• About
  • Documentary Films
  • Index
  • Nota bene
  • Protect and Serve
  • Readings

Lumpenproletariat

~ free speech

Lumpenproletariat

Monthly Archives: Mar 2016

California Governor Jerry Brown Supports $15 Minimum Wage, But By 2022

29 Tue Mar 2016

Posted by ztnh in Anti-Capitalism, collective bargaining, Democratic Party (USA)

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

California, California Governor Jerry Brown, California minimum wage, Dr. Sylvia A. Allegretto, Fight for $15, KPFA News Department, National Federation of Independent Business/California, The Ceres Courier, Tom Scott (NFIB)

320px-Edmund_G_Brown_JrLUMPENPROLETARIAT—California Governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, announced yesterday that he intends to raise California’s per-hour minimum wage to $15 per hour.  Unfortunately, his senate bill timetable stretches this out until 2022, at which time the cost of living may be such that Governor Brown’s minimum wage increases will likely be barely enough to keep up with the cost of living.  This is what progressive economists, such as Dr. Sylvia Allegretto (UC Berkeley, Institute for Labor and Employment), propose: annual indexing of the minimum wage to keep up with the increasing cost of living. [1]

And, yet, Republicans are up in arms about minimum wage increases, and the Democrats’ rhetoric holds the interests of business in higher regard than the serious needs of the working classes.  As Democrats fail to take leadership in robustly defending a living wage, reluctantly acknowledging the demands of low-wage workers, Republicans don’t hesitate to pull the political center rightward by arguing for stagnating or weakening the minimum wage.  Some legislators, such as California Republican Rocky Chávez, liken Brown’s Senate Bill 3 (SB-3) to “slavery” because it forces employers to increase wages.

Governor Brown’s scheme seems to be an ameliorative strategy designed to placate the Fight for $15 activists, whilst not upsetting the business class, the capitalists, too severely by essentially preserving the status quo.  Nevertheless, this policy development is definitely a victory for minimum-wage workers and the working class, which has now gained some ground in California where it had previously been complacent or passive.

Messina

***

THE PACIFICA EVENING NEWS—[31 MAR 2016]  State lawmakers have approved a measure to hike California’s minimum wage to $15 an hour by the year 2022, linking further hikes to the rate of inflation.  That would put California’s minimum wage at twice the federal level.  It marks a victory for “Fight for 15” activists, and will likely lead to an end to several ballot measures on the issue.  Republican lawmakers say it will hurt small businesses and young workers, but Democrats say it’s a step toward bringing people out of poverty and reducing income inequality.  Christopher Martinez files this report from Sacramento.  [Listen here.]

***

[The following article predominantly cites business interest groups, which are opposed to wage increases without a counterbalancing perspective of working class interest groups.]  [2]

THE CERES COURIER—[30 MAR 2016]  Small businesses leaders and Republican lawmakers were among those who condemned Gov. Jerry Brown’s $15 per hour minimum wage announcement on Monday.

The current minimum wage in California is $10 an hour. Brown wants to raise the hourly rate to $15 by 2022 by increasing it 50 cents annually for two years and then $1 per year for four years. Fast-food workers pushed for the increase, which will bring the minimum wage to the highest rate in the country.

“Today Governor Brown and legislative leadership demonstrated a disturbingly clear disregard for the voice of small businesses in California,” said Tom Scott, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business/California. “At his press event, Governor Brown claimed he and legislative leadership listened to and considered the small business perspective in crafting this proposal. NFIB has yet to hear from Governor Brown, Senate Pro Tem De Leon, or Speaker Rendon. It is concerning that in the 21st Century we are witnessing dark closed-door deals with no public input or transparency.”

FIB/CA, the largest small business association in California, represents 22,000 dues-paying small business and over 500,000 employees.

Scott said that two months ago Brown opposed a $15 minimum wage on the grounds that it would have devastating fiscal consequences on both the public and private sectors.

“Although the governor appears to have changed his opinion, he cannot change the facts: a reckless 50 percent hike in the minimum wage would have deep negative consequences.”

He predicts businesses will be forced to cut jobs and raise prices on consumers.

Board of Equalization Member George Runner also condemned the plan, saying “Contrary to conventional wisdom, this dramatic wage hike won’t hurt millionaires and billionaires. It will hurt lower and middle class Californians, especially those who live in inner cities and rural areas. Entry-level and low-skilled workers, including young people, will find it more difficult to find jobs, pay for childcare, and eat out. Employers will hire fewer workers and instead turn to automation.

“In a state as economically and culturally diverse as California, it’s a shame that our elected officials don’t realize that a one-size-fits-all approach to combating poverty won’t work in our state. Not every city is San Francisco.”

Democrats and union officials praised the plan, which would raise the pay of about 6.5 million California workers.

Learn more at THE CERES COURIER.

***

THE PACIFICA EVENING NEWS—[30 DEC 2015]  The state’s minimum wage will increase Friday, bringing California’s lowest paid workers from nine dollars an hour to ten. The wage hike is the second of two increases scheduled since 2013 and The Ten dollars an hour rate will give California the second highest minimum wage in the country after Washington D.C., affecting the wages of nearly 1/5th of the states work force. But Economists and labor organizers say there is still a lot of work to be done in the fight against income inequality during the upcoming year. Pacifica’s Mike Kohn reports. [Listen here.]

***

ECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE—[14 JUL 2015]  The minimum wage was established in 1938 as part of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In addition to prohibiting child labor and mandating the 40-hour workweek, the FLSA established the federal minimum wage to help ensure that all work would be fairly rewarded and that regular employment would provide a decent quality of life. Moreover, regular increases in the minimum wage were meant to ensure that even the lowest-paid workers benefited from broader improvements in wages and living standards.

Yet today, because of decades of infrequent and inadequate adjustment, the federal minimum wage no longer serves as an adequate wage floor. Every year that the minimum wage is left unchanged, rising prices slowly erode its buying power. In 2014, the federal minimum wage of $7.25 was worth nearly 10 percent less than when it was last raised in 2009, after adjusting for inflation. In fact, the real (inflation-adjusted) value of the federal minimum wage in 2014 was 24 percent below its peak value in 1968.

SUPPLEMENTARY DATA: State-by-state characteristics of workers who would be affected by increasing the federal minimum wage to $12 by 2020 [PDF]

 

This decline in purchasing power means low-wage workers have to work longer hours just to achieve the standard of living that was considered the bare minimum almost half a century ago. Over that time, the United States has achieved tremendous improvements in labor productivity that could have allowed workers at all pay levels to enjoy a significantly improved quality of life. Instead, because of policymakers’ failure to preserve this basic labor standard, a parent earning the minimum wage today does not earn enough through full-time work to be above the federal poverty line.

In April 2015, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Rep. Robert “Bobby” Scott (D-Va.) introduced the Raise the Wage Act of 2015, a bill that would raise the federal minimum wage in five steps to $12 per hour by 2020. Beginning in 2021, the minimum wage would be “indexed” to median wages so that each year, the minimum wage would automatically be adjusted based upon growth in the median wage. The bill would also gradually increase the subminimum wage for tipped workers (or “tipped minimum wage”), which has been fixed at $2.13 per hour since 1991, until it reaches parity with the regular minimum wage.

This report begins by providing historical context for the current value of the federal minimum wage and the proposed increase to $12 by 2020. It then describes the population of workers likely to receive higher pay under an increase to $12 by 2020, with detailed demographic data that refute a number of common misconceptions about low-wage workers. The report concludes with a discussion of the provisions of the Raise the Wage Act that would index the minimum wage to median wages, and gradually eliminate the subminimum wage for tipped workers.

Key findings include:

  • A $12 minimum wage in 2020 would undo the erosion in value of the minimum wage that took place largely in the 1980s. It would also reverse the growth in wage inequality between low- and middle-wage workers over the past generation.
  • Raising the minimum wage to $12 by 2020 would directly or indirectly lift wages for 35.1 million workers—more than one in four U.S. workers.
  • Over the phase-in period of the increases, affected workers would receive nearly $80 billion in increased wages. Once the increase is fully phased-in, the average affected worker would earn roughly $2,300 more each year than she does today (assuming no change in the number of work hours).
  • The workers who would receive a pay increase do not fit the stereotypes of low-wage workers.
    • The average age of affected workers is 36 years old. A larger share of affected workers are age 55 and older (15.3 percent) than are teens (10.7 percent). About two-thirds of affected workers are 25 years old or older.
    • The majority of affected workers (55.9 percent) are women.
    • Workers of color would disproportionately be affected, with more than one-third of black and Hispanic workers receiving a raise.
    • Of workers who would receive a raise, the majority (57.4 percent) work full time, nearly half (45.1 percent) have at least some college experience, and more than a quarter (27.7 percent) have children.
    • More than one-third (36.5 percent) of single parents who work would receive higher pay, including nearly 40 percent of working single mothers.
    • The workers who would benefit are, on average, the primary breadwinners for their family, earning more than half (54.3 percent) of their family’s total income.
  • Indexing the minimum wage to median wages would ensure that low-wage workers share in broad improvements in U.S. living standards, and would prevent future growth in inequality between low- and middle-wage workers.

The minimum wage in context

Since its inception in 1938, the federal minimum wage has been adjusted through legislated increases nine times—from a nominal (non-inflation-adjusted) value of 25 cents per hour in 1938 to the current $7.25, where it has remained since 2009. These increases have been fairly irregular, varying in size and with differing lengths of time between increases. Yet aside from a few very brief deflationary periods in the postwar era, prices have consistently risen year after year. Each year that the minimum wage remains unchanged, its purchasing power slowly erodes until policymakers enact an increase. This haphazard maintenance of the wage floor has meant that low-wage workers of different generations or in different decades have been protected by significantly different wage standards.  [See Figures here.]

Figure A shows the nominal and real value of the minimum wage from its inception in 1938 to today, as well as U.S. total economy net productivity indexed to 1968. As the figure shows, in the first increase following the end of World War II, the minimum wage rose rather dramatically in real terms, nearly doubling overnight in 1950, followed by regular increases that kept pace with rising labor productivity until the late 1960s. The minimum wage peaked in inflation-adjusted value in 1968, when it was equal to $9.54 in 2014 dollars. Increases in the 1970s essentially held the value of the minimum wage in place despite higher inflation driven by oil and food price shocks. Yet in the 1980s, as inflation remained elevated, the minimum wage was left to deteriorate to 1950s levels. Subsequent increases in the 1990s and late 2000s were not large enough to undo the erosion that took place in the 1980s. As of 2014, the federal minimum wage was worth 24 percent less than in 1968.

The dashed lines in the figure show that the Raise the Wage Act would restore the lost purchasing power of the federal minimum wage, bringing it to an estimated $10.58 in 2014 dollars. This would equal an 11 percent increase in purchasing power from the 1968 peak.

Such an increase in purchasing power is decidedly modest when compared with growth in the U.S. economy and in workers’ ability to generate income since that time. As explained in Cooper, Schmitt, and Mishel (2015), increases in average labor productivity represent the potential for higher living standards for workers. However, this potential is realized only if productivity gains translate into higher wages. The dark blue line in the figure shows that average labor productivity has more than doubled since the late 1960s, yet pay for workers generally and for low-wage workers in particular has either stagnated or fallen since the 1970s (Bivens et al. 2014). In the case of low-wage workers, hourly pay has declined in real terms since 1979 as a direct result of the erosion of the minimum wage (Bivens et al. 2014).

A higher minimum wage would direct a small portion of overall labor productivity gains into higher living standards for low-wage workers. Productivity in low-wage work may not have grown as substantially since the 1960s as overall productivity; however, low-wage workers today tend to be older (and are therefore likelier to have greater work experience) and significantly more educated than their counterparts in 1968 (Mishel 2014a). To the extent that workers with more experience and greater education typically earn more than their younger and less-educated counterparts, we would expect low-wage workers today to earn more, not less, than what they earned in the previous generation. In this context, a pay increase for America’s lowest-paid workers of 11 percent over the 52-year span from 1968 to 2020 is indeed modest when compared with projected overall productivity growth of 117 percent over the same period.

The minimum wage is also a mechanism for combating inequality. As technological progress and increased productivity raise wages for average- or middle-wage workers, a rising minimum wage ensures that the lowest-paid jobs also benefit from these improvements. This is the essence of the “fairness” implied in the name of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the act that established the minimum wage.

Figure B shows how the federal minimum wage has compared with the wages of typical U.S. workers, using two measures of typical wages. The light blue line shows the value of the federal minimum wage as a percentage of the average hourly earnings of nonsupervisory production workers, a group that comprises roughly 80 percent of U.S. workers and excludes highly paid managers and executives. The dark blue line shows the minimum wage as a percentage of the median wage of all full-time workers.

Figure B

Federal minimum wage as a share of the median wage and of the average wage of typical workers, 1967–2014 and 2015–2020 (projected under Raise the Wage Act)

Both series illustrate how as the minimum wage was left to erode, the gap between pay in middle-class jobs and low-wage jobs expanded considerably. Indeed, the declining value of the federal minimum wage is the key driver of the growth in inequality between low-wage workers and middle-wage workers since the late 1970s (see Zipperer 2015a or Mishel 2014b). In 1968, the federal minimum wage was equal to roughly half the wage of the typical U.S. worker: 53.0 percent of the average hourly earnings of production workers, and 52.1 percent of the median wage of all full-time workers. In 2014, the minimum wage was equal to just over one-third of the wage of the typical worker: 35.2 percent of the average production worker wage, and 37.1 percent of the median wage of all full-time workers.

The dotted lines in the figure show that the Raise the Wage Act would essentially restore the relationship that existed in the late 1960s between the minimum wage and wages of typical workers. A $12 minimum wage in 2020 is projected to equal 54.1 percent of the median full-time wage, and 51.4 percent of the average production worker wage. These projections make the conservative assumption that wages of typical workers will not grow any faster than inflation in the coming years. If, instead, the wages of typical workers were to grow just 0.5 percent per year faster than inflation between 2014 and 2020, a $12 minimum wage in 2020 would equal less than half the median wage.

When set at an adequate level, the minimum wage also ensures that work is a means to a minimally decent quality of life. By establishing a wage floor, the minimum wage prevents unscrupulous employers from reducing wages to destitution levels during periods of economic distress, thereby helping to prevent the exploitation of workers who may have limited job options. Unfortunately, the erosion of the minimum wage has effectively negated this protection, as evidenced in the Great Recession and its aftermath. During and after the recession, millions of previously better-paid workers were forced to take lower-paying jobs. Unable to make ends meet on the wages from these jobs, millions of workers—roughly half of whom work full time—have had to rely on public assistance programs to supplement their inadequate pay (Cooper 2014).

As shown in Figure C, a parent working full time while earning the minimum wage today earns too little to be above the federal poverty line. In contrast, at its high point in 1968, the minimum wage was sufficient to keep a family of three out of poverty. As the dark blue dotted line in the figure shows, the Raise the Wage Act would bring full-time minimum-wage earnings back above the poverty line for a family of three. In fact, when coupled with income from refundable tax credits, a full-time worker at the minimum wage would be lifted above the poverty line for a family of four.

Learn more at ECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE.

***

[1]  For example, Dr. Sylvia Allegretto discussed annual indexing of the minimum wage during the following presentation on California Assembly Bill 1439:

Assembly Labor and Employment Committee hearing for AB 1439 on April 18, 2012

By Sylvia A. Allegretto, PhD
Co-­chair Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics
University of California, Berkeley

Good afternoon.  Thank you for this opportunity to speak in partial support of this important bill.  I emphasis partial support because I strongly believe the bill does not go far enough.  Low wage workers in this state need a long overdue increase in the minimum wage (MW) along with annual indexing to keep it from eroding year after year as prices increase.  Let’s review some facts, which are depicted in Figure 1.  Solid black is the federal MW.  Dotted black is CAs MW and red line is the wage of low wage or 10th percentile workers in CA from 1979-­2011.

This year marks the fifth year that the MW has been at $8.00 and even as inflation has been fairly mild over this period the wage will have eroded in value by about 6.2% to $7.50 by 2013.  Perhaps more importantly, the wage received by low wage workers in CA have DECREASED over the last three decades, on average, by 7% not just for the 10th percentile workers show in the Figure but for the entire bottom 30% of workers (1979-2011).

Thus, implementing annual indexing when the MW has been in decline—either a five-­year or a 30-­year decline—is not a good place to start.

Figure 1  California’s MW and low wage track closely [see Figure 1 here]

It is clear the MW matters given how the two series track.  Especially since CA instituted a MW in 1997—it seems more than likely that had the policy not been enacted the pay of our low wage workers would have continued the 1979 to 1997 decline—when wages fell from $8.92 to $7.30 (real $2011)—and the trend most likely would have tracked the 2006 low point in the Federal MW.

Thus, post-­’97, the actual function of CAs MW has been to prevent long and significant declines—like the 18% slide that occurred from 1979-­1997—it has not provided for any real wage gains.  For comparison, the wages of CAs higher wage workers those at the 90th percentile have increased about 30% above and beyond inflation over the last three decades—thus exacerbating income inequality.  All the economic gains have been flowing disproportionally to those at the top while leaving everyone else behind.

New research by the Center for Economic & Policy Research in DC has shown that today’s MW workers are more likely to be better educated then they were in 1980.  My research shows that this is also the case in CA.  Yes, MW workers are disproportionally young but 43% are at least 35 years old, one in six has an Associate’s or BA degree.  Furthermore, MW workers are concentrated in a few industries:  such as retail trade, low end health care services and leisure &
hospitality (such as restaurant workers)—these industries account for 56% of low wage workers.  Importantly, these are the exact same industries that are growing in the state.  As we move more and more toward a service based economy which employs a large share of low wage workers the state will be hard pressed to sustain a growing, thriving middle class without improving the quality of those jobs—including better pay.

As for the much talked about disemployment effects caused by an increase in the MW—a whole new body of research of which I’m a part of shows that MW increase over the last two decades have not caused employment losses—not even for likely affected groups such as teenagers and/or workers in the restaurant industry.  Research includes San Francisco’s $10.24 MW which is indexed annually.

Those who suffered through econ 101 or perhaps common sense may leave one thinking this outcome contradicts economic theory: an increase in the price of something (labor) leads to a decrease in demand (workers).  But, the MWs passed in the last two decades have simply not been in the competitive realm, as workers, especially those in low wage labor markets, have no bargaining power and employers set wages artificially low.  As prices and profits have increased firms are paying less for low wage workers today then they did three decades ago.

Moreover, the new empirical research also highlights positive effects of MW increases such as:

• A strong wage effect—so it matters to the economic wellbeing of workers
• Reduced turnover & quit rates—thus reduces the high cost of TO and filling vacant positions
• Better worker morale and productivity and attracts better works

Let me stress the need for a boost along with indexing.  This year marks five years of an $8.00 MW in California—thus even a .50 increase would only get the wage back to the level it was in 2008—because even with very mild inflation it has eroded that much.

Given the facts, it is simply not good policy to implement indexing without first implementing a boost to the MW.  For the employers who have benefited greatly from these very low wages, it is never a good time for a MW increase.

But, the timing for an increase in California’s minimum wage could not be better with our economy essentially on a long, slow recovery where many workers are being forced to take lower-­paying jobs due to a historically weak labor market with unemployment rate in double digits for over three years now.  Based on my research and on research by economists such as those at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (2008) an increase in California’s minimum wage will not cost jobs, but will help struggling families of minimum wage workers make ends meet and will strengthen the economy by providing a crucial spending precisely when the economy needs it the most.

California’s low wage workers need an increase in the MW along with indexation to protest them in the future from constantly eroding buying power.

Thank you.

Sylvia A. Allegretto

[2]  Ceres (Calif.) Courier Editor, Jeff Benziger leads his apparently anti-wage increase column by citing minimum wage increase opponent Tom Scott, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business/California (NFIB), without explaining who this group is, why it deserves to be viewed as credible, or providing a link to further background information.  Benziger describes the NFIB as “the largest small business association in California”, which “represents 22,000 dues-paying small business and over 500,000 employees.”  This gives the NFIB a pro-labour veneer when it is actually a pro-business, pro-capitalist, organisation.

What the apparently politically conservative Jeff Benziger doesn’t reveal is that the National Federation of Independent Business is a conservative lobbying organization with headquarters in Nashville, Tennessee and offices in Washington, D.C. and in all 50 state capitals.  NFIB’s lobbying efforts are focused on the impact of current and proposed legislation on businesses (primarily small businesses) and professional practices at all levels of government but primarily at the federal and state levels.  Its political action committee is called Save America’s Free Enterprise Trust.  The federation claims to be nonpartisan but historically has contributed more to business-friendly Republican candidates for office.  NFIB claims a membership base of about 350,000.

Notably, Tom Scott characterises an increase in the minimum wage, by 2022, as “reckless”, even though it may very well represent the minimum wage increase necessary for minimum wage workers to maintain their current, inadequate, standard of living.  For Tom Scott, the NFIB, and other pro-capitalists, capitalist profits are more important than insuring that working class families are able to make ends meet and provide for their families.

Board of Equalization member George Runner is also cited as having “condemned the plan” to raise the minimum wage.  But no specifics are given to justify Runner’s claim that a minimum wage increase “will hurt lower and middle class Californians, especially those who live in inner cities and rural areas.”  Readers are merely expected to be fearful of the wrath of vindictive capitalist employers who can punish and abuse workers with impunity, “cut jobs and raise prices on consumers”.  No where is there a sense that workers have any rights, much less the right to a living wage.

Benziger, like most of the mainstream and corporate press, promotes a pro-business perspective, whilst keeping opposing viewpoints from Jerry Brown’s Democratic administration, unions, labour groups, and such away from their audiences, or at least kept to an absolute minimum.

***

[Image entitled “Edmund G. Brown” by source is in the public domain.]

[1 APR 2016]

[Last modified 1 APR 2016  23:31 PDT]

Share this:

  • Tweet

Like this:

Like Loading...

Frantz Fanon: Philosopher of the Barricades (2015) by Dr. Peter Hudis

28 Mon Mar 2016

Posted by ztnh in Anti-Capitalism, Anti-Fascism, Anti-Imperialism, Marxian Theory (Marxism), Philosophy, Pyschology & Psychiatry, Racism (phenotype)

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

alienation, anti-colonialism, Dr. Peter Hudis, Frantz Fanon (1925-1961), humanism, KPFA, Marx's Concept of the Alternative to Capitalism, nationalism, objectification, Pacifica Radio Network, Pluto Press, reification, Sasha Lilley, Vichy France, violence

Frantz_FanonLUMPENPROLETARIAT—If ever a thinker, a theorist, threatened the ruling classes with opening the eyes of the oppressed and the dispossessed, The Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon has done so to the extent he has been read.  In award-winning director Spike Lee‘s satirical film, Bamboozled (2000), the revolutionary resistance to racism and white supremacist oppression is symbolised by an underground, militant rap group called the Mau Maus, which tragicomically proclaims:  As Frantz Fanon put it, you’re lucky I ain’t read Wretched yet.  The obvious implication is that once the oppressed read Frantz Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth, the gloves would come off, so to speak, because the truth shall set us free.

Helping us put the life and work of Frantz Fanon into context and focus is an important book from Dr. Peter Hudis entitled Frantz Fanon: Philosopher of the Barricades.  Dr. Hudis joined free speech radio’s Sasha Lilley to discuss the book.  Listen (or download) here. [1]

Messina

***

[Working draft transcript of actual radio broadcast by Messina for Lumpenproletariat and Against the Grain]

AGAINST THE GRAIN—[28 MAR 2016] “Today on Against the Grain:  The revolutionary and psychiatrist, Frantz Fanon, was arguably the greatest philosopher of anticolonialism.  At a time when activists are turning a spotlight on racial oppression, he’s never been more relevant.  I’m Sasha Lilley.  I’ll speak with Peter Hudis about Fanon’s writings on nationalism, race, humanism, and violence.  That’s after these news headlines.”  (c. 0:47)

[KPFA News Headlines omitted by scribe]    (c. 5:45)

SASHA LILLEY:  “From the studios of KPFA in Berkeley, California, this is Against the Grain on Pacifica Radio.  I’m Sasha Lilley.

“The writer, philosopher, psychiatrist, and revolutionary, Frantz Fanon, has had an enormous impact on how we see racial and national oppression today from the inside out, how it shapes, both, coloniser and colonised, victim and perpetrator.

“His books, The Wretched of the Earth and Black Skin, White Masks, were best-sellers in their time and are now classics.

“As a new generation discover Fanon, how do we sift through his legacy, which has been shaped by problems of translation and appropriation?  Peter Hudis has taken on the task of answering that question in his book, Frantz Fanon: Philosopher of the Barricades, published by Pluto Press.

“Hudis teaches philosophy and humanities at Oakton Community College and is also the author of Marx’s Concept of the Alternative to Capitalism.

“Peter, what were Frantz Fanon‘s origins?”  (c. 6:51)

DR. PETER HUDIS:  “Frantz Fanon was born in the French colony of Martinique in 1926.  He grew up in a lower-middle class family of people who spoke mainly Creole.  Although, in his own home, he was encouraged to speak French by his mother, especially, who insisted on him getting as good an education as possible. He had a relatively unremarkable childhood.  (c. 7:14)  [SNIP] ”  (c. 8:28)

SASHA LILLEY:  “And, then, he ends up, actually, participating in the efforts to roll back fascism in France, or the Vichy regime.  How did that transpire?”  (c. 8:39)

DR. PETER HUDIS:  “Fanon had the attitude—he was 17 years old at the time—that, as he wrote to his brother, an indignity to one human being, in one part of the world, is an indignity to human beings in all parts of the world.”  [2]  (c. 8:53)  [SNIP]  (c. 9:47)

SASHA LILLEY:  ”  [SNIP]  ”

DR. PETER HUDIS:  ”  [SNIP]  ”  (c. 10:25)

SASHA LILLEY:  ”  [SNIP]  ”

DR. PETER HUDIS:  ”  [SNIP]  ”  (c. 11:00)

SASHA LILLEY:  ”  [SNIP]  ”

DR. PETER HUDIS:  ”  [SNIP]  ”  (c. 11:57)

SASHA LILLEY:  ”  [SNIP]  ”

DR. PETER HUDIS:  ”  [SNIP]  ”

SASHA LILLEY:  ”  [SNIP]  ”

DR. PETER HUDIS:  “”  (c. 19:16)

SASHA LILLEY:  “Peter Hudis is my guest.  He is the author of Frantz Fanon: Philosopher of the Barricades.  And we’re speaking about the Martinican philosopher, psychiatrist, and revolutionary today.  You are listening to Pacifica Radio.  And I am Sasha Lilley.

“So, you started to talk about his work, Black Skin, White Masks.  That was published in 1952 and has had an enormous impact on how people see race and society.  And I wonder if you could tell us about the core argument, that he makes in Black Skin, White Masks.”  (c. 19:52)

DR. PETER HUDIS:  “The core argument is that—to sum it up—is that:  It’s not race, that produces racism.  It’s racism, that produces race. [3]

“In other words, race is a social construct, a product of specific socioeconomic conditions, such as the rationalisation for the economic imperatives tied to the European transatlantic slave trade.

“And racism, over time, although it has these socioeconomic roots, takes on a life of its own.  And it infects and informs the very way, by which individuals, both, black and white see each other and see themselves.  And it shapes and constructs the identity of individuals in ways, that they are not aware.

“What his fundamental argument, in posing this, is to seek out, one, how this kind of ways of seeing, this shaping of how we understand each other through these categories of race, that are products of racist practices block mutual recognition of individuals because racism, according to Fanon, is the ultimate form of viewing a person as an object, as a thing, instead of an actual, as the full human being, that they are.

“So, one of the ramifications of viewing a person, or treating another person, or a class of people as objects, as things, instead of as human subjects, this, he argues, leads to profound alienation.

“Now, alienation is a very important phrase for Fanon.  He gets it, of course, very much from a discussion within Marx‘s work and, also, in the French intellectual scene in the aftermath of World War II.

“Alienation is not the same as exploitation, although they overlap.  Exploitation is kind of a visible expropriation of, let’s say:  You put in so many hours of labour.  You’re not paid for the value of your labour.  You’re exploited.  You’re ripped off.

“But alienation is a much deeper psychic phenomenon as well.  It has deeper internal dimensions.  You’re alienated, not just from the product of your labour.  That is, in the sense that you don’t obtain the wages you deserve for your work.  You’re alienated from your very being.

“And [Fanon] saw that victims of racism become alienated from their very being by being viewed as objects and things.  So, there’s a profound alienation, that infects the victim of racism, which is why Fanon very famously argues in the first pages of the book:  The black man and woman inhabits a zone of non-being.  A very puzzling phrase, at first sight, but what he means is that our being is taken away from us.  We are turned into mere instrumental objects. [4] (c. 22:31)

“His interest in focusing on this is to figure out how to get out of this alienation.  He, actually, originally wanted the book to be entitled An Essay on the Disalienation of the Black Person.  But his editor, François Jeanson, thought that wasn’t an adequate title.  So, he suggested the title Black Skin, White Masks.

“That is, still, kind of an adequate title for what’s happening in the book because one of the dimensions of alienation is that you feel, on the one hand, you want to be acknowledged by the other for who you are, as a human being.  Every human being wants to be recognised for who they are.  We thirst for recognition.  We thirst for contact with the other.  But, when we’re denied that contact and that recognition from the other because of the way we’re viewed in terms of racialistic terms, that very often produces a sense of inferiority.  We blame ourselves.  We say:  Well, why am I not getting the recognition I deserve.  There must be something wrong with me.  It must be my black skin.  It must be my gender.  It must be my ethnic heritage.  It must be my accent.  Etcetera.

“So, what happens is that we internalise this alienation; and we become fixated on getting acceptance from the other by trying to deny the very attributes, that we possess, that we’re being discriminated against for having.

“So, [Fanon] argues, the black very often tries to mimic the white in order to get recognition by pretending to be other than they are.  You try to straighten your hair.  You try to lighten your skin.  Perhaps, you try to marry outside your race.  You try all sorts of maneuvers in order to be accepted and get the other not to see you for how they’re seeing you.

“But, as Fanon of course notes, this is an inherently futile process because, as he argues, the black is over-determined from the outside.  That is, you are over-determined by the perception others have of your epidermal [i.e., phenotypic] appearances.  So, any effort to escape this alienation by begging for acceptance from the other, by denying who you really are, is fraught with an impossible outcome.  You can’t achieve it.  And this leads to, on the one hand, terrible frustration.  But it could also lead to a recognition of an alternative route to liberation, in which you reject this entire paradigm and say:  I am going to fight this refusal to give me recognition, not by begging for this recognition from the other, but by standing up for who I am, demanding I be recognised for who I am, first of all, among those of my own kind, so, I could obtain the kind of solidarity and social strength to overturn the social conditions, that give rise to this problem in the first place.”  (c. 25:14)

[SNIP]

[SNIP] (c. 59:59)

Learn more at AGAINST THE GRAIN.

[This transcript will be expanded as time constraints, and/or demand or resources, allow.]

***

“Blak is Black” by Mau Maus

***

[1]  Terrestrial radio transmission, 94.1 FM (KPFA, Berkeley, CA) with online simulcast and digital archiving:  Against the Grain, this episode hosted by Sasha Lilley, for Monday, 28 MAR 2016, 12:00 PDT.

Fanon_Philosopher_of_the_BarricadesPluto Press wrote:

“Few figures loom as large in the intellectual history of revolution and postcolonialism than Frantz Fanon. An intellectual who devoted his life to activism, he utilized his deep knowledge of psychology and philosophy in the service of the movement for democratic participation and political sovereignty in his native Martinique and around the world.

With FranzFanon, Peter Hudis presents a penetrating critical biography of the activist’s life and work. Countering the prevailing belief that Fanon’s contributions to modern thought can be wholly defined by an advocacy of violence, Hudis presents his work instead as an integrated whole, showing that its nuances—and thus its importance—can only be appreciated in light of Fanon’s efforts to fuse philosophical theory and actual practice. By taking seriously Fanon’s philosophical and psychological contributions, as well as his political activism, Hudis presents a powerful and perceptive new view of the man and his achievement.

This brief, richly perceptive introduction to Fanon will give new force to his ideas, his life, and his example for people engaged in radical political theory and taking action against oppression around the world today.”

[2]  One is reminded of the Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara‘s letter to his children, to be read upon his death, wherein he urged his children to always be capable of feeling in the most profound sense any indignity committed against anybody anywhere in the world because that is the most beautiful quality of a revolutionary.

Or, perhaps, one may be reminded of the age-old labour motto of the workers of the world:  An injury to one, is an injury to all.

[3]  Here we come upon an important theme for many of us familiar with the distinction between the unscientific notion of race, which fallaciously presupposes subspecies, as Dr. Ashley Montagu, the British-American anthropologist who popularized the study of topics, such as race and gender and their relation to politics and development, and wrote the important book, Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race, New York: Harper, 1942.  What we think of as race, is actually a social construct, which conflates phenotype with genotype.  Phenotype reflects the superficial variation within a species, such as the human species, Homo sapiens sapiens.  This phenotypic variation in humans is also known as ethnicity.

Thus, we may speak of ethnicity and ethnic discrimination.  But we cannot speak of race or racial discrimination without presupposing that different races constitute different subspecies, which is simply inaccurate, incorrect, and wrong, scientifically-speaking.  To speak of race, rather than ethnicity, is to use the language of racism and to, thereby, re-entrench and perpetuate the language of race and to perpetuate the assumptions, which feed into paradigms of racism, racial hierarchies, and white supremacy.

[4]  Here we are also reminded of the Marxian concept of reification, also the concept of objectification.

***

[Image entitled “Frantz Fanon” by Source used via Fair Use]

[30 MAR 2016]

[Last modified  12:19 PDT  30 MAR 2016]

Save

Share this:

  • Tweet

Like this:

Like Loading...

Project Censored Presents Medea Benjamin On Civic Engagement (i.e., activism) Towards Social Justice

25 Fri Mar 2016

Posted by ztnh in Anti-Fascism, Anti-Imperialism, Anti-Totalitarianism, Anti-War, Asia, Eurasia, Free Speech, Turkey

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Dr. Peter Phillips, Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control (2012), KPFA, Medea Benjamin (b. Susan Benjamin 1952), Mickey Huff M.A., Pacifica Radio Network, Project Censored, Second Annual Social Justice Week at Sonoma State University, transcript

ProjectCensoredLUMPENPROLETARIAT—On this week’s episode of free speech radio’s Project Censored, Dr. Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff, M.A. spoke with Medea Benjamin, M.P.H. of Code Pink and Global Exchange on the USA’s insidious relationship with Saudi Arabia, which Medea Benjamin explained, has been supported and abetted by twelve consecutive U.S. presidents.  The Project Censored theme for the broadcast is social justice and community activism.  But, of course, with Medea Benjamin working on a new project on Saudi Arabia, her focus was mainly preoccupied with discussing that totalitarian nation.  Listen (or download) here. [1]

Messina

***

[Working draft transcript of actual radio broadcast by Messina for Lumpenproletariat and Project Censored]

censored-2017-cover-749x1024PROJECT CENSORED—[25 MAR 2016]  [Erica Bridgeman(sp?):  “—kpfa.org.  The time is 1pm.  Please stay tuned for Project Censored.”] 

[Project Censored theme music:  “We Want” by Junkyard Empire]

“Welcome to the Project Censored on Pacifica Radio.  I’m Mickey Huff with Peter Phillips.  Today, we’re continuing our theme on social justice and community activism.  On today’s programme, we’re joined by Medea Benjamin of Code Pink to discuss the importance of community activism working toward social justice.  And we’re joined by long-time nuclear energy expert and whistleblower Arnie Gunderson about ongoing concerns of radioactive contamination from Fukushima, five years later.  Please stay with us.”  (c. 1:15)  [theme music continues]  (c. 1:40)

MICKEY HUFF:  “Welcome back to the Project Censored show on Pacifica Radio.  I’m Mickey Huff with Peter Phillips.

“Today, we continue our theme on social justice and community activism for this Second Annual Social Justice Week at Sonoma State University in northern California.  On today’s show, we have two wonderful guests.  Later in the hour, we’ll be joined by Arnie Gunderson about ongoing concerns of radioactive contamination in Fukushima.  But, first, we are joined [via telephone] by activist Medea Benjamin of Code Pink to discuss the importance of community activism, working toward social justice.  And, here, is Peter to introduce Medea to you.  Peter?”

DR. PETER PHILLIPS:  “Medea Benjamin is the co-founder of the women-led peace group Code Pink.  She’s also co-founder of the human rights group Global Exchange.  Medea has authored [at least] eight books, including Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control [2012]. And she has been an advocate for social justice for over 40 years.  Medea, welcome.”  (c. 2:32)

MEDEA BENJAMIN:  “Thank you so much, Peter and Mickey.”

DR. PETER PHILLIPS:  “You’re a keynote speaker for the Social Justice Week at Sonoma State University.  And our theme is the importance of community activism and social justice at a grassroots level.  Could you talk a little bit about what that means in your life?  [chuckles]”

MEDEA BENJAMIN:  “Well, I guess it means, when you see what happens in the world, you don’t just turn your head and go on and do something, that has nothing to do with the world’s problems, but you take some of ’em and work on them.  I often have been likening it to just reading the newspaper and not being so cynical as saying:  Oh, another hospital blown up here.  Another war going on here.  Another water system, that has been toxic for people there.  But that you really do get upset about these things, and you join, and you start working on ones, that really speak to you.”

DR. PETER PHILLIPS:  “You’ve been involved in protest actions around labour rights, corporate responsibility, Isreal-Palestine, Iraq, drones.  What is your primary activity right now?”

MEDEA BENJAMIN:  “I’m working, now, on what I consider the elephant in the room around foreign policy.  And that’s Saudi Arabia.  Here, the U.S. is involved in all kinds of wars in the Middle East, that most Americans can’t even really out because it is, indeed, very complicated.  And they know we have this ally, Israel, that, somehow, people have been convinced to think is a democratic country.  And, then, there is Saudi Arabia, the greatest U.S. Arab ally in the region, that we have been allied with since its founding in 1932.  Twelve presidents, Democratic and Republican, have all kept up this relationship.  And it’s just a disaster.  (c. 4:22)

“It’s a disaster because it’s one of the most repressive regimes in the world towards its own people. [2]  And it’s a disaster because the Saudis are spreading the very extremism, that we say we’re trying to counter.

“So, that’s what I’m focusing on right now—is how do we really build the movement to challenge the U.S.-Saudi relationship.” [3]

MICKEY HUFF:  “Medea Benjamin, do you see any headway on that?  You just gave a quick snapshot of a history of, sort of, the problem, there, of how the U.S. allies in the region, particularly with Saudi Arabia, which is quite troublesome.  Are you seeing any headway when you’re going around and speaking?  Are you seeing any cracks in that kind of alliance?  What is your view on that, as far as where we’re heading?” [4]

MEDEA BENJAMIN:  “Give us a little time, Mickey, since we just started about two weeks ago. [chuckles softly, kindly]”

MICKEY HUFF:  “Right.”

MEDEA BENJAMIN:  “Um—”

MICKEY HUFF:  “Well, yeah, you’re up against a big timeline—”

MEDEA BENJAMIN:  “[laughs]”

MICKEY HUFF:  “—as far as decades and decades of that go.  But this is, certainly, a heartening endeavor.”

MEDEA BENJAMIN:  “But it’s a good time to do it because so many things are changing in the region and internally.  The U.S. used to be very dependent on Saudi Arabia for oil.  Now, we only get ten percent of our oil from Saudi Arabia, which does have its negative flipside because they’ve made their imported oil so cheap that they’ve destroyed a lot of the fracking industry, which is a good thing.  But, anyway, that’s a complication we can get into.

“So, we’re not dependent on them for oil anymore.  Perhaps more dependent is on weapons sales, as they are the number one purchaser of U.S. weapons—massive amounts of weapons.  In fact, since 2010, the deals going to almost a hundred billion dollars worth of weapons.  And, unfortunately, the U.S. media has not been covering the Saudi war in Yemen, where bombings are occurring every single day with U.S. weapons, that are destroying hospitals and marketplaces.  In fact, a marketplace was hit and over 140 people died.  We are directly related to what’s going on there.  In fact, there’s even U.S. cluster bombs, weapons that the international community has banned, that are being produced in this country, are being sold to the Saudis.

“There’s a lot of things, that we have to focus on.  We’re teaming up with people in Europe, who are starting to, not only build, but actually having some success in banning weapons sales to Saudi Arabia from their countries. (c. 6:40)

[snip]

[snip] (c. 59:59)

Learn more at PROJECT CENSORED.

[This transcript will be expanded as time constraints, and/or demand or resources, allow.]

***

[1]  Terrestrial radio transmission, 94.1 FM (KPFA, Berkeley, CA) with online simulcast and digital archiving:  Project Censored, this episode co-hosted by Mickey Huff, M.A. and Dr. Peter Phillips, for Friday, 25 MAR 2016, 13:00 PDT.

Also see related Lumpenproletariat articles, including:

  • Second Annual Social Justice Week at Sonoma State University; 18 MAR 2016.

[2]  A useful documentary, which corroborates this observation is the Frontline report from March 29, 2016 called Saudi Arabia Uncovered.  Because of the censorship in Saudi Arabia, the foreign filmmakers had to enter the country under false pretences by setting up a fake cyber-security company to attend a trade show.  They had to record what they could in Saudi Arabia using only hidden cameras.  But, soon, they had to abruptly flee the totalitarian nation in a panic to avoid being discovered and arrested.

It is currently available on Netflix or PBS (circa Fall/Winter 2016).  View PBS archive here.

[3]  As people of conscience, we agree with Medea Benjamin’s concerns and fact-filled assessment of the totalitarian Saudi Arabia, which does project its extreme Wahhabist religion ideology.  Yes, we need to “build the movement to really challenge the U.S.-Saudi relationship”, as she says.

The problem many of us have with Medea Benjamin, however, is that, coming from liberals, like her, build the movement is usually code for Democratic Party apologism.  The message transmitted to people of conscience, activists, progressives, and such is this:  Oppose any injustice in the world, but never abandon your loyalty to the Democratic Party, even if it perpetuates U.S. imperialism and serves the interests of capital as well as the Republican Party.

Many of us have been hearing liberals, as opposed to progressives or revolutionaries, chant this mantra of building the movement.  What they mean is to build lots of street activism and public presence around a given issue, or set of issues, but only in order to push the Democratic Party to do the right thing.  They never call for a rejection of the antidemocratic Democratic Party, which colludes with the Republican Party to keep political alternatives out of the presidential debates with their partisan CPD, which colludes with the Republican Party to keep political alternatives out of midterm elections with Top Two Primary legislations being pushed throughout the nation, which colludes with the Republican Party to give Republicans the votes they need in Congress when they don’t have enough votes to pass the latest regressive policies.

No, despite the volumes of evidence we have to demonstrate the ethical, moral, and political bankruptcy of the Democratic Party (not to mention the Republican Party), liberals continue with their Democrat apologism, however subtle the dog-whistle politics.  They may say their being “non-partisan”.  But how can anyone, who cares about politics, who is a registered voter, not be partisan?  As Howard Zinn has famously declared, you can’t be neutral on a moving train.  Even if Medea Benjamin is a Green, and not a Democrat, her tendency to be uncritical about the Democratic Party serves the interests of the two-party dictatorship, hurts the interests of political alternatives, helps keep progressives corralled within the two-party dictatorship, prevents progressives from imaging political alternatives or useful electoral reforms, such as ranked-choice voting and proportional representation in Congress.  If Medea Benjamin were truly critical about the Democratic Party, as vociferously, as, say, Chris Hedges and Dr. Cornel West, who have finally seen the light, which they didn’t in 2008, she might lose some of her fans, she might lose some of her fame, but she would be much more honest and less contradictory. But, at least, she would be on the correct side of history.

[4]  Mickey Huff is supremely respectful.  Your author is working on being the same.  But, sometimes, honestly, it seems a little rudeness is in order, as Medea Benjamin knows with her ambush tactics to draw attention to important causes.  But it’s easy for a progressive to target a Republican, at least philosophically-speaking.  But the difficulty comes when dealing with our colleagues on the left.  Sometimes, we don’t know how to disagree respectfully.  And, sometimes, public intellectuals hide behind the politics of politeness.

But it seems Huff was implying to Benjamin in his question that liberals and progressives have been trying to build that movement for many years.  But the Democratic Party seems as unresponsive as ever to its constituency, to the working classes.  But as long as public intellectuals and celebrity intellectuals continue to provide rhetorical cover for the Democratic Party, it’s hard to imagine that we’ll ever build a critical mass opposition to the two-party dictatorship in our lifetimes.  If that’s the case, then we will never build the movement, for which Medea Benjamin is calling because what’s required is political power, which, as Macchiavelli has long argued, only comes from laws and force.  And, since we confine ourselves to laws, that means taking political power through the political party form.  And that requires being honest about the importance of political diversity beyond a two-party political cartel, and about the role of the Democratic Party in relation to social and economic justice, which Medea Benjamin rarely is.

***

[25 MAR 2016]

[Last modified at 21:48 PST on 9 DEC 2016]

Save

Save

Save

Save

Share this:

  • Tweet

Like this:

Like Loading...
← Older posts

Follow me on Twitter

My Tweets

Blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel
%d bloggers like this: