-called ‘fourth technological revolution’ (AI, robotics, manufacturing 4.0) that the world is undergoing is redefining the strategic branches and priority geographical areas of the global economy;
b) parallel to changes in the productive forces, there is another no less important trend: the emergence and consolidation of new centers of accumulation on a global scale, such as China and India.”
Regarding the consequences of these factors, Ruiz asserts that they are causing fundamental economic transformations:
“The combination of both factors, to which we must add the relative decline in the competitiveness of the US economy, is driving the most visible transformations in global geopolitics, such as the opening of new resource frontiers, the struggle for control of critical minerals, attempts by the declining power to delay its decline and, in the case of our continent in particular, the updating of the Monroe Doctrine with the Trump Corollary, which aims to reinforce control over Our America while undermining the good economic and diplomatic relations we have with China and other leading countries in the emerging multipolar world.”
Cuba in Trump’s strategy
As is well known, Trump’s project in Latin America goes beyond simple diplomacy and economic pressure. Military action began in the Caribbean Sea in September 2025 against dozens of small vessels, extrajudicially executing over 140 Venezuelans, Colombians, and Trinidadians. “Operation Southern Spear”, it was later dubbed, culminated in a military attack against Venezuela on January 3, 2026, “Operation Absolute Resolve”. In the January 3 operation, the US carried out airstrikes across areas of Venezuela, killing 100 people, and kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and the First Lady Cilia Flores, who now sit in a prison in New York. Now, through gunboat diplomacy, the US has tacit control over Venezuela’s oil reserves.
Read more: Tactical retreats: Why Venezuela’s revolution still stands
In the aftermath of this operation, Trump triumphantly declared that Cuba was next. To this end, in addition to depriving the island of Venezuelan oil, a lifeline for Cuba in the 21st century, he threatened to increase tariffs on any country that sends hydrocarbons to Cuba. This has provoked a serious humanitarian crisis in Cuba, whose energy grid depends heavily on fuel to function.
Ruiz thus asserts that the war on Cuba appears to be a unifying link for US interests in the region: “Cuba has been inconvenient from the point of view of the US power elite, but not because it poses a threat to US security, far from it, as those same interests often argue. It has been inconvenient because since the triumph of the Revolution in 1959, Cuba has become a beacon of what the United States has been boycotting in Latin America for 200 years: a commitment to recovering sovereignty (political, economic, cultural) that has always been threatened by colonialism and neocolonialism, as well as a permanent effort to build Latin American integration that is not subordinate to the interests of the empire.”
“Although the pretext for suffocating the Cuban people was (and continues to be) the fight against socialism,” Ruiz remarks, “what really terrified the US elites from the beginning of the Revolution was its ability to call on the rest of the region to embark on emancipatory paths of a sovereign and anti-imperialist nature.”
When asked what the United States hopes to achieve with the fall of Cuba’s revolutionary government, the professor at the Central University explained: “In more general terms, a first objective would be to bury once and for all that counter-example that they want to avoid at all costs in a region that, like Latin America, remains particularly important to control.”
Another main objective, Ruiz outlines, is that the US government dreams of somehow replacing the political structures of Cuba with one controlled by the US. This would allow them to “regain control of the island as a space to secure and expand the economic and geopolitical interests of the power factions that currently rule the US. These factions have interests in certain branches of accumulation (both legal and illegal) for which Cuba could be useful: real estate, tourism, casinos, and even drug trafficking. In other words, they would seek to turn Cuba back into what it once represented for the US economy, but under the new conditions of the 21st century.”
Read more: Countries step in to supply oil to Cuba as US considers limited opening of sales
Is it possible to take action in the face of imperialism?
Given this reality, it may seem impossible for progressive and left-wing social and political movements to offer any kind of resistance to US power in relation to Cuba. However, Ruiz believes that, despite being a very complex challenge, it is not impossible: “A first line of action involves the well-founded denunciation of the ongoing aggressions. This denunciation must be accompanied by organization and mobilization in all possible arenas, including the streets, the media, institutional spaces, and parliaments. It is essential to acknowledge that we are currently at a moment in which, in most Latin American countries, progressive movements are on the defensive. So, continuing to defend ourselves against oligarchic and imperial attacks is the number one priority.”
But Ruiz also explains that progressive and left-wing movements must not only resist, but also act proactively: “We should also aspire to change the balance of power so that, where possible, we can regain important areas of power that we had in the not-too-distant past, such as state powers. The challenge now is to do so in broader coalitions than before, including a plurality of social actors who do not necessarily agree on the entirety of a program, but who do converge on its essential aspects of defending national and regional sovereignty, to build a horizon that allows Our America to stand on its own two feet. It is also imperative to resume the project of non-subordinate integration, as well as to maintain measures of solidarity with the countries that suffer most from imperial aggression, as is the case with Cuba at the moment.”
The post “Cuba is where the broader aspirations of the US elite as a whole intersect”: Why the US wants to destroy Cuba appeared first on Peoples Dispatch.
From Peoples Dispatch via This RSS Feed.
نُشر تبادليًا من: https://hexbear.net/post/7902452
Hello my friends,
My name is Abeer, a mother of four children from Gaza. I want to thank everyone who has already shown kindness and support to my family. Your compassion truly means so much to us.
Because of the war, my children have been deprived of many simple joys for more than two years. This Eid, I am trying to buy clothes for my four children so they can feel happy like other children.
Your support has already given us hope, and I am deeply grateful. If anyone is still able to help, please continue supporting my children so I can finish getting their Eid clothes.
If you would like to help my children, please send me a direct message and I will share the support link privately.
Every small act of kindness can bring a smile to my children’s faces. Thank you from my heart.
نُشر تبادليًا من: https://hexbear.net/post/7890661
نُشر تبادليًا من: https://hexbear.net/post/7890660
Hello my friends,
My name is Abeer, a mother of four children from Gaza. I am trying to care for my children after we lost everything because of the war. For more than two years, my children have been deprived of many simple joys.
With Eid approaching, they are only wishing for something small… new clothes like other children. As a mother, it breaks my heart that I cannot give them even this simple happiness.
Please look at them as if they were your own children and help me bring a small smile to their faces this Eid.
If you would like to support my children, please send me a direct message and I will share the details privately.
Your kindness, even if small, can mean the world to my family. 🤍