Interview with Alan Benjamin, National Organizer of Socialist Organizer

Question: Barack Obama is carrying out a world tour at this moment. The media are presenting the image of a new man in the White House, a new system, a "new era" with a “more balanced" playing field an international scale. Nonetheless, since Obama’s inauguration on January 20, a series of factors have contributed to the development of an acute political crisis in the United States stemming from the contradiction between the aspirations and illusions of millions of people that were expressed in the vote on November 4, 2008, and the realities of the policies of Obama. Could you explain to us the significance of this political crisis and the different forms that it takes in the United States?

Benjamin: Indeed, the mainstream media would have us believe that there is a new presidency that is finally respecting the will of workers and peoples of the world. This, of course, is a false image. During the recent Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago, for example, it was clear that the policies of “free trade” promoted by the U.S. government and by Obama himself were roundly rejected by the heads of state who participated in that gathering. Not one head of state, with the exception of the government of Trinidad and Tobago, signed the final Summit declaration. This was unprecedented. And this rejection was not solely the work of governments such as those of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela or Evo Morales in Bolivia. The rejection of these policies was virtually unanimous. Obama had declared throughout his election campaign that in relation to the Americas there would be a “new era” and that the “free trade” agreements that are strangling these nations would be “amended.” But the reality is altogether different. The exigencies of U.S. imperialism, the need for the crisis-ridden system to destroy the workers’ gains and the very framework of nations, leaves very little room to maneuver, to modify or even amend the “free trade” agenda of imperialism.

Obama had promised that there would be changes made to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The U.S. labor movement -- even though this is not our position as Socialist Organizer, we have always taken a stand for the repeal of these “free trade” agreements -- demanded that Obama include “social clauses” within these treaties. But even this demand cannot be implemented in any meaningful way because any substantive modification of the “free trade” agenda is in open contradiction with the needs of U.S. imperialism in this moment of deepening economic and financial crisis. And this is what explains the failure of the Summit of the Americas, a summit where Obama had hoped to turn to this continent to inaugurate “a new era.” There is nothing new about this approach. In fact, one of Obama’s first trips abroad was to Mexico, where he gave his full support to the government of Felipe Calderon, a government that came to power through massive fraud in the 2006 presidential elections. Everywhere in Mexico, political columnists, unionists and activists hollered loudly, “How is it possible that Obama could come to Mexico to shore up Calderon, to say, as he did, that Calderon was the United States’ best ally?”

On an international scale, this “new image” that the U.S. administration would like to portray is confronted with the growing political crisis of imperialism. Obama had to take upon himself and his new administration all the plans to bail out the banks. This was a requirement of imperialism, and the sums turned over to the bankers and the speculators are astronomic, far greater than what Bush himself had done. Four trillion dollars -- $1.7 trillion directly through the U.S. Treasury and $2.3 trillion from the Federal Reserve -- have been turned over in bailout funds to the banks.

We should recall that the initial reaction of the American people to this bankers’ bailout was an overwhelming and powerful rejection of the plan. The initial rejection was expressed last September 30, at a time when the Congress was first called upon to vote the initial Paulson bailout plan of $700 billion. That initial request by Paulson, then secretary of the Ttreasury, was rejected under enormous pressure from the electorate. It took a massive campaign under the banner of “national unity” and intense lobbying by Obama and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, in particular, to convince the members of Congress that they should support the bailout on the grounds that the bailout was needed to rescue the banks so that the “real” economy could get the necessary financial credits to turn the corner. All these bailout funds were needed to jump-start the productive economy, we were told.

But no sooner had the bank bailouts begun than the press reported that many banks had used these bailout funds to buy private jets for the CEOs and new office suites. It was later reported that the bankers were essentially on strike, refusing to make credits available to the productive economy; they were simply sitting on the bailout funds in the hope that better days would lie ahead -- better days, that is, in terms of once again investing their funds in the speculative economy.

It is important to understand that very large sectors of the U.S. ruling class, both in the Democratic and Republican parties, had to “accept” Obama. He was not the candidate of their choice because there was one aspect of Obama’s election that they could not fully master or control: a Black man as president was capable of eliciting hopes, illusions that could not so easily be held back, or held in check. We must remember that Obama carried out his election campaign with a certain amount of autonomy, organizing 13 million activists into his own campaign, outside the organized framework of the Democratic Party apparatus. He had a certain base of his own, a certain margin of autonomy that he could use should he decide to use it (which he hasn't).

It is clear that sectors of the ruling class did not accept the Obama presidency and have gone out of their way to undermine it. Let’s take the example of Guantanamo, which is known the world over as the symbol of arbitrary rule. From all quarters came the demand to close Guantanamo. Obama had promised that all the facts about the torture carried out by the Bush administration would come to light. He had promised to take action against those responsible for torture and for the violation of the democratic rights of the American people. From all quarters came the demand to investigate and bring to justice those responsible for the torture.

But the Republicans, in conjunction with leading sections of the Democratic Party, called upon the high command of the CIA and Pentagon to compel Obama to back down and not pursue this matter. The top leadership of the CIA told the new president that if he acted on this matter, he would only be aiding and abetting Al-Qaeda. The top general in Iraq, General Petreaus, personally traveled to the White House to “persuade” the new president that it was not possible to publish the full dossier on tortures and rapes committed by the U.S. Army in Guantanamo or in Iraq itself. As a result, the Senate, with the votes of Republicans and Democrats alike, voted that there would not be credits allotted to closing Guantanamo at the end of the year -- even though a vote had been taken to close Guantanamo at the end of the year. I should also point out that Nancy Pelosi, the leading spokesperson for the Democrats in Congress, knew exactly what had occurred in terms of torture, even though she said that she had not been informed. Dick Cheney and all the top leadership of the Bush administration went to the press to state, “Pelosi was fully informed about the policies and actions of the military on this question. For her to say otherwise is a boldface lie.” Clearly Pelosi was caught in a boldface lie.

In addition, many sectors of the Republican Party have unleashed a frenetic campaign against Obama on the grounds that he is a “socialist” and that his government “nationalized” General Motors. They are also promoting a racist anti-immigrant campaign, blaming Obama for being soft of the illegal aliens.

Question: What have been the consequences of the economic crisis on the American people?

Benjamin: In early January, the AFL-CIO announced in its daily blog that unemployment in the United States had actually climbed 13.5%, some 5% points higher than the “official” Department of Labor rate.

Layoffs are mounting daily and at a staggering rate. According to official government statistics, more than 500,000 workers lost their jobs in each of the last five months -- the highest five-month job loss since 1931.

And as the year has progressed, the economy has continued to deteriorate. By year's end, an estimated 20 million people will be out of work. The situation has become intolerable for working people. More than 2 million people have lost their homes to foreclosure -- and it is estimated that another 5 million to 7 million people risk foreclosure in the coming 18 months. A disproportionate number of those losing their homes are Blacks and Latinos. Moody's predicts up to 5 million more home foreclosures within the next 18 months. Healthcare costs continue to soar. Two U.S. wars rage on -- and more and more local and state governments look to privatize public services as their budget deficits continue to escalate.

In the face of a $24.3 billion deficit in California, for example, Governor Schwarzenegger is pushing for catastrophic budget cuts across the state. These cuts will decimate many of the public services and gains upon which hundreds of thousands of the poorest Californians depend for survival. For many it is a question of life or death.

To date, as I mentioned earlier, $4 trillion have gone to bail out the banks and financial institutions that have destroyed our economy. These bank bailouts have only made the bankers richer -- while doing next to nothing for working people. Worse still, the federal government is preparing to hand out $8 trillion more to these speculators in the coming years.

People are becoming increasingly anxious. They ask how it is possible for a president who promised change to be balancing budgets on their backs. They are asking, "Where is the change we were promised?"

Question: With the election of Barack Obama, there is a specific aspect that must be underscored: the deep aspirations of the Black people to change. Can you tell us about this specific question?

Benjamin: The percentage of Black people whose homes have been foreclosed is 3 to 4 times greater than the average for the non-Black and non-Latino population. Today 70% of foreclosed homes belong to Black or Latinos.

Funds that had been promised for the victims of Hurricane Katrina have not been delivered. There are still approximately 350,000 survivors still unable to return to New Orleans. In the context of the current crisis, the first to lose their jobs are Blacks, women,  and Latinos. It is no surprise that in this context of growing job losses, destruction of social services for the poor, and mounting social decay -- all product of the impasse of this economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production -- crime is on the increase. This has given an open pretext to the powers that be, to the law-and-order forces, to come in and repress -- as they have done in the city of Oakland, for example. Oakland looks more and more like Iraq, with the police forces occupying an overwhelmingly Black city.

Black activists have called upon Obama and his attorney general, Eric Holder, to weigh-in on the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the Black militant journalist accused falsely in the assassination of a Philadelphia police officer in 1982. In the United States there have been 18 death-penalty executions since January of this year, mostly of Black people. All death-row inmates have appealed to Obama, but Obama has not budged.

In the case of Mumia, supporters are calling upon Attorney General Holder to intervene directly and demand an investigation into the constitutional violations of Mumia’s due-process rights. The attorney general has such powers. In fact Holder recently absolved a corrupt Republican senator in Alaska using this procedure. Mumia's supporters are asking Obama and Holder to do the same in relation to Mumia and the 18 flagrant constitutional violations pertaining to the 1982 trial.

It is important to remember that on November 4, working people -- but particularly Black people -- had tears in their eyes, tears of joy, which expressed their profound aspiration for change. But today a growing number of those hopeful faces have become desperate faces. People are beginning to say no, it cannot be. Please tell me it ain’t so. How can someone who looks like us be implementing the same policies as George Bush. No, they say, we cannot allow the powers-that-be to turn back the clock and bring back the racist and rightwing policies of George Bush. The anxiety is mounting rapidly.

Question: Obama had promised that he would campaign for and secure passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), a reform that would modify current labor law in the interests of unions and working people. Can you explain what has transpired with the campaign to obtain the Employee Free Choice Act?

Benjamin: Obama had enormous support from the trade union movement, especially as he promised to enact the Employee Free Choice Act during his first 100 days in office. EFCA is a much-needed labor law reform act that would allow workers to join a union of their choice.

In 1936, the U.S. Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act, which set up a legal system in which private sector, nonfarm workers could join unions and bargain. Today, however, the law is virtually unable to fulfill its intended function as it has been gutted progressively by Democrats and Republicans.

The Employee Free Choice Act would require employers to repay three times the back pay of a worker fired for organizing a union, with $20,000 fines for willful or repeated violations. It is illegal to fire a worker for union activity, but pro-union workers were fired in 30 percent of union-representation elections in 2007, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research. There are no fines or penalties on employers for this -- just reinstatement and back pay, and employers even get to deduct the unemployment benefits of the fired worker.

The National Labor Relations Act is the only federal law where violators receive no punishment. Workers, knowing they can be fired so easily, are understandably afraid to join unions.

At the heart of EFCA is the "card check" provision. Under EFCA, workers would be able to sign union cards, and employers would have to recognize their union if a majority signed. Today, employers demand secret-ballot elections, and then wage an anti-union campaign that peaks on election day. Signing cards is a safe process that workers control themselves, and workers keep the option of using either the cards or the election -- their choice, not their employer's.

The bosses, understandably, have opposed passage of EFCA. And the Obama administration has caved into their enormous lobbying campaign.

Obama indicated that given this growing rift with the employers over EFCA -- and given the need to avoid being diverted from major problems such as trade, the budget, healthcare and education -- he wanted to see a “compromise” on EFCA that would satisfy both business and labor. The compromise intended involved dropping the "card check" provision of EFCA -- that is, the very heart of this reform proposal.

The AFL-CIO collected 2 million signatures on an EFCA petition. Its rallies around the country and its radio and TV ads helped to explain the need for this vital legislation to millions of Americans. But the AFL-CIO remained absolutely silent when Obama began to backslide on EFCA. It refused to mobilize the strength of 13 million unionized workers to demand that the president hold the line on EFCA.

One union "leader" who did not just remain silent on Obama's about-face but in fact went over to the other side was SEIU President Andy Stern. In an April 20 article in the Washington Post, we learned the following:

"In an interview today, Andy Stern, head of the influential SEIU, stepped gently away from the trade union unified front in support of EFCA, raising the prospect of reforms that would overhaul union elections without giving workers the option of organizing sans secret ballot elections.

"Speaking to The Post's editorial board, Stern noted that there are ways to try to level the playing field in union elections without giving workers a way around the secret ballot requirement, such as shortening the window before elections are held -- thus giving employers less time to pressure workers -- and stiffening penalties for employer violations.

"Stern signaled that card-check may prove to be unrealistic, and that unions must get behind some other substantive reform."

At a time when the labor movement needs to be united to send a clear and unmistakable message to Obama that we will not accept anything less than card check and the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), Stern chose to jump ship and deal a body blow to labor's united stand by abandoning card check and saying that labor should "consider alternatives" to EFCA.

For our part, we -- who did not call on workers to vote for Obama, as he was/is the representative of one of the two capitalist parties -- said that the unions have the right and the duty to tell the new president that he MUST carry forth on his promise, repeated time after time at labor rallies all across the country, that he would fight tooth and nail for EFCA -- not just sign it when it came before him. We said that labor must hold him and the new administration accountable!

We said that labor should be mobilizing in the streets to make EFCA the law of the land. It is a life-and-death question for millions of working people.

Question: The leadership of the United Auto Workers signed an agreement with the leadership of Ford and Chrysler. Can you explain the content of this agreement and its consequences for workers in the auto industry and, more generally, for all working people in the United States?

Benjamin: As we speak, General Motors is set to file for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code. Under a “shared sacrifice” agreement worked out by the Obama administration with GM, the United Auto Workers union, and the bondholders, the U.S. government will provide an additional $30 billion (for a total of $60 billion) to grease a deal that will slash 21,000 autoworkers' jobs, close 17 auto plants, and shut down as many as 2,600 of GM's 6,246 dealerships. It is expected that tens of thousands of additional jobs, particularly among auto-supply manufacturers, will be lost.

Under the plan, the U.S. and Canadian governments will now own 72.5% of the new GM, with the UAW holding 17.5% of the shares through its retirees' healthcare fund, and the bondholders holding the remaining 10% in exchange for the $24 billion owed to them by the company. A bankruptcy judge is expected to increase the ownership percentage held by the bondholders, who claim that the UAW got too large a slice in the deal.

As part of this arrangement, the Obama administration's auto task force demanded -- and obtained -- major givebacks from the UAW. (These, in fact, were required by the government to meet the requirements of the U.S. Treasury for additional bailout funds to GM.) On May 29, UAW President Ron Gettelfinger announced that GM workers had ratified a revised contract that freezes wages, ends bonuses, eliminates noncompetitive work rules, and requires binding arbitration for the next contract, thus eliminating the union's right to strike. The UAW said the cuts would save GM $1.2 billion to $1.3 billion a year over the five years of the new contract.

“UAW members once again stepped up to make necessary and painful sacrifices to preserve U.S. manufacturing jobs,” Gettelfinger told the press. “This settlement agreement will make GM competitive and give it a chance to survive the worldwide collapse of industry sales and return as a viable company."

The concessionary settlement agreement also includes major modifications to the union's Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (VEBA) trust.

The agreement would allow GM to forego up to $40 billion in payments to the union's VEBA fund in exchange for which the union is given 17.5% of the virtually worthless stocks issued by the new GM. A retired UAW local president in Dayton, Ohio, called this an “armed holdup” of a healthcare plan that covers 377,000 retirees at GM. With GM now in bankruptcy proceedings, and with a deepening economic crisis that has many auto experts predicting the imminent demise of the new GM, retirees fear that the VEBA fund may soon run out of money to pay their healthcare benefits.

In our press, we stated that the agreement demanded by the Obama administration and endorsed by UAW President Ron Gettelfinger in the name of “making GM more competitive” represented a major blow to autoworkers and to the entire trade union movement. The union, we explained, had now become a full partner in the company's effort to slash its workforce, gut the collective-bargaining agreement, and impose what one auto worker called “slave labor conditions” at GM.

We said that role of a union is -- and must remain -- to defend the jobs and working conditions of each and every one of its members. It is not to protect the interests of the company's shareholders -- much less become a shareholder itself.

And we said that the entire U.S. labor movement is targeted by this rotten deal at GM.

The Workers Emergency Recovery Campaign -- in which we participate -- has launched a nationwide campaign to demand that not one single autoworker be laid off and that all laid-off autoworkers get their jobs back at union scale. The campaign calls on the Obama administration to nationalize the Big 3 automakers without compensation to implement a plan that preserves and creates jobs in the auto industry.

In our press we explained that this is not pie in the sky. The U.S. government is already the main stakeholder in GM, but its restructuring plan is one created by Wall Street to promote the interests of the bankers and speculators. We don't need a Government Motors directed by Wall Street, we wrote. We need a Government Motors that bails out the workers. The entire labor movement must mobilize to demand the immediate repeal of the Wall Street bailout/restructuring plan at GM and the nationalization of the Big 3, to be administered by an elected labor-community board in the public interest.

Question: In the last issue of La Verite/The Truth you began to explain the evolution of Andy Stern and the leadership of SEIU. Can you tell us what are the latest developments with Stern?

Benjamin: The first thing to note is that Stern has unleashed a veritable witch-hunt against those who are resisting his policies within his own union, the SEIU. Homecare workers and hospital workers within his union who opposed the sweetheart contracts signed by Stern and the homecare and hospital industries have been placed in trusteeship. But that is not all.

Stern has organized raids against unions within his own Change to Win federation. He has organized a split in UNITE HERE, the largest hotel and restaurant workers' union in the country.

It is in these very difficult conditions that the national convention of the AFL-CIO will take place in September. John Sweeney, current AFL-CIO president, is not running for re-election. This will be a convention marked by the growing crisis and splits within the trade union movement. It is a dangerous moment for labor that can only be overcome if the trade union movement as a whole affirms its absolute independence in relation to the government and to the bosses -- which means affirming its independence in relation to the bosses’ bailout plans and the partnership agreements such as those at General Motors.

The labor movement will have to break with its reliance with the government and the bosses and demand that the Employee Free Choice Act must become the law of the land. It will have to fight for a campaign for single payer healthcare now. It will have to campaign, in the streets, for jobs for all. It will have to campaign to end the bailout to the banks and Wall Street speculators so that there can be a massive jobs-creation program for the millions of unemployed.

Question: What follow-up work is being done after the May 9th teach-in organized by the San Francisco Labor Council and the Workers Emergency Recovery Campaign (WERC)?

Benjamin: The May 9 conference was a big success. More than 320 unionists and activists participated.

The Economic Crisis Committee of the San Francisco Labor Council adopted a statement on the auto industry that was distributed and widely discussed at the conference. The statement, titled, "Not One Single Layoff in the Auto Industry!" reads, in part:

"The financial crisis of the auto corporations was not caused by the autoworkers anymore than the financial crisis of Wall Street bankers was caused by the working class. ... There should be no layoffs. If the government can find trillions of tax dollars to bail out a handful of bankers, it can surely find the funds to prevent layoffs and put all laid-off workers back on the job. The U.S. labor movement must draw a line in the sand to say: 'Not One Single Layoff in the Auto Industry!' The only real stimulus for the economy is to keep workers on the job, and to re-tool industry. This formula absolutely applies to auto -- as it applies to every other sector of the economy, including the public sector.

"The Obama administration must nationalize the Big 3 and place the management of the companies under the control of an elected labor-community board of directors, halt all further layoffs, re-tool the auto industry, re-train its workforce, and ensure that all laid-off workers can return to work immediately with union contracts at union scale. This is the way to ensure the defense of the UAW and of trade unionism itself."

A second text, also submitted by the Labor Council's Economic Crisis Committee, calls for the confiscation of all funds handed to the banks in these bailouts and demands the nationalization of the banks. It reads, in part:

"The hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayers' funds disbursed through the various bailout plans ... are our funds -- our tax dollars -- that must be earmarked to create jobs and truly stimulate the economy.

"The government can and must repossess these bailout funds. It can use the banks as instruments of progressive public policies to stop all the layoffs and provide full employment at living wages, to end foreclosures, to rebuild our crumbling infrastructures, to rebuild New Orleans, to restore and expand public services (including health and education), and more. But there is only one way to achieve these objectives: The government must nationalize the banks -- to be managed by public representatives and for the public interest.

"But this does not mean, as some would have it, to nationalize the 'toxic debt,' or bad assets of the banks, only to then turn the banks back over to the same corporate CEOs once they are profitable. That is not a nationalization; it is simply socializing the debt."

The teach-in called for mobilizing in support of EFCA and single-payer healthcare. It promoted widely the WERC 10-point platform -- now launched by a WERC National Steering Committee of 16 people -- and also promoted the fight to end the war in the Middle East. The conclusions of the conference were reported widely in the U.S. labor movement.

Question: We are witnessing a very dangerous war in Central Asia (Pakistan, Afghanistan, threats against Iran, etc). Among the many promises made by Obama and one that played a significant role in this election was his position to end the war. What has become of this?

Benjamin: To respond, I would like to quote from an important article by Jerry Gordon, a veteran of the Vietnam antiwar movement, that was published in the April 2009 issue of Unity & Independence. Gordon writes:

"Obama ran as an antiwar, pro-labor, pro civil liberties candidate. But here are some of the highlights of his record since occupying the White House:

"- Escalated the war against Afghanistan by ordering an additional 21,000 troops deployed there;

"- Announced that the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq would be delayed until the end of 2011 (with plenty of loopholes available to extend the occupation indefinitely);

"- Requested that Congress authorize a new supplemental expenditure of $83 billion to finance the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, after having repeatedly promised not to ask for such supplemental spending;

"- Intensified the drone bombings of Pakistan resulting in many more civilian deaths;

"- Publicized plans to enlarge U.S. armed forces by 100,000;

"- Proposed a budget for the Pentagon that exceeds what Bush was proposing by $23 billion;

"- Engineered a plan to bail out Wall Street and the banks to the tune of over a trillion dollars while refusing to take decisive measures to bail out workers and low income people, such as a moratorium on all foreclosures;

"- Endorsed the 'race to the bottom' by pressuring UAW autoworkers employed by General Motors and Chrysler to agree to even greater concessions so that their income matches the lower wages and benefits paid by auto company competitors;

"- Directed government attorneys to oppose habeas corpus rights for detainees, the same as Bush did;

"- Directed government attorneys to oppose prosecutions and civil suits against those companies and individuals who violated wire tapping laws, the same as Bush did;

"- Promised not to hold criminally responsible those guilty of committing barbaric acts of torture against detainees, in effect invoking the discredited and rejected Nuremberg defense, “We were only following orders;”

"- Scoffed at the Taliban-type legislation signed into law by Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai denying women basic human rights, declaring that while he disagreed with the law, he was focused on fighting al-Qaeda."

Jerry Gordon went on to call on unionists and antiwar activists to participate in the National Antiwar Assembly in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on July 10-12, 2009.

Question: How is the question of the need for the trade unions to break with the Democratic Party posed today, and how is the question of an independent Black Party, tied to the struggle for a Labor Party, posed?

Benjamin: The need for the labor movement to break with the Democratic Party is an urgent necessity. It is a burning question. Our view is that the best way to prepare the terrain to move forward towards the formation of a Labor Party is precisely through the vehicle of the Workers Emergency Recovery Campaign. Today the central question that is posed is the struggle of the workers' movement -- in conjunction with all the oppressed nationalities -- around its own demands, against all plans that aim at subordinating the working class and the oppressed to Wall Street and the speculators.

Within this WER campaign, we are not presenting the Labor Party perspective as a condition for joining the effort to promote this emergency recovery plan. But this does not mean that the Labor Party question is not posed through this work, in its embryonic form. It is not an accident, for example, that in some cities like Los Angeles, the teachers' union (UTLA) has recently begun to reorganize its Committee for a Labor Party at the very same moment that it engages in the WER campaign.

Many activists in the WER campaign are beginning to talk about the need to rebuild the Labor Party that was founded by Tony Mazzocchi in 1996. For our part, we are convinced that the development of this WER campaign on an independent axis, organized by independent committees rooted in the rank and file, will prepare the conditions for reactivating the Labor Party in the near future.

And this question is a vital one. There are already all sorts of right-wing demagogues out there who are hell-bent on scapegoating immigrant workers for the crimes of the bosses and the dead end of the two parties. They call for forming a third political party, but their third party is one aimed against the working class, particularly against Blacks and Latinos. Theirs is a message that is racist and reactionary to the core. They are taking advantage of the growing frustration and anger with Obama by sectors of the workers' movement -- particularly by sectors of the white working class -- to infuse their right-wing demagogic agenda. This is why the only possible response to this demagogy is for the labor movement to champion the banner of working class politics, to mobilize in the streets around the demands of the entire working-class majority.

And this struggle is combined with the struggle by Black workers and people to rekindle the struggle for independent Black politics. Many Black leaders who have been part of the organizing campaign for a Reconstruction Party are today part of the WERC national steering committee. They understand that this campaign is oriented toward the entire working class -- and most particularly to the most oppressed and exploited sectors of the working class.