INTRODUCTION to Scipes ed Building Global Labor Solidarity

Introduction --Kim Scipes --- This is the introduction to this edited volume. This lays out many of the ideas incorporated into this volume, although it is solely written by myself, someone who has worked to build global labor solidarity for over 30 years. I have previously written a book on the KMU Labor Center of the Philippines (1996) and on the foreign policy of the AFL-CIO (2010, 2011 paperback). I hope this will inspire you to get a copy of this edited volume, of which there is nothing published to date that is similar: it includes important contributions by David Bacon, Bruno Dobrusin, Jenny Jungehülsing, Katherine Nastovski, Timothy Ryan, Kim Scipes, and Michael Zweig. We hope there will be considerable discussion stimulated by this volume. --- Welcome to this volume of writings on Building Global Labor Solidarity in a Time of Accelerating Globalization. This volume includes a number of interesting and, hopefully, stimulating chapters on this subject, and we hope you will read carefully, consider and discuss them and their ramifications with co-workers, friends and activists. We hope to stimulate further thinking and action on these issues. However, while the chapters combined are a collective project, this Introduction is not: this is the Editor’s understanding of the issues and situation that is being addressed. Some of the chapter authors may agree with me, in whole or in part, and some will disagree: you cannot attribute the views expressed in this Introduction to anyone of them unless they specifically accept them. ORIGINS OF PROJECT, AND FOLLOW-UP In late 2012/early 2013, this writer proposed a special thematic issue of Working USA: The Journal of Labor and Society on “Global Labor Solidarity” to editor Immanuel Ness, who eagerly accepted. We decided to seek the best writings that we could find on the subject, and we announced the issue and called for articles around the world. We circulated this call to progressive academic journals, labor-focused journals, particular labor centers and to individual activists and scholars. After receiving articles from around the world—submissions came from writers/researchers from (in alphabetical order) Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, El Salvador, Germany, Hong Kong, South Africa, United Kingdom and the United States—and after having them reviewed by reviewers from around the world, we chose the six we felt were the best. These were published in Working USA, Vol. 17, No. 2, June 2014 (Scipes, ed., 2014). We felt the response had been so good that we decided we would try to publish an edited volume on the same subject and, again, called for papers. Professor Ness’ work took him in other directions, so I decided to proceed on my own. Besides the article I wrote, we then got several articles, and six others (Michael Zweig’s being the only reprint from the journal collection) were accepted and are published herein. Again, we didn’t set any standards about accepting a common political perspective, requiring agreement on sources, etc.; we went for the best articles that we received. So—and to some, this will be disconcerting—there is a wide level of politics encapsulated in this volume. This allows us to try to get a feel for what is being written around the world. Also, we did not require that the writers be academics: David Bacon and Timothy Ryan are not. And among the five of us who are academics, three—Bruno Dobrusin, Jenny Jungehülsing, and Katherine Nastovski—are all “new academics,” each working on their PhDs. Interestingly, these new academics are also the ones from outside of the United States: from Argentina, Germany and Canada, respectively. Those of us who are “established” academics—Kim Scipes and Michael Zweig—are also long time labor and political activists. This breath of this collection is encouraging, and we hope will encourage many more cross-boarder collaborations. However, while each of these articles is interesting in and of itself, it is time to put them into the larger social context in which they fit—and again, this analysis is solely that of the Editor. SOCIAL CONTEXT There are numerous terms being tossed around these days, as writers try to understand what is going on in the world. Three most relevant for this study are “globalization,” “neo-liberal economics” (and often combined with globalization to create “neo-liberal globalization), and “imperialism.” These are discussed so as to clarify our thinking. Globalization Globalization is an on-going process. Using the term means taking a planetary scope, no longer restricting one’s analysis to the level of the nation-state. This does not mean that the nation-state is obsolete, irrelevant, etc., but that we cannot confine our political analysis to just the nation-state level. Jan Nederveen Pieterse expands: Among analysts and policy makers, North and South, there is an emerging consensus on several features of globalization: globalization is being shaped by technological changes, involves the reconfiguration of states, goes together with regionalization [e.g., European Union, Latinamericanization-KS], and is uneven (Nederveen Pieterse, 2015: 8). He further writes that while people oftentimes refer to time-space compression, “It means that globalization involves more intensive interaction across wider space and in shorter time than before” (Nederveen Pieterse, 2015: 8). This point about unevenness is very important. It means that these processes affect countries differentially, and they can hit at different times, with different intensities, etc. In fact, they can affect different regions in the same country differentially. This must be understood: globalization is not a single monolithic force sweeping the globe, affecting each social order, region, economy the same way at the same time. It is a series of processes that lead to “more intensive interaction across wider space and shorter time than before” (Nederveen Pieterse, 2015: 8), but its impact is uneven. There are issues, however, concerning globalization where there are still considerable controversies. Following Nederveen Pieterse, this author argues that in addition to the above, globalization is multidimensional (i.e., cannot be confined to just one aspect, such as economics, but includes things like politics and culture) and should be seen as a long-term phenomenon that began thousands of years ago in the “beginnings in the first migrations of peoples and long-distance trade connections and subsequently accelerates under particular conditions (the spread of technologies, religions, literacy, empires, capitalism” (Nederveen Pieterse, 2015: 70-71). Charles Tilly (2005) agrees with this long-term understanding: “Starting with the movement of humans out of Africa some fifty thousand years ago, humanity has globalized repeatedly.” He then discusses three waves of globalization that have taken place since 1500. In other words, globalization predates capitalism and modernity, which means it predates the “West.” And, of course, that it did not begin in the 1970s. While globalization is a much broader, deeper and longer set of processes than is usually recognized, these processes began accelerating in the early 1970s. If globalization during the second half of the twentieth century coincided with the ‘American Century’ and the period 1980-2000 coincided with the dominance of Anglo-American capitalism and American hegemony, twenty-first-century globalization shows markedly different dynamics. American hegemony has weakened, the US economy is import dependent, deeply indebted, and mired in financial crises. The new trends of twenty-first century globalization are the centers of the world economy shifting to the global South, to the newly industrialized countries, and to the energy exporters (Nederveen Pieterse, 2015: 24). Nederveen Pieterse (2008) examines the decline of the US in considerable detail; see also Scipes, 2009. Needless to say, there are numbers of other works on this issue. He further points out these changes are taking place in economic and financial spheres, in international institutions, and in changing patterns of migration. He summarizes, “The unquestioned cultural hegemony of the West is past” (Nederveen Pieterse, 2015: 24-25). Neo-liberal Economics This section on “neo-liberal economics” draws heavily on this author’s previous work—see particularly Scipes (1984, 2009)—but has been supplemented by extensive additional readings, particularly by Brenner (2003), Piven (2004), and Roman and Velasco Arregui (2013). By the mid-1960s, the World War II war-torn countries of Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom had recovered to such an extent that their corporations were able to compete with those of the United States in Europe and Japan. By the 1970s, some of these corporations were competing with US corporations inside the United States. What we were seeing was that the unfettered world that the US economy had operated within after World War II was changing: no longer under control of the United States, it was shifting from a centralized system dominated by one country to a decentralized one that was much more competitive. By the 1980s, increasing competition was coming from corporations from some of the so-called developing countries. These trends have only continued to develop. Production in the US had stagnated in the 1970s, and this was joined with increasing monetary inflation. The US was clearly losing its economic advantages to competing countries. The Business Roundtable—a grouping of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of leading US corporations—was formed in 1972 to begin offering “solutions” in response to the economic lethargy they saw developing. Basically, they decided that they could no longer tolerate trade unions that limited their managerial control on shop floors, and developed strategies to remove that problem. The rise and triumph of the corporate neo-liberal agenda did not simply happen because of ‘market forces’ or globalization. The most powerful corporations in the US—many of them the most powerful in the world—organized to make it happen; they developed their own consensus and mobilized their vast resources and network to make it happen. They were determined to counter the surge in labor militancy and reverse the wage gains that took place in the 1960s and peaked during the last phase of the Vietnam War in 1969-71. The corporate offensive was not only aimed at constraining workers’ militancy and reducing wage gains, it was also a response to the challenges that seemed to be posed by the various protest movements of the 1960s, movements that appeared threatening to the status quo and had resonances among young and Black workers (emphasis in original) (Roman and Velasco Arregui, 2013: 7). These strategies included actions on multiple levels. They challenged trade union limitations on shop floors, but they went much further than that. They decided that they would “outsource” labor-intensive production to countries that had low labor costs, and which would compete to get investment for their countries. They would work with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank to get them to provide infrastructure investments for these countries to support any new foreign investment. They would upgrade technology in US factories, replacing workers with newly designed machines with “labor-saving” aspects. They would work with “leading” intellectuals to develop an understanding of the changes needed that was conveyable to the public—hence, the propagation of what became known as “neo-liberal” economics. They would support politicians and judges who would support their program, And they would support and fund politicians who would advance these ideas as part of their electoral campaign, especially at the national level. The philosophy of neo-liberal economics was key to this strategy. Basically, it argued that the well-being of US corporations was central to the well-being of the US economy, and that key to the well-being of US corporations was to eradicate any restrictions on US corporations. This meant allowing US corporations unfettered control over their work forces, marginalizing if not destroying trade unions in their factories and other operations. It meant undermining strikes by allowing “replacement workers” (scabs), and ensuring their job “rights” after strikes ended. It meant allowing contractual workers and part-time workers to replace full-time workers. It meant undercutting health and safety protections, workers’ compensation schemes (for those hurt on the job), and any other restrictions that might limit production and productivity. And it meant prohibiting any regulations/restrictions on corporate decisions as to where, and under what conditions, they could invest or disinvest from communities. Kim Scipes (1984: 20) writes, “This offensive [cutting production costs of corporations] has taken many approaches. It includes ‘rationalization” (getting rid of surplus and/or old plants), modernization, concessions and bankruptcy. Oftentimes, an attack will combine several of these approaches.” He further explains, The point of mentioning these different industry and company approaches is to show many different ways workers are under attack. Each one of these attacks is ultimately an assault against unions. The important goal is to destroy worker resistance on the shop floor. Every company wants to be able to force workers to do what the company wants, when the company wants, how the company wants. They see unions as institutionalized forms of resistance, and if a union is standing up for its members at all, they want to subjugate and crush it (Scipes, 1984: 20-21). Yet, neo-liberal economics went beyond “liberating” the particular corporations from the “oppression” of treating their workers respectfully: it meant restructuring the entire social order. As Francis Fox Piven notes, neo-liberal economic politics are a set of policies carried out, in the name of individualism and unfettered markets, for the deregulation of corporations, and particularly financial institutions; the rollback of public services and benefit programs; curbing labor unions; ‘free trade’ policies that would pry open foreign markers; and whenever possible, the replacement of public programs with private markets (Piven, 2007: 17). It also included tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, as well as cuts in environmental programs. The right-wing forces that opposed governmental intervention in the economy—whether opposing the social programs of the 1960s (often for racist reasons), or because of economic philosophy—coalesced in the presidential campaign and, beginning in January 1981, in the administration of Ronald Reagan. These people took an ideological approach that any governmental intervention in the economy was deleterious to economic growth and societal well being: Reagan parsed it, saying “Government isn’t the solution; it’s the problem.” In 1980, and again in 1982, the economy contracted. In 1982, the ideologues under Reagan convinced him of the necessity to wring inflation out of the economy, and the government did not intervene to “restimulate” the economy: although interest rates reached 21 percent, Reagan did not launch new social programs or increase funding for established ones. Unemployment exploded, reaching the highest levels since the Great Depression. At the same time, Reagan attacked the labor movement, the one force—despite its many limitations—that had provided economic advancement for millions of Americans. One of the great myths of American life—propagated heavily by business, government and the mainstream media—is that as productivity increases, our standard of living automatically rises. This “suggests” that business “takes care” of its workers economically by periodically enhancing workers’ pay. The reality is that it has been the trades unions, through negotiations and through striking, that forced business to raise wages and extend social benefits. And even non-union workplaces have generally raised wages/benefits to comparable levels, as part of their campaign to keep their workers from unionizing. In short, and following Jack Metzgar (2000), the “working middle class”—which includes members of the of skilled trades, unionized industrial workers, and later, public sector workers—was created by the labor movement, and they joined the traditional “middle class” occupations like lawyers, doctors, insurance agents, etc., to create the “great American middle class.” The “working middle class” was not created by the mythical “benign” efforts of business. When the air traffic controllers’ union (PATCO—Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization) struck in 1981, Reagan brought in military air traffic controllers to break the strike. (One of the great errors made by the national-level leaders of the labor movement, having disastrous affects, was refusing to shut down the entire airline industry, which was still heavily unionized, to stop Reagan’s union busing.) The Federal government’s union busting, and other right-wing legislative and court decisions that attacked the labor movement, unleashed business’ ability to increase productivity at the direct expense of workers—particularly by moving labor-intensive jobs to low wage countries like Mexico and China (destroying jobs in the US) and by investing in capital-intensive machinery that was designed to eradicate jobs. Yet Reagan, despite the mythology that has been created around him, ended up hurting the economy in a long-term manner that has rarely been acknowledged. He engaged in massive deficit spending, only this spending was not to help the American people in general; it was to help the richest Americans, the US military and the arms industry: Reagan began spending hundreds of billions of dollars each year on the war department—I refuse to call it “defense”—and he did it by doubling the national debt in eight years: when he came into office in 1981, the US national debt—from 1789 under George Washington to the end of Jimmy Carter’s administration—was at $ .907 trillion dollars; when Reagan left, eight years later, it was $2.7 trillion. (It has continued rising since then under both Democratic and Republican presidents, and today is over $18.1 trillion.) Every year, the Federal government establishes a budget, saying it plans for certain programs and the costs to finance them, and then it will pay for them out of tax receipts. After the end of the budgetary year—which currently ends on September 30—the government will report that “we overspent our budget” (reporting a deficit) or “we brought out budget in lower than expected” (reporting a surplus). Then that year’s results (surplus or deficit) is added to that of every other year, going back to 1789, when the US became an independent country, and that cumulative total of surplus/deficits is known as the “national debt.” Today, as stated, the national debt exceeds $18.1 trillion. In other words, the US economy has done as well as it has over the past 30+ years—and it has not done as well as it did between 1947-73—because the US government has been writing “hot checks” to pay for its expenditures. At some point in time, that debt will have to be repaid—and it’s not going to be pretty (Scipes, 2009). To return to our story: along with the attacks on unions, unfunded wars, etc., the philosophy of neo-liberal economics has collapsed our societal values into one thing: profitability. If something enhances the potential of increased profitability of business, it is good; if it does not—no matter how important anything else is—it is bad. If regulations on food or air/water quality or worker safety cost corporations money, they are bad and should be immediately disbanded, no matter how beneficial they are to people, the environment or to our general social order. It is this “philosophy” that the US government has been pushing around the world, and it has hurt billions of people, including millions within the United States. What this has meant for Labor is that anything that has limited business’ power in the workplace—unions themselves, strikes, any type of health and safety regulations, etc.—has been attacked by corporations. Additionally, through legislative and/or court decisions, actions that have limited workers’ collective power—protecting strike breakers, contract labor, and efforts to destroy unions through privatizing public services, etc.—have been supported. Again, anything that hinders or reduces profitability, no matter how much of a social good it provides—is bad: that is the philosophy and impact of neo-liberal economics. Yet something else has happened in the United States in addition to adopting neo-liberal economics. The upsurge during the 1960s-early 1970s—including the Civil Rights/Black Power movements, the women’s movement, the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) movement, the environmental movement, the anti-Vietnam War movement, and especially the anti-Vietnam War movement inside the US military—scared the crap out of the ruling elites. They decided that they would do whatever they could do to ensure that collectivity, and especially collective action, would never again raise its ugly head in this social order. A key way this has been done is through mythologizing history: a perfect counter-example is provided by the film, “Sir, No Sir!” (Zieger, 2005). Despite herculean efforts to “put the [Vietnam] war behind us,” David Zieger brilliantly reports the existence of and the impact on the US military’s ability to fight the war by an anti-war movement within the US military. Comparing Zieger’s film to the “history” of the war, as is generally reported, shows how much the “real history” has been mythologized. Nick Turse’s (2013) recent book on Vietnam, Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam, also demonstrates the mythology of the war that has been propagated by the US government, and then destroys it by use of official US Army records. To accomplish this, they have been creating a culture of individualism to undercut any aspirations of collectivity. Basically, as long as you and your loved ones were ok, you did not have to worry about the well-being of anyone else in the country—and, in fact, they told people that caring about others would undermine their individual interests. They created what I called the “I’ve got mine, screw you, Jack” culture and society. And this “screw you, Jack” ideology has been very successful: despite growing income inequality in the United States—that is more extreme than some of the poorest nations on the planet (e.g., Bangladesh, Cambodia, Laos, Mozambique, Uganda and Vietnam)—there was no nationwide discussion of this from about 1973 until the Occupy Wall Street movement that emerged in the Fall of 2011, almost 40 years. So, starting probably in about 1978, but specifically with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, right-wing ideologues (including their allies in the mainstream media, FOX and the rest) have deceived the country into believing that anything that hinders business’ potential for enhanced profitability is bad, and that all forms of collectivity are self-defeating. Thus, Reagan not only moved the Republican Party to the far right, but he got the Democratic Party to move to the right as well: arguably, no subsequent presidential administration has passed as liberal a domestic program as Richard Nixon’s between 1969-73. Nixon didn’t pass these progressive laws, especially around the environment and health and safety laws for workers because he believed in them, but to undercut the progressive movement (including the anti-Vietnam War movement) that had forced him to address these issues in this manner. Imperialism v. Globalization Since this author’s chapter specifically includes a more in-depth discussion of the concept of “imperialism,” only a few words will be said here. Imperialism is a term that is often dismissed as a rhetorical term, but it is used empirically herein to discuss reality on the ground. It basically refers to the idea that not all countries have roughly comparable political-economic power; imperialism refers to the fact that some countries are more powerful than others, and that the strong use this power to maintain or extend their domination when other countries do not subjugate themselves to the more powerful country. There has been considerable debate among analysts about the relationship between imperialism and globalization; in fact, some refer to it as “imperialist globalization.” That is not the approach taken by myself and at least some others—perhaps most clear is Nederveen Pieterse (2004). Globalization has been going on for thousands of years. Sometimes this has taken the form of imperialism—Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, etc.—but other times it has not, like when we discuss cross-border migration. Modern imperialism, however, starts with the “voyages of discovery” by sea-going projects of the Western European countries, roughly around 1500. Since at least the end of World War II in 1945—and some would say since 1898, with the Spanish-American and Philippine-American wars—the United States has tried to dominate the rest of the world. This has had a dynamic designed to advance the interests of the United States—as determined by the elites of this country—over those of every other country. Through developing what can only be called realistically as “American nationalism,” and propagating in through the school system, churches and other societal institutions (and lying about it extensively in the mass media), the elites have gotten large numbers of Americans to support their imperial adventures. One of the interesting things about American social self-deception is that this imperial project of the elites has been said to be the basis of our high standard of living and national well-being; i.e., we need to be imperialist (although never put in these terms) to live so well. However, since about 1973—and certainly by 1979—the US standard of living has stagnated, if not gotten worse. Neo-liberal economics has been a disaster for many Americans; social inequality has mushroomed; our social services and educational system have been under attack; and for the first time in US history, today’s generation will not do as well as their parents’. And things are only going to get worse for increasing numbers of people. It is time for us to consider a new way of relating among ourselves, to human beings around the world, as well as to the planetary environment. GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT This collection is an entry into a larger political debate that does not usually recognize, much less acknowledge, the importance of the issue at hand. This issue is global development. The problem is this: how are the peoples of the world, located in different countries defined as nation-states, and located among a myriad of levels of economic, political, cultural and social development—hence, this is not a US- or European- or even a “Global North”-centralized approach, but rather a global approach—going to advance their social well-being, both individually and collectively? Jan Nederveen Pieterse advances the concept of “critical globalization,” which he defines as the “critical engagement with globalization processes, neither blocking nor celebrating them” (Nederveen Pieterse, 2010: 49). He elaborates: As a global agenda, critical globalization means posing the central question of global inequality in its new manifestations. As a research agenda, it entails identifying the social forces that carry different transnational processes and examining varying conceptualizations of the global environment and the globalizing momentum…. What under the circumstance is the meaning of world development? Because of the combined changes of globalization, informatization, and flexibilization, there is a new relevance to the notion that all societies are developing. This is not just an agreeable sounding cliché but also a reality confirmed by transformations taking place everywhere, on macro as well as micro levels. The whole world is in transition (Nederveen Pieterse, 2010: 50). Nederveen Pieterse, referring to the work of Bjorn Hettne, accepts the idea that perhaps the greatest contradiction in what gets called “development theory” is the debate between endogenous (or internal) or exogenous (external) factors as being key to social development. He recognizes this is a false debate, that there is an interaction between endogenous factors (such as determined by the state) and exogenous factors (such as determined by global market forces). However—and this is important—he recognizes the inadequacy of limiting focus to just an interaction between state and market forces, because it ignores “civil society,” those forces that are not included in either. Civil Society Nederveen Pieterse argues that we have to include civil society, and particularly those parts of civil society that are organized into and around NGOs. Most of the world uses the term “non-governmental organizations”; in the US, they are generally referred to as “non-profit” organizations. He points out that “NGOs … are part of globalization, when viewed multidimensionally,” and “what they do and can do is to negotiate the kind of globalization they seek to promote and be part of” (Nederveen Pieterse, 2010: 52). That makes sense, as far as he goes, but it glosses over three big things. First, the range of organizations placed under the NGO rubric is extremely broad; all NGOs are not the same: the rubric incorporates international health-oriented organizations working in multiple countries (Asad and Kay, 2014) and it can include a single local organization such as a women’s shelter from domestic violence. Second, not all NGOs are “progressive,” “pro-people,” etc. And third, even when an organization is “pro-people” and “progressive”—by which I mean their work is life-enhancing and is directed to advancing the interests of the majority of people—this does not mean they have any power to advance their program. In probably the majority of cases, they can advance good ideas and good values—important in and of themselves—but they have no way to activate forces that can advance their agenda. Thus, we have to dig deeper, if one will. We must seek to find if there are any social forces that might be able to articulate progressive, life-enhancing values and pro-people interests, and which have the power to force both the state and corporations (market forces) to either back-off and give space to pro-people’s organizations and their social programs, and/or limit the oppression of the majority of the population. I’m going to suggest that there is a force that meets these “qualifications”: the labor movement. Labor Movement Now, before moving forward, I must quickly add that we have to apply considerable nuance to what we mean by “labor movement”: Labor, like any other social force, is not monolithic; it is particularly heterogeneous, has multiple approaches and visions, and is chock full of contradictions. I am not saying all labor organizations meet these goals of being life enhancing, pro-people and willing to fight for a better world. To delve further into this idea, however, we must be able to disaggregate Labor to locate the forces of which I’m thinking. First of all, it is fair to generalize that most labor organizations are hierarchical organizations, in which top leadership has more decision-making power than those below them, and in which those at the top will seek to maintain that power and advance the issues they see as most salient for their organizational advancement and for the maintenance of their organization: most labor organizations are not decentralized, egalitarian nor democratic. Yet—and this is where it gets interesting—because of their values, enunciated ethics and legitimized social role as “defender of workers,” there is an instability that exists even within the most rigid Labor hierarchy: members can organize, can seek to replace leaders, and can actually take over and replace organizational leadership. It is rare, it is unusual, it is extremely difficult; but, there have been times—such as when Arnold Miller and the Miners for Democracy took over the United Mine Workers, or James Carey and his allies took over the Teamsters, or when John Sweeney and his allies took over the AFL-CIO itself These examples are each from the United States. Obviously, there would be a considerable number more if we collected examples from around the world.—when this has taken place, even in the most dictatorial and hierarchical Labor organizations. Now, let us be clear: replacing one leadership with another does not necessarily guarantee that the insurgents will advance the values, interests and force the issues that they advance while out of power, before obtaining these positions, after they have attained positions of power themselves. For example: the AFL-CIO leadership has long carried out a reactionary foreign policy program in secret, behind the backs of their members, but in the name of workers. It was one of areas of dissatisfaction with the previous president, Lane Kirkland, and it contributed to the defeat of Kirkland’s appointed successor, Tom Donohue, by “insurgent” John Sweeney. Sweeney got into office, made some significant changes, but on his watch, the AFL-CIO’s new American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS, or more commonly, the Solidarity Center) gave indirect support to forces that tried to overthrow democratically-elected Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in April 2002. Then, at the 2005 AFL-CIO National Convention in Chicago, Sweeney and his allies refused to allow discussion of the AFL-CIO’s foreign policy program, even though the resolution calling for the discussion had been properly advanced by the California State AFL-CIO through AFL-CIO policies and constitutional procedures (Scipes, 2010a; see especially pp. 56-66, and Chapter 3: 69-82). So, replacing leadership is not always a viable solution. However, it means that Labor is not inherently and always “stable.” For another level of nuance, there are labor organizations that have been established by dictatorships—an example this author knows is the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP), which was created by the Marcos Dictatorship The TUCP was supported by the Asian American Free Labor Institute (AFFLI), the Asian regional affiliate of the AFL-CIO.—and they can act in ways that oppose progressive, pro-people labor centers and organizations. As detailed in my earlier book, KMU: Building Genuine Trade Unionism in the Philippines, 1980-1994, a TUCP-affiliated union—ALU (Associated Labor Unions)—collaborated with corporate management, the military, reactionary municipal officials and an identified death squad (no exaggeration) to try to defeat an affiliate of the progressive, pro-people Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center (KMU) in a certification election at Atlas Mines in that country. Fortunately, the KMU affiliate prevailed despite all of this—winning 5,025 votes in the government-sponsored election to ALU’s 292 (Scipes, 1996: see especially pp. 116-125; for a more succinct account, see Scipes, 2010a: 48-56). Additionally, there are a lot of labor organizations that are business unions that only care about the wages, benefits and working conditions they can win for their members at work, ignoring their affects on other people, whether positive or negative. Progressive Unionism However, there are progressive unions who try to improve their members’ lives in the workplace, but who also tackle issues that affect their members outside of work. There are examples both from the past as well as today, theoretically identified as “social justice” unions (Scipes, 2014d). Terminology over types and forms of trade unionism, particularly in North America, has gotten terribly confused over the past 20 years. In this article (Scipes, 2014d), I took a global and historical approach to the subject, trying to disentangle this theoretical confusion. Relevant to this argument herein, I argued that unions in North American that previously—and incorrectly—had been identified as “social movement unions” should be labeled as “social justice unions.” These social justice unions are the ones I am referring to herein. Since this article is available on-line, I have not incorporated references herein—please see the original article. These are a form of the economic type of trade unionism. A good example from the past is the United Packinghouse Workers of America, which confronted racism inside the packinghouses, in their union and their communities, but they were forced to merge into other unions once the packing companies shut down the stockyards in Chicago (see Scipes, 2003). There are a number of other unions—such as the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU), the United Electrical workers (UE), and a few others today—that can be considered as examples of social justice unionism. There are also political types of unions that have been created to advance the interests of particular nationalist, socialist, social democratic or communist parties in their struggles to advance their self-defined interests (see Pillay, 2013; Scipes, 1992a, b). These types of unions generally place the interests of their initiating organization over the direct interests of the union members, although not always, and when they address interests of their members, they generally take a broader approach. And finally, there are labor organizations that have developed that recognize not only the oppression of the workplace, but also how conditions in the workplaces are integrally linked to both the national situation and the global political-economic networks in which their country is enmeshed. Thus, they recognize that they have to confront issues at these other levels as well as in the workplace if they hope to improve the lives of these members and their families. Unionism of this more encompassing kind is called “social movement unionism” (Scipes, 2014d). Synopsis The point—which I hope by now is obvious—is that not all unions are progressive, pro-people and willing to us their power to fight for changes that will benefit all. In fact, most are not willing to do anything more than to support their members, and their members alone and separate from the rest of their society. We must recognize the multiplicity of experiences that are encompassed by the term “labor organizations.” However, at the same time, we must recognize that there are progressive unions that seek to address issues for their members not only in the workplace, but in the larger society as well. How far they will go varies; nonetheless, for these unions, their willingness to transcend traditional, narrow business unionism is considerable. And it is these unions, grouped herein under the term “progressive unionism,” that I suggest can articulate progressive, life-enhancing values and pro-people interests, and can develop the power to force both the state and corporations to either back-off and give space to pro-people’s organizations and their social programs, and/or limit the oppression of the majority of the population. Thus, I suggest the larger social importance of these progressive unions. Writers who focus on macro-level, “big picture” issues like globalization and neo-liberal economics need to incorporate progressive unions into their thinking. Yet I want to return to an earlier point, made above. Labor organizations can change; if not from the top, then they can be changed from the bottom. This is why a collection such as this is so important: in addition to encouraging ways to build global labor solidarity, it also allows us to reflect on our own unions and to decide how we want to transform them to become a progressive social force in our own social order. The struggle to build global labor solidarity is also a struggle to transform our unions into progressive social forces, able to unite with and propel local forces for social justice, while seeking justice not only for ourselves and our members, but for working people globally (see Fletcher and Gapasin, 2008). REFLECTING ON GLOBALIZATION While this author agrees with Nederveen Pieterse’s thinking about globalization—including that it is multidimensional and that it predates modernity—I want to add another point about globalization: it is multilayered (Scipes, 2012). This is an important point. Business and governments have appropriated the term “globalization,” insisting that is a monolithic force of “good” that is deluging the world, and is enveloping all within it, like a wall of flood water that cannot be stopped. Activists initially responded to this by being against globalization; for existence, Amory Starr’s 2005 book was titled Global Revolt: A Guide to the Movements against Globalization. However, activists came to see that we were not against globalization, but against the type of globalization that was being promoted and propagated (e.g., Friedman, 1999). A number of authors think a better idea is to recognize that there are two levels of globalization—claiming there is “top-down,” corporate/militaristic globalization, and a “bottom-up,” global movement for social and economic justice—and that these two levels are based on values completely antithetical to the other. By that, I mean that globalization is not a monolith, a single, collective phenomenon, but argue it has at least two layers, so we can refer to as “globalization from above,” and “globalization from below.” What does that mean? Accepting Nederveen Pieterse’s claim that “globalization involves more intensive interaction across wider space and in shorter time than before” (Nederveen Pieterse, 2015: 8), we must look at the values of each of these levels of globalization. The values of top-down globalization are those that promote the unhindered spread of corporations around the world, and the militarism (and related wars and military operations) needed to ensure that is possible; in other words, top-down globalization is the latest effort to dominate the world, all living beings and the planet. Globalization from below, on the other hand, is life enhancing: it rejects domination in all of its forms, and seeks to build a new world based on equality, social and economic justice, and respect for all living beings and the planet. The two world-views, and the values on which each are based, could not be more opposed. This is where my call for macro-level thinkers to incorporate progressive unionism into their analyses becomes even more important: these progressive unions are part of the global movement for economic and social justice (whether they recognize it or not), and that as they gain such consciousness, they will find ways of developing global solidarity with workers and other unions, women, peasants, students, the urban poor, etc. Thus, understanding that there are two different levels of globalization, and that they are opposed to each other, means that people need to choose: which side are you on? OVERVIEW TO COLLECTION The articles gathered herein are each supportive of globalization from below, and are efforts to help advance this understanding and related efforts. Kim Scipes begins with a chapter titled, “Multiple Fragments—Strength or Weakness? Theorizing Global Labor Solidarity.” In this chapter, Scipes argues that to understand the United States accurately, people must realize it is the heartland of the US Empire, and therefore, there is the need for American workers to develop solidarity among themselves and to extend solidarity beyond the US nation state, to challenge US domination and that of any other nation states. This means we must focus on building global labor solidarity. His discusses the issue of solidarity in some depth, and then uses the above to present a theory of global labor solidarity to enhance our understanding and our efforts around the globe. He also notes that there are nine different types of global solidarity developed to date, and argues that these multiple efforts are a strength, not a weakness of the global labor movement. Katherine Nastovski’s chapter, “Worker-to-Worker—A Transformative Model of Solidarity: Lessons from Grassroots International Labor Solidarity in Canada in the 1970s and 1980s,” introduces us to the extensive range of efforts by Canadian workers to build grassroots labor solidarity. Key to this, she argues, is worker-to-worker solidarity, whereby workers build relationships across borders but among workers themselves. She sees worker-to-worker solidarity as building counter-hegemonic practices against “established” international labor solidarity, leading also to challenges to established trade unionism in their country. This is followed by Jenny Jungehülsing’s exploratory research, which she presents in “Building Bridges Between Labor Movement and Transnational Migration Research: What Potential for International Solidarity?” She argues that one of the weaknesses in current-day international labor solidarity is that there is little felt solidarity between people. Her research with local unions within particular regions of the United Steel Workers (USW) and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) suggests that by working with immigrants, “felt solidarity” can be established between unions in the US and those “back home,” focusing on cases in El Salvador and Mexico. While she recognizes the exceptional circumstances in these particular cases, she is clearly intrigued by these possibilities, and argues that this potential needs to be explored to a greater depth. Bruno Dobrusin takes us south in his “Labor and Sustainable Development in Latin America: Rebuilding Alliances at a New Crossroads.” He talks about the continental-wide solidarity that was developed in the fight against the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), and he notes the central role of labor to that successful fight. Another fight is emerging—against the “commodity consensus” that progressive governments of the region are using to develop their countries, but which is being opposed more and more at local sites because of their environmental and social devastation—and he analyzes possibilities for rebuilding another continental-wide solidarity movement, only this time against the use of primary commodities as the basis for continued development. Focus shifts to Asia, and particularly Bangladesh. The Asia Regional Director of the Solidarity Center, AFL-CIO, Timothy Ryan, writes on building solidarity with workers in his “It Takes More Than a Village: A Case Study of Successful Worker Solidarity in Bangladesh.” With extensive experience in Asia, Ryan takes “some pages from practical experience and sociological models to explain how the global economy creates exploitation, how both employers and workers respond to this economic structure, and how events can pressure employers to change their sourcing practices and create openings and catalysts that help workers empower themselves.” Still focusing on Asia, Kim Scipes writes about the Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) Labor Center of the Philippines. KMU, which translates to May First Movement, is one of the most dynamic and developed labor centers in the world and, while created under a dictator, Ferdinand Marcos, has managed to play a key role in getting rid of him and surviving his successors. In “Building Global Labor Solidarity Today: Learning from the KMU of the Philippines,” Scipes argues there is a lot that workers and unions can learn from their experiences. Their experiences are even more important than many others in that the Philippines has not developed industrially—say like Argentina, Brazil, China, India, South Africa and South Korea—so their experiences might be of considerable interest in countries that also have not industrialized, although their determination, militancy, and unwillingness to give up are traits that should be of interest to workers and unions everywhere. Back to North America, David Bacon writes on “Building a Culture of Cross-Border Solidarity Across the United States-Mexico Border.” Bacon, a working journalist with decades of experience in covering the border, the impact of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) on people of both sides of the border, and of immigration within and from Latin America, focuses herein on developments along the boarder in the post-NAFTA world. He focuses on the growth of international solidarity, assesses the changes generally between Mexican and US unions in the post-Cold War era, and examines the role of migration in providing the material basis for further development of cross-border solidarity. And, as they say, last but not least, all of these are followed by Michael Zweig’s interesting call for a new Labor foreign policy in his “Working for Global Justice in the New Labor Movement.” Zweig points out the new reorientation of the domestic labor movement, notes the sordid history of the AFL-CIO’s foreign policy, and argues that it is time “for a renewed approach to foreign policy as well.” Zweig uses his extensive experience in the national leadership of USLAW (US Labor Against the War), which has led the fight within the labor movement against the US war in Iraq and more recently, against militarism, to make a strong argument worthy of your consideration. SOME FINAL THOUGHTS…. Since it was deemed necessary to discuss by the editors at Haymarket (our publisher), I thought I would add some comments about the inclusion of Timothy Ryan’s article in this collection. As many know, I have been one of the leading opponents to the AFL-CIO’s foreign policy for almost 30 years. The AFL, and the AFL-CIO subsequently, has carried out a reactionary foreign policy that has helped overthrow democratically elected governments, supported labor movements created by dictatorships, and they have supported efforts to undercut progressive struggles that challenge US domination around the world. The AFL-CIO has done this in workers’ names, but has never honestly reported their operations to the members, much less asked for members’ support, and has refused to discuss their foreign policy even when requests to do so have developed from within Labor’s established processes. This foreign policy has been overwhelmingly financed by the US Government, and the AFL-CIO’s Solidarity Center has worked with the International Republican Institute, the International Democratic Institute and the US Chamber of Commerce within the US Government’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED), one of the most cynical and destructive of all US government operations (outside of the US military and the Central Intelligence Agency). All of this has been extensively documented in my book, Scipes (2010a). For subsequent writings, see Scipes, 2010b, 2012 and 2015. I still consider the NED as evil, and want the AFL-CIO to renounce these overseas collaborations with the US government, and to try to build global labor solidarity with needy unions based on membership support and financing. However, there seems to be seem kind of differences developing within the AFL-CIO’s Department of International Affairs: there are some cases where the Solidarity Center has played a progressive or at least not-harmful role in support of workers in a limited number of cases. Since this is discussed in my chapter in this volume (Scipes, 2016a: endnote #33), it is not necessary to repeat here. One of the cases is in Bangladesh. I am not suggesting this is going to overturn the orientation of the Solidarity Center, nor does it appear to be anything other than a “minority” effort. Nonetheless, it is the chance to read an in-depth report about how they are currently operating in Bangladesh. This is even more interesting in light of Zia Rahman and Tom Langford’s (2014) article, “International Solidarity or Renewed Trade Union Imperialism? The AFL-CIO and Garment Workers in Bangladesh,” that appeared in the special issue of Working USA that I edited (Scipes, ed., 2014). The Rahman/Langford piece was the first time that we had an account from labor leaders in a targeted country of how they saw the Solidarity Center’s operations, and now we have an account by a Solidarity Center leader about how he sees the Solidarity Center’s operations in that same country. Although I do not know much about Bangladesh, one related and very interesting article on addressing child labor is Brooks (2005). This comparison should make for some interesting conversations. I will let others debate these issues, but I did not want to leave readers with the opinion that I had gotten “soft” on the AFL-CIO’s foreign operations, or that I had changed my position. I have done neither. Yet, I thought, given the opportunity, I would publish this account (as well as the Rahman/Langford account) to allow people to try to come to their own positions on the subject of Bangladesh, and the AFL-CIO operations in that country. With that said, it’s time to turn to the meat of this volume. PAGE 3 Scipes: Intro